In this paper, we would show how the logical object “square of opposition”, viewed as semiotic object, has been historically transformed since its appearance in Aristotle’s texts until the works of Vasiliev. These transformations were accompanied each time with a new understanding and interpretation of Aristotle’s original text and, in the last case, with a transformation of its geometric configuration. The initial textual codification of the theory of opposition in Aristotle’s works is transformed into a diagrammatic one, based on a (...) new “reading” of the Aristotelian text by the medieval scholars that altered the semantics of the O form. Further, based on the medieval “Neo-Aristotelian” reading, the logicians of the nineteenth century suggest new diagrammatic representations, based on new interpretations of quantification of judgements within the algebraic and the functional logical traditions. In all these interpretations, the original square configuration remains invariant. However, Nikolai A. Vasiliev marks a turning point in history. He explicitly attacks the established logical tradition and suggests a new alternation of semantics of the O form, based on Aristotelian concepts that were neglected in the Aristotelian tradition of logic, notably the concept of indefinite judgement. This leads to a configurational transformation of the “square” of opposition into a “triangle”, where the points standing for the O and I forms are contracted into one point, the M form that now stands for particular judgement with altered semantics. The new transformation goes beyond the Aristotelian logic paradigm to a new “Non-Aristotelian” logic, i.e. to paraconsistent logic, although the argumentation used in support of it is phrased in Aristotelian style and the context of discovery is foundational. It establishes a bifurcation point in the development of logic. No unique logic is recognized, but different logics concerning different domains. One branch of logic remains to be the “Neo-Aristotelian” one, while the new logic is “Non-Aristotelian”. (shrink)
This is the first interdisciplinary exploration of the philosophical foundations of the Web, a new area of inquiry that has important implications across a range of domains. - Contains twelve essays that bridge the fields of philosophy, cognitive science, and phenomenology. - Tackles questions such as the impact of Google on intelligence and epistemology, the philosophical status of digital objects, ethics on the Web, semantic and ontological changes caused by the Web, and the potential of the Web to serve as (...) a genuine cognitive extension. - Brings together insightful new scholarship from well-known analytic and continental philosophers, such as Andy Clark and Bernard Stiegler, as well as rising scholars in “digital native” philosophy and engineering. - Includes an interview with Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the Web. (shrink)
The Web may critically transform the way we understand the activity of proving. The Web as a collaborative medium allows the active participation of people with different backgrounds, interests, viewpoints, and styles. Mathematical formal proofs are inadequate for capturing Web-based proofs. This article claims that Web provings can be studied as a particular type of Goguen's proof-events. Web-based proof-events have a social component, communication medium, prover-interpreter interaction, interpretation process, understanding and validation, historical component, and styles. To demonstrate its claim, the (...) article discusses the Kumo and Polymath projects, both of which employ Web-based communication as part of proving. Web proving is a novel type of proving activity that may have a serious impact on the change in mathematical practices, despite the fact that it is not currently a universally acceptable methodology. (shrink)
The paper examines Yankov’s contribution to the history of mathematical logic and the foundations of mathematics. It concerns the public communication of Markov’s critical attitude towards Brouwer’s intuitionistic mathematics from the point of view of his constructive mathematics and the commentary on A.S. Esenin-Vol’pin program of ultra-intuitionistic foundations of mathematics.
The style of arithmetic in the treatises the Neo-Pythagorean authors is strikingly different from that of the "Elements". Namely, it is characterised by the absence of proof in the Euclidean sense and a specific genetic approach to the construction of arithmetic that we are going to describe in our paper. Lack of mathematical sophistication has led certain historians to consider this type of mathematics as a feature of decadence of mathematics in this period [Tannery 1887; Heath 1921]. The alleged absence (...) of originality in these works has also given grounds to believe that “the arithmetic presented in these works derives substantially from an ancient, primitive stage of Pythagorean arithmetic” and to use them as “an index of the character of arithmetic science in the 5th century” [Knorr 1975]. In this paper, we take Nicomachus’ Introduction to Arithmetic for point of departure, because it is the richest and most well organised treatise representing this tradition. However, we also take into account the works of other Neo-Pythagorean authors. We are going to show that the Neo-Pythagorean arithmetic might have been developed in a natural, self-contained manner as a simple theory of counting over a domain of concrete initial objects, designated by fixed signs. This approach can be comfortably realised without appealing to assumptions of axiomatic character, but relying upon some ‘genetic’ constructions intented to be carried out by means of the designated entities. (shrink)
This paper outlines a logical representation of certain aspects of the process of mathematical proving that are important from the point of view of Artificial Intelligence. Our starting point is the concept of proof-event or proving, introduced by Goguen, instead of the traditional concept of mathematical proof. The reason behind this choice is that in contrast to the traditional static concept of mathematical proof, proof-events are understood as processes, which enables their use in Artificial Intelligence in such contexts in which (...) problem-solving procedures and strategies are studied. We represent proof-events as problem-centred spatio-temporal processes by means of the language of the calculus of events, which adequately captures certain temporal aspects of proof-events (i.e. that they have history and form sequences of proof-events evolving in time). Further, we suggest a “loose” semantics for the proof events by means of Kolmogorov’s calculus of problems. Finally, we expose the intented interpretations for our logical model from the fields of automated theorem-proving and Web-based collective proving. (shrink)
The paper examines the main points of Yankov’s hypothesis on the rise of Greek mathematics. The novelty of Yankov’s interpretation is that the rise of mathematics is examined within the context of the rise of ontological theories of the early Greek philosophers, which mark the beginning of rational thinking, as understood in the Western tradition.
