In the article, an argument is given that Euclidean geometry is a priori in the same way that numbers are a priori, the result of modelling, not the world, but our activities in the world.

In this article I develop an elementary system of axioms for Euclidean geometry. On one hand, the system is based on the symmetry principles which express our a priori ignorant approach to space: all places are the same to us, all directions are the same to us and all units of length we use to create geometric figures are the same to us. On the other hand, through the process of algebraic simplification, this system of axioms directly provides (...) the Weyl’s system of axioms for Euclidean geometry. The system of axioms, together with its a priori interpretation, offers new views to philosophy and pedagogy of mathematics: it supports the thesis that Euclidean geometry is a priori, it supports the thesis that in modern mathematics the Weyl’s system of axioms is dominant to the Euclid’s system because it reflects the a priori underlying symmetries, it gives a new and promising approach to learn geometry which, through the Weyl’s system of axioms, leads from the essential geometric symmetry principles of the mathematical nature directly to modern mathematics. (shrink)

For over half a century I have been interested in the role of intuitive spatial reasoning in mathematics. My Oxford DPhil Thesis (1962) was an attempt to defend Kant's philosophy of mathematics, especially his claim that mathematical proofs extend our knowledge (so the knowledge is "synthetic", not "analytic") and that the discoveries are not empirical, or contingent, but are in an important sense "a priori" (which does not imply "innate") and also necessarily true. -/- I had made my views clear (...) in courses on philosophy of science and mathematics when teaching at Sussex University (from 1964) which was why one of our former students, Mary Pardoe (then Mary Ensor) who had become a mathematics teacher informed me, while visiting the university, that she had found a new diagrammatic proof of the triangle sum theorem. I reported her proof in some papers and presentations on methods of representation and reasoning, e.g. here, but neither she nor I has encountered anyone else who knew about the proof. (shrink)

Kant argued that Euclidean geometry is synthesized on the basis of an a priori intuition of space. This proposal inspired much behavioral research probing whether spatial navigation in humans and animals conforms to the predictions of Euclidean geometry. However, Euclidean geometry also includes concepts that transcend the perceptible, such as objects that are infinitely small or infinitely large, or statements of necessity and impossibility. We tested the hypothesis that certain aspects of nonperceptible Euclidian (...) class='Hi'>geometry map onto intuitions of space that are present in all humans, even in the absence of formal mathematical education. Our tests probed intuitions of points, lines, and surfaces in participants from an indigene group in the Amazon, the Mundurucu, as well as adults and age-matched children controls from the United States and France and younger US children without education in geometry. The responses of Mundurucu adults and children converged with that of mathematically educated adults and children and revealed an intuitive understanding of essential properties of Euclidean geometry. For instance, on a surface described to them as perfectly planar, the Mundurucu's estimations of the internal angles of triangles added up to ∼180 degrees, and when asked explicitly, they stated that there exists one single parallel line to any given line through a given point. These intuitions were also partially in place in the group of younger US participants. We conclude that, during childhood, humans develop geometrical intuitions that spontaneously accord with the principles of Euclidean geometry, even in the absence of training in mathematics. (shrink)

Geometry defines entities that can be physically realized in space, and our knowledge of abstract geometry may therefore stem from our representations of the physical world. Here, we focus on Euclidean geometry, the geometry historically regarded as “natural”. We examine whether humans possess representations describing visual forms in the same way as Euclidean geometry – i.e., in terms of their shape and size. One hundred and twelve participants from the U.S. (age 3–34 years), (...) and 25 participants from the Amazon (age 5–67 years) were asked to locate geometric deviants in panels of 6 forms of variable orientation. Participants of all ages and from both cultures detected deviant forms defined in terms of shape or size, while only U.S. adults drew distinctions between mirror images (i.e. forms differing in “sense”). Moreover, irrelevant variations of sense did not disrupt the detection of a shape or size deviant, while irrelevant variations of shape or size did. At all ages and in both cultures, participants thus retained the same properties as Euclidean geometry in their analysis of visual forms, even in the absence of formal instruction in geometry. These findings show that representations of planar visual forms provide core intuitions on which humans’ knowledge in Euclidean geometry could possibly be grounded. (shrink)

Klein’s Erlangen program contains the postulate to study thegroup of automorphisms instead of a structure itself. This postulate, takenliterally, sometimes means a substantial loss of information. For example, thegroup of automorphisms of the field of rational numbers is trivial. Howeverin the case of Euclidean plane geometry the situation is different. We shallprove that the plane Euclidean geometry is mutually interpretable with theelementary theory of the group of authomorphisms of its standard model.Thus both theories differ practically in (...) the language only. (shrink)

Twentieth-century developments in logic and mathematics have led many people to view Euclid’s proofs as inherently informal, especially due to the use of diagrams in proofs. In _Euclid and His Twentieth-Century Rivals_, Nathaniel Miller discusses the history of diagrams in Euclidean Geometry, develops a formal system for working with them, and concludes that they can indeed be used rigorously. Miller also introduces a diagrammatic computer proof system, based on this formal system. This volume will be of interest to (...) mathematicians, computer scientists, and anyone interested in the use of diagrams in geometry. (shrink)

