Mathematical proof is the primary form of justification for mathematical knowledge, but in order to count as a proper justification for a piece of mathematical knowl- edge, a mathematical proof must be rigorous. What does it mean then for a mathematical proof to be rigorous? According to what I shall call the standard view, a mathematical proof is rigorous if and only if it can be routinely translated into a formal proof. The standard view (...) is almost an orthodoxy among contemporary mathematicians, and is endorsed by many logicians and philosophers, but it has also been heavily criticized in the philosophy of mathematics literature. Progress on the debate between the proponents and opponents of the standard view is, however, currently blocked by a major obstacle, namely the absence of a precise formulation of it. To remedy this deficiency, I undertake in this paper to provide a precise formulation and a thorough evaluation of the standard view of mathematical rigor. The upshot of this study is that the standard view is more robust to criticisms than it transpires from the various arguments advanced against it, but that it also requires a certain conception of how mathematical proofs are judged to be rigorous in mathematical practice, a conception that can be challenged on empirical grounds by exhibiting rigor judgments of mathematical proofs in mathematical practice conflicting with it. (shrink)

Mathematical rigor is commonly formulated by mathematicians and philosophers using the notion of proof gap: a mathematical proof is rig­orous when there is no gaps in the mathematical reasoning of the proof. Any philosophical approach to mathematical rigor along this line requires then an account of what a proof gap is. However, the notion of proof gap makes sense only relatively to a given conception of valid mathematical reasoning, i.e., to a given conception (...) of the validity of mathematical inference. A proof gap can in particular be conceived as a failure in drawing a valid mathematical inference. The aim of this paper is to discuss two possible views of the validity of math­ematical inference with respect to their capacity to yield a plausible account of the intuitive notion(s) of proof gap present in mathematical practice. The first view is the one provided by the contemporary standards of mathematical rigor: a mathematical inference is valid if and only if its conclusion can be formally derived from its premises. We will argue that this conception does not lead to a plausible account of the intuitive notion(s) of proof gap. The second view is based on a new account of the validity of inference proposed by Prawitz: an inference is valid if and only if it consists in an operation that provides a ground for its conclusion given (previously obtained) grounds for its premises. We will first specify Prawitz's account to mathematical inference and we will then argue that the resulting ground-based account is able to capture various intuitive notions of proof gap as different types of failure in drawing valid mathematical inferences. We conclude that the ground-based account ap­pears of particular interest for the philosophy of mathematical practice, and we finally raise several challenges facing a full development of a ground-based account of the notions of mathematical rigor, proof gap and the validity of mathematical inference. (shrink)

Rigorous proof is supposed to guarantee that the premises invoked imply the conclusion reached, and the problem of rigor may be described as that of bringing together the perspectives of formal logic and mathematical practice on how this is to be achieved. This problem has recently raised a lot of discussion among philosophers of mathematics. We survey some possible solutions and argue that failure to understand its terms properly has led to misunderstandings in the literature.

Many arguments found in the physics literature involve concepts that are not well-defined by the usual standards of mathematics. I argue that physicists are entitled to employ such concepts without rigorously defining them so long as they restrict the sorts of mathematical arguments in which these concepts are involved. Restrictions of this sort allow the physicist to ignore calculations involving these concepts that might lead to contradictory results. I argue that such restrictions need not be ad hoc, but can (...) sometimes be justified by considering some of the metaphysical issues surrounding the question of the applicability of mathematics to physical reality. 1 Introduction 2 Rejecting inferential permissiveness 3 The agreement problem 4 Independent objections to the liberal view. (shrink)

The present paper examines the role of exact results in the theory of many‐body physics, and specifically the example of the Mermin‐Wagner theorem, a rigorous result concerning the absence of phase transitions in low‐dimensional systems. While the theorem has been shown to hold for a wide range of many‐body models, it is frequently ‘violated’ by results derived from the same models using numerical techniques. This raises the question of how scientists regulate their theoretical commitments in such cases, given that the (...) models, too, are often described as approximations to the underlying ‘full’ many‐body problem. (shrink)

