Naive Philosophical Foundations

Bhupinder Singh Anand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0512381

2005-12-16

Abstract:This soliloquy outlines some naive philosophical arguments underlying the thesis that mathematics ought to be viewed simply as a universal set of languages, some of precise expression, and some of effective communication.

General Mathematics

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Foundations as Superstructure. (Reflections of a practicing mathematician)

Yuri I. Manin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1205.6044

2012-05-28

Abstract:This talk presents foundations of mathematics as a historically variable set of principles appealing to various modes of human intuition and devoid of any prescriptive/prohibitive power. At each turn of history, foundations crystallize the accepted norms of interpersonal and intergenerational transfer and justification of mathematical knowledge.

History and Overview
Challenges to Some Philosophical Claims about Mathematics

Eliahu Levy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1601.07125

2016-01-26

History and Overview

Abstract:In this note some philosophical thoughts and observations about mathematics are expressed, arranged as challenges to some common claims.
On foundations for deductive mathematics

Frank Quinn

2024-06-18

Abstract:This article was motivated by the discovery of a potential new foundation for mainstream mathematics. The goals are to clarify the relationships between primitives, foundations, and deductive practice; to understand how to determine what is, or isn't, a foundation; and get clues as to how a foundation can be optimized for effective human use. For this we turn to history and professional practice of the subject. We have no asperations to Philosophy. The first section gives a short abstract discussion, focusing on the significance of consistency. The next briefly describes foundations, explicit and implicit, at a few key periods in mathematical history. We see, for example, that at the primitive level human intuitions are essential, but can be problematic. We also see that traditional axiomatic set theories, Zermillo-Fraenkel-Choice (ZFC) in particular, are not quite consistent with mainstream practice. The final section sketches the proposed new foundation and gives the basic argument that it is uniquely qualified to be considered {the} foundation of mainstream deductive mathematics. The ``coherent limit axiom'' characterizes the new theory among ZFC-like theories. This axiom plays a role in recursion, but is implicitly assumed in mainstream work so does not provide new leverage there. In principle it should settle set-theory questions such as the continuum hypothesis.

History and Overview,Logic
Mathematical Existence

Penelope Maddy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2178/bsl/1122038992

2005-09-01

Bulletin of Symbolic Logic

Abstract:Despite some discomfort with this grandly philosophical topic, I do in fact hope to address a venerable pair of philosophical chestnuts: mathematical truth and existence. My plan is to set out three possible stands on these issues, for an exercise in compare and contrast. A word of warning, though, to philosophical purists (and perhaps of comfort to more mathematical readers): I will explore these philosophical positions with an eye to their interconnections with some concrete issues of set theoretic method. Let me begin with a brief look at what to count as ‘philosophy’. To some extent, this is a matter of usage, and mathematicians sometimes classify as ‘philosophical’ any considerations other than outright proofs. So, for example, discussions of the propriety of particular mathematical methods would fall under this heading: should we prefer analytic or synthetic approaches in geometry? Should elliptic functions be treated in terms of explicit representations (as in Weierstrass) or geometrically (as in Riemann)? Should we allow impredicative definitions? Should we restrict ourselves to a logic without bivalence or the law of the excluded middle? Also included in this category would be the trains of thought that shaped our central concepts: should a function always be defined by a formula? Should a group be required to have an inverse for every element? Should ideal divisors be defined contextually or explicitly, treated computationally or abstractly? In addition, there are more general questions concerning mathematical values, aims and goals: Should we strive for powerful theories or low-risk theories? How much stress should be placed on the fact or promise of physical applications? How important are interconnections between the various branches of mathematics? These philosophical questions of method naturally include several peculiar to set theory: should set theorists focus their efforts on drawing consequences for areas of interest to mathematicians outside mathematical logic? Should exploration of the standard axioms of ZFC be preferred to the exploration and exploitation of new axioms? How should axioms for set theory be chosen? What would a solution to the Continuum Problem look like?

mathematics,logic
What Mathematical Logic Says about the Foundations of Mathematics

Claudio Bernardi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1602.07551

2016-02-23

History and Overview

Abstract:My purpose is to examine some concepts of mathematical logic, which have been studied by Carlo Cellucci. Today the aim of classical mathematical logic is not to guarantee the certainty of mathematics, but I will argue that logic can help us to explain mathematical activity; the point is to discuss what and in which sense logic can "explain". For example, let's consider the basic concept of an axiomatic system: an axiomatic system can be very useful to organize, to present, and to clarify mathematical knowledge. And, more importantly, logic is a science with its own results: so, axiomatic systems are interesting also because we know several revealing theorems about them. Similarly, I will discuss other topics such as mathematical definitions, and some relationships between mathematical logic and computer science. I will also consider these subjects from an educational point of view: can logical concepts be useful in teaching and learning elementary mathematics?
Why teach an introductory course in Mathematical Logic in the Philosophy curriculum?