Context: the position of pure and applied mathematics in the epistemic conflict between realism and relativism. Problem: To investigate the change in the status of mathematical knowledge over historical time: specifically, the shift from a realist epistemology to a relativist epistemology. Method: Two examples are discussed: geometry and number theory. It is demonstrated how the initially realist epistemic framework – with mathematics situated in a platonic ideal reality from where it governs our physical world – became untenable, with the (...) advent of non-Euclidean geometry and the increasing abstraction of the number concept. Results: Radical constructivism offers an alternative relativist epistemology, where mathematical knowledge is constructed by the individual knower in a context of an axiomatic base and subject items chosen at her discretion, for the purpose of modelling some part of her personal experiential world. Thus it can be expedient to view the practice of mathematics as a game, played by mathematicians according to agreed-upon rules. Constructivist content: The role played by constructivism in the formulation of mathematics is discussed. This is illustrated by the historical transition from a classical (platonic) view of mathematics, as having an objective existence of its own in the “realm of ideal forms,” to the now widely accepted modern view where one has a wide freedom to construct mathematical theories to model various parts of one’s experiential world. (shrink)

It is commonplace to view the rigor of the mathematics in Euclid's Elements in the way an experienced teacher views the work of an earnest beginner: respectable relative to an early stage of development, but ultimately flawed. Given the close connection in content between Euclid's Elements and high-school geometry classes, this is understandable. Euclid, it seems, never realized what everyone who moves beyond elementary geometry into more advanced mathematics is now customarily taught: a fully rigorous proof cannot rely (...) on geometric intuition. In his arguments he seems to call illicitly upon our understanding of how objects like triangles and circles behave rather than grounding everything rigorously in axioms.Though widespread, the attitude is in a historical sense puzzling. For over two millenia, mathematicians of all levels studied the arguments in Elements and found nothing substantial missing. The book, on the contrary, represented the limit of mathematical explicitness. It served as the paradigm for careful and exact reasoning. How it could enjoy this reputation for so long is mysterious if careful and exact reasoning demands that all inferences be grounded in a modern axiomatic theory in the way Hilbert did in his famous Foundations of Geometry. By these standards, Euclid's work is deeply flawed. The holes in his arguments are not minor and excusable, but massive and cryptic.With his book Euclid and His Twentieth Century Rivals, Nathaniel Miller makes substantial progress in clearing this mystery up. The book is an explication of FG , a formal system of proof developed by Miller which reconstructs Euclid's deductions as essentially diagrammatic. The holes in Euclid's arguments are taken to appear precisely at those steps which are unintelligible without an accompanying geometric diagram. Interpreting the reasoning in the Elements in terms of a modern axiomatization , …. (shrink)

Following a previous article published in Biological Theory, in this study we present a mathematical theory for a science of qualities as directly perceived by living organisms, and based on morphological patterns. We address a range of qualitative phenomena as observables of a psychological system seen as an impredicative system. The starting point of our study is the notion that perceptual phenomena are projections of underlying invariants, objects that remain unchanged when transformations of a certain class under consideration are applied. (...) The study develops with the observables, the entailed total order and metric, whence the algebra and the geometry of such a science, presenting a formal phenomenological model for phenomena that are not rigidly Euclidean. We show how non-Euclidean perception can have many useful Euclidean formalizations, as well as locally-homeomorphic-to-Euclidean-space models. The mathematical models we provide are tested on the basis of results from experimental psychology, in particular from the field of color, time, and space perception. (shrink)

It has been argued that Hume's denial of infinite divisibility entails the falsity of most of the familiar theorems of Euclidean geometry, including the Pythagorean theorem and the bisection theorem. I argue that Hume's thesis that there are indivisibles is not incompatible with the Pythagorean theorem and other central theorems of Euclidean geometry, but only with those theorems that deal with matters of minuteness. The key to understanding Hume's view of geometry is the distinction he (...) draws between a precise and an imprecise standard of equality in extension. Hume's project is different from the attempt made by Berkeley in some of his later writings to save Euclidean geometry. Unlike Berkeley, who interprets the theorems of Euclidean geometry as false albeit useful approximations of geometrical facts, Hume is able to save most of the central theorems as true. (shrink)

The reception of Poincaré’s conventionalist doctrine of space by mathematicians is studied for the period 1891–1911. The opposing view of Riemann and Helmholtz, according to which the geometry of space is an empirical question, is shown to have swayed several geometers. This preference is considered in the context of changing views of the nature of space in theoretical physics, and with respect to structural and social changes within mathematics. Included in the latter evolution is the emergence of non-Euclidean (...) geometry as a new sub-discipline. (shrink)

Gyrogroup theory and its applications is introduced and explored, exposing the fascinating interplay between Thomas precession of special relativity theory and hyperbolic geometry. The abstract Thomas precession, called Thomas gyration, gives rise to grouplike objects called gyrogroups [A, A. Ungar, Am. J. Phys.59, 824 (1991)] the underlying axions of which are presented. The prefix gyro extensively used in terms like gyrogroups, gyroassociative and gyrocommutative laws, gyroautomorphisms, and gyrosemidirect products, stems from their underlying abstract Thomas gyration. Thomas gyration is tailor (...) made for hyperbolic geometry. In a similar way that commutative groups underlie vector spaces, gyrocommutative gyrogroups underlie gyrovector spaces. Gyrovector spaces, in turn, provide a most natural setting for hyperbolic geometry in full analogy with vector spaces that provide the setting for Euclidean geometry. As such, their applicability to relativistic physics and its spacetime geometry is obvious. (shrink)

