display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
68 ideas
| 10201 | Virtually all of mathematics can be modeled in set theory [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It is well known that virtually every field of mathematics can be reduced to, or modelled in, set theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], Intro) | |
| A reaction: The word 'virtually' is tantalising. The fact that something can be 'modeled' in set theory doesn't mean it IS set theory. Most weather can be modeled in a computer. |
| 13641 | Complex numbers can be defined as reals, which are defined as rationals, then integers, then naturals [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: 'Definitions' of integers as pairs of naturals, rationals as pairs of integers, reals as Cauchy sequences of rationals, and complex numbers as pairs of reals are reductive foundations of various fields. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: On p.30 (bottom) Shapiro objects that in the process of reduction the numbers acquire properties they didn't have before. |
| 8763 | The number 3 is presumably identical as a natural, an integer, a rational, a real, and complex [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It is surely wise to identify the positions in the natural numbers structure with their counterparts in the integer, rational, real and complex number structures. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.2) | |
| A reaction: The point is that this might be denied, since 3, 3/1, 3.00.., and -3*i^2 are all arrived at by different methods of construction. Natural 3 has a predecessor, but real 3 doesn't. I agree, intuitively, with Shapiro. Russell (1919) disagreed. |
| 13676 | Only higher-order languages can specify that 0,1,2,... are all the natural numbers that there are [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The main problem of characterizing the natural numbers is to state, somehow, that 0,1,2,.... are all the numbers that there are. We have seen that this can be accomplished with a higher-order language, but not in a first-order language. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 9.1.4) |
| 13677 | Natural numbers are the finite ordinals, and integers are equivalence classes of pairs of finite ordinals [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: By convention, the natural numbers are the finite ordinals, the integers are certain equivalence classes of pairs of finite ordinals, etc. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 9.3) |
| 17784 | Real numbers can be eliminated, by axiom systems for complete ordered fields [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: We eliminate the real numbers by giving an axiomatic definition of the species of complete ordered fields. These axioms are categorical (mutually isomorphic), and thus are mathematically indistinguishable. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.408-2) | |
| A reaction: Hence my clever mathematical friend says that it is a terrible misunderstanding to think that mathematics is about numbers. Mayberry says the reals are one ordered field, but mathematics now studies all ordered fields together. |
| 10213 | Real numbers are thought of as either Cauchy sequences or Dedekind cuts [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Real numbers are either Cauchy sequences of rational numbers (interpreted as pairs of integers), or else real numbers can be thought of as Dedekind cuts, certain sets of rational numbers. So π is a Dedekind cut, or an equivalence class of sequences. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: This question is parallel to the question of whether natural numbers are Zermelo sets or Von Neumann sets. The famous problem is that there seems no way of deciding. Hence, for Shapiro, we are looking at models, not actual objects. |
| 18243 | Understanding the real-number structure is knowing usage of the axiomatic language of analysis [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: There is no more to understanding the real-number structure than knowing how to use the language of analysis. .. One learns the axioms of the implicit definition. ...These determine the realtionships between real numbers. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.9) | |
| A reaction: This, of course, is the structuralist view of such things, which isn't really interested in the intrinsic nature of anything, but only in its relations. The slogan that 'meaning is use' seems to be in the background. |
| 18249 | Cauchy gave a formal definition of a converging sequence. [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A sequence a1,a2,... of rational numbers is 'Cauchy' if for each rational number ε>0 there is a natural number N such that for all natural numbers m, n, if m>N and n>N then -ε < am - an < ε. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 7.2 n4) | |
| A reaction: The sequence is 'Cauchy' if N exists. |
| 18245 | Cuts are made by the smallest upper or largest lower number, some of them not rational [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A Dedekind Cut is a division of rationals into two set (A1,A2) where every member of A1 is less than every member of A2. If n is the largest A1 or the smallest A2, the cut is produced by n. Some cuts aren't produced by rationals. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 5.4) |
| 17782 | Greek quantities were concrete, and ratio and proportion were their science [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: Quantities for Greeks were concrete things - lines, surfaces, solids, times, weights. At the centre of their science of quantity was the beautiful theory of ratio and proportion (...in which the notion of number does not appear!). | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.407-2) | |
| A reaction: [He credits Eudoxus, and cites Book V of Euclid] |
| 17781 | Real numbers were invented, as objects, to simplify and generalise 'quantity' [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The abstract objects of modern mathematics, the real numbers, were invented by the mathematicians of the seventeenth century in order to simplify and to generalize the Greek science of quantity. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.407-2) |
