| 18271 | We can't prove everything, but we can spell out the unproved, so that foundations are clear [Frege] |
| Full Idea: It cannot be demanded that everything be proved, because that is impossible; but we can require that all propositions used without proof be expressly declared as such, so that we can see distinctly what the whole structure rests upon. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 1 (Basic Laws) [1893], p.2), quoted by J. Alberto Coffa - The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap 7 'What' |
| 21224 | Pure mathematics is the relations between all possible objects, and is thus formal ontology [Husserl, by Velarde-Mayol] |
| Full Idea: Pure mathematics is the science of the relations between any object whatever (relation of whole to part, relation of equality, property, unity etc.). In this sense, pure mathematics is seen by Husserl as formal ontology. | |
| From: report of Edmund Husserl (Formal and Transcendental Logic [1929]) by Victor Velarde-Mayol - On Husserl 4.5.2 | |
| A reaction: I would expect most modern analytic philosophers to agree with this. Modern mathematics (e.g. category theory) seems to have moved beyond this stage, but I still like this idea. |
| 17880 | Integers and induction are clear as foundations, but set-theory axioms certainly aren't [Skolem] |
| Full Idea: The initial foundations should be immediately clear, natural and not open to question. This is satisfied by the notion of integer and by inductive inference, by it is not satisfied by the axioms of Zermelo, or anything else of that kind. | |
| From: Thoralf Skolem (Remarks on axiomatised set theory [1922], p.299) | |
| A reaction: This is a plea (endorsed by Almog) that the integers themselves should be taken as primitive and foundational. I would say that the idea of successor is more primitive than the integers. |
| 17810 | The study of mathematical foundations needs new non-mathematical concepts [Kreisel] |
| Full Idea: It is necessary to use non-mathematical concepts, i.e. concepts lacking the precision which permit mathematical manipulation, for a significant approach to foundations. We currently have no concepts of this kind which we can take seriously. | |
| From: Georg Kreisel (Hilbert's Programme [1958], 06) | |
| A reaction: Music to the ears of any philosopher of mathematics, because it means they are not yet out of a job. |
| 9937 | I do not believe mathematics either has or needs 'foundations' [Putnam] |
| Full Idea: I do not believe mathematics either has or needs 'foundations'. | |
| From: Hilary Putnam (Mathematics without Foundations [1967]) | |
| A reaction: Agreed that mathematics can function well without foundations (given that the enterprise got started with no thought for such things), the ontology of the subject still strikes me as a major question, though maybe not for mathematicians. |
| 12688 | Mathematics is the formal study of the categorical dimensions of things [Ellis] |
| Full Idea: I wish to explore the idea that mathematics is the formal study of the categorical dimensions of things. | |
| From: Brian Ellis (The Metaphysics of Scientific Realism [2009], 6) | |
| A reaction: Categorical dimensions are spatiotemporal relations and other non-causal properties. Ellis defends categorical properties as an aspect of science. The obvious connection seems to be with structuralism in mathematics. Shapiro is sympathetic. |
| 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. |
| 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) |
| 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. |
| 8676 | Is mathematics based on sets, types, categories, models or topology? [Friend] |
| Full Idea: Successful competing founding disciplines in mathematics include: the various set theories, type theory, category theory, model theory and topology. | |
| From: Michčle Friend (Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematics [2007], 2.3) | |
| A reaction: Or none of the above? Set theories are very popular. Type theory is, apparently, discredited. Shapiro has a version of structuralism based on model theory (which sound promising). Topology is the one that intrigues me... |
| 17922 | Reducing real numbers to rationals suggested arithmetic as the foundation of maths [Colyvan] |
| Full Idea: Given Dedekind's reduction of real numbers to sequences of rational numbers, and other known reductions in mathematics, it was tempting to see basic arithmetic as the foundation of mathematics. | |
| From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 1.1.1) | |
| A reaction: The reduction is the famous Dedekind 'cut'. Nowadays theorists seem to be more abstract (Category Theory, for example) instead of reductionist. |
| 18846 | Cantor and Dedekind aimed to give analysis a foundation in set theory (rather than geometry) [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: One of the motivations behind Cantor's and Dedekind's pioneering explorations in the field was the ambition to give real analysis a new foundation in set theory - and hence a foundation independent of geometry. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt (The Boundary Stones of Thought [2015], 9.6) | |
| A reaction: Rumfitt is inclined to think that the project has failed, although a weaker set theory than ZF might do the job (within limits). |