A Critique of a Formalist-Mechanist Version of the Justification of Arguments in Mathematicians' Proof Practices
Philosophia Mathematica 15 (3):291-320 (2007)
AbstractIn a recent article, Azzouni has argued in favor of a version of formalism according to which ordinary mathematical proofs indicate mechanically checkable derivations. This is taken to account for the quasi-universal agreement among mathematicians on the validity of their proofs. Here, the author subjects these claims to a critical examination, recalls the technical details about formalization and mechanical checking of proofs, and illustrates the main argument with aanalysis of examples. In the author's view, much of mathematical reasoning presents genuine meaning-dependent mathematical characteristics that cannot be captured by formal calculi. ‘…there is a conflict between mathematical practice and the formalist doctrine.’ [Kreisel, 1969, p. 39]
Similar books and articles
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.
Why do mathematicians re-prove theorems?John W. Dawson Jr - 2006 - Philosophia Mathematica 14 (3):269-286.
What Do Mathematicians Want? Probabilistic Proofs and the Epistemic Goals of Mathematicians.Don Fallis - 2002 - Logique Et Analyse 45.
Computers, justification, and mathematical knowledge.Konstantine Arkoudas & Selmer Bringsjord - 2007 - Minds and Machines 17 (2):185-202.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
A Problem with the Dependence of Informal Proofs on Formal Proofs.Fenner Tanswell - 2015 - Philosophia Mathematica 23 (3):295-310.
And so on...: reasoning with infinite diagrams.Solomon Feferman - 2012 - Synthese 186 (1):371 - 386.
References found in this work
Die Philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz & Carl Immanuel Gerhardt - 1875 - Weidmann.