Nobody can deny that the figure of Edmund Husserl represents the key to the philosophical horizon of our time in both version, as continental as analytical one. But, how can the same approach give ground and support to the development of such diverse topics? Although much work has been done to explain the renewed sense that science and philosophy acquire inside their proposal, the way Husserl reached that conclusion is not sufficiently clear yet. That is why in this article we (...) intend to clarify some aspects of his thought transformation, keeping it up whit his early concerns that will lead, inevitably, in his critique of knowledge. To achieve this, we will follow the husserlian itinerary from The philosophy of arithmetic to his conception of philosophy as the strictest science. (shrink)

Duhem's portrayal of the history of mathematics as manifesting calm and regular development is traced to his conception of mathematical rigor as an essentially static concept. This account is undermined by citing controversies over rigorous demonstration from the eighteenth and twentieth centuries.

The ArgumentIt has long been apparent that in the nineteenth century, mathematics in France and England developed along different lines. The differences, which might well be labelled stylistic, are most easy to see on the foundational level. At first this may seem surprising because it is such a fundamental area, but, upon reflection, it is to be expected. Ultimately discussions about the foundations of mathematics turn on views about what mathematics is, and this is a question which is answered by (...) a variety of different groups including mathematicians, students, curricular planners, parents, etc. Mathematical practice rests on some kind of mixture of the answers to this fundamental question which come from these diverse groups. Comparing the cultural matrices which supported mathematics in France and Britain in the first decades of the nineteenth century sheds light on the real though often subtle differences in the ways the subject was pursued in the two countries. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

With the arrival of the nineteenth century, a process of change guided the treatment of three basic elements in the development of mathematics: rigour, the arithmetization and the clarification of the concept of function, categorised as the most important tool in the development of the mathematical analysis. In this paper we will show how several prominent mathematicians contributed greatly to the development of these basic elements that allowed the solid underpinning of mathematics and the consideration of mathematics as an (...) axiomatic way of thinking in which anyone can deduce valid conclusions from certain types of premises. This nineteenth century stage shares, possibly with the Heroic Age of Ancient Greece, the most revolutionary period in all history of mathematics. (shrink)

Computational tools might tempt us to renounce complete cer- tainty. By forgoing of rigorous proof, we could get (very) probable results for a fraction of the cost. But is it really true that proofs (as we know and love them) can lead us to certainty? Maybe not. Proofs do not wear their correct- ness on their sleeve, and we are not infallible in checking them. This suggests that we need help to check our results. When our fellow mathematicians will be (...) too tired or too busy to scrutinize our putative proofs, computer proof assistants could help. But feeding a mathematical argument to a computer is hard. Still, we might be willing to undertake the endeavor in view of the extra perks that formalization may bring—chiefly among them, an enhanced mathematical understanding. (shrink)

This paper argues that a successful philosophical analysis of models and simulations must accommodate an account of mathematically rigorous results. Such rigorous results may be thought of as genuinely model-specific contributions, which can neither be deduced from fundamental theory nor inferred from empirical data. Rigorous results provide new indirect ways of assessing the success of models and simulations and are crucial to understanding the connections between different models. This is most obvious in cases where rigorous results map different models on (...) to one another. Not only does this put constraints on the extent to which performance in specific empirical contexts may be regarded as the main touchstone of success in scientific modelling, it also allows for the transfer of warrant across different models. Mathematically rigorous results can thus come to be seen as not only strengthening the cohesion between scientific strategies of modelling and simulation, but also as offering new ways of indirect confirmation. (shrink)

Criteria of acceptability for mathematical proofs are field-dependent. In topology, though not in most other domains, it is sometimes acceptable to appeal to visual intuition to support inferential steps. In previous work :829–842, 2014; Lolli, Panza, Venturi From logic to practice, Springer, Berlin, 2015; Larvor Mathematical cultures, Springer, Berlin, 2016) my co-author and I aimed at spelling out how topological proofs work on their own terms, without appealing to formal proofs which might be associated with them. In this (...) article, I address two criticisms that have been raised in Tatton-Brown against our approach: that it leads to a form of relativism according to which validity is equated with social agreement and that it implies an antiformalizability thesis according to which it is not the case that all rigorous mathematical proofs can be formalized. I reject both criticisms and suggest that our previous case studies provide insight into the plausibility of two related but quite different theses. (shrink)

The relationship is explored between formal derivations, which occur in artificial languages, and mathematical proof, which occurs in natural languages. The suggestion that ordinary mathematical proofs are abbreviations or sketches of formal derivations is presumed false. The alternative suggestion that the existence of appropriate derivations in formal logical languages is a norm for ordinary rigorous mathematical proof is explored and rejected.

A new approach to informal rigorous mathematical proof is offered. To this end, algorithmic devices are characterized and their central role in mathematical proof delineated. It is then shown how all the puzzling aspects of mathematical proof, including its peculiar capacity to convince its practitioners, are explained by algorithmic devices. Diagrammatic reasoning is also characterized in terms of algorithmic devices, and the algorithmic device view of mathematical proof is compared to alternative construals of informal proof to (...) show its superiority. (shrink)

This paper critically examines and evaluates Yacin Hamami’s reconstruction of the standard view of mathematical rigor. We will argue that the reconstruction offered by Hamami is premised on a strong and controversial epistemological thesis and a strong and controversial thesis in the philosophy of mind. Secondly, we will argue that Hamami’s reconstruction of the standard view robs it of its original philosophical rationale, i.e. making sense of the notion of rigor in mathematical practice.

2014 Reprint of 1954 American Edition. Full facsimile of the original edition, not reproduced with Optical Recognition Software. This two volume classic comprises two titles: "Patterns of Plausible Inference" and "Induction and Analogy in Mathematics." This is a guide to the practical art of plausible reasoning, particularly in mathematics, but also in every field of human activity. Using mathematics as the example par excellence, Polya shows how even the most rigorous deductive discipline is heavily dependent on techniques of guessing, inductive (...) reasoning, and reasoning by analogy. In solving a problem, the answer must be guessed at before a proof can be given, and guesses are usually made from a knowledge of facts, experience, and hunches. The truly creative mathematician must be a good guesser first and a good prover afterward; many important theorems have been guessed but no proved until much later. In the same way, solutions to problems can be guessed, and a god guesser is much more likely to find a correct solution. This work might have been called "How to Become a Good Guesser."-From the Dust Jacket. (shrink)

Logical paradoxes – like the Liar, Russell's, and the Sorites – are notorious. But in Paradoxes and Inconsistent Mathematics, it is argued that they are only the noisiest of many. Contradictions arise in the everyday, from the smallest points to the widest boundaries. In this book, Zach Weber uses “dialetheic paraconsistency” – a formal framework where some contradictions can be true without absurdity – as the basis for developing this idea rigorously, from mathematical foundations up. In doing so, Weber (...) directly addresses a longstanding open question: how much standard mathematics can paraconsistency capture? The guiding focus is on a more basic question, of why there are paradoxes. Details underscore a simple philosophical claim: that paradoxes are found in the ordinary, and that is what makes them so extraordinary. (shrink)

In a 2022 paper, Hamami claimed that the orthodox view in mathematics is that a proof is rigorous if it can be translated into a derivation. Hamami then developed a descriptive account that explains how mathematicians check proofs for rigor in this sense and how they develop the capacity to do so. By exploring introductory texts in computability theory, we demonstrate that Hamami’s descriptive account does not accord with actual mathematical practice with respect to computability theory. We argue (...) instead for an alternative account in which imagination, anticipation, and interpretations of natural language play roles in establishing mathematical rigor. (shrink)

often insisted existence in mathematics means logical consistency, and formal logic is the sole guarantor of rigor. The paper joins this to his view of intuition and his own mathematics. It looks at predicativity and the infinite, Poincaré's early endorsement of the axiom of choice, and Cantor's set theory versus Zermelo's axioms. Poincaré discussed constructivism sympathetically only once, a few months before his death, and conspicuously avoided committing himself. We end with Poincaré on Couturat, Russell, and Hilbert.

