Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Mahaprajnaparamitashastra', 'Putnam's Paradox' and 'Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


27 ideas

4. Formal Logic / E. Nonclassical Logics / 2. Intuitionist Logic
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)
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.
5. Theory of Logic / D. Assumptions for Logic / 2. Excluded Middle
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.
5. Theory of Logic / J. Model Theory in Logic / 2. Isomorphisms
A consistent theory just needs one model; isomorphic versions will do too, and large domains provide those [Lewis]
     Full Idea: A consistent theory is, by definition, one satisfied by some model; an isomorphic image of a model satisfies the same theories as the original model; to provide the making of an isomorphic image of any given model, a domain need only be large enough.
     From: David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'Why Model')
     A reaction: This is laying out the ground for Putnam's model theory argument in favour of anti-realism. If you are chasing the one true model of reality, then formal model theory doesn't seem to offer much encouragement.
5. Theory of Logic / J. Model Theory in Logic / 3. Löwenheim-Skolem Theorems
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)
5. Theory of Logic / K. Features of Logics / 1. Axiomatisation
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'.
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 3. Nature of Numbers / e. Ordinal numbers
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)
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 5. The Infinite / a. The Infinite
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.
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 5. The Infinite / j. Infinite divisibility
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.
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.
7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 4. Anti-realism
Anti-realists see the world as imaginary, or lacking joints, or beyond reference, or beyond truth [Lewis]
     Full Idea: Anti-realists say the only world is imaginary, or only has the parts or classes or relations we divide it into, or doubt that reference to the world is possible, or doubt that our interpretations can achieve truth.
     From: David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'Why Anti-R')
     A reaction: [compression of a paragraph on anti-realism] Lewis is a thoroughgoing realist. A nice example of the rhetorical device of ridiculing an opponent by suggesting that they don't even know what they themselves believe.
9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 8. Parts of Objects / b. Sums of parts
A gerrymandered mereological sum can be a mess, but still have natural joints [Lewis]
     Full Idea: The mereological sum of the coffee in my cup, the ink in this sentence, a nearby sparrow, and my left shoe is a miscellaneous mess of an object, yet its boundaries are by no means unrelated to the joints of nature.
     From: David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'What Might')
     A reaction: In that case they do, but if there are no atoms at the root of physics then presumably their could also be thoroughly jointless assemblages, involving probability distributions etc. Even random scattered atoms seem rather short of joints.
14. Science / C. Induction / 6. Bayes's Theorem
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]
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / e. Lawlike explanations
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.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / f. Necessity in explanations
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)
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / m. Explanation by proof
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)
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.
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.
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.
15. Nature of Minds / C. Capacities of Minds / 5. Generalisation by mind
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)
19. Language / B. Reference / 3. Direct Reference / b. Causal reference
Causal theories of reference make errors in reference easy [Lewis]
     Full Idea: Whatever happens in special cases, causal theories usually make it easy to be wrong about the thing we refer to.
     From: David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'What Is')
     A reaction: I suppose the point of this is that there are no checks and balances to keep reference in focus, but just a requirement to keep connected to an increasingly attenuated causal chain.
19. Language / B. Reference / 4. Descriptive Reference / b. Reference by description
Descriptive theories remain part of the theory of reference (with seven mild modifications) [Lewis]
     Full Idea: Description theories of reference are supposed to have been well and truly refuted. I think not: ..it is still tenable with my seven points, and part of the truth of reference [7: rigidity, egocentric, tokens, causal, imperfect, indeterminate, families].
     From: David Lewis (Putnam's Paradox [1984], 'Glob Desc')
     A reaction: (The bit at the end refers to his seven points, on p.59). He calls his basic proposal 'causal descriptivism', incorporating his seven slight modifications of traditional descriptivism about reference.
23. Ethics / C. Virtue Theory / 3. Virtues / a. Virtues
The six perfections are giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom [Nagarjuna]
     Full Idea: The six perfections are of giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom.
     From: Nagarjuna (Mahaprajnaparamitashastra [c.120], 88)
     A reaction: What is 'morality', if giving is not part of it? I like patience and vigour being two of the virtues, which immediately implies an Aristotelian mean (which is always what is 'appropriate').