The mathematical developments of the 19th century seemed to undermine Kant’s philosophy. Non-Euclidean geometries challenged Kant’s view that there is a spatial intuition rich enough to yield the truth of Euclidean geometry. Similarly, advancements in algebra challenged the view that temporal intuition provides a foundation for both it and arithmetic. Mathematics seemed increasingly detached from experience as well as its form; moreover, with advances in symbolic logic, mathematical inference also seemed independent of intuition. This paper considers various (...) philosophical responses to these changes, focusing on the idea of modifying Kant’s conception of intuition in order to accommodate the increasing abstractness of mathematics. It is argued that far from clinging to an outdated paradigm, programs based on new conceptions of intuition should be seen as motivated by important philosophical desiderata, such as the truth, apriority, distinctiveness and autonomy of mathematics. (shrink)

In this paper, we review the history of quasicrystals from their sensational discovery in 1982, initially “forbidden” by the rules of classical crystallography, to 2011 when Dan Shechtman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. We then discuss the discovery of quasicrystals in philosophical terms of anomalies behavior that led to a paradigm shift as offered by philosopher and historian of science Thomas Kuhn in ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’. This discovery, which found expression in the redefinition of the concept (...) crystal from being periodically arranged to producing sharp peaks in the Bragg diffraction pattern, is analyzed according to the Kuhn Cycle. We relate the quasicrystal revolution to the non-Euclidean geometry revolution and argues that since “great minds think alike” there is a diffusion of ideas between scientific revolutions, or a resonance between different disciplines at different times. The story behind quasicrystals is an excellent example of a paradigm shift, demonstrating the nature of scientific discoveries and breakthroughs. (shrink)

Independently of any eighteenth century work on the geometry of parallels, Thomas Reid discovered the non-euclidean "geometry of visibles" in 1764. Reid's construction uses an idealized eye, incapable of making distance discriminations, to specify operationally a two dimensional visible space and a set of objects, the visibles. Reid offers sample theorems for his doubly elliptical geometry and proposes a natural model, the surface of the sphere. His construction draws on eighteenth century theory of vision for some (...) of its technical features and is motivated by Reid's desire to defend realism against Berkeley's idealist treatment of visual space. (shrink)

This paper assumes the success of arguments against the view that informal mathematical proofs secure rational conviction in virtue of their relations with corresponding formal derivations. This assumption entails a need for an alternative account of the logic of informal mathematical proofs. Following examination of case studies by Manders, De Toffoli and Giardino, Leitgeb, Feferman and others, this paper proposes a framework for analysing those informal proofs that appeal to the perception or modification of diagrams or to the inspection or (...) imaginative manipulation of mental models of mathematical phenomena. Proofs relying on diagrams can be rigorous if it is easy to draw a diagram that shares or otherwise indicates the structure of the mathematical object, the information thus displayed is not metrical and it is possible to put the inferences into systematic mathematical relation with other mathematical inferential practices. Proofs that appeal to mental models can be rigorous if the mental models can be externalised as diagrammatic practice that satisfies these three conditions. (shrink)

This paper assumes the success of arguments against the view that informal mathematical proofs secure rational conviction in virtue of their relations with corresponding formal derivations. This assumption entails a need for an alternative account of the logic of informal mathematical proofs. Following examination of case studies by Manders, De Toffoli and Giardino, Leitgeb, Feferman and others, this paper proposes a framework for analysing those informal proofs that appeal to the perception or modification of diagrams or to the inspection or (...) imaginative manipulation of mental models of mathematical phenomena. Proofs relying on diagrams can be rigorous if it is easy to draw a diagram that shares or otherwise indicates the structure of the mathematical object, the information thus displayed is not metrical and it is possible to put the inferences into systematic mathematical relation with other mathematical inferential practices. Proofs that appeal to mental models can be rigorous if the mental models can be externalised as diagrammatic practice that satisfies these three conditions. (shrink)

The Thomas precession of relativity physics gives rise to important isometries in hyperbolic geometry that expose analogies with Euclidean geometry. These, in turn, suggest our bifurcation approach to hyperbolic geometry, according to which Euclidean geometry bifurcates into two mutually dual branches of hyperbolic geometry in its transition to non-Euclidean geometry. One of the two resulting branches turns out to be the standard hyperbolic geometry of Bolyai and Lobachevsky. The corresponding bifurcation (...) of Newtonian mechanics in the transition to Einsteinian mechanics indicates that there are two, mutually dual, kinds of uniform accelerations. Furthermore, while current hyperbolic geometry “does not use the notion of vector at all” (I. M. Yaglom, Geometric Transformations III, p. 135, trans. by Abe Shenitzer, Random House, New York, 1973), our bifurcation approach exposes the elusive hyperbolic vectors, that we call gyrovectors. (shrink)

