Context: Strict finitism is usually not taken seriously as a possible view on what mathematics is and how it functions. This is due mainly to unfamiliarity with the topic. Problem: First, it is necessary to present a “decent” history of strict finitism and, secondly, to show that common counterarguments against strict finitism can be properly addressed and refuted. Method: For the historical part, the historical material is situated in a broader context, and for the argumentative part, an evaluation of arguments (...) and counterarguments is presented. Results: The main result is that strict finitism is indeed a viable option, next to other constructive approaches, in mathematics. Implications: Arguing for strict finitism is more complex than is usually thought. For future research, strict finitist mathematics itself needs to be written out in more detail to increase its credibility. In as far as strict finitism is a viable option, it will change our views on such “classics” as the platonist-constructivist discussion, the discovery-construction debate and the mysterious applicability problem . Constructivist content: Strict finitism starts from the idea that counting is an act of labeling, hence the mathematician is an active subject right from the start. It differs from other constructivist views in that the finite limitations of the human subject are taken into account. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Religion: A Radical-Constructivist Perspective” by Andreas Quale. Upshot: An essential feature of Quale’s point of view is the strict distinction between the cognitive and the non-cognitive. I argue that this position is untenable and hence that a radical constructivist can discuss religious matters.

Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Science: Logic, Strategies, Methods” by Stuart A. Umpleby. Upshot: The author makes a strong plea for second-order science but somehow mathematics remains out of focus. The major claim of this commentary is that second-order science requires second-order mathematics.

Everyone is familiar with the measure of beauty that has been proposed by Birkhoff, the famous formula M = O/C. Although I show that the formula in its original form cannot be maintained, I present a reinterpretation that adapts the formula for measuring the beauty of mathematical proofs. However, this type of measure is not the only aesthetic element in mathematics. There exists a 'romantic' side as well, to use the term introduced by François Le Lionnais. Thus, a more complex (...) proposal of mathematical beauty is presented. Finally and as a consequence, I argue against the dichotomy that associates science, including mathematics, with the beauty of simplicity and that associates the arts with the beauty of complexity. As an example, the work of Oulipo, Raymond Queneau in particular, is briefly presented. (shrink)

What is philosophy of mathematics and what is it about? The most popular answer, I suppose, to this question would be that philosophers should provide a justification for our presently most cherished mathematical theories and for the most important tool to develop such theories, namely logico-mathematical proof. In fact, it does cover a large part of the activity of philosophers that think about mathematics. Discussions about the merits and faults of classical logic versus one or other ‘deviant’ logics as the (...) logical basis for mathematical theories, ranging from intuitionist over modal logic to paraconsistent logic, typically belong to this area, as do debates about the natural-number concept, its ‘nature’, its properties, especially its uniqueness, and so on. No doubt sociologists of knowledge could explain why philosophers of mathematics came to select these particular problems and deal with them the way they do. What it does imply, however, is that the question is meaningful whether different kinds of philosophies of mathematics are possible, and—why not?—perhaps even desirable. To a certain extent, the answer is trivial: look at what, e.g., phenomenologists have to say about mathematics and you must notice it does not fit into the scheme sketched above.1 Rather, the question should be whether there are forms that, on the one hand, reinterpret the whole enterprise, and, on the other hand, somehow remain related to the work of ‘mainstream’ philosophers of mathematics today.The book under review here does precisely that. Let me be a bit more precise. The general proposal, present throughout all the contributions, is that even at a first, superficial, glance at what mathematicians do when they do mathematics, it is far more complex than ‘just thinking about and …. (shrink)

Objectivity revisited and revised -- The social theory of objectivity and its problems -- Sociology : a Copernican revolution changes how we think about science and mathematics -- Science studies : sociological theory and social criticism -- Math studies and the anarchist agenda -- Anarchism and modern science -- What's mind got to do with it? -- Science, religion, and anarchism : the end of God and the beginning of inquiry -- A manifesto in anarcho-sociology -- Appendix. A dialogue on (...) the syllogism with philosopher Jean Paul van Bendegem (JP), Free University of Brussels. (shrink)

