Questions tagged [philosophy]
Questions involving philosophy of mathematics. Please consider if Philosophy Stack Exchange is a better site to post your question.
1,100
questions
9
votes
4
answers
881
views
Proof by Contradiction: "Bad Form" or "Finest Weapon"? Reconciling Perspectives [duplicate]
G.H. Hardy famously described proof by contradiction as "one of a mathematician's finest weapons." However, I've encountered claims that some schools of thought consider proof by ...
2
votes
1
answer
80
views
Confused about abstract models for axiomatic systems
I am studying axiomatic systems and I have a hard time understanding how one is supposed to come up with an "abstract" model for an axiomatic system.
I will use the following example taken ...
- 256
0
votes
0
answers
74
views
statements that can be accepted by finitists.
"On the finitist view, the formula $\exists n P(n)$ is meaningful only when it is used as a statement specifying how to calculate an $n$ for which $P(n)$ is true".
It is mentioned as above ...
0
votes
1
answer
224
views
Why do we use real numbers for (for example) masses in physics and how do we verify product axioms? [closed]
I have studied the definition of real numbers as V.A.Zorich explains it in his first book Mathematical Analysis I. Basically, he says that any set of objects that respects a certain list of properties ...
- 67
0
votes
0
answers
99
views
Why Does This Proof Hold?
I'm currently reading "Mathematics Without Numbers" by Hellman, G., and I'm on pages 26-27. It seems like Hellman is discussing opposition to viewing mathematical proofs solely through the ...
- 37
8
votes
3
answers
868
views
"Are there any simple groups that appear as zeros of the zeta function?" by Peter Freyd; why is this consternating to mathematicians?
I would like to understand the "upsetting"-to-mathematicians nature of this question Freyd poses to demonstrate that "any language sufficiently rich that to be defined necessarily ...
- 231
1
vote
1
answer
125
views
Why do we need a metatheory if we can include self-referencing language in the object theory?
I am wondering why we need to have a metatheory in order to talk about a theory- why can't we just add self-referencing terms to the language of the formal system on which the theory itself is based, ...
- 2,979
3
votes
2
answers
109
views
What is the formal system when we are using many different sets of axioms?
I am just starting to learn about formal systems, and have learnt that the many axiom systems in Mathematics, such as those of plane geometry, Peano's axioms, vector axioms, etc. can each be used to ...
- 2,979
2
votes
1
answer
130
views
Definite description in homotopy type theory
I asked this question there and I have been suggested to ask it here.
In a paper by David Corfield, we have an account of definite description in homotopy type theory. The author gives the following ...
- 308
1
vote
0
answers
119
views
Are quasi-sets (and therefore Schrödinger logic(s)) studied by mathematicians or are they purely in the domain of philosophers?
Context:
I'm a fan of different kinds of logic. I'm conflicted about whether different logics actually exist beyond, say, a philosophical oddity.
The Question:
Are quasi-sets (and therefore ...
- 45.7k
3
votes
2
answers
123
views
Creating larger structures from smaller ones without an explicit construction
I'm asking this question as a replacement for my previous one, which I admit isn't clear, and which I am voting to close. Hopefully I'll be clearer now.
Admittedly, I'm not sure if this question ...
- 585
2
votes
2
answers
160
views
Is everything an object in Math, just like in Objected-Oriented Programming? (Tao's Analysis I)
I am reading Tao's Analysis I, and there are a number of passages which seem to suggest an object-oriented point of view of mathematics reminiscent of the object-oriented programming with which I, as ...
- 2,979
-1
votes
0
answers
86
views
How do you prove the theorems in Gödel's ontological proof?
I will be referencing the proof that can be found here: Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia
In Gödel's ontological proof there are axioms and definitions, which of course do not need to be proven; ...
- 628
-2
votes
2
answers
152
views
Why is addition not completely defined here?
Say for the natural numbers, we define addition this way:
$0 + 0 = 0$, and if $n+m = x$, then $S(n) + m = n+S(m) = S(x) $
Say we have the regular Peano axioms, except we delete the axiom of ...
- 2,979
3
votes
1
answer
134
views
Which forcing technique implies "every set is countable from some perspective"? Which notion of "the same set" is used between models?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-skolem/ contains this claim:
Further, the multiverse conception leads naturally to the kinds of conclusions traditional Skolemites tended to favor. Let $a$ ...