The paper examines Andrei A. Markov’s critical attitude towards L.E.J. Brouwer’s intuitionism, as is expressed in his endnotes to the Russian translation of Heyting’s Intuitionism, published in Moscow in 1965. It is argued that Markov’s algorithmic approach was shaped under the impact of the mathematical style and values prevailing in the Petersburg mathematical school, which is characterized by the proclaimed primacy of applications and the search for rigor and effective solutions.
The Web may critically transform the way we understand the activity of proving. The Web as a collaborative medium allows the active participation of people with different backgrounds, interests, viewpoints, and styles. Mathematical formal proofs are inadequate for capturing Web‐based proofs. This chapter claims that Web provings can be studied as a particular type of Goguen's proof‐events. Web‐based proof‐events have a social component, communication medium, prover‐interpreter interaction, interpretation process, understanding and validation, historical component, and styles. To demonstrate its claim, the (...) chapter discusses the Kumo and Polymath projects, both of which employ Web‐based communication as part of proving. Web proving is a novel type of proving activity that may have a serious impact on the change in mathematical practices, despite the fact that it is not currently a universally acceptable methodology. The Web may critically transform the way we understand the activity of proving. The Web as a collaborative medium allows the active participation of people with different backgrounds, interests, viewpoints, and styles. Mathematical formal proofs are inadequate for capturing Web‐based proofs. This chapter claims that Web provings can be studied as a particular type of Goguen's proof‐events. Web‐based proof‐events have a social component, communication medium, prover‐interpreter interaction, interpretation process, understanding and validation, historical component, and styles. To demonstrate its claim, the chapter discusses the Kumo and Polymath projects, both of which employ Web‐based communication as part of proving. Web proving is a novel type of proving activity that may have a serious impact on the change in mathematical practices, despite the fact that it is not currently a universally acceptable methodology. (shrink)
This book is dedicated to V.A. Yankov’s seminal contributions to the theory of propositional logics. His papers, published in the 1960s, are highly cited even today. The Yankov characteristic formulas have become a very useful tool in propositional, modal and algebraic logic. The papers contributed to this book provide the new results on different generalizations and applications of characteristic formulas in propositional, modal and algebraic logics. In particular, an exposition of Yankov’s results and their applications in algebraic logic, the theory (...) of admissible rules and refutation systems is included in the book. In addition, the reader can find the studies on splitting and join-splitting in intermediate propositional logics that are based on Yankov-type formulas which are closely related to canonical formulas, and the study of properties of predicate extensions of non-classical propositional logics. The book also contains an exposition of Yankov’s revolutionary approach to constructive proof theory. The editors also include Yankov’s contributions to history and philosophy of mathematics and foundations of mathematics, as well as an examination of his original interpretation of history of Greek philosophy and mathematics. (shrink)
The concept of proof can be studied from many different perspectives. Many types of proofs have been developed throughout history such as apodictic, dialectical, formal, constructive and non-constructive proofs, proofs by visualisation, assumption-based proofs, computer-generated proofs, etc. In this paper, we develop Goguen’s general concept of proof-events and the methodology of algebraic semiotics, in order to define the concept of mathematical style, which characterizes the proofs produced by different cultures, schools or scholars. In our view, style can be defined as (...) a semiotic meta-code that depends on the underlying mode of signification (semiosis), the selected code and the underlying semiotic space and determines the individual mode of integration (selection, combination, blending) into a narrative structure (proof). Finally, we examine certain historical types of styles of mathematical proofs, to elucidate our viewpoint. (shrink)
This book is a collection of papers related to a workshop organized in Geneva in January 2017, part of a big event celebrating the centenary of Ferdinand de Saussure's famous "Cours de Linguistique Générale" (CLG). The topic of this workshop was THE FIRST PRINCIPLE, stated in the second section of the first part of the CLG entitled: THE ARBITRARINESS OF THE SIGN. -/- Discussions are developed according to the three perspectives presented in the call for papers: -/- (1) The details (...) of the formulation of this principle in the CLG, its proper place (cf. the following sentence of section 2: "No one disputes the principle of the arbitrariness of the sign, but it is often easier to discover a truth than to assign it its proper place"). Discussions about the question of arbitrariness of the sign in works by Saussure before the CLG are also welcome. -/- (2) How the arbitrariness of the sign has been formulated and stressed before the CLG by people other than Saussure, in particular, but not exclusively, by people of the second part of the 19th century. Three important names: Boole, Peirce, Bréal. -/- (3) The import and value of this principle and the criticisms it received after the publication of the CLG. Special focus will be given to the opposition between arbitrary sign and symbol (as characterized in the CLG: "the symbol is never arbitrary; it is not empty, for there is the rudiment of a natural bond between the signifier and the signified") in the context of mathematical and logical languages (visual reasoning), traffic signs and pictograms (cf. Neurath's Isotype), typefaces (cf. the work of Adrian Frutiger). (shrink)