Carlos Oller,Ana Couló

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1507.03679

2015-07-14

Abstract:This paper tries to justify the relevance of an introductory course in Mathematical Logic in the Philosophy curriculum for analyzing philosophical arguments in natural language. It is argued that the representation of the structure of natural language arguments in Freeman's diagramming system can provide an intuitive foundation for the inferential processes involved in the use of First Order Logic natural deduction rules.

Computers and Society,Logic in Computer Science
On mathematics and knowledge

Daniel Canarutto

2023-10-20

Abstract:A sketch of some of the fundamental notions related to the nature of knowledge is offered, with special focus on the role of mathematics and my own opinions. No single idea exposed here is entirely original; indeed, this topic has been explored by legions of philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists throughout history -- I listed a few related books among the references. I look forward to observations and criticisms that may serve to improve this exposition.

History and Overview,Mathematical Physics,History and Philosophy of Physics
A Renunciation of Axiom, A New Conception of Logic

Eitan Wander

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.12587

2023-11-21

Abstract:Mathematicians invented Mathematics to escape from words, but at last they depend on them just as much as everybody else. At the end, all basic definitions will be reliant on words, yet the mathematician believes that he's elevated from them by use of axioms, only that just postpones the problem and later becomes more serious Gödelian problems due to the countability of the axiomatic array. I think we should do our best to rid ourselves of axioms, and in this paper, I revisit what's called "Naïve Set Theory", which is set theory that is fully reliant on verbal definitions, and resolve the problems that were once found with it in the form of paradoxes, most notably, Russell's Paradox. I believe that by this, a new approach to mathematics as a whole is presented, an approach that refers to mathematics as the science of definitions. The question "how do you define definition?" will not be a part of Mathematics but of Metamathematics and to it many of the problems known about Naïve Set Theory will be funneled. A thorough yet concise treatment of the matter will be given in this paper.

Logic
One Mathematic(s) or Many? Foundations of Mathematics in Today's Mathematical Practice

Andrei Rodin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19071-2_28-1

2023-01-19

Abstract:The received Hilbert-style axiomatic foundations of mathematics has been designed by Hilbert and his followers as a tool for meta-theoretical research. Foundations of mathematics of this type fail to satisfactory perform more basic and more practically-oriented functions of theoretical foundations such as verification of mathematical constructions and proofs. Using alternative foundations of mathematics such as the Univalent Foundations is compatible with using the received set-theoretic foundations for meta-mathematical purposes provided the two foundations are mutually interpretable. Changes in foundations of mathematics do not, generally, disqualify mathematical theories based on older foundations but allow for reconstruction of these theories on new foundations. Mathematics is one but its foundations are many.

History and Overview
Applied Philosophy in Mathematics

Yuri Kondratiev

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.11780

2020-06-21

General Mathematics

Abstract:We show a possibility to apply certain philosophical concepts to the analysis of concrete mathematical structures. Such application gives a clear justification of topological and geometric properties of considered mathematical objects.
Nobody needs equations

Adonai Schlup Sant'Anna

2024-10-26

Abstract:Equations are ubiquitous in most mathematical activities. Nevertheless, in this paper it is shown how to do standard mathematics without any equation at all. More than that, it is proven there is a foundational framework for standard mathematics where equations cannot be even written, in the sense they are not formulas. The proof of those claims is very simple, almost obvious. I use this framework to suggest a way to deal with certain notions of indiscernibility between `objects', with special emphasis on some aspects of quantum mechanics. Finally I compare this approach to quasi-set theory, an unnecessarily complicated formal work designed to deal with violation of Leibniz Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles.

Logic
Is there a duality in the classical acceptance of non-constructive, foundational, concepts as axiomatic?

Bhupinder Singh Anand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0304308

2003-05-17

Abstract:We consider a philosophical question that is implicit in Selmer Bringsjord's paper, "The narrational case against Church's Thesis": If, as Mendelson argues, the classically accepted definitions of foundational concepts such as "partial recursive function", "function", "(Tarskian) truth", "set" etc. are vague and imprecise - hence possibly non-constructive and intuitionistically objectionable - then replacing one non-constructive concept by another may be psychologically unappealing, but it should be meta-mathematically valid and acceptable.