Ever since the early decades of this century, there have emerged a number of competing schools of ecology that have attempted to weave the concepts underlying natural resource management and natural-historical traditions into a formal theoretical framework. It was widely believed that the discovery of the fundamental mechanisms underlying ecological phenomena would allow ecologists to articulate mathematically rigorous statements whose validity was not predicated on contingent factors. The formulation of such statements would elevate ecology to the standing of a rigorous (...) scientific discipline on a par with physics. However, there was no agreement as to the fundamental units of ecology. Systems ecologists sought to identify the fundamental organization that tied the physical and biological components of ecosystems into an irreducible unit: the ecosystem was their fundamental unit. Population ecologists sought, instead, to identify the biological mechanisms regulating the abundance and distribution of plant and animal species: to these ecologists, the individual organism was the fundamental unit of ecology, and the physical environment was nothing more than a stage upon which the play of individuals in perennial competition took place. As Joel Hagen has pointed out, the two schools were thus dividied by fundamentally different and irreconcilable assumptions about the nature of ecosystems.Notwithstanding these divisive efforts to elevate the image of ecology, the discipline remained in the shadows of American academia until the mid-1960s, when systems ecologists succeeded in projecting ecology onto the national scene. They did so by seeking closer involvement with practical problems: they argued before Congress that their approach to the theoretical problems of ecology was uniquely suited to the solution of the impending “environmental crisis.” With the establishment of the International Biological Program, they succeeded in attracting unprecedented levels of funding for systems ecology research. Theoretical population ecologists, on the other hand, found themselves consigned to the outer regions of this new institutional landscape. The systems ecologists' successful capture of the limelight and the purse brought the divisions between them and population ecologists into sharper relief — hence the hardening of the division of ecology observed by Hagen.45I have argued that the population biologist Richard Levins, prompted by these institutional developments, sought to challenge the social position of systems ecology, and to assert the intellectual priority of theoretical population ecology. He attempted to do so by articulating a nontrivial and rather carefully thought out classification of ecological models that led to the disqualification of systems analysis as a legitimate approach to the study of ecological phenomena. I have suggested that — ultimately —Levins's case against systems analysis in ecology rested on the view that an aspiration to realism and prediction was incompatible with an interest in theoretical issues, a concern that he equated with the search for generality. He sought to reinforce this argument by exploiting the fact that systems ecologists had staked their future on the provision of technical solutions to the problems of the “environmental crisis”: he associated systems ecologists' aspiration to realism and precision with a concern for practical issues, trading on the widely accepted view that practical imperatives are incompatible with the aims of scientific inquiry.46 These are plausible, but nonetheless questionable, claims which have now become an integral part of ecological knowledge. And finally, I hope to have shown how even the most abstract levels of scientific argument are shaped by political considerations, and how discussions of the conceptual development of modern ecology might benefit from a greater consideration of its historical and social dimensions.47. (shrink)

Here the author of How to Solve It explains how to become a "good guesser." Marked by G. Polya's simple, energetic prose and use of clever examples from a wide range of human activities, this two-volume work explores techniques of guessing, inductive reasoning, and reasoning by analogy, and the role they play in the most rigorous of deductive disciplines.

Open texture is a kind of semantic indeterminacy first systematically studied by Waismann. In this paper, extant definitions of open texture will be compared and contrasted, with a view towards the consequences of open-textured concepts in mathematics. It has been suggested that these would threaten the traditional virtues of proof, primarily the certainty bestowed by proof-possession, and this suggestion will be critically investigated using recent work on informal proof. It will be argued that informal proofs have virtues that mitigate the (...) danger posed by open texture. Moreover, it will be argued that while rigor in the guise of formalisation and axiomatisation might banish open texture from mathematical theories through implicit definition, it can do so only at the cost of restricting the tamed concepts in certain ways. (shrink)