| 17799 | Cantor's infinite is an absolute, of all the sets or all the ordinal numbers [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: In Cantor's new vision, the infinite, the genuine infinite, does not disappear, but presents itself in the guise of the absolute, as manifested in the species of all sets or the species of all ordinal numbers. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.414-2) |
| 17797 | Cantor extended the finite (rather than 'taming the infinite') [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: We may describe Cantor's achievement by saying, not that he tamed the infinite, but that he extended the finite. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.414-2) |
| 13652 | The 'continuum' is the cardinality of the powerset of a denumerably infinite set [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The 'continuum' is the cardinality of the powerset of a denumerably infinite set. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 5.1.2) |
| 17775 | If proof and definition are central, then mathematics needs and possesses foundations [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: If we grant, as surely we must, the central importance of proof and definition, then we must also grant that mathematics not only needs, but in fact has, foundations. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.405-1) |
| 17776 | The ultimate principles and concepts of mathematics are presumed, or grasped directly [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The ultimate principles upon which mathematics rests are those to which mathematicians appeal without proof; and the primitive concepts of mathematics ...themselves are grasped directly, if grasped at all, without the mediation of definition. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.405-1) | |
| A reaction: This begs the question of whether the 'grasping' is purely a priori, or whether it derives from experience. I defend the latter, and Jenkins puts the case well. |
| 17777 | Foundations need concepts, definition rules, premises, and proof rules [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: An account of the foundations of mathematics must specify four things: the primitive concepts for use in definitions, the rules governing definitions, the ultimate premises of proofs, and rules allowing advance from premises to conclusions. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.405-2) |
| 17804 | Axiom theories can't give foundations for mathematics - that's using axioms to explain axioms [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: No axiomatic theory, formal or informal, of first or of higher order can logically play a foundational role in mathematics. ...It is obvious that you cannot use the axiomatic method to explain what the axiomatic method is. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.415-2) |
| 10236 | There is no grounding for mathematics that is more secure than mathematics [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: We cannot ground mathematics in any domain or theory that is more secure than mathematics itself. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.8) | |
| A reaction: This pronouncement comes after a hundred years of hard work, notably by Gödel, so we'd better believe it. It might explain why Putnam rejects the idea that mathematics needs 'foundations'. Personally I'm prepare to found it in countable objects. |
| 8764 | Categories are the best foundation for mathematics [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: There is a dedicated contingent who hold that the category of 'categories' is the proper foundation for mathematics. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.3 n7) | |
| A reaction: He cites Lawvere (1966) and McLarty (1993), the latter presenting the view as a form of structuralism. I would say that the concept of a category will need further explication, and probably reduce to either sets or relations or properties. |
| 10256 | For intuitionists, proof is inherently informal [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: For intuitionists, proof is inherently informal. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 6.7) | |
| A reaction: This thought is quite appealing, so I may have to take intuitionism more seriously. It connects with my view of coherence, which I take to be a notion far too complex for precise definition. However, we don't want 'proof' to just mean 'persuasive'. |
| 17792 | 1st-order PA is only interesting because of results which use 2nd-order PA [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The sole theoretical interest of first-order Peano arithmetic derives from the fact that it is a first-order reduct of a categorical second-order theory. Its axioms can be proved incomplete only because the second-order theory is categorical. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-1) |
| 13657 | First-order arithmetic can't even represent basic number theory [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Few theorists consider first-order arithmetic to be an adequate representation of even basic number theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 5 n28) | |
| A reaction: This will be because of Idea 13656. Even 'basic' number theory will include all sorts of vast infinities, and that seems to be where the trouble is. |
| 10202 | Natural numbers just need an initial object, successors, and an induction principle [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The natural-number structure is a pattern common to any system of objects that has a distinguished initial object and a successor relation that satisfies the induction principle | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], Intro) | |
| A reaction: If you started your number system with 5, and successors were only odd numbers, something would have gone wrong, so a bit more seems to be needed. How do we decided whether the initial object is 0, 1 or 2? |
| 10294 | Second-order logic has the expressive power for mathematics, but an unworkable model theory [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Full second-order logic has all the expressive power needed to do mathematics, but has an unworkable model theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Higher-Order Logic [2001], 2.1) | |
