|
10164
|
Peano Arithmetic can have three second-order axioms, plus '1' and 'successor' [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
A common formulation of Peano Arithmetic uses 2nd-order logic, the constant '1', and a one-place function 's' ('successor'). Three axioms then give '1 is not a successor', 'different numbers have different successors', and induction.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
This is 'second-order' Peano Arithmetic, though it is at least as common to formulate in first-order terms (only quantifying over objects, not over properties - as is done here in the induction axiom). I like the use of '1' as basic instead of '0'!
|
|
9643
|
Set theory may represent all of mathematics, without actually being mathematics [Brown,JR]
|
|
Full Idea:
Maybe all of mathematics can be represented in set theory, but we should not think that mathematics is set theory. Functions can be represented as order pairs, but perhaps that is not what functions really are.
|
|
From:
James Robert Brown (Philosophy of Mathematics [1999], Ch. 7)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to me to be the correct view of the situation. If 2 is represented as {φ,{φ}}, why is that asymmetrical? The first digit seems to be the senior and original partner, but how could the digits of 2 differ from one another?
|
|
10167
|
Structuralism emerged from abstract algebra, axioms, and set theory and its structures [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
Structuralism has emerged from the development of abstract algebra (such as group theory), the creation of axiom systems, the introduction of set theory, and Bourbaki's encyclopaedic survey of set theoretic structures.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
In other words, mathematics has gradually risen from one level of abstraction to the next, so that mathematical entities like points and numbers receive less and less attention, with relationships becoming more prominent.
|
|
10169
|
Relativist Structuralism just stipulates one successful model as its arithmetic [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
Relativist Structuralism simply picks one particular model of axiomatised arithmetic (i.e. one particular interpretation that satisfies the axioms), and then stipulates what the elements, functions and quantifiers refer to.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §4)
|
|
A reaction:
The point is that a successful model can be offered, and it doesn't matter which one, like having any sort of aeroplane, as long as it flies. I don't find this approach congenial, though having a model is good. What is the essence of flight?
|
|
10179
|
There are 'particular' structures, and 'universal' structures (what the former have in common) [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
The term 'structure' has two uses in the literature, what can be called 'particular structures' (which are particular relational systems), but also what can be called 'universal structures' - what particular systems share, or what they instantiate.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §6)
|
|
A reaction:
This is a very helpful distinction, because it clarifies why (rather to my surprise) some structuralists turn out to be platonists in a new guise. Personal my interest in structuralism has been anti-platonist from the start.
|
|
10182
|
There are Formalist, Relativist, Universalist and Pattern structuralism [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are four main variants of structuralism in the philosophy of mathematics - formalist structuralism, relativist structuralism, universalist structuralism (with modal variants), and pattern structuralism.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §9)
|
|
A reaction:
I'm not sure where Chihara's later book fits into this, though it is at the nominalist end of the spectrum. Shapiro and Resnik do patterns (the latter more loosely); Hellman does modal universalism; Quine does the relativist version. Dedekind?
|
|
10168
|
Formalist Structuralism says the ontology is vacuous, or formal, or inference relations [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
Formalist Structuralism endorses structural methodology in mathematics, but rejects semantic and metaphysical problems as either meaningless, or purely formal, or as inference relations.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
[very compressed] I find the third option fairly congenial, certainly in preference to rather platonist accounts of structuralism. One still needs to distinguish the mathematical from the non-mathematical in the inference relations.
|
|
10178
|
Maybe we should talk of an infinity of 'possible' objects, to avoid arithmetic being vacuous [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is tempting to take a modal turn, and quantify over all possible objects, because if there are only a finite number of actual objects, then there are no models (of the right sort) for Peano Arithmetic, and arithmetic is vacuously true.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed; Geoffrey Hellman is the chief champion of this view] The article asks whether we are not still left with the puzzle of whether infinitely many objects are possible, instead of existent.
|
|
10177
|
Universalist Structuralism eliminates the base element, as a variable, which is then quantified out [Reck/Price]
|
|
Full Idea:
Universalist Structuralism is eliminativist about abstract objects, in a distinctive form. Instead of treating the base element (say '1') as an ambiguous referring expression (the Relativist approach), it is a variable which is quantified out.
|
|
From:
E Reck / M Price (Structures and Structuralism in Phil of Maths [2000], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
I am a temperamental eliminativist on this front (and most others) so this is tempting. I am also in love with the concept of a 'variable', which I take to be utterly fundamental to all conceptual thought, even in animals, and not just a trick of algebra.
|
|
9628
|
Sets seem basic to mathematics, but they don't suit structuralism [Brown,JR]
|
|
Full Idea:
Set theory is at the very heart of mathematics; it may even be all there is to mathematics. The notion of set, however, seems quite contrary to the spirit of structuralism.
|
|
From:
James Robert Brown (Philosophy of Mathematics [1999], Ch. 4)
|
|
A reaction:
So much the worse for sets, I say. You can, for example, define ordinality in terms of sets, but that is no good if ordinality is basic to the nature of numbers, rather than a later addition.
|