Jose Ferreiros

A down-to-earth admission of abstract objects can be based on detailed explanation of where the objectivity of mathematics comes from, and how a ‘thin’ notion of object emerges from objective mathematical discourse or practices. We offer a sketch of arguments concerning both points, as a basis for critical scrutiny of the idea that mathematical and social objects are essentially of the same kind—which is criticized. Some authors have proposed that mathematical entities are indeed institutional objects, a product of our collective imposition of function onto reality (the phrase comes from Searle) and of surrogation or hypostasis. Yet there are significant disanalogies between the typical social objects and mathemata, on which basis I argue that one should make a clear distinction between both. The comparison of mathematical with social objects helps understanding how non-physical objects can figure prominently in our explanations of reality. Yet mathematical objects have a different kind of cognitive grounding, and the more elementary of them emerge under relatively very simple sociocultural conditions. The differences are also reflected in the wide scope of use of mathematical concepts, and the much higher degree of variation found among social objects. On the basis of all of these features, I defend the thesis that one can significantly distinguish degrees of objectivity, and I use the distinction to articulate a graded ontology where one can locate the different kinds of mathematical and social objects.

This paper defends a conceptualistic version of structuralism as the most convincing way of elaborating a philosophical understanding of structuralism in line with the classical tradition. The argument begins with a revision of the tradition of “conceptual mathematics”, incarnated in key figures of the period 1850 to 1940 like Riemann, Dedekind, Hilbert or Noether, showing how it led to a structuralist methodology. Then the tension between the ‘presuppositionless’ approach of those authors, and the platonism of some recent versions of philosophical structuralism, is presented. In order to resolve this tension, we argue for the idea of ‘logical objects’ as a form of minimalist realism, again in the tradition of classical authors including Peirce and Cassirer, and we introduce the basic tenets of conceptual structuralism. The remainder of the paper is devoted to an open discussion of the assumptions behind conceptual structuralism, and—most importantly—an argument to show how the objectivity of mathematics can be explained from the adopted standpoint. This includes the idea that advanced mathematics builds on hypothetical assumptions (Riemann, Peirce, and others), which is presented and discussed in some detail. Finally, the ensuing notion of objectivity is interpreted as a form of particularly robust intersubjectivity, and it is distinguished from fictional or social ontology.

Dedekind’s methodology, in his classic booklet on the foundations of arithmetic, has been the topic of some debate. While some authors make it closely analogue to Hilbert’s early axiomatics, others emphasize its idiosyncratic features, most importantly the fact that no axioms are stated and its careful deductive structure apparently rests on definitions alone. In particular, the so-called Dedekind “axioms” of arithmetic are presented by him as “characteristic conditions” in the _definition_ of the complex concept of a _simply infinite_ system. Making sense of Dedekind’s method may be dependent on an analysis of the classical model of deductive science, as presented by authors from the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Studying the modern reconstructions of Euclidean geometry, we show that they did not presuppose deductive independence of the axioms from the definitions. Authors like Wolff elaborated a mathematics _based on definitions_, and the Wolffian model of deductive science shows significant coincidences with Dedekind’s method, despite the great differences in content and approach. Wolff had a conception of definitions as _genetic_, which bears some similarities with Kant’s idea of synthetic definitions: they are understood as positing the content of mathematical concepts and introducing thought objects (_Gedankendinge_) that are the objects of mathematics. The emphasis on the spontaneity of the understