Logical and semantic purity

Protosociology 25:36-48 (2008)
Abstract
Many mathematicians have sought ‘pure’ proofs of theorems. There are different takes on what a ‘pure’ proof is, though, and it’s important to be clear on their differences, because they can easily be conflated. In this paper I want to distinguish between two of them.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,157
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
On the Relationship Between Plane and Solid Geometry.Andrew Arana & Paolo Mancosu - 2012 - Review of Symbolic Logic 5 (2):294-353.
Proofs of the Compactness Theorem.Alexander Paseau - 2010 - History and Philosophy of Logic 31 (1):73-98.
Proof Theory in Philosophy of Mathematics.Andrew Arana - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (4):336-347.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

34 ( #151,906 of 2,171,972 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #326,556 of 2,171,972 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums