The traditional understanding of abstraction operates on the basis of the assumption that only entities are subject to thought processes in which particulars are disregarded and commonalities are lifted out (the so-called method of genus proximum and differentia specifica). On this basis Frege criticized the notion of abstraction and convincingly argued that (this kind of) “entitary- directed” abstraction can never provide us with any numbers. However, Frege did not consider the alternative of “property- abstraction.” In this article an argument for (...) this alternative kind of abstraction is formulated by introducing a notion of the “modal universality” of the arithmetical and by developing it in terms of the distinction between type-laws (laws for entities – applicable to a limited class of entities) and modal laws (obtaining for every possible entity without any restriction). In order to substantiate this argument a case is made for the acceptance of an ontic foundation for the arithmetical (and other modes or functions of reality – with special reference to Cassirer, Bernays, Gödel and Wang), which, in the final section, serves to give an ontological account of (i) the connections between the arithmetical and other aspects of reality and (ii) the applicabality of arithmetic. In the course of the argument the impasse of logicism is briefly highlighted, while a few remarks are made with regard to the logical subject- object relation in connection with Frege's view that number attaches to a concept. S. Afr. J. Philos. Vol.22(1) 2003: 63-80. (shrink)

In early analytic philosophy, one of the most central questions concerned the status of arithmetical objects. Frege argued against the popular conception that we arrive at natural numbers with a psychological process of abstraction. Instead, he wanted to show that arithmetical truths can be derived from the truths of logic, thus eliminating all psychological components. Meanwhile, Dedekind and Peano developed axiomatic systems of arithmetic. The differences between the logicist and axiomatic approaches turned out to be philosophical as well as mathematical. (...) In this paper, I will argue that Dedekind’s approach can be seen as a precursor to modern structuralism and as such, it enjoys many advantages over Frege’s logicism. I also show that from a modern perspective, Frege’s criticism of abstraction and psychologism is one-sided and fails against the psychological processes that modern research suggests to be at the heart of numerical cognition. The approach here is twofold. First, through historical analysis, I will try to build a clear image of what Frege’s and Dedekind’s views on arithmetic were. Then, I will consider those views from the perspective of modern philosophy of mathematics, and in particular, the empirical study of arithmetical cognition. I aim to show that there is nothing to suggest that the axiomatic Dedekind approach could not provide a perfectly adequate basis for philosophy of arithmetic. (shrink)

This paper explores the classical idea of complementarity in mathematics concerning the relationship of intuition and axiomatic proof. Section I illustrates the basic concepts of the paper, while Section II presents opposing accounts of intuitionist and axiomatic approaches to mathematics. Section III analyzes one of Einstein's lecture on the topic and Section IV examines an application of the issues in mathematics and science education. Section V discusses the idea of complementarity by examining one of Zeno's paradoxes. This is followed by (...) presenting a few more programmatic suggestions and a brief summary. (shrink)

Traces the development of recursive functions from their origins in the late nineteenth century to the mid-1930s, with particular emphasis on the work and influence of Kurt Gödel.

Let me start with a well-known story. Kant held that logic and conceptual analysis alone cannot account for our knowledge of arithmetic: “however we might turn and twist our concepts, we could never, by the mere analysis of them, and without the aid of intuition, discover what is the sum [7+5]” (KrV, B16). Frege took himself to have shown that Kant was wrong about this. According to Frege’s logicist thesis, every arithmetical concept can be defined in purely logical terms, and (...) every theorem of arithmetic can be proved using only the basic laws of logic. Hence, Kant was wrong to think that our grasp of arithmetical concepts and our knowledge of arithmetical truth depend on an extralogical source—the pure intuition of time (Frege 1884, §89, §109). Arithmetic, properly understood, is just a part of logic. (shrink)

Julius König is famous for his mistaken attempt to demonstrate that the continuum hypothesis was false. It is also known that the only positive result that could have survived from his proof is the paradox which bears his name. Less famous is his 1914 book Neue Grundlagen der Logik, Arithmetik und Mengenlehre. Still, it contains original contributions to logic, like the concept of metatheory and the solution of paradoxes based on the refusal of the law of bivalence. We are going (...) to discover them by analysing the content of the book. (shrink)

This paper has three goals: (i) to show that the foundational program begun in the Begriffsschroft, and carried forward in the Grundlagen, represented Frege's attempt to establish the autonomy of arithmetic from geometry and kinematics; the cogency and coherence of 'intuitive' reasoning were not in question. (ii) To place Frege's logicism in the context of the nineteenth century tradition in mathematical analysis, and, in particular, to show how the modern concept of a function made it possible for Frege to pursue (...) the goal of autonomy within the framework of the system of second-order logic of the Begriffsschrift. (iii) To address certain criticisms of Frege by Parsons and Boolos, and thereby to clarify what was and was not achieved by the development, in Part III of the Begriffsschrift, of a fragment of the theory of relations. (shrink)

Hermann Grassmann's Ausdehnungslehre of 1844 and his Lehrbuch der Arithmetik of 1861 are landmark works in mathematics; the former not only developed new mathematical fields but also both contributed to the setting of modern standards of rigor. Their very modernity, however, may obscure features of Grassmann's view of the foundations of mathematics that were not adopted since. Grassmann gave a key role to the learning of mathematics that affected his method of presentation, including his emphasis on making initial assumptions explicit. (...) In order to better understand this less well-known aspect of his work it will help to examine why some commentators have overlooked his theme of unifying logic, pedagogy and foundations, while others have recognised it. (shrink)

Toisaalta ennennäkemätön äärettömien joukko-opillisten menetelmien hyödyntäminen sekä toisaalta epäilyt niiden hyväksyttävyydestä ja halu oikeuttaa niiden käyttö ovat ratkaisevasti muovanneet vuosisatamme matematiikkaa ja logiikkaa. Tämän kehityksen vaikutus nykyajan filosofiaan on myös ollut valtaisa; merkittävää osaa siitä ei voi edes ymmärtää tuntematta sen yhteyttä tähän matematiikan ja logiikan vallankumoukseen. Lähestymistapoja, jotka tavalla tai toisella hyväksyvät äärettömän matematiikan ja perinteisten logiikan sääntöjen (erityisesti kolmannen poissuljetun lain) soveltamisen myös sen piirissä, on tullut tavaksi kutsua klassiseksi matematiikaksi ja logiikaksi erotuksena nämä hylkäävistä radikaaleista intuitionistisista ja (...) konstruktivistisista opeista. (shrink)

Nykyaikaisen logiikan keskeisenä tutkimuskohteena ovat erilaiset formalisoidut teoriat. Erityisesti vuosisadan vaihteen aikoihin matematiikan perusteiden tutkimuksessa ilmaantuneiden hämmentävien paradoksien (Russell 1902, 1903) jälkeen (ks. kuitenkin jo Frege 1879, Dedekind 1888, Peano 1889; vrt. Wang 1957) keskeiset matemaattiset teoriat on pyritty tällaisten vaikeuksien välttämiseksi uudelleen muotoilemaan täsmällisesti keinotekoisessa symbolikielessä, jonka lauseenmuodostussäännöt on täsmällisesti ja yksikäsitteisesti määrätty. Edelleen teoriat on pyritty aksiomatisoimaan, ts. on pyritty antamaan joukko peruslauseita, joista kaikki muut - tai ainakin mahdollisimman monet - teorian todet lauseet voidaan loogisesti johtaa tarkoin (...) määrättyjen päättelysääntöjen mukaisesti (erityisesti Hilbert 1904, 1918, 1927; ks. myös Russell 1908, Zermelo 1908; vrt. Kleene 1952, §§ 14−15). (shrink)