Combining Texts

Ideas for 'Theaetetus', 'Mind and Its Place in Nature' and 'Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


5 ideas

6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 1. Foundations for Mathematics
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.
6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 4. Axioms for Number / f. Mathematical induction
Transfinite induction moves from all cases, up to the limit ordinal [Colyvan]
     Full Idea: Transfinite inductions are inductive proofs that include an extra step to show that if the statement holds for all cases less than some limit ordinal, the statement also holds for the limit ordinal.
     From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 5.2.1 n11)
6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 6. Mathematics as Set Theory / a. Mathematics is set theory
Most mathematical proofs are using set theory, but without saying so [Colyvan]
     Full Idea: Most mathematical proofs, outside of set theory, do not explicitly state the set theory being employed.
     From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 7.1.1)
6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 7. Mathematical Structuralism / a. Structuralism
Structuralism say only 'up to isomorphism' matters because that is all there is to it [Colyvan]
     Full Idea: Structuralism is able to explain why mathematicians are typically only interested in describing the objects they study up to isomorphism - for that is all there is to describe.
     From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 3.1.2)
6. Mathematics / B. Foundations for Mathematics / 7. Mathematical Structuralism / e. Structuralism critique
If 'in re' structures relies on the world, does the world contain rich enough structures? [Colyvan]
     Full Idea: In re structuralism does not posit anything other than the kinds of structures that are in fact found in the world. ...The problem is that the world may not provide rich enough structures for the mathematics.
     From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 3.1.2)
     A reaction: You can perceive a repeating pattern in the world, without any interest in how far the repetitions extend.