| A reaction: [he credits Cowles for this remark] Having an unworkable model theory sounds pretty serious to me, as I'm not inclined to be interested in languages which don't produce models of some sort. Surely models are the whole point? |
| 17793 | It is only 2nd-order isomorphism which suggested first-order PA completeness [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: If we did not know that the second-order axioms characterise the natural numbers up to isomorphism, we should have no reason to suppose, a priori, that first-order Peano Arithmetic should be complete. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-1) |
| 10205 | Mathematics originally concerned the continuous (geometry) and the discrete (arithmetic) [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Originally, the focus of geometry was space - matter and extension - and the subject matter of arithmetic was quantity. Geometry concerned the continuous, whereas arithmetic concerned the discrete. Mathematics left these roots in the nineteenth century. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], Intro) | |
| A reaction: Mathematicians can do what they like, but I don't think philosophers of mathematics should lose sight of these two roots. It would be odd if the true nature of mathematics had nothing whatever to do with its origin. |
| 8762 | Two definitions of 3 in terms of sets disagree over whether 1 is a member of 3 [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Zermelo said that for each number n, its successor is the singleton of n, so 3 is {{{null}}}, and 1 is not a member of 3. Von Neumann said each number n is the set of numbers less than n, so 3 is {null,{null},{null,{null}}}, and 1 is a member of 3. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.2) | |
| A reaction: See Idea 645 - Zermelo could save Plato from the criticisms of Aristotle! These two accounts are cited by opponents of the set-theoretical account of numbers, because it seems impossible to arbitrate between them. |
| 17794 | Set theory is not just first-order ZF, because that is inadequate for mathematics [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The idea that set theory must simply be identified with first-order Zermelo-Fraenkel is surprisingly widespread. ...The first-order axiomatic theory of sets is clearly inadequate as a foundation of mathematics. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.412-2) | |
| A reaction: [He is agreeing with a quotation from Skolem]. |
| 17802 | We don't translate mathematics into set theory, because it comes embodied in that way [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: One does not have to translate 'ordinary' mathematics into the Zermelo-Fraenkel system: ordinary mathematics comes embodied in that system. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.415-1) | |
| A reaction: Mayberry seems to be a particular fan of set theory as spelling out the underlying facts of mathematics, though it has to be second-order. |
| 17805 | Set theory is not just another axiomatised part of mathematics [Mayberry] |
| Full Idea: The fons et origo of all confusion is the view that set theory is just another axiomatic theory and the universe of sets just another mathematical structure. ...The universe of sets ...is the world that all mathematical structures inhabit. | |
| From: John Mayberry (What Required for Foundation for Maths? [1994], p.416-1) |
| 13656 | Some sets of natural numbers are definable in set-theory but not in arithmetic [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: There are sets of natural numbers definable in set-theory but not in arithmetic. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 5.3.3) |
| 10222 | Mathematical foundations may not be sets; categories are a popular rival [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Foundationalists (e.g. Quine and Lewis) have shown that mathematics can be rendered in theories other than the iterative hierarchy of sets. A dedicated contingent hold that the category of categories is the proper foundation (e.g. Lawvere). | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.3) | |
| A reaction: I like the sound of that. The categories are presumably concepts that generate sets. Tricky territory, with Frege's disaster as a horrible warning to be careful. |
| 10218 | Baseball positions and chess pieces depend entirely on context [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: We cannot imagine a shortstop independent of a baseball infield, or a piece that plays the role of black's queen bishop independent of a chess game. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.1) | |
| A reaction: This is the basic thought that leads to the structuralist view of things. I must be careful because I like structuralism, but I have attacked the functionalist view in many areas, because it neglects the essences of the functioning entities. |
| 10224 | The even numbers have the natural-number structure, with 6 playing the role of 3 [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The even numbers and the natural numbers greater than 4 both exemplify the natural-number structure. In the former, 6 plays the 3 role, and in the latter 8 plays the 3 role. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.5) | |
| A reaction: This begins to sound a bit odd. If you count the even numbers, 6 is the third one. I could count pebbles using only evens, but then presumably '6' would just mean '3'; it wouldn't be the actual number 6 acting in a different role, like Laurence Olivier. |
| 10228 | Could infinite structures be apprehended by pattern recognition? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It is contentious, to say the least, to claim that infinite structures are apprehended by pattern recognition. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.1) | |
| A reaction: It only seems contentious for completed infinities. The idea that the pattern continues in same way seems (pace Wittgenstein) fairly self-evident, just like an arithmetical series. |