General Mathematics
The Importance of Developing a Foundation for Naive Category Theory

Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tht3.183

2015-09-29

Abstract:Recently Feferman (Rev. Symb. Logic 6: 6-15, 2013) has outlined a program for the development of a foundation for naive category theory. While Ernst (ibid. 8: 306-327, 2015) has shown that the resulting axiomatic system is still inconsistent, the purpose of this note is to show that nevertheless some foundation has to be developed before naive category theory can replace axiomatic set theory as a foundational theory for mathematics. It is argued that in naive category theory currently a 'cookbook recipe' is used for constructing categories, and it is explicitly shown with a formalized argument that this 'foundationless' naive category theory therefore contains a paradox similar to the Russell paradox of naive set theory.

General Mathematics
Is mathematics a game?

Klaas Landsman,Kirti Singh

2023-11-21

Abstract:We re-examine the old question to what extent mathematics may be compared to a game. Under the spell of Wittgenstein, we propose that the more refined object of comparison is a "motley of language games", the nature of which was (implicitly) clarified by Hilbert: via different language games, axiomatization lies at the basis of both the rigour and the applicability of mathematics. In the "formalist" game, mathematics resembles chess via a clear conceptual dictionary. Accepting this resemblance: like positions in chess, mathematical sentences cannot be true or false; true statements in mathematics are about sentences, namely that they are theorems (if they are). In principle, the certainty of mathematics resides in proofs, but to this end, in practice these must be "surveyable". Hilbert and Wittgenstein proposed almost oppositie criteria for surveyability; we try to overcome their difference by invoking computer-verified proofs. The "applied"' language game is based on Hilbert's axiomatization program for physics (and other scientific disciplines), refined by Wittgenstein's idea that theorems are yardsticks to which empirical phenomena may be compared, and further improved by invoking elements of van Fraassen's constructive empiricism. From this perspective, in an appendix we also briefly review the varying roles and structures of axioms, definitions, and proofs in mathematics. Our view is not meant as a philosophy of mathematics by itself, but as a coat rack analogous to category theory, onto which various (traditional and new) philosophies of mathematics (such as formalism, intuitionism, structuralism, deductivism, and the philosophy of mathematical practice) may be attached and may even peacefully support each other.

History and Overview,Mathematical Physics
Abstraction Logic: A New Foundation for (Computer) Mathematics

Steven Obua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.05610

2022-07-12

Logic in Computer Science

Abstract:Abstraction logic is a new logic, serving as a foundation of mathematics. It combines features of both predicate logic and higher-order logic: abstraction logic can be viewed both as higher-order logic minus static types as well as predicate logic plus operators and variable binding. We argue that abstraction logic is the best foundational logic possible because it maximises both simplicity and practical expressivity. This argument is supported by the observation that abstraction logic has simpler terms and a simpler notion of proof than all other general logics. At the same time, abstraction logic can formalise both intuitionistic and classical abstraction logic, and is sound and complete for these logics and all other logics extending deduction logic with equality.
The ultimate tactics of self-referential systems

Christine Cordula Dantas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27495-9_17

2015-06-16

Abstract:Mathematics is usually regarded as a kind of language. The essential behavior of physical phenomena can be expressed by mathematical laws, providing descriptions and predictions. In the present essay I argue that, although mathematics can be seen, in a first approach, as a language, it goes beyond this concept. I conjecture that mathematics presents two extreme features, denoted here by {\sl irreducibility} and {\sl insaturation}, representing delimiters for self-referentiality. These features are then related to physical laws by realizing that nature is a self-referential system obeying bounds similar to those respected by mathematics. Self-referential systems can only be autonomous entities by a kind of metabolism that provides and sustains such an autonomy. A rational mind, able of consciousness, is a manifestation of the self-referentiality of the Universe. Hence mathematics is here proposed to go beyond language by actually representing the most fundamental existence condition for self-referentiality. This idea is synthesized in the form of a principle, namely, that {\sl mathematics is the ultimate tactics of self-referential systems to mimic themselves}. That is, well beyond an effective language to express the physical world, mathematics uncovers a deep manifestation of the autonomous nature of the Universe, wherein the human brain is but an instance.