Against the modern tendency to considerate just the formal-empirical knowledge as Science, and this one mathematized as much as possible, here many declarations of Aristotle are raised in order to show that the scientific rigour is not univocal but analogic: it is determined according to the nature of the object to be known. This is a so elementary epistemological rule that not knowing it is understood by that philosopher as apaideusia, i.e., lack of basic education in the knowledge sphere in (...) general. To the Stagirite, a pepaideuménos, i.e., a well educated spirit requires to every subject just the kind of rigour which is adequate to it, attempting not to impose whether the demonstrative or the mathematical rigour to the subject. It is specially truth for the theological Science, whose subject, by being transcendent, asks for a sui generis rigour which has to be so faithful as possible to it. (shrink)

This book presents a comprehensive treatment of basic mathematical logic. The author's aim is to make exact the vague, intuitive notions of natural number, preciseness, and correctness, and to invent a method whereby these notions can be communicated to others and stored in the memory. He adopts a symbolic language in which ideas about natural numbers can be stated precisely and meaningfully, and then investigates the properties and limitations of this language. The treatment of mathematical concepts in the (...) main body of the text is rigorous, but, a section of 'historical remarks' traces the evolution of the ideas presented in each chapter. Sources of the original accounts of these developments are listed in the bibliography. (shrink)

Analyses in Greek geometry are traditionally seen as heuristic devices. However, many occurrences of analysis in formal treatises are difficult to justify in such terms. I show that Greek analysies of geometrics can also serve formal mathematical purposes, which are arguably incomplete without which their associated syntheses are arguably incomplete. Firstly, when the solution of a problem is preceded by an analysis, the analysis latter proves rigorously that there are no other solutions to the problem than those offered in (...) the synthesis. Secondly, whenever some construction assumption beyond ruler and compass is made, the problem is not only solvable by that assumption but is in fact equivalent to that assumption in a rigorous sense. (shrink)

A concise yet rigorous introduction to logic and discrete mathematics. This book features a unique combination of comprehensive coverage of logic with a solid exposition of the most important fields of discrete mathematics, presenting material that has been tested and refined by the authors in university courses taught over more than a decade. The chapters on logic - propositional and first-order - provide a robust toolkit for logical reasoning, emphasizing the conceptual understanding of the language and the semantics of classical (...) logic as well as practical applications through the easy to understand and use deductive systems of Semantic Tableaux and Resolution. The chapters on set theory, number theory, combinatorics and graph theory combine the necessary minimum of theory with numerous examples and selected applications. Written in a clear and reader-friendly style, each section ends with an extensive set of exercises, most of them provided with complete solutions which are available in the accompanying solutions manual. Key Features: Suitable for a variety of courses for students in both Mathematics and Computer Science. Extensive, in-depth coverage of classical logic, combined with a solid exposition of a selection of the most important fields of discrete mathematics Concise, clear and uncluttered presentation with numerous examples. Covers some applications including cryptographic systems, discrete probability and network algorithms. Logic and Discrete Mathematics: A Concise Introduction is aimed mainly at undergraduate courses for students in mathematics and computer science, but the book will also be a valuable resource for graduate modules and for self-study. (shrink)

Part I of the present work outlined the rigorous application of information theory to a quantum mechanical system in a thermodynamic equilibrium state. The general formula developed there for the best-guess density operator $\hat \rho$ was indeterminate because it involved in an essential way an unspecified prior probability distribution over the continuumD H of strong equilibrium density operators. In Part II mathematical evaluation of $\hat \rho$ is completed after an epistemological analysis which leads first to the discretization ofD H (...) and then to the adoption of a suitable indifference axiom to delimit the set of admissible prior distributions. Finally, quantal formulas for information-theoretic and thermodynamic entropies are contrasted, and the entire work is summarized. (shrink)

"This book is interesting and well-written. The research methods were explained clearly and conclusions were summarized nicely. It is a relatively quick read at only 130 pages. Anyone who has been told, or who has told others, that mathematicians make better thinkers should read this book." MAA Reviews "The authors particularly attend to protecting positive correlations against the self-selection interpretation, merely that logical minds elect studying more mathematics. Here, one finds a stimulating survey of the systemic difficulties people have with (...) basic syllogisms and deductions." CHOICE connect "The authors particularly attend to protecting positive correlations against the self-selection interpretation, merely that logical minds elect studying more mathematics. Here, one finds a stimulating survey of the systemic difficulties people have with basic syllogisms and deductions." CHOICE Connect For centuries, educational policymakers have believed that studying mathematics is important, in part because it develops general thinking skills that are useful throughout life. This 'Theory of Formal Discipline' (TFD) has been used as a justification for mathematics education globally. Despite this, few empirical studies have directly investigated the issue, and those which have showed mixed results. Does Mathematical Study Develop Logical Thinking? describes a rigorous investigation of the TFD. It reviews the theory's history and prior research on the topic, followed by reports on a series of recent empirical studies. It argues that, contrary to the position held by sceptics, advanced mathematical study does develop certain general thinking skills, however these are much more restricted than those typically claimed by TFD proponents. Perfect for students, researchers and policymakers in education, further education and mathematics, this book provides much needed insight into the theory and practice of the foundations of modern educational policy. (shrink)

The classification of algebraic surfaces by the Italian School of algebraic geometry is universally recognized as a breakthrough in 20th-century mathematics. The methods by which it was achieved do not, however, meet the modern standard of rigor and therefore appear dubious from a contemporary viewpoint. In this article, we offer a glimpse into the mathematical practice of the three leading exponents of the Italian School of algebraic geometry: Castelnuovo, Enriques, and Severi. We then bring into focus their distinctive (...) conception of rigor and intuition. Unlike what is often assumed today, from their perspective, rigor is neither opposed to intuition nor understood as a unitary phenomenon – Enriques distinguishes between small-scale rigor and large-scale rigor and Severi between formal rigor and substantial rigor. Finally, we turn to the notion of mathematical objectivity. We draw from our case study in order to advance a multi-dimensional analysis of objectivity. Specifically, we suggest that various types of rigor may be associated with different conceptions of objectivity: namely, objectivity as faithfulness to facts and objectivity as intersubjectivity. (shrink)

This paper outlines a framework that may provide a mathematically rigorous quantum field theory. The framework relies upon the methods of nonstandard analysis. A theory of nonstandard inner product spaces and operators on these spaces is first developed. This theory is then applied to construct nonstandard Fock spaces which extend the standard Fock spaces. Then a rigorous framework for the field operators of quantum field theory is presented. The results are illustrated for the case of Klein-Gordon fields.

Assuming no previous study in logic, this informal yet rigorous text covers the material of a standard undergraduate first course in mathematical logic, using natural deduction and leading up to the completeness theorem for first-order logic. At each stage of the text, the reader is given an intuition based on standard mathematical practice, which is subsequently developed with clean formal mathematics. Alongside the practical examples, readers learn what can and can't be calculated; for example the correctness of a (...) derivation proving a given sequent can be tested mechanically, but there is no general mechanical test for the existence of a derivation proving the given sequent. The undecidability results are proved rigorously in an optional final chapter, assuming Matiyasevich's theorem characterising the computably enumerable relations. Rigorous proofs of the adequacy and completeness proofs of the relevant logics are provided, with careful attention to the languages involved. Optinal sections discuss the classification of mathematical structures by first-order theories; the required theory of cardinality is developed from scratch. Throughout the book there are notes on historical aspects of the material, and connections with linguistics and computer science, and the discussion of syntax and semantics is influenced by modern linguistic approaches. Two basic themes in recent cognitive science studies of actual human reasoning are also introduced. Including extensive exercises and selected solutions, this text is ideal for students in logic, mathematics, philosophy, and computer science. (shrink)

We analyze the developments in mathematical rigor from the viewpoint of a Burgessian critique of nominalistic reconstructions. We apply such a critique to the reconstruction of infinitesimal analysis accomplished through the efforts of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass; to the reconstruction of Cauchy’s foundational work associated with the work of Boyer and Grabiner; and to Bishop’s constructivist reconstruction of classical analysis. We examine the effects of a nominalist disposition on historiography, teaching, and research.