| 10230 | The 4-pattern is the structure common to all collections of four objects [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The 4-pattern is the structure common to all collections of four objects. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.2) | |
| A reaction: This seems open to Frege's objection, that you can have four disparate abstract concepts, or four spatially scattered items of unknown pattern. It certainly isn't a visual pattern, but then if the only detectable pattern is the fourness, it is circular. |
| 10249 | The main mathematical structures are algebraic, ordered, and topological [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: According to Bourbaki, there are three main types of structure: algebraic structures, such as group, ring, field; order structures, such as partial order, linear order, well-order; topological structures, involving limit, neighbour, continuity, and space. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 5.5) | |
| A reaction: Bourbaki is mentioned as the main champion of structuralism within mathematics. |
| 10273 | Some structures are exemplified by both abstract and concrete [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Some structures are exemplified by both systems of abstracta and systems of concreta. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 8.2) | |
| A reaction: It at least seems plausible that one might try to build a physical structure that modelled arithmetic (an abacus might be an instance), so the parallel is feasible. Then to say that the abstract arose from modelling the physical seems equally plausible. |
| 10276 | Mathematical structures are defined by axioms, or in set theory [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Mathematical structures are characterised axiomatically (as implicit definitions), or they are defined in set theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 8.3) | |
| A reaction: Presumably earlier mathematicians had neither axiomatised their theories, nor expressed them in set theory, but they still had a good working knowledge of the relationships. |
| 8760 | Numbers do not exist independently; the essence of a number is its relations to other numbers [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The structuralist vigorously rejects any sort of ontological independence among the natural numbers; the essence of a natural number is its relations to other natural numbers. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.1) | |
| A reaction: This seems to place the emphasis on ordinals (what order?) rather than on cardinality (how many?). I am strongly inclined to think that this is the correct view, though you can't really have relations if there is nothing to relate. |
| 8761 | A 'system' is related objects; a 'pattern' or 'structure' abstracts the pure relations from them [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A 'system' is a collection of objects with certain relations among them; a 'pattern' or 'structure' is the abstract form of a system, highlighting the interrelationships and ignoring any features they do not affect how they relate to other objects. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.1) | |
| A reaction: Note that 'ignoring' features is a psychological account of abstraction, which (thanks to Frege and Geach) is supposed to be taboo - but which I suspect is actually indispensable in any proper account of thought and concepts. |
| 10270 | The main versions of structuralism are all definitionally equivalent [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Ante rem structuralism, eliminative structuralism formulated over a sufficiently large domain of abstract objects, and modal eliminative structuralism are all definitionally equivalent. Neither is to be ontologically preferred, but the first is clearer. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 7.5) | |
| A reaction: Since Shapiro's ontology is platonist, I would have thought there were pretty obvious grounds for making a choice between that and eliminativm, even if the grounds are intuitive rather than formal. |
| 10221 | Is there is no more to structures than the systems that exemplify them? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The 'in re' view of structures is that there is no more to structures than the systems that exemplify them. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.3) | |
| A reaction: I say there is more than just the systems, because we can abstract from them to a common structure, but that doesn't commit us to the existence of such a common structure. |
| 10248 | Number statements are generalizations about number sequences, and are bound variables [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: According to 'in re' structuralism, a statement that appears to be about numbers is a disguised generalization about all natural-number sequences; the numbers are bound variables, not singular terms. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 5.3.4) | |
| A reaction: Any theory of anything which comes out with the thought that 'really it is a variable, not a ...' has my immediate attention and sympathy. |
| 10220 | Because one structure exemplifies several systems, a structure is a one-over-many [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Because the same structure can be exemplified by more than one system, a structure is a one-over-many. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.3) | |
| A reaction: The phrase 'one-over-many' is a classic Greek hallmark of a universal. Cf. Idea 10217, where Shapiro talks of arriving at structures by abstraction, through focusing and ignoring. This sounds more like a creation than a platonic universal. |
| 10223 | There is no 'structure of all structures', just as there is no set of all sets [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: There is no 'structure of all structures', just as there is no set of all sets. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.4) | |
| A reaction: If one cannot abstract from all the structures to a higher level, why should Shapiro have abstracted from the systems/models to get the over-arching structures? |
| 8703 | Shapiro's structuralism says model theory (comparing structures) is the essence of mathematics [Shapiro, by Friend] |
