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. |
| 11211 | If a sound conclusion comes from two errors that cancel out, the path of the argument must matter [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: If a designated conclusion follows from the premisses, but the argument involves two howlers which cancel each other out, then the moral is that the path an argument takes from premisses to conclusion does matter to its logical evaluation. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], II) | |
| A reaction: The drift of this is that our view of logic should be a little closer to the reasoning of ordinary language, and we should rely a little less on purely formal accounts. |
| 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. |
| 11212 | The sense of a connective comes from primitively obvious rules of inference [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: A connective will possess the sense that it has by virtue of its competent users' finding certain rules of inference involving it to be primitively obvious. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], III) | |
| A reaction: Rumfitt cites Peacocke as endorsing this view, which characterises the logical connectives by their rules of usage rather than by their pure semantic value. |
| 11210 | Standardly 'and' and 'but' are held to have the same sense by having the same truth table [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: If 'and' and 'but' really are alike in sense, in what might that likeness consist? Some philosophers of classical logic will reply that they share a sense by virtue of sharing a truth table. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000]) | |
| A reaction: This is the standard view which Rumfitt sets out to challenge. |
| 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. |
| 3644 | Two things being joined together doesn't prove they are the same [Descartes] |
| Full Idea: The fact that we often see two things joined together does not license the inference that they are one and the same. | |
| From: René Descartes (Reply to Sixth Objections [1641], 444) | |
| A reaction: Correct. The problem comes when they are never ever apart, and you begin to suspect that they are conjoined in all possible worlds. Why might this be so? It can only be identity or a causal link. |
| 3621 | Only judgement decides which of our senses are reliable [Descartes] |
| Full Idea: Sense alone does not suffice to correct visual error: we also need a degree of reason to tell us that we should believe the judgement based on touch rather than vision. Since we don't have this power in infancy, it must be attributed to the intellect. | |
| From: René Descartes (Reply to Sixth Objections [1641], 439) |
| 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) |
| 11214 | We learn 'not' along with affirmation, by learning to either affirm or deny a sentence [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: The standard view is that affirming not-A is more complex than affirming the atomic sentence A itself, with the latter determining its sense. But we could learn 'not' directly, by learning at once how to either affirm A or reject A. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], IV) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] This seems fairly anti-Fregean in spirit, because it looks at the psychology of how we learn 'not' as a way of clarifying what we mean by it, rather than just looking at its logical behaviour (and thus giving it a secondary role). |
| 3637 | Ideas in God's mind only have value if he makes it so [Descartes] |
| Full Idea: It is impossible to imagine that anything is thought of in the divine intellect as good or true, or worthy of belief or action or omission, prior to the decision of the divine will to make it so. | |
| From: René Descartes (Reply to Sixth Objections [1641], 432) |