28 ideas
17926 | Rejecting double negation elimination undermines reductio proofs [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: The intuitionist rejection of double negation elimination undermines the important reductio ad absurdum proof in classical mathematics. | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 1.1.3) |
17925 | Showing a disproof is impossible is not a proof, so don't eliminate double negation [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: In intuitionist logic double negation elimination fails. After all, proving that there is no proof that there can't be a proof of S is not the same thing as having a proof of S. | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 1.1.3) | |
A reaction: I do like people like Colyvan who explain things clearly. All of this difficult stuff is understandable, if only someone makes the effort to explain it properly. |
17924 | Excluded middle says P or not-P; bivalence says P is either true or false [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: The law of excluded middle (for every proposition P, either P or not-P) must be carefully distinguished from its semantic counterpart bivalence, that every proposition is either true or false. | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 1.1.3) | |
A reaction: So excluded middle makes no reference to the actual truth or falsity of P. It merely says P excludes not-P, and vice versa. |
17929 | Löwenheim proved his result for a first-order sentence, and Skolem generalised it [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: Löwenheim proved that if a first-order sentence has a model at all, it has a countable model. ...Skolem generalised this result to systems of first-order sentences. | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 2.1.2) |
17930 | Axioms are 'categorical' if all of their models are isomorphic [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: A set of axioms is said to be 'categorical' if all models of the axioms in question are isomorphic. | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 2.1.2) | |
A reaction: The best example is the Peano Axioms, which are 'true up to isomorphism'. Set theory axioms are only 'quasi-isomorphic'. |
17928 | Ordinal numbers represent order relations [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: Ordinal numbers represent order relations. | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 1.2.3 n17) |
17923 | Intuitionists only accept a few safe infinities [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: For intuitionists, all but the smallest, most well-behaved infinities are rejected. | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 1.1.3) | |
A reaction: The intuitionist idea is to only accept what can be clearly constructed or proved. |
17941 | Infinitesimals were sometimes zero, and sometimes close to zero [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: The problem with infinitesimals is that in some places they behaved like real numbers close to zero but in other places they behaved like zero. | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 7.1.2) | |
A reaction: Colyvan gives an example, of differentiating a polynomial. |
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. |
17936 | 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) |
17940 | 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) |
17931 | 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) |
17932 | 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. |
21982 | I only wish I had such eyes as to see Nobody! It's as much as I can do to see real people. [Carroll,L] |
Full Idea: "I see nobody on the road," said Alice. - "I only wish I had such eyes," the King remarked. ..."To be able to see Nobody! ...Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people." | |
From: Lewis Carroll (C.Dodgson) (Through the Looking Glass [1886], p.189), quoted by A.W. Moore - The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics 07.7 | |
A reaction: [Moore quotes this, inevitably, in a chapter on Hegel] This may be a better candidate for the birth of philosophy of language than Frege's Groundwork. |
17943 | Probability supports Bayesianism better as degrees of belief than as ratios of frequencies [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: Those who see probabilities as ratios of frequencies can't use Bayes's Theorem if there is no objective prior probability. Those who accept prior probabilities tend to opt for a subjectivist account, where probabilities are degrees of belief. | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 9.1.8) | |
A reaction: [compressed] |
17939 | Mathematics can reveal structural similarities in diverse systems [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: Mathematics can demonstrate structural similarities between systems (e.g. missing population periods and the gaps in the rings of Saturn). | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 6.3.2) | |
A reaction: [Colyvan expounds the details of his two examples] It is these sorts of results that get people enthusiastic about the mathematics embedded in nature. A misunderstanding, I think. |
17938 | Mathematics can show why some surprising events have to occur [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: Mathematics can show that under a broad range of conditions, something initially surprising must occur (e.g. the hexagonal structure of honeycomb). | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 6.3.2) |