We show that the algebra of the group SL(2, C) naturally leads to the notion of gyrogroups and gyrovector spaces for dealing with the Lorentz group and its underlying hyperbolic geometry. The superiority of the use of the gyrogroup formalism over the use of the SL(2, C) formalism for dealing with the Lorentz group in some cases is indicated by (i) the validity of gyrogroups and gyrovector spaces in higher dimensions, by (ii) the analogies that they share with groups (...) and vector spaces, and by (iii) the demonstration that gyrovector spaces form the setting for hyperbolic geometry in the same way that vector spaces form the setting for Euclidean geometry. As such, gyrogroups and gyrovector spaces provide powerful tools for the study of relativity physics. (shrink)

Some ancient Greek coins from the island state of Aegina depict peculiar geometric designs. Hitherto they have been interpreted as anticipations of some Euclidean propositions. But this paper proposes geometrical constructions which establish connections to pre-Euclidean treatments of incommensurability. The earlier Aeginetan coin design from about 500 bc onwards appears as an attempt not only to deal with incommensurability but also to conceal it. It might be related to Plato’s dialogue Timaeus. The newer design from 404 bc onwards (...) reveals incommensurability, namely in the context of ‘doubling the square’. It thereby covers the same topic but a different geometry as passages in Plato’s dialogue Meno (385 bc). This coin design incorporates important elements of ancient Greek geometrical analysis of the fifth century bc like the gnomon, Hippocrates’ squaring of the lunule (ca. 430 bc), and a geometrical version of monetary equivalence. Through this venue, the design’s conceptual lineage might be traced as far back as Heraclitus’ cosmology of about 500 bc. (shrink)

A summary of Sellars' argument that the Given is a myth--there is no such thing as a given in our knowledge.

Density matrices for mixed state qubits, parametrized by the Bloch vector in the open unit ball of the Euclidean 3-space, are well known in quantum computation theory. We bring the seemingly structureless set of all these density matrices under the umbrella of gyrovector spaces, where the Bloch vector is treated as a hyperbolic vector, called a gyrovector. As such, this article catalizes and supports interdisciplinary research spreading from mathematical physics to algebra and geometry. Gyrovector spaces are mathematical objects (...) that form the setting for the hyperbolic geometry of Bolyai and Lobachevski just as vector spaces form the setting for Euclidean geometry. It is thus interesting, in geometric quantum computation, to realize that the set of all qubit density matrices has rich structure with strong link to hyperbolic geometry. Concrete examples for the use of the gyro-structure to derive old and new, interesting identities for qubit density matrices are presented. (shrink)

A reply to Risjord's defense of the view that there is no conflict between non-Euclidean geometry and Kant's philosophy of geometry because, while the form of intuition restricts which systems of concepts may be accepted as a geometry, it does not do so uniquely ("Stud Hist Phil Sci, 21", 1990). I argue that under these circumstances it is difficult to sustain the synthetic "a priori" status of geometrical propositions. Two broad ways of attempting to do so (...) are considered and criticized. (shrink)

The obscured Thomas precessionof the special theory of relativity (STR) has been soared into prominence by exposing the mathematical structure, called a gyrogroup,to which it gives rise [A. A. Ungar, Amer. J. Phys.59,824 (1991)], and the role that it plays in the study of Lorentz groups [A. A. Ungar, Amer. J. Phys.60,815 (1992); A. A. Ungar, J. Math. Phys.35,1408 (1994); A. A. Ungar, J. Math. Phys.35,1881 (1994)]. Thomas gyrationresults from the abstraction of Thomas precession.As such, its study sheds light on (...) relativistic velocity spaces and their symmetries which are concealed in Thomas precession. In order to uncover new properties of relativistic gyrogroups, we employ in this article the group theoretic concepts of divisible groupsand two-torsion free groupsto construct midpointsin gyrogroups. Systems of successive midpoints then describe straight gyrolinesand suggest a new, natural distance function that involves a Thomas gyration. These, in turn, reveal a new, interesting geometry that underlies relativistic velocity spaces. In this resulting gyrogeometrythe straight gyrolines form geodesics under a distance function which turns out to be the Poincaré hyperbolic distance function relaxed by a Thomas gyration. These geodesics do obey the parallel axiom of Euclidean geometry. Ironically, (i) attempts to understand the parallel postulate of Euclidean geometry gave rise to hyperbolic geometry in which the parallel postulate disappears;(ii) hyperbolic geometry gave rise to Einstein's STR; (iii) Einstein's STR established the bizarre and counterintuitive relativistic effect called Thomas precession, the abstraction of which is called Thomas gyration; and (iv) Thomas gyration now repairs in this article the Poincaré distance function of hyperbolic geometry to the point where the parallel postulate reappears. (shrink)

The paper examines the philosophical implications of a phenomenon in the psychology of perception: the Mueller-Lyer illusion. In this visual effect, the impression is created that a horizontal line enclosed by acute angles is shorter than a similar line flanked by obtuse angles, though the lines are of equal length when measured with a ruler. While the Mueller-Lyer effect may be merely illusory when one adheres to the metrical laws of perceptual geometry based on Euclid, it is suggested that, (...) from a phenomenological standpoint, the effect has a validity of its own. Going further, the Mueller-Lyer configuration is adapted to provide an example of a form of visual experience that specifically violates one of Euclid's basic postulates. The article closes by exploring the possibility of non-Euclidean visual geometries in relation to the concept of causality, Einsteinian relativity, and anomalous phenomena. (shrink)

A survey of Kant's views on space, time, geometry and the synthetic nature of mathematics. I concentrate mostly on geometry, but comment briefly on the syntheticity of logic and arithmetic as well. I believe the view of many that Kant's system denied the possibility of non-Euclidean geometries is clearly mistaken, as Kant himself used a non-Euclidean geometry (spherical geometry, used in his day for navigational purposes) in order to explain his idea, which amounts to (...) an anticipation of the later discovery of the general concept of non- Euclidean geometries. Kant's view of geometry and arithmetic as synthetic was, I believe, essentially correct, in that geometry and arithmetic are both synthetic a priori if considered as branches of mathematics independent of the rest of mathematics. However, the view that somehow logic is analytic, while mathematics is synthetic for Kantian reasons, is mistaken. All three disciplines—logic, arithmetic and geometry—are synthetic as disciplines independent from one another. However, they have a common basis, recursion theory, which I prefer to identify with mathematics as a whole. As a result, I do not say, as is often considered to be the Kantian view, that mathematics is synthetic while logic is analytic. Rather, I prefer to say that mathematics is analytic, while logic is synthetic. This is perfectly consistent with Kant's system, since it was arithmetic and geometry individually that he argued were synthetic. What Kant called the analytic is recursion theory, which could be considered as a basic formulation of mathematics or logic—or better, both mathematics and logic could be recognized as essentially the same discipline. However, if "logic" is taken to mean "predicate logic", as is often the case in modern times, then it is mathematics that is closer to Kant's analytic, not logic. Such ambiguities, of course, can be avoided by simply associating Kant's analytic with recursion theory, and avoiding the controversies as to what counts as mathematics or logic.. (shrink)

In this paper we extend the NeutroAlgebra & AntiAlgebra to the geometric spaces, by founding the NeutroGeometry & AntiGeometry. While the Non-Euclidean Geometries resulted from the total negation of one specific axiom (Euclid’s Fifth Postulate), the AntiGeometry results from the total negation of any axiom or even of more axioms from any geometric axiomatic system (Euclid’s, Hilbert’s, etc.) and from any type of geometry such as (Euclidean, Projective, Finite, Affine, Differential, Algebraic, Complex, Discrete, Computational, Molecular, Convex, etc.) (...) Geometry, and the NeutroGeometry results from the partial negation of one or more axioms [and no total negation of no axiom] from any geometric axiomatic system and from any type of geometry. Generally, instead of a classical geometric Axiom, one may take any classical geometric Theorem from any axiomatic system and from any type of geometry, and transform it by NeutroSophication or AntiSophication into a NeutroTheorem or AntiTheorem respectively in order to construct a NeutroGeometry or AntiGeometry. Therefore, the NeutroGeometry and AntiGeometry are respectively alternatives and generalizations of the Non-Euclidean Geometries. In the second part, we recall the evolution from Paradoxism to Neutrosophy, then to NeutroAlgebra & AntiAlgebra, afterwards to NeutroGeometry & AntiGeometry, and in general to NeutroStructure & AntiStructure that naturally arise in any field of knowledge. At the end, we present applications of many NeutroStructures in our real world. (shrink)