Except in very poor mathematical contexts, mathematical arguments do not stand in isolation of other mathematical arguments. Rather, they form trains of formal and informal arguments, adding up to interconnected theorems, theories and eventually entire fields. This paper critically comments on some common views on the relation between formal and informal mathematical arguments, most particularly applications of Toulmin’s argumentation model, and launches a number of alternative ideas of presentation inviting the contextualization of pieces of mathematical reasoning within encompassing bodies of (...) explicit and implicit, formal and informal background knowledge. (shrink)

The Polymath Project is an online collaborative enterprise that was initiated in 2009, when Timothy Gowers asked whether and how groups could work together to solve mathematical problems that “do not naturally split up into a vast number of subtasks.” Gowers proposed to answer this question himself by actually trying to set up such a collaboration, based on interactions taking place in the comment-threads of a series of posts on a WordPress blog. Hence, the first project officially started in early (...) 2009, to be proclaimed successful only 6 weeks later (Gowers and Nielsen 2009). From its inception until April 2018, 15 more Polymath problems (and a handful of smaller or related ones) have been launched. These projects have attracted attention from different scholarly communities, including the philosophy of mathematical practices, from the perspective of which the Polymath Project can be seen as a vast repository of mathematics in action. This chapter continues previous work by its authors on the topic in question and topics related. More specifically, for the purposes of this volume, it is our aim to both summarize and expand upon these earlier contributions. The starting point is the above observation that in the past decade, the issue of “massively collaborative mathematics” (to be qualified below) has drawn quite some attention. However, does it also warrant intensive philosophical attention in particular? For, as exciting as these developments might be from mathematical and other points of view, the enhanced possibilities that have come with it do not per se give rise to any philosophical import. In Van Bendegem (2011), one of us has indeed tentatively argued for the philosophical relevance of these new dynamics of proof construction flowing from the wide availability and efficiency of Internet technology. We shall below briefly rehearse and update the argument given there. (shrink)

It is a generally accepted idea that strict finitism is a rather marginal view within the community of philosophers of mathematics. If one therefore wants to defend such a position (as the present author does), then it is useful to search for as many different arguments as possible in support of strict finitism. Sometimes, as will be the case in this paper, the argument consists of, what one might call, a “rearrangement” of known materials. The novelty lies precisely in the (...) rearrangement, hence on the formal-axiomatic level most of the results presented here are not new. In fact, the basic results are inspired by and based on Mycielski (1981). (shrink)

A solution of the zeno paradoxes in terms of a discrete space is usually rejected on the basis of an argument formulated by hermann weyl, The so-Called tile argument. This note shows that, Given a set of reasonable assumptions for a discrete geometry, The weyl argument does not apply. The crucial step is to stress the importance of the nonzero width of a line. The pythagorean theorem is shown to hold for arbitrary right triangles.

In previous papers (see Van Bendegem [1993], [1996], [1998], [2000], [2004], [2005], and jointly with Van Kerkhove [2005]) we have proposed the idea that, if we look at what mathematicians do in their daily work, one will find that conceiving and writing down proofs does not fully capture their activity. In other words, it is of course true that mathematicians spend lots of time proving theorems, but at the same time they also spend lots of time preparing the ground, (...) if you like, to construct a proof. (shrink)

Philosophy of mathematics today has transformed into a very complex network of diverse ideas, viewpoints, and theories. Sometimes the emphasis is on the "classical" foundational work (often connected with the use of formal logical methods), sometimes on the sociological dimension of the mathematical research community and the "products" it produces, then again on the education of future mathematicians and the problem of how knowledge is or should be transmitted from one generation to the next. The editors of this book felt (...) the urge, first of all, to bring together the widest variety of authors from these different domains and, secondly, to show that this diversity does not exclude a sufficient number of common elements to be present. In the eyes of the editors, this book will be considered a success if it can convince its readers of the following: that it is warranted to dream of a realistic and full-fledged theory of mathematical practices, in the plural. If such a theory is possible, it would mean that a number of presently existing fierce oppositions between philosophers, sociologists, educators, and other parties involved, are in fact illusory. (shrink)

