Rigour, Proof and Soundness

Dissertation, University of Bristol (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The initial motivating question for this thesis is what the standard of rigour in modern mathematics amounts to: what makes a proof rigorous, or fail to be rigorous? How is this judged? A new account of rigour is put forward, aiming to go some way to answering these questions. Some benefits of the norm of rigour on this account are discussed. The account is contrasted with other remarks that have been made about mathematical proof and its workings, and is tested and illustrated by considering a case study discussed in the literature. On the view put forward here one can obtain a manner of informal, rigorous mathematics founded on any of a variety of proof systems. The latter part of the thesis is concerned with the question of how we should decide which of these competing proof systems we should base our mathematics on: i.e., the question of which proof system we should take as a foundation for our mathematics. A novel answer to this question is proposed, in which the key property we should require of a proof system is that for as many different kinds of structures as possible, when the proof system allows a generalization about that kind of structure to be proved, the generalization actually holds of all real examples of that kind of structure which exist. This is the requirement of soundness of the proof system. It is argued that the best way to establish the soundness of a proof system may be by giving an interpretation of its axioms on which they are established as true. As preparation for this discussion, the thesis first investigates the logical and conceptual basis of various arithmetic concepts, with the results obtained used in the final discussion of soundness.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

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

Rigour and Intuition.Oliver Tatton-Brown - 2019 - Erkenntnis 86 (6):1757-1781.
Rigour and Proof.Oliver Tatton-Brown - 2023 - Review of Symbolic Logic 16 (2):480-508.
An Analysis of the Notion of Rigour in Proofs.Michele Friend & Andrea Pedeferri - 2011 - Logic and Philosophy of Science 9 (1):165-171.
Implicit Proofs.Jan Krajíček - 2004 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 69 (2):387 - 397.
Implicit proofs.Jan Krajíček - 2004 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 69 (2):387-397.
Proof, Logic and Formalization.Michael Detlefsen (ed.) - 1992 - London, England: Routledge.
Proof in Mathematics: An Introduction.James Franklin - 1996 - Sydney, Australia: Quakers Hill Press.
Arguing Around Mathematical Proofs.Michel Dufour - 2013 - In Andrew Aberdein & Ian J. Dove (eds.), The Argument of Mathematics. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 61-76.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-04-01

Downloads
35 (#393,865)

6 months
2 (#658,980)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Science Without Numbers: A Defence of Nominalism.Hartry H. Field - 1980 - Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.
Non-standard Analysis.Gert Heinz Müller - 2016 - Princeton University Press.
Natural deduction: a proof-theoretical study.Dag Prawitz - 1965 - Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications.
The nature of mathematical knowledge.Philip Kitcher - 1983 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frege's conception of numbers as objects.Crispin Wright - 1983 - [Aberdeen]: Aberdeen University Press.

View all 60 references / Add more references