17934 | Proof by cases (by 'exhaustion') is said to be unexplanatory [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: Another style of proof often cited as unexplanatory are brute-force methods such as proof by cases (or proof by exhaustion). | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 5.2.1) |
17933 | Reductio proofs do not seem to be very explanatory [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: One kind of proof that is thought to be unexplanatory is the 'reductio' proof. | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 5.2.1) | |
A reaction: Presumably you generate a contradiction, but are given no indication of why the contradiction has arisen? Tracking back might reveal the source of the problem? Colyvan thinks reductio can be explanatory. |
17935 | If inductive proofs hold because of the structure of natural numbers, they may explain theorems [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: It might be argued that any proof by induction is revealing the explanation of the theorem, namely, that it holds by virtue of the structure of the natural numbers. | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 5.2.1) | |
A reaction: This is because induction characterises the natural numbers, in the Peano Axioms. |
17942 | Can a proof that no one understands (of the four-colour theorem) really be a proof? [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: The proof of the four-colour theorem raises questions about whether a 'proof' that no one understands is a proof. | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 9.1.6) | |
A reaction: The point is that the theorem (that you can colour countries on a map with just four colours) was proved with the help of a computer. |
17937 | Mathematical generalisation is by extending a system, or by abstracting away from it [Colyvan] |
Full Idea: One type of generalisation in mathematics extends a system to go beyond what is was originally set up for; another kind involves abstracting away from some details in order to capture similarities between different systems. | |
From: Mark Colyvan (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics [2012], 5.2.2) |
23681 | The first motion or effect cannot be produced necessarily, so the First Cause must be a free agent [Reid] |
Full Idea: That the first motion, or the first effect, whatever it be, cannot be produced necessarily, and, consequently, that the First Cause must be a free agent, has been demonstrated clearly and unanswerably. | |
From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 4: Liberty of Agents [1788], 8) | |
A reaction: He has said that the First Cause can only be conceived by us as an 'agent'. If there is an agential First Cause, then he must be right. It is this need for God to be free which makes scepticism about free will unacceptable to many. |
23676 | A willed action needs reasonable understanding of what is to be done [Reid] |
Full Idea: There can be no will without such a degree of understanding, at least, as gives the conception of that which we will. | |
From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 4: Liberty of Agents [1788], 1) | |
A reaction: Presumably this 'conception' includes an understanding of the probable consequences, but they are of infinite complexity. I see this as an objection to 'ultimate' free will and responsibility, because there are only ever degrees of understanding. |
23680 | We are morally free, because we experience it, we are accountable, and we pursue projects [Reid] |
Full Idea: I believe in moral liberty first because we have a natural conviction of belief that in many cases we act freely, second because we are accountable, and third because we can prosecute an end by a long series of means adapted. | |
From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 4: Liberty of Agents [1788], 5) | |
A reaction: This is his final summary of why he believes in free will. Why didn't Plato and Aristotle have this natural belief? He could only believe we are 'accountable' because he believes in free will. Ants and bees pursue lengthy projects. Hm. |
23678 | A motive is merely an idea, like advice, and not a force for action [Reid] |
Full Idea: A motive is equally incapable of action and of passion; because it is not a thing that exists, but a thing that is conceived. …Motives may be compared to advice or exhortation. | |
From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 4: Liberty of Agents [1788], 4) | |
A reaction: We say people are motivated by greed or anger or love, which seems a bit stronger than mere advice. |
23677 | We all know that mere priority or constant conjunction do not have to imply causation [Reid] |
Full Idea: Every man who understands the language knows that neither priority, nor constant conjunction, nor both taken together, imply efficiency. | |
From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 4: Liberty of Agents [1788], 2) | |
A reaction: This invites the question of how we do know causal events, if none of our experiences are enough to prove it. Reid says we have an innate knowledge that all events are caused, but that isn't much help. The presence of power? |
23679 | The principle of the law of nature is that matter is passive, and is acted upon [Reid] |
Full Idea: The law of nature respecting matter is grounded upon this principle: That matter is an inert, inactive substance, which does not act, but is acted upon. | |
From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Active Powers 4: Liberty of Agents [1788], 5) | |
A reaction: A clear statement (alongside Euler's) of the 18th century view, still with us, but strikes me as entirely wrong. Their view needs the active power of God to drive the laws. Matter has intrinsic primitive powers, and laws describe patterns of behaviour. |