| Full Idea: Shapiro's structuralism champions model theory as the branch of mathematics that best describes mathematics. The essence of mathematical activity is seen as an exercise in comparing mathematical structures to each other. | |
| From: report of Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.4) by Michèle Friend - Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics | |
| A reaction: Note it 'best describes' it, rather than being foundational. Assessing whether propositional logic is complete is given as an example of model theory. That makes model theory a very high-level activity. Does it capture simple arithmetic? |
| 10274 | Does someone using small numbers really need to know the infinite structure of arithmetic? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: According to structuralism, someone who uses small natural numbers in everyday life presupposes an infinite structure. It seems absurd that a child who learns to count his toes applies an infinite structure to reality, and thus presupposes the structure. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 8.2) | |
| A reaction: Shapiro says we can meet this objection by thinking of smaller structures embedded in larger ones, with the child knowing the smaller ones. |
| 10200 | We distinguish realism 'in ontology' (for objects), and 'in truth-value' (for being either true or false) [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: We must distinguish between 'realism in ontology' - that mathematical objects exist - and 'realism in truth-value', which is suggested by the model-theoretic framework - that each well-formed meaningful sentence is non-vacuously either true or false. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], Intro) | |
| A reaction: My inclination is fairly strongly towards realism of the second kind, but not of the first. A view about the notion of a 'truth-maker' might therefore be required. What do the truths refer to? Answer: not objects, but abstractions from objects. |
| 10210 | If mathematical objects are accepted, then a number of standard principles will follow [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: One who believes in the independent existence of mathematical objects is likely to accept the law of excluded middle, impredicative definitions, the axiom of choice, extensionality, and arbitrary sets and functions. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 1) | |
| A reaction: The underlying thought is that since the objects pre-exist, all of the above simply describe the relations between them, rather than having to actually bring the objects into existence. Personally I would seek a middle ground. |
| 10215 | Platonists claim we can state the essence of a number without reference to the others [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The Platonist view may be that one can state the essence of each number, without referring to the other numbers. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 3.1) | |
| A reaction: Frege certainly talks this way (in his 'borehole' analogy). Fine, we are asked to spell out the essence of some number, without making reference either to any 'units' composing it, or to any other number adjacent to it or composing it. Reals? |
| 10233 | Platonism must accept that the Peano Axioms could all be false [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A traditional Platonist has to face the possibility that all of the Peano Axioms are false. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 4.7) | |
| A reaction: This would be because the objects exist independently, and so the Axioms are a mere human attempt at pinning them down. For the Formalist the axioms create the numbers, and so couldn't be false. This makes me, alas, warm to platonism! |
| 10244 | Intuition is an outright hindrance to five-dimensional geometry [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Even if spatial intuition provides a little help in the heuristics of four-dimensional geometry, intuition is an outright hindrance for five-dimensional geometry and beyond. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 5.2) | |
| A reaction: One might respond by saying 'so much the worse for five-dimensional geometry'. One could hardly abolish the subject, though, so the point must be taken. |
| 10280 | A stone is a position in some pattern, and can be viewed as an object, or as a location [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: For each stone, there is at least one pattern such that the stone is a position in that pattern. The stone can be treated in terms of places-are-objects, or places-are-offices, to be filled with objects drawn from another ontology. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 8.4) | |
| A reaction: I believe this is the story J.S. Mill had in mind. His view was that the structures move off into abstraction, but it is only at the empirical and physical level that we can possibly learn the structures. |
| 13664 | Logicism is distinctive in seeking a universal language, and denying that logic is a series of abstractions [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: It is claimed that aiming at a universal language for all contexts, and the thesis that logic does not involve a process of abstraction, separates the logicists from algebraists and mathematicians, and also from modern model theory. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.1) | |
| A reaction: I am intuitively drawn to the idea that logic is essentially the result of a series of abstractions, so this gives me a further reason not to be a logicist. Shapiro cites Goldfarb 1979 and van Heijenoort 1967. Logicists reduce abstraction to logic. |
| 13625 | Mathematics and logic have no border, and logic must involve mathematics and its ontology [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: I extend Quinean holism to logic itself; there is no sharp border between mathematics and logic, especially the logic of mathematics. One cannot expect to do logic without incorporating some mathematics and accepting at least some of its ontology. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], Pref) | |
| A reaction: I have strong sales resistance to this proposal. Mathematics may have hijacked logic and warped it for its own evil purposes, but if logic is just the study of inferences then it must be more general than to apply specifically to mathematics. |