This chapter looks at the impact of recent societal approaches of knowledge and science from the perspectives of two rather distant educational domains, mathematics and music. Science’s attempt at ‘self-understanding’ has led to a set of control mechanisms, either generating ‘closure’—the scientists’ non-involvement in society—or ‘economisation’, producing patents and other lucrative benefits. While scientometrics became the tool and the rule for measuring the economic impact of science, counter movements, like the slow science movement, citizen science, empowering music-art initiatives and other (...) critical approaches focus on intrinsic and ethical questions of education and knowledge. Thinking about knowledge and research in terms of quantifiable products impacts heavily upon the domains of science and arts, while the complexity of knowledge acquisition forces society to consider also other parameters like equality, personal development and participatory processes. (shrink)

In this paper several arguments are discussed and evaluated concerning the possibility of discrete space and time.

The paper gives an impression of the multi-dimensionality of mathematics as a human activity. This 'phenomenological' exercise is performed within an analytic framework that is both an expansion and a refinement of the one proposed by Kitcher. Such a particular tool enables one to retain an integrated picture while nevertheless welcoming an ample diversity of perspectives on mathematical practices, that is, from different disciplines, with different scopes, and at different levels. Its functioning is clarified by fitting in illustrations based on (...) actual research. (shrink)

This is not "another collection of contributions on a traditional subject." Even more than we dared to expect during the preparatory stages, the papers in this volume prove that our thinking about science has taken a new turn and has reached a new stage. The progressive destruction of the received view has been a fascinating and healthy experience. At present, the period of destruction is over. A richer and more equilibrated analysis of a number of problems is possible and is (...) being cru'ried out. In this sense, this book comes right on time. We owe a lot to the scholars of the Kuhnian period. They not only did away with obstacles, but in several respects instigated a shift in attention that changed history and philosophy of science in a irreversible way. A c1earcut example - we borrow it from the paper by Risto Hilpinen - concerns the study of science as a process, Rnd not only as a result. Moreover, they apparently reached several lasting results, e.g., concerning the tremendous impact of theoretical conceptions on empirical data. Apart from baffling people for several decades, this insight rules out an other return to simple-minded empiricism in the future. (shrink)

It has been observed many times before that, as yet, there are no encompassing, integrated theories of mathematical practice available.To witness, as we currently do, a variety of schools in this field elaborating their philosophical frameworks, and trying to sort out their differences in the course of doing so, is also to be constantly reminded of the fact that a lot of epistemic aspects, extremely relevant to this task, remain dramatically underexamined. This volume wants to contribute to the stock of (...) studies filling this perceived lacuna. It contains papers by established, upcoming, as well as beginning scholars, covering general, metaphilosophical themes such as naturalism, semiotics, pragmaticism, or empiricism, next to more specific topics including the unity of mathematical theories, thruth-flow in mathematics, diagrammatic reasoning, erroneous argumentation, or numerical analysis. (shrink)

Journal Name: Semiotica - Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies / Revue de l'Association Internationale de Sémiotique Volume: 2013 Issue: 196 Pages: 307-323.

Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and the limits of knowledge In this paper a presentation is given of Kurt Gödel’s pathbreaking results on the incompleteness of formal arithmetic. Some biographical details are provided but the main focus is on the analysis of the theorems themselves. An intermediate level between informal and formal has been sought that allows the reader to get a sufficient taste of the technicalities involved and not lose sight of the philosophical importance of the results. Connections are established (...) with the work of Alan Turing and Hao Wang to show the present-day relevance of Gödel’s research and how it relates to the limitations of human knowledge, mathematical knowledge in particular. (shrink)

The complex story of mathematics in the Tractatus In this paper some thoughts are presented about the treatment of mathematics in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus of Ludwig Wittgenstein. After introducing a metaphor for the mathematical ‘building’, we look at the scattered ideas about mathematics in the Tractatus itself. Although the general consensus is that Wittgenstein rejects the entire ‘building’, there are recent insights that suggest that a more coherent view of ‘Tractarian’ mathematics can be presented, if we are willing to leave (...) behind a foundational form of thinking. What this means will be outlined in some detail. The concluding general assessment is that the final word on the status of mathematics in the Tractatus is still pending. (shrink)