After a chapter which is an introduction to and summary of the rest of the book, chapter 2 begins by criticizing various attempts to do away with theories, such as the Reichenbach-Salmon conception of theoretical truth in terms of observational consequences, and the Ramsey strategy of replacing first-order theoretical sentences by second-order nontheoretical ones; it then argues against hypothetico-deductivist theories of confirmation on the grounds that they are unable to handle the relevance of evidence to theory, whether or not other (...) formal constraints or even nonformal ones such as simplicity and explanatory power are added to those theories; it ends with an exposition of the Reichenbach-Carnap conventionalist thesis that the confirmation of hypotheses with evidence presupposes analytic principles connecting hypothetical and empirical concepts. Chapter 3 criticizes Bayesian theories of confirmation on such grounds as that the a priori arguments for Bayesian restrictions on beliefs are insufficient; that the Bayesian explanations of notions like variety of evidence, ad hocness, and simplicity are inadequate; and that they cannot account, without drastic revisions, for the relevance of evidence to theory, especially old evidence to new theory. Chapter 4 is an unsympathetic account of historically oriented philosophies of science; Lakatos’s notion of progressive research programs and Laudan’s theory of problem-solving effectiveness are found to be insufficiently precise and dubbed examples of "new fuzziness", while the Sneed-Stegmüller dynamics of theories is regarded as "a paradigm of misplaced rigor" ; and all three are criticized as unable to explicate the concept of evidential relevance. Chapter 5 is a formal and informal elaboration of the basic idea in Glymour’s account of theory and evidence, namely that confirmation or support is a three-term relation among evidence, hypothesis, and theory, so that evidence confirms an hypothesis only relative to a theory, and such that evidence e confirms hypothesis h relative to T if T with e implies, but T without e does not imply, an instance of h, and T with e does not imply a comparable hypothesis h’ different from h; the most interesting part of this chapter is a series of discussions showing how such an idea makes sense of the "methodological truisms" that it is possible selectively to test certain parts of a theory but not others, that a theory is supported better by a greater variety of evidence, that redundant or physically meaningless quantities are an undesirable feature of theories, that there are no inviolable rules, that a "white shoe" does not confirm "all ravens are black," that a theory is more useful and better supported than the set of its observational consequences, and that the hypothetico-deductive method often works. Since Glymour claims no originality for the conception of this general account, but only for its description, he plausibly thinks it necessary to apply it to some important historical cases of actual science; he does so in the next chapter by discussing at some length the structure and merits of Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomy, of Newton’s universal gravitation, of nineteenth century atomism, of Freud’s Rat Man, and of general relativity. For example, he argues convincingly that Copernicanism was better supported by the evidence available even before the telescope because it alone, and not the Ptolemaic theory, can determine some planetary properties which are presupposed by both theories, can test and confirm some common hypotheses, and can be confirmed in an essential rather than incidental manner; and though Glymour admits that the Copernicans tended to argue in terms of explanatory rather than confirmatory superiority, he sketches an interesting account of the relation between explanation and confirmation which strengthens his case. He also analyzes the text at the beginning of book 3 of Newton’s Principia and compiles a reconstruction of the intricate details of the inferential structure of the argument to universal gravitation; his impressive reconstruction clearly shows that Newton’s method is neither the inductivist one he himself thought he was following, nor the one attributed to him by Pierre Duhem, but rather one in accordance with Glymour’s so-called "bootstrap strategy" of repeatedly using the evidence from Kepler’s second and third laws, from lunar data, and from falling bodies, together with the theory consisting of the second and third laws of motion, to arrive at increasingly general instances of the principle of universal gravitation. Glymour’s account of arguments for and against the atomic theory from Thomson to Cannizzaro is his longest historical example, but he himself admits that this illustration of the bootstrap strategy is "certainly not the neatest", and rather "diffuse, and perhaps disconnected". Chapter 7 is a detailed application of the same principles to the technique known among social scientists as "causal modeling"; since such "causal models" are essentially systems of algebraic equations, Glymour’s account shows indirectly that the bootstrap strategy is applicable to any scientific theory presented as a set of algebraic equations; this, of course is not surprising, since the formal considerations with which Glymour begins the exposition of his theory in chapter 5 involve systems of algebraic equations. Chapter 8 is an attempt to apply Glymour’s theory of evidence to the very common scientific practice of curve-fitting, where one measures values of two or more quantities and then infers a functional relationship; Glymour argues that simpler polynomials are preferred because they are tested more frequently and more severely by the data and because they are more informative; but then he criticizes his own explanation and concludes that "the bootstrap procedures of chapter 5 do not seem to help the problem much more than a whit" ; this is admirably honest, but if one wants an additional logical or methodological rationale, then one would perhaps have to go to the meta-level and say that Glymour is here testing his own theory, and he is more interested in a further illustration of the bootstrap methodology even with a failed test, than he is to claim universal or exclusive validity for it. In chapter 9 Glymour uses his bootstrap theory of confirmation to criticize geometrical conventionalism; he considers the alternative theories of space or space-time proposed by conventionalists to show the radical undetermination of geometries by evidence, for example, a non-Euclidean geometry with no universal force instead of Newtonian gravitation with Euclidean geometry; he argues that such alternatives are simply not as well tested as the originals and that their equivalence to the originals is questionable. The last chapter is a brief discussion of further problems worthy of future investigation. (shrink)

This article is devoted to the problem of ontological foundations of three-dimensional Euclidean geometry. Starting from Bertrand Russell’s intuitions concerning the sensual world we try to show that it is possible to build a foundation for pure geometry by means of the so called regions of space. It is not our intention to present mathematically developed theory, but rather demonstrate basic assumptions, tools and techniques that are used in construction of systems of point-free geometry and topology (...) by means of mereology and Whitehead-like connection structures. We list and briefly analyze axioms for mereological structures, as well as those for connection structures. We argue that mereology is a good tool to model so called spatial relations. We also try to justify our choice of axioms for connection relation. Finally, we briefly discuss two theories: Grzegorczyk’s point-free topology and Tarski’s geometry of solids. (shrink)

John Corcoran and George Boger. Aristotelian logic and Euclidean geometry. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. 20 (2014) 131. -/- By an Aristotelian logic we mean any system of direct and indirect deductions, chains of reasoning linking conclusions to premises—complete syllogisms, to use Aristotle’s phrase—1) intended to show that their conclusions follow logically from their respective premises and 2) resembling those in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. Such systems presuppose existence of cases where it is not obvious that the conclusion follows from (...) the premises: there must be something deductions can show. Corcoran calls a proposition that follows from given premises a hidden consequence of those premises if it is not obvious that the proposition follows from those premises. By a Euclidean geometry we mean an extended discourse beginning with basic premises—axioms, postulates, definitions—1) treating a universe of geometrical figures and 2) resembling Euclid’s Elements. There were Euclidean geometries before Euclid (fl. 300 BCE), even before Aristotle (384–322 BCE). Bochenski, Lukasiewicz, Patzig and others never new this or if they did they found it inconvenient to mention. Euclid shows no awareness of Aristotle. It is obvious today—as it should have been obvious in Euclid’s time, if anyone knew both—that Aristotle’s logic was insufficient for Euclid’s geometry: few if any geometrical theorems can be deduced from Euclid’s premises by means of Aristotle’s deductions. Aristotle’s writings don’t say whether his logic is sufficient for Euclidean geometry. But, there is not even one fully-presented example. However, Aristotle’s writings do make clear that he endorsed the goal of a sufficient system. Nevertheless, incredible as this is today, many logicians after Aristotle claimed that Aristotelian logics are sufficient for Euclidean geometries. This paper reviews and analyses such claims by Mill, Boole, De Morgan, Russell, Poincaré, and others. It also examines early contrary statements by Hintikka, Mueller, Smith, and others. Special attention is given to the argumentations pro or con and especially to their logical, epistemic, and ontological presuppositions. What methodology is necessary or sufficient to show that a given logic is adequate or inadequate to serve as the underlying logi of a given science. (shrink)