Mathematics is a struggle for many. To make it more accessible, behavioral and educational scientists are redesigning how it is taught. To a similar end, a few rogue mathematicians and computer scientists are doing something more radical: they are redesigning mathematics itself, improving its ergonomic features. Charles Peirce, an important contributor to ordinary symbolic logic, also introduced a rigorous but non-symbolic, graphical alternative to it that is easier to picture. In the spirit of this iconic logic, George Spencer-Brown founded iconic (...) mathematics. Performing iconic arithmetic, algebra, and even trigonometry, resembles doing calculations on an abacus, which is still popular in education today, has aided humanity for millennia, helps even when it is merely imagined, and ameliorates severe disability in basic computation. Interestingly, whereas some intellectually disabled individuals excel in very complex numerical tasks, others of normal intelligence fail even in very simple ones. A comparison of their wider psychological profiles suggests that iconic mathematics ought to suit the very people traditional mathematics leaves behind. (shrink)

200 years ago, on August 5, 1802, Niels Henrik Abel was born on Finnøy near Stavanger on the Norwegian west coast. During a short life span, Abel contributed to a deep transition in mathematics in which concepts replaced formulae as the basic objects of mathematics. The transformation of mathematics in the 1820s and its manifestation in Abel’s works are the themes of the author’s PhD thesis. After sketching the formative instances in Abel’s well-known biography, this article illustrates two aspects of (...) the transformation which concern the introduction of concept based mathematics and the related shift in standards of mathematical rigor. Furthermore, the article outlines some of the many bicentennial celebrations in Norway and gives a short, thematic introduction to the literature on Abel and his work. (shrink)

Based on the ideas of Einstein and Minkowski, this concise treatment is derived from the author's many years of teaching the mathematics of relativity at the University of Michigan. Geared toward advanced undergraduates and graduate students of physics, the text covers old physics, new geometry, special relativity, curved space, and general relativity. Beginning with a discussion of the inverse square law in terms of simple calculus, the treatment gradually introduces increasingly complicated situations and more sophisticated mathematical tools. Changes in (...) fundamental concepts, which characterize relativity theory, and the refinements of mathematical technique are incorporated as necessary. The presentation thus offers an easier approach without sacrifice of rigor. Dover (2014) republication of the edition published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1950. See every Dover book in print at www.doverpublications.com. (shrink)

Marcus Giaquinto traces the story of the search for firm foundations for mathematics. The nineteenth century saw a movement to make higher mathematics rigorous; this seemed to be on the brink of success when it was thrown into confusion by the discovery of the class paradoxes. That initiated a period of intense research into the foundations of mathematics, and with it the birth of mathematical logic and a new, sharper debate in the philosophy of mathematics. The Search for Certainty (...) focuses mainly on two major twentieth-century programmes: Russell's logicism and Hilbert's finitism. Giaquinto examines their philosophical underpinnings and their outcomes, asking how successful they were, and how successful they could be, in placing mathematics on a sound footing. He sets these questions in the context of a clear, non-technical exposition and assessment of the most important discoveries in mathematical logic, above all Gödel's underivability theorems.More than six decades after those discoveries Giaquinto asks what our present perspective should be on the question of certainty in mathematics. Taking recent developments into account, he gives reasons for a surprisingly positive response. (shrink)

