Jean Paul Van Bendegem

In this chapter, the possibility of experiments in mathematics is examined. A general scheme is proposed as a tool to handle the different forms of experiments that are being used in mathematical practices: computations, “experimental mathematics” as a new research domain in mathematics and computer science, real-world experiments, and thought experiments. In a final section, extensions of the scheme are proposed that further support the conclusion that mathematical experiments are indeed facts and the future.

No one will dispute, looking at the history of mathematics, that there are plenty of moments where mathematics is “in trouble”, when paradoxes and inconsistencies crop up and anomalies multiply. This need not lead, however, to the view that mathematics is intrinsically inconsistent, as it is compatible with the view that these are just transient moments. Once the problems are resolved, consistency (in some sense or other) is restored. Even when one accepts this view, what remains is the question what mathematicians do during such a transient moment? This requires some method or other to reason with inconsistencies. But there is more: what if one accepts the view that mathematics is always in a phase of transience? In short, that mathematics is basically inconsistent? Do we then not need a mathematics of inconsistency? This paper wants to explore these issues, using classic examples such as infinitesimals, complex numbers, and infinity

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)

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.

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