The lack of specific arithmetical axioms in Book VII has puzzled historians of mathematics. It is hardly possible in our view to ascribe to the Greeks a conscious undertaking to axiomatize arithmetic. The view that associates the beginnings of the axiomatization of arithmetic with the works of Grassman , Dedekind  and Peano  seems to be more plausible. In this connection a number of interesting historical problems have been raised, for instance, why arithmetic was axiomatized so late. This question (...) was first posed and quite conclusively answered by Yanovskaja . Her major and quite conclusive argument was that “algorithms in arithmetic have absolute character, while in geometry we have to do with reducibility algorithms”. In this paper we are going to draw attention on certain peculiarities of the construction of the arithmetical Books of Euclid’s "Elements" and show that Euclidean arithmetic is constructed by effective procedures. In spite of the use of inference by reductio ad absurdum and methods equivalent to mathematical induction, Euclidean arithmetic retains its finitary character. It is not full arithmetic, but a finitary fragment of classical arithmetic, and thereby there was not any internal reason for its axiomatization. (shrink)
In Plato’s Parmenides 132a-133b, the widely known Third Man Paradox is stated, which has special interest for the history of logical reasoning. It is important for philosophers because it is often thought to be a devastating argument to Plato’s theory of Forms. Some philosophers have even viewed Aristotle’s theory of predication and the categories as inspired by reflection on it [Owen 1966]. For the historians of logic it is attractive, because of the phenomenon of self-reference that involves. Bocheński denies any (...) possibility of correct logical reasoning before Aristotle. In particular, he flatly declares of Plato that “correct logic we find none in his work” [1951, 15]. In this line, many papers have been written that call attention to the violation of a metalogical principle – the type rules – because of the Third Man Paradox. The problem of interpretation of the paradox raised many discussions, since the 50’s, and the literature devoted to this topic is today enormous. Nevertheless, many points in Plato’s reasoning remain obscure. Hitherto, it is commonly believed that the paradox was simply stated by Plato in his "Parmenides", but not actually solved. Even more, it is believed that it is hardly possible for Plato to have suggested a solution, because he confused the categories of substance and attribute. B. Russell has also argued that Plato violates in his arguments the restrictions imposed on language by the theory of logical types. This view is encouraged by the linguistic difficulties, which Plato has faced in his attempt to formulate an ontology of abstract entities, i.e. that in Greek language abstract and concrete terms are formally indistinguishable [Kneales 1984]. In this paper, we analyse the logical structure of the argument in an attempt to give a systematic consistent reconstruction of the text appealing to methods and concepts of modern logic and semantics. Already in 1954 G. Vlastos had noted in his seminal paper “The ‘Third Man’ Argument in the Parmenides” that “if any progress … is to be made at this juncture it must come from some advance in understanding the logical structure of the Argument”. Accordingly, our analysis is primarily focused on the line of logical reasoning, rather than the metaphysical underpinnings and philosophical implications of the paradox for Plato’s theory of Forms. We divide the Platonic text into three parts, presenting apparent thematic coherence: a) Formulation of the Third Man Paradox (132a-132b). The central issue of this part is a step-like generation of Forms that can continue ad infinitum. b) Discussion of the paradoxical situation (132b-c), by passing to the use of terminology echoing Eleatic philosophy. The concept of “thought” and the underlying semantics of Eleatic origin are central in this passage. c) Solution of the paradox (132d-133a). In our view, this part contains not only a resemblance regress, as most interpretators con-sider, but also the solution of the paradox by the introduction of a sound definition of the concept of “similarity”. We should note that the name ‘Third Man Paradox’ never occurs in Plato, who, strictly speaking, formulates a ‘Third Large Paradox’. The name ‘Third Man Paradox’ appears in the works of Aristotle and the commentators of the Peripatetic tradition. Later commentators have identified Aristotle’s Third Man with Plato’s Third Large Argument. In our paper, we also examine other testimonies about the Third Man Paradox found in the works of commentators in order to illuminate the logical structure of the argument. Although the vocabulary used in these versions is different, they do not affect its logical structure, but rather reveal different understandings by the ancient authors. These testimonies are divided into two main categories: those met in Neo-Platonic authors, notably in Proclus’ "Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides", and the versions of the Third Man Paradox found in texts of the Peripatetic tradition (Eudemus, Aristotle, Alexander). From our discussion, it becomes clear that the approaches to the paradox by the various scholars of antiquity are different, depending also on their participation in the one or the other campus of philosophical thought. We show that the Peripatetic authors are aware of the source of the paradox. However, the first scholar of antiquity who explicitly ascribes a solution to Plato seems to be Proclus. (shrink)