The necessary appearance of Clifford algebras in the quantum description of fermions has prompted us to re-examine the fundamental role played by the quaternion Clifford algebra, C 0,2 . This algebra is essentially the geometric algebra describing the rotational properties of space. Hidden within this algebra are symplectic structures with Heisenberg algebras at their core. This algebra also enables us to define a Poisson algebra of all homogeneous quadratic polynomials on a two-dimensional sub-space, $\mathbb{F}^{a}$ of the Euclidean three-space. This (...) enables us to construct a Poisson Clifford algebra, ℍ F , of a finite dimensional phase space which will carry the dynamics. The quantum dynamics appears as a realisation of ℍ F in terms of a Clifford algebra consisting of Hermitian operators. (shrink)

It is occasionally claimed that the important work of philosophers, physicists, and mathematicians in the nineteenth and in the early twentieth centuries made Kant’s critical philosophy of geometry look somewhat unattractive. Indeed, from the wider perspective of the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries, the replacement of Newtonian physics with Einstein’s theories of relativity, and the rise of quantificational logic, Kant’s philosophy seems “quaint at best and silly at worst”.1 While there is no doubt that Kant’s transcendental project involves his (...) own conceptions of Newtonian physics, Euclidean geometry and Aristotelian logic, the issue at stake is whether the replacement of these conceptions collapses Kant’s philosophy into an unfortunate embarrassment.2 Thus, in evaluating the debate over the contemporary relevance of Kant’s philosophical project one is faced with the following two questions: (1) Are there any contradictions between the scientific developments of our era and Kant’s philosophy? (2) What is left from the Kantian legacy in light of our modern conceptions of logic, geometry and physics? Within this broad context, this paper aims to evaluate the Kantian project vis à vis the discovery and application of non-Euclidean geometries. Many important philosophers have evaluated Kant’s philosophy of geometry throughout the last century,3 but opinions with regard to the impact of non-Euclidean geometries on it diverge. In the beginning of the century there was a consensus that the Euclidean character of space should be considered as a consequence of the Kantian project, i.e., of the metaphysical view of space and of the synthetic a priori character of geometry. The impact of non-Euclidean geometries was then thought as undermining the Kantian project since it implied, according to positivists such.. (shrink)

In the chapter “The Geometry of Visibles” in his ‘Inquiry into the Human Mind’, Thomas Reid constructs a special space, develops a special geometry for that space, and offers a natural model for this geometry. In doing so, Reid “discovers” non-Euclidean Geometry sixty years before the mathematicians. This paper examines this “discovery” and the philosophical motivations underlying it. By reviewing Reid’s ideas on visible space and confronting him with Kant and Berkeley, I hope, moreover, to (...) resolve an alleged impasse in Reid’s philosophy concerning the contradictory characteristics of Reid’s tangible and visible space. (shrink)

We show the algorithmic unsolvability of a number of decision procedures in ordinary two dimensional Euclidean geometry, involving lines and integer points. We also consider formulations involving integral domains of characteristic 0, and ordered rings. The main tool is the solution to Hilbert's Tenth Problem. The limited number of facts used from recursion theory are isolated at the beginning.

Open Court began publishingThe Monistin 1890 as a journal“devotedto the philosophy of science”that regularly included mathematics. The audiencewas understood to be“cultured people who have not a technical mathematicaltraining”but nevertheless“have a mathematical penchant.”With these constraints,the mathematical content varied from recreations to logical foundations, but every-one had something to say about non-Euclidean geometry, in debates that rangedfrom psychology to semantics. The focus in this essay is on the contested value ofmathematical expertise in legitimating what should be considered as mathematics.While some (...) mathematicians urgedThe Monistto uphold disciplinary standards ofgeometrical reasoning, authors opposed tonon-Euclidean geometry aligned theirreasoning with practical applications, universal know-how, and nonhierarchicaldemocracy. As one contributorinquired,“How isthe professional expert betterfit-ted to see more lucidly in dealing with the elements of geometry than any otherperson of good geometric faculty?”. (shrink)