History and Philosophy of Physics
Teaching mathematics with a different philosophy. Part 1: Formal mathematics as biased metaphysics

C. K. Raju

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1312.2099

2013-12-07

History and Overview

Abstract:We report on a pedagogical experiment to make mathematics easy by changing its philosophy. The Western philosophy of math originated in religious beliefs about mathesis, cursed by the church. Later, mathematics was "reinterpreted", in a theologically-correct way, using the myth of "Euclid" and his deductive proofs. The fact of the empirical proofs in the Elements, was, however, contrary to this myth. The discrepancy was resolved by Hilbert and Russell who rejected empirical proofs as unsound, reducing all mathematics to metaphysics. We explain why that formalist metaphysics is anti-utilitarian and culturally biased, not universal. Historically, most school-level math originated in the non-West with a practical epistemology, but was absorbed in the West after superimposing on it an incompatible Western metaphysics, still used to teach it. This has made mathematics needlessly complex. Accordingly, math can be made easy and more universal by reverting to a more practical epistemology.
Plato and the foundations of mathematics

Sam Sanders

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1908.05676

2020-08-13

Abstract:Plato is well-known in mathematics for the eponymous foundational philosophy Platonism based on ideal objects. Plato's allegory of the cave provides a powerful visual illustration of the idea that we only have access to shadows or reflections of these ideal objects. An inquisitive mind might then wonder what the current foundations of mathematics, like e.g. Reverse Mathematics and the associated Goedel hierarchy, are reflections of. In this paper, we identify a hierarchy in higher-order arithmetic that maps to the Big Five of Reverse Mathematics under the canonical embedding of higher-order into second-order arithmetic. Conceptually pleasing, the latter mapping replaces uncountable objects by countable 'codes', i.e. the very practise of formalising mathematics in second-order arithmetic. This higher-order hierarchy can be defined in Hilbert-Bernays' Grundlagen, the spiritual ancestor of second-order arithmetic, while the associated embedding preserves equivalences. Also, in contrast to Kohlenbach's hierarchy based on discontinuity, our hierarchy can be formulated in terms of (classically valid) continuity axioms from Brouwer's intuitionistic mathematics. Moreover, the higher-order counterpart of sequences is provided by nets, aka Moore-Smith sequences, while the gauge integral is the correct generalisation of the Riemann integral. For all these reasons, we baptise our higher-order hierarchy the Plato hierarchy.

Logic
Naive Descriptive Set Theory

Matthew Foreman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.08881

2021-10-18

Abstract:The paper is a naive introduction to descriptive set theory. It is aimed mathematicians without a background in logic. The goal is to provide the basic facts used for applications of descriptive set theory to other areas of mathematics, particularly analysis and dynamical systems. The only topological or set theoretic background required is covered in undergraduate courses. It covers the hierarchy of Borel sets and the analytic sets, trees, Suslin's operation A, reductions, norms, separation theorems and uniformization.

Logic
Naïve validity

Julien Murzi,Lorenzo Rossi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1541-6

IF: 1.595

Synthese

Abstract:Beall and Murzi (J Philos 110(3):143-165, 2013) introduce an object-linguistic predicate for naïve validity, governed by intuitive principles that are inconsistent with the classical structural rules (over sufficiently expressive base theories). As a consequence, they suggest that revisionary approaches to semantic paradox must be substructural. In response to Beall and Murzi, Field (Notre Dame J Form Log 58(1):1-19, 2017) has argued that naïve validity principles do not admit of a coherent reading and that, for this reason, a non-classical solution to the semantic paradoxes need not be substructural. The aim of this paper is to respond to Field's objections and to point to a coherent notion of validity which underwrites a coherent reading of Beall and Murzi's principles: grounded validity. The notion, first introduced by Nicolai and Rossi (J Philos Log. doi:10.1007/s10992-017-9438-x, 2017), is a generalisation of Kripke's notion of grounded truth (J Philos 72:690-716, 1975), and yields an irreflexive logic. While we do not advocate the adoption of a substructural logic (nor, more generally, of a revisionary approach to semantic paradox), we take the notion of naïve validity to be a legitimate semantic notion that points to genuine expressive limitations of fully structural revisionary approaches.

Naive Philosophical Foundations

Foundations as Superstructure. (Reflections of a practicing mathematician)

Challenges to Some Philosophical Claims about Mathematics

On foundations for deductive mathematics

Mathematical Existence

What Mathematical Logic Says about the Foundations of Mathematics

Why teach an introductory course in Mathematical Logic in the Philosophy curriculum?

On mathematics and knowledge

A Renunciation of Axiom, A New Conception of Logic

One Mathematic(s) or Many? Foundations of Mathematics in Today's Mathematical Practice

Applied Philosophy in Mathematics

Nobody needs equations

Is there a duality in the classical acceptance of non-constructive, foundational, concepts as axiomatic?

The Importance of Developing a Foundation for Naive Category Theory

Is mathematics a game?

Abstraction Logic: A New Foundation for (Computer) Mathematics

The ultimate tactics of self-referential systems

Teaching mathematics with a different philosophy. Part 1: Formal mathematics as biased metaphysics

Plato and the foundations of mathematics

Naive Descriptive Set Theory

Naïve validity