While collaboration has always played an important role in many cases of discovery and creation, recent developments such as the web facilitate and encourage collaboration at scales never seen before, even in areas such as mathematics, where contributions by single individuals have historically been the norm. This new scenario poses a challenge at the theoretical level, as it brings out the importance of various issues which, as of yet, have not been sufficiently central to the study of problem-solving, discovery, and (...) creativity. We analyze the case of collective and web-based proof events in mathematics, which share their temporal and social nature with every case of collective problem-solving. We propose that some ideas from cognitive architectures, in particular, the notion of codelet—understood as an agent engaged in one of a multitude of available tasks—can illuminate our understanding of collective problem-solving and act as a natural bridge from some of the theoretical aspects of collective, web-based discovery to the practical concern of designing cognitively inspired systems to support collective problem-solving. We use the Pythagorean Theorem and its many proofs as a case study to illustrate our approach. (shrink)
Essay Review of “Les Arithmétiques de Diophante. Lecture historique et mathématique” by Roshdi Rashed and Christian Houzel, and Histoire de l’analyse diophantienne classique : d’Abū Kamil à Fermat by Roshdi Rashed.
In this paper, we suggest the broader concept of proof-event, introduced by Joseph Goguen, as a fundamental methodological tool for studying proofs in history of mathematics. In this framework, proof is understood not as a purely syntactic object, but as a social process that involves at least two agents; this highlights the communicational aspect of proving. We claim that historians of mathematics essentially study proof-events in their research, since the mathematical proofs they face in the extant sources involve many informal (...) components, often not completely formalizable, and convey some kind of semantic content calling for understanding and verification. We illustrate the application of this methodological approach in some outstanding historical cases, paying particular attention to the process of proof interpretation that makes a proof-event alive. Finally, we suggest a classification of proof-events, according to the conditions imposed upon problem-solving. This enables us to speak about broad classes of proof-events in history of mathematics that share a common characteristic. (shrink)
Proceedings of the 11th Interdisciplinary Symmetry Congress-Festival of the International Society for the Interdisciplinary Study of Symmetry. Special Theme: “Tradition and Innovation in Symmetry - Katachi”.
In this paper, we examine a fundamental problem that appears in Greek philosophy: the paradoxes of self-reference of the type of “Third Man” that appears first in Plato’s 'Parmenides', and is further discussed in Aristotle and the Peripatetic commentators and Proclus. We show that the various versions are analysed using different language, reflecting different understandings by Plato and the Platonists, such as Proclus, on the one hand, and the Peripatetics (Aristotle, Alexander, Eudemus), on the other hand. We show that the (...) Peripatetic commentators do not focus on Plato’s solution but primarily on the formulation of the “Third Man” paradox. On the contrary, Proclus seems to be convinced that Plato suggests a sound solution to the paradox by defining the predicate of similarity (homogeneity) that demarcates two types of homogeneous entities – the eide and the participants in them in a way that their confusion would be inadmissible. We claim that Plato’s solution follows a sound line of reasoning that is formalisable in a language of Frege-Russell type; hence there exists a model in which Plato’s reasoning is valid. Furthermore, we notice that Plato’s definition of the second-order predicate of similarity is attained by resorting to first-order entities. In this sense, Plato’s definition is comparable to Eudoxus’ definition of ratio, which is also attained by resorting to first-order objects. Consequently, Plato seems to follow a logical practice established by the mathematicians of the 5th century, notably Eudoxus, in his solution to the paradox. (shrink)
In recent decades, research in the square of opposition has increased. New interpretations, extensions, and generalizations have been suggested, both Aristotelian and non-Aristotelian ones. The paper attempts to compare different versions of the square of opposition. For this reason, we appeal to the wider categorical model-theoretic framework of the theory of institutions.