Jean Paul Van Bendegem

This article focuses on the writings of Hardy, Poincaré, Birkhoff, and Whitehead, in order to substantiate the claim that mathematicians experience a mathematical proof as beautiful when it offers a maximum of insight while demanding a minimum of effort. In other words, it claims that the study of the aesthetic success of theorem-proofs can benefit from the analogy with the economic success of a business, which involves maximizing return on investment. On the other hand, the article also draws on Le Lionnais and Whitehead (again) in order to show that, whereas the kind of aesthetic delight offered by beautiful proofs is typical for well-established branches of mathematics, a romantic and adventurous spirit that goes beyond the search for classical aesthetic delights is needed when the exploration of new mathematics is at stake. The history of mathematics is not only a story of feelings of beauty invoked by perfect products, but also a survey of sublime periods of creative production. No account of mathematical beauty can be complete if it does not complement the classical product aesthetics with a romantic creation aesthetics. © 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Context: As one of the major approaches within the philosophy of mathematics, constructivism is to be contrasted with realist approaches such as Platonism in that it takes human mental activity as the basis of mathematical content. Problem: Mathematical constructivism is mostly identified as one of the so-called foundationalist accounts internal to mathematics. Other perspectives are possible, however. Results: The notion of “meaning finitism” is exploited to tie together internal and external directions within mathematical constructivism. The various contributions to this issue support our case in different ways. Constructivist content: Further contributions from a multitude of constructivist directions are needed for the puzzle of an integrative, overarching theory of mathematical practice to be solved

Philosophy as an academic discipline has grown into something highly specific. This raises the question whether alternatives are available within the academic world itself – what I call the Lutheran view – and outside of academia – what I call the Calvinist view. Since I defend the thesis that such alternatives partially exist and as yet non-existent possibilities could in principle be realised, the main question thus becomes what prevents us from acting appropriately. In honour of Paul Smeyers, the fitting metaphor has to be the Wittgensteinian fly-bottle.

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.

In current philosophical research, there is a rather one-sided focus on the foundations of proof. A full picture of mathematical practice should however additionally involve considerations about various methodological aspects. A number of these is identified, from large-scale to small-scale ones. After that, naturalism, a philosophical school concerned with scientific practice, is looked at, as far as the translations of its epistemic principles to mathematics is concerned. Finally, we call for intensifying the interaction between both dimensions of practice and epistemology.

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 (which is now lacking) 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 (the foundations of) 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 (why is mathematics so successful in its applications?). 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.