Independence of the Grossone-Based Infinity Methodology from Non-standard Analysis and Comments upon Logical Fallacies in Some Texts Asserting the Opposite

Foundations of Science 24 (1):153-170 (2019)
Authors
Yaroslav Sergeyev
Università della Calabria
Abstract
This paper considers non-standard analysis and a recently introduced computational methodology based on the notion of ①. The latter approach was developed with the intention to allow one to work with infinities and infinitesimals numerically in a unique computational framework and in all the situations requiring these notions. Non-standard analysis is a classical purely symbolic technique that works with ultrafilters, external and internal sets, standard and non-standard numbers, etc. In its turn, the ①-based methodology does not use any of these notions and proposes a more physical treatment of mathematical objects separating the objects from tools used to study them. It both offers a possibility to create new numerical methods using infinities and infinitesimals in floating-point computations and allows one to study certain mathematical objects dealing with infinity more accurately than it is done traditionally. In these notes, we explain that even though both methodologies deal with infinities and infinitesimals, they are independent and represent two different philosophies of Mathematics that are not in a conflict. It is proved that texts :539–555, 2017; Gutman and Kutateladze in Sib Math J 49:835–841, 2008; Kutateladze in J Appl Ind Math 5:73–75, 2011) asserting that the ①-based methodology is a part of non-standard analysis unfortunately contain several logical fallacies. Their attempt to show that the ①-based methodology can be formalized within non-standard analysis is similar to trying to show that constructivism can be reduced to the traditional Mathematics.
Keywords Numerical infinities and infinitesimals  Grossone  Non-standard analysis  Logical fallacies
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10699-018-9566-y
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
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

Philosophy of Mathematics.Øystein Linnebo - 2017 - Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Applied Nonstandard Analysis.Martin Davis - 1978 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 43 (2):383-384.
Non-Standard Analysis.Abraham Robinson, J. W. Addison, Leon Henkin & Alfred Tarski - 1969 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 34 (2):292-294.

View all 19 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Lagrange Lecture: Methodology of Numerical Computations with Infinities and Infinitesimals.Yaroslav Sergeyev - 2010 - Rendiconti Del Seminario Matematico dell'Università E Del Politecnico di Torino 68 (2):95–113.
Non Standard Regular Finite Set Theory.Stefano Baratella & Ruggero Ferro - 1995 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 41 (2):161-172.
Fair Infinite Lotteries.Sylvia Wenmackers & Leon Horsten - 2013 - Synthese 190 (1):37-61.
The Three Arrows of Zeno.Craig Harrison - 1996 - Synthese 107 (2):271 - 292.
Truth and Knowledge in Logic and Mathematics.Gila Sher - 2012 - The Logica Yearbook 2011:289-304.
Non-Standard Analysis in ACA0 and Riemann Mapping Theorem.Keita Yokoyama - 2007 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 53 (2):132-146.
John Buridan's Sophismata and Interval Temporal Semantics.Sara L. Uckelman & Spencer Johnston - 2010 - Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 13:133-147.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-07-23

Total views
28 ( #244,923 of 2,313,478 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #78,902 of 2,313,478 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature