Rigor and Structure

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press UK (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

While we are commonly told that the distinctive method of mathematics is rigorous proof, and that the special topic of mathematics is abstract structure, there has been no agreement among mathematicians, logicians, or philosophers as to just what either of these assertions means. John P. Burgess clarifies the nature of mathematical rigor and of mathematical structure, and above all of the relation between the two, taking into account some of the latest developments in mathematics, including the rise of experimental mathematics on the one hand and computerized formal proofs on the other hand. Along the way, a great many historical developments in mathematics, philosophy, and logic are surveyed. Yet very little in the way of background knowledge on the part of the reader is presupposed.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,662

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

JOHN P. BURGESS Rigor and Structure.A. C. Paseau - 2016 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 67 (4):1185-1187.
Structure in Mathematics.Saunders Lane - 1996 - Philosophia Mathematica 4 (2):174-183.
Integralność matematyki.Roman Duda - 2000 - Filozofia Nauki 1.
Proof: Its Nature and Significance.Michael Detlefsen - 2008 - In Bonnie Gold & Roger A. Simons (eds.), Proof and Other Dilemmas: Mathematics and Philosophy. Mathematical Association of America. pp. 1.
Mathematical Rigor in Physics.Mark Steiner - 1992 - In Michael Detlefsen (ed.), Proof and Knowledge in Mathematics. Routledge. pp. 158.
Structure in Mathematics and Logic: A Categorical Perspective.S. Awodey - 1996 - Philosophia Mathematica 4 (3):209-237.
Proofs and Arguments: The Special Case of Mathematics.Jean Paul Van Bendegem - 2005 - Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 84 (1):157-169.
Thinking About Mathematics: The Philosophy of Mathematics.Stewart Shapiro - 2000 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
The Question of Deleuze’s Neo-Leibnizianism.Simon B. Duffy - 2012 - In Patricia Pisters & Rosi Braidotti (eds.), Down by Law: Revisiting Normativity with Deleuze. Bloomsbury Academic.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-06-11

Downloads
13 (#760,623)

6 months
4 (#172,905)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John Burgess
Princeton University

Citations of this work

Groundwork for a Fallibilist Account of Mathematics.Silvia De Toffoli - 2021 - Philosophical Quarterly 7 (4):823-844.
Regarding the ‘Hole Argument’.James Owen Weatherall - 2018 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69 (2):329-350.
Regarding the ‘Hole Argument’.James Owen Weatherall - 2016 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axw012.
Reliability of Mathematical Inference.Jeremy Avigad - 2020 - Synthese 198 (8):7377-7399.

View all 32 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references