In this paper, we discuss the prevailing view amongst philosophers and many mathematicians concerning mathematical proof. Following Cellucci, we call the prevailing view the “axiomatic conception” of proof. The conception includes the ideas that: a proof is finite, it proceeds from axioms and it is the final word on the matter of the conclusion. This received view can be traced back to Frege, Hilbert and Gentzen, amongst others, and is prevalent in both mathematical text books and logic text books.

This paper consists of three main sections. In the first section, we consider how early attempts at understanding the relationship between mathematics and philosophy in Leibniz’s thought were often made within the framework of grand reconstructions guided by intellectual trends such as the search for “the ideal of system”. In the second section, we proceed to recount Leibniz’s first encounter with contemporary mathematics during his four years of study in Paris presenting some of the earliest mathematical successes which he made (...) there. In particular, we argue that recently published letters and papers reveal how his youthful mathematical reflexions were deeply intertwined with important philosophical insights that, in turn, acted as guiding ideas for his mathematical research. Finally, in the third section, we situate the central themes of the essays of the present volume within the new understanding of the interrelations between philosophy and mathematics in Leibniz’s thought briefly indicated in the opening section. (shrink)

This paper revisits some of Chateaubriand’s critical considerations with regard to representing our reasoning practices in logic and mathematics by means of “idealized syntax”. I focus on the persistently critical side of these considerations which aim to prepare the ground for “an interesting epistemology of logic and mathematics” that ought to make room for understanding the pragmatic dimensions of proofs as explanatory rational displays. First, I discuss the 20th century “syntactic conception” of the logical and the underlying set of values (...) it upholds. Secondly, I revisit the syntactic constraints on systematizing our formal forms of reasoning and ask about the relationship between “idealized” proofs construed as “syntactic objects” and the variety of formal forms of reasoning with its uses of the logical by the research mathematician. Finally, I consider the reasons why Chateaubriand thinks the syntactic requirements of “logical rigor” cannot be fulfilled, and why they ought not to be on the agenda. I conclude my paper by pointing to a deeper assumption which needs to be critically revisited as it stands in the way to what the author envisages as an “interesting epistemology of logic and mathematics”.O presente artigo reconsidera algumas das considerações críticas de Chateaubriand com relação a representar nossa prática de raciocínios em lógica e matemática por meio de uma “sintaxe idealizada”. Concentro-me no aspecto invariavelmente crítico dessas considerações, que têm por objetivo preparar o terreno para “uma epistemologia interessante da lógica e da matemática”, a qual deve abrir caminho para a compreensão da dimensão pragmática de provas como exibição racional explicativa. Em primeiro lugar, discuto a “concepção sintática” da noção de lógica do século XX e o conjunto de valores que ela sustenta. Em segundo lugar, eu reconsidero as restrições sintáticas impostas à sistematização de nossos raciocínios formais e pergunto sobre a relação entre provas “idealizadas” construídas como “objetos sintáticos” e a variedade de modos formais de raciocínios com os seus usos do lógico pelos pesquisadores em matemática. Por fim, eu considero as razões pelas quais Chateaubriand pensa que os requisitos sintáticos do “rigor lógico” não podem ser satisfeitos, e por que eles não deveriam ser parte da agenda. Concluo meu artigo apontando uma assunção mais profunda que precisa ser reconsiderada criticamente uma vez que ela representa um obstáculo àquilo que o autor vislumbra como uma “epistemologia interessante da lógica e da matemática”. (shrink)