A principle, according to which any scientific theory can be mathematized, is investigated. Social science, liberal arts, history, and philosophy are meant first of all. That kind of theory is presupposed to be a consistent text, which can be exhaustedly represented by a certain mathematical structure constructively. In thus used, the term “theory” includes all hypotheses as yet unconfirmed as already rejected. The investigation of the sketch of a possible proof of the principle demonstrates that it should be accepted (...) rather a metamathematical axiom about the relation of mathematics and reality. The main statement is formulated as follows: Any scientific theory admits isomorphism to some mathematical structure in a way constructive. Its investigation needs philosophical means. Husserl’s phenomenology is what is used, and then the conception of “bracketing reality” is modelled to generalize Peano arithmetic in its relation to set theory in the foundation of mathematics. The obtained model is equivalent to the generalization of Peano arithmetic by means of replacing the axiom of induction with that of transfinite induction. The sketch of the proof is organized in five steps: a generalization of epoché; involving transfinite induction in the transition between Peano arithmetic and set theory; discussing the finiteness of Peano arithmetic; applying transfinite induction to Peano arithmetic; discussing an arithmetical model of reality. Accepting or rejecting the principle, two kinds of mathematics appear differing from each other by its relation to reality. Accepting the principle, mathematics has to include reality within itself in a kind of Pythagoreanism. These two kinds are called in paper correspondingly Hilbert mathematics and Gödel mathematics. The sketch of the proof of the principle demonstrates that the generalization of Peano arithmetic as above can be interpreted as a model of Hilbert mathematics into Gödel mathematics therefore showing that the former is not less consistent than the latter, and the principle is an independent axiom. The present paper follows a pathway grounded on Husserl’s phenomenology and “bracketing reality” to achieve the generalized arithmetic necessary for the principle to be founded in alternative ontology, in which there is no reality external to mathematics: reality is included within mathematics. That latter mathematics is able to self-found itself and can be called Hilbert mathematics in honour of Hilbert’s program for self-founding mathematics on the base of arithmetic. The principle of universal mathematizability is consistent to Hilbert mathematics, but not to Gödel mathematics. Consequently, its validity or rejection would resolve the problem which mathematics refers to our being; and vice versa: the choice between them for different reasons would confirm or refuse the principle as to the being. An information interpretation of Hilbert mathematics is involved. It is a kind of ontology of information. The Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics is involved to illustrate that ontology. Thus the problem which of the two mathematics is more relevant to our being is discussed again in a new way A few directions for future work can be: a rigorous formal proof of the principle as an independent axiom; the further development of information ontology consistent to both kinds of mathematics, but much more natural for Hilbert mathematics; the development of the information interpretation of quantum mechanics as a mathematical one for information ontology and thus Hilbert mathematics; the description of consciousness in terms of information ontology. (shrink)

This mathematics textbook covers the fundamental ideas used in writing proofs. Proof techniques covered include direct proofs, proofs by contrapositive, proofs by contradiction, proofs in set theory, proofs of existentially or universally quantified predicates, proofs by cases, and mathematical induction. Inductive and deductive reasoning are explored. A straightforward approach is taken throughout. Plenty of examples are included and lots of exercises are provided after each brief exposition on the topics at hand. The text begins with a study of symbolic (...) logic, deductive reasoning, and quantifiers. Inductive reasoning and making conjectures are examined next, and once there are some statements to prove, techniques for proving conditional statements, disjunctions, biconditional statements, and quantified predicates are investigated. Terminology and proof techniques in set theory follow with discussions of the pick-a-point method and the algebra of sets. Cartesian products, equivalence relations, orders, and functions are all incorporated. Particular attention is given to injectivity, surjectivity, and cardinality. The text includes an introduction to topology and abstract algebra, with a comparison of topological properties to algebraic properties. This book can be used by itself for an introduction to proofs course or as a supplemental text for students in proof-based mathematics classes. The contents have been rigorously reviewed and tested by instructors and students in classroom settings. (shrink)

The Prague Philosopher Bernard Bolzano (1781-1848) has long been admired for his groundbreaking work in mathematics: his rigorous proofs of fundamental theorems in analysis, his construction of a continuous, nowhere-differentiable function, his investigations of the infinite, and his anticipations of Cantor's set theory. He made equally outstanding contributions in philosophy, most notably in logic and methodology. One of the greatest mathematician-philosophers since Leibniz, Bolzano is now widely recognised as a major figure of nineteenth-century philosophy. Praised by Husserl as “one of (...) the greatest logicians of all times,” he has also been recognised by Michael Dummett as one of the first modern analytic philosophers and by Alberto Coffa as the founder of the “semantic tradition.” This volume contains English translations of the essay “On the Mathematical Method,” a concise introduction to Bolzano’s logic and philosophy of mathematics, as well as substantial selections from his correspondence with Franz Exner, Professor of Philosophy at the Charles University in Prague in the 1830s and 40s. It will be of interest to students of Austrian philosophy, the development of analytic philosophy, the philosophy of language, and the history and philosophy of logic and mathematics. (shrink)