| 8744 | Logicism seems to be a non-starter if (as is widely held) logic has no ontology of its own [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The thesis that principles of arithmetic are derivable from the laws of logic runs against a now common view that logic itself has no ontology. There are no particular logical objects. From this perspective logicism is a non-starter. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 5.1) | |
| A reaction: This criticism strikes me as utterly devastating. There are two routes to go: prove that logic does have an ontology of objects (what would they be?), or - better - deny that arithmetic contains any 'objects'. Or give up logicism. |
| 8749 | Term Formalism says mathematics is just about symbols - but real numbers have no names [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Term Formalism is the view that mathematics is just about characters or symbols - the systems of numerals and other linguistic forms. ...This will cover integers and rational numbers, but what are real numbers supposed to be, if they lack names? | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 6.1.1) | |
| A reaction: Real numbers (such as pi and root-2) have infinite decimal expansions, so we can start naming those. We could also start giving names like 'Harry' to other reals, though it might take a while. OK, I give up. |
| 8750 | Game Formalism is just a matter of rules, like chess - but then why is it useful in science? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Game Formalism likens mathematics to chess, where the 'content' of mathematics is exhausted by the rules of operating with its language. ...This, however, leaves the problem of why the mathematical games are so useful to the sciences. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 6.1.2) | |
| A reaction: This thought pushes us towards structuralism. It could still be a game, but one we learned from observing nature, which plays its own games. Chess is, after all, modelled on warfare. |
| 8752 | Deductivism says mathematics is logical consequences of uninterpreted axioms [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The Deductivist version of formalism (sometimes called 'if-thenism') says that the practice of mathematics consists of determining logical consequences of otherwise uninterpreted axioms. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 6.2) | |
| A reaction: [Hilbert is the source] More plausible than Term or Game Formalism (qv). It still leaves the question of why it seems applicable to nature, and why those particular axioms might be chosen. In some sense, though, it is obviously right. |
| 10254 | Can the ideal constructor also destroy objects? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Can we assume that the ideal constructor cannot destroy objects? Presumably the ideal constructor does not have an eraser, and the collection of objects is non-reducing over time. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 6.5) | |
| A reaction: A very nice question, which platonists should enjoy. |
| 10255 | Presumably nothing can block a possible dynamic operation? [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Presumably within a dynamic system, once the constructor has an operation available, then no activity can preclude the performance of the operation? | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Philosophy of Mathematics [1997], 6.5) | |
| A reaction: There seems to be an interesting assumption in static accounts of mathematics, that all the possible outputs of (say) a function actually exist with a theory. In an actual dynamic account, the constructor may be smitten with lethargy. |
| 8753 | Critics resent the way intuitionism cripples mathematics, but it allows new important distinctions [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Critics commonly complain that the intuitionist restrictions cripple the mathematician. On the other hand, intuitionist mathematics allows for many potentially important distinctions not available in classical mathematics, and is often more subtle. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 7.1) | |
| A reaction: The main way in which it cripples is its restriction on talk of infinity ('Cantor's heaven'), which was resented by Hilbert. Since high-level infinities are interesting, it would be odd if we were not allowed to discuss them. |
| 8731 | Conceptualist are just realists or idealist or nominalists, depending on their view of concepts [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: I classify conceptualists according to what they say about properties or concepts. If someone classified properties as existing independent of language I would classify her as a realist in ontology of mathematics. Or they may be idealists or nominalists. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 2.2.1) | |
| A reaction: In other words, Shapiro wants to eliminate 'conceptualist' as a useful label in philosophy of mathematics. He's probably right. All thought involves concepts, but that doesn't produce a conceptualist theory of, say, football. |
| 13663 | Some reject formal properties if they are not defined, or defined impredicatively [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Some authors (Poincaré and Russell, for example) were disposed to reject properties that are not definable, or are definable only impredicatively. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 7.1) | |
| A reaction: I take Quine to be the culmination of this line of thought, with his general rejection of 'attributes' in logic and in metaphysics. |
| 8730 | 'Impredicative' definitions refer to the thing being described [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A definition of a mathematical entity is 'impredicative' if it refers to a collection that contains the defined entity. The definition of 'least upper bound' is impredicative as it refers to upper bounds and characterizes a member of this set. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: The big question is whether mathematics can live with impredicative definitions, or whether they threaten to be viciously circular, and undermine the whole enterprise. |