Kant's arguments for the synthetic a priori status of geometry are generally taken to have been refuted by the development of non-Euclidean geometries. Recently, however, some philosophers have argued that, on the contrary, the development of non-Euclidean geometry has confirmed Kant's views, for since a demonstration of the consistency of non-Euclidean geometry depends on a demonstration of its equi-consistency with Euclidean geometry, one need only show that the axioms of Euclidean (...) class='Hi'>geometry have 'intuitive content' in order to show that both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry are bodies of synthetic a priori truths. Michael Friedman has argued that this defence presumes a polyadic conception of logic that was foreign to Kant. According to Friedman, Kant held that geometrical reasoning itself relies essentially on intuition, and that this precludes the very possibility of non-Euclidean geometry. While Friedman's characterization of Kant's views on geometrical reasoning is correct, I argue that Friedman's conclusion that non-Euclidean geometries are logically impossible for Kant is not. I argue that Kant is best understood as a proto-constructivist and that modern constructive axiomatizations (unlike Hilbert-style axiomatizations) of both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry capture Kant's views on the essentially constructive nature of geometrical reasoning well. (shrink)

Beltrami's first allegedly true interpretation of lobachevsky's geometry can be conceived as (i) pursuing a kantian program insofar as it shows that all the geometrical lobachevskian concepts are constructible in the euclidean space of our human representation, And (ii) proving, Even to kant, That a non-Euclidean geometry is not only logically possible (something that kant never denied) but also mathematically acceptable from a kantian point of view (something that kant would have accepted only after beltrami's interpretation).

Poincaré's claim that Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries are translatable has generally been thought to be based on his introduction of a model to prove the consistency of Lobachevskian geometry and to be equivalent to a claim that Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries are logically isomorphic axiomatic systems. In contrast to the standard view, I argue that Poincaré's translation thesis has a mathematical, rather than a meta-mathematical basis. The mathematical basis of Poincaré's translation thesis is that the (...) underlying manifolds of Euclidean and Lobachevskian geometries are homeomorphic. Assuming as Poincaré does that metric relations are not factual, it follows that we can rewrite a physical theory using Euclidean geometry as one using Lobachevskian geometry and express the same facts. (shrink)

How can we invent new certain knowledge in a methodical manner? This question stands at the heart of Salomon Maimon's theory of invention. Chikurel argues that Maimon's contribution to the ars inveniendi tradition lies in the methods of invention which he prescribes for mathematics. Influenced by Proclus' commentary on Elements, these methods are applied on examples taken from Euclid's Elements and Data. Centering around methodical invention and scientific genius, Maimon's philosophy is unique in an era glorifying the artistic genius, known (...) as Geniezeit. Invention, primarily defined as constructing syllogisms, has implications on the notion of being given in intuition as well as in symbolic cognition. Chikurel introduces Maimon's notion of analysis in the broader sense, grounded not only on the principle of contradiction but on intuition as well. In philosophy, ampliative analysis is based on Maimon's logical term of analysis of the object, a term that has yet to be discussed in Maimonian scholarship. Following its introduction, a new version of the question quid juris? arises. In mathematics, Chikurel demonstrates how this conception of analysis originates from practices of Greek geometrical analysis. (shrink)

A new form of the Hyperbolic Pythagorean Theorem, which has a striking intuitive appeal and offers a strong contrast to its standard form, is presented. It expresses the square of the hyperbolic length of the hypotenuse of a hyperbolic right-angled triangle as the “Einstein sum” of the squares of the hyperbolic lengths of the other two sides, Fig. 1, thus completing the long path from Pythagoras to Einstein. Following the pioneering work of Varičak it is well known that relativistic velocities (...) are governed by hyperbolic geometry in the same way that prerelativistic velocities are governed by Euclidean geometry. Unlike prerelativistic velocity composition, given by the ordinary vector addition, the composition of relativistic velocities, given by the Einstein addition, is neither commutative nor associative due to the presence of Thomas precession. Following the discovery of the mathematical regularity that Thomas precession stores, it is now possible to extend Thomas precession by abstraction, (i) allowing hyperbolic geometry to be studied by means of analogies that it shares with Euclidean geometry; and, similarly (ii) allowing velocities and accelerations in relativistic mechanics to be studied by means of analogies that they share with velocities and accelerations in classical mechanics. The abstract Thomas precession, called the Thomas gyration, gives rise to gyrovector space theory in which the prefix gyro is used extensively in terms like gyrogroups and gyrovector spaces, gyroassociative and gyrocommutative laws, gyroautomorphisms, gyrotranslations, etc. We demonstrate the superiority of our gyrovector space formalism in capturing analogies by deriving the Hyperbolic Pythagorean Theorem in a form fully analogous to its Euclidean counterpart, thus contrasting it with the standard form in which the Hyperbolic Pythagorean Theorem is known in the literature. The hyperbolic metric, which supports the Hyperbolic Pythagorean Theorem, has a dual metric. We show that the dual metric does not support a Pythagorean theorem but, instead, it supports the π-Theorem according to which the sum of the three dual angles of a hyperbolic triangle is π. (shrink)

Hyperbolic geometry can be axiomatized using the notions of order andcongruence (as in Euclidean geometry) or using the notion of incidencealone (as in projective geometry). Although the incidence-based axiomatizationmay be considered simpler because it uses the single binary point-linerelation of incidence as a primitive notion, we show that it issyntactically more complex. The incidence-based formulation requires some axioms of the quantifier-type forallexistsforall, while the axiom system based on congruence and order can beformulated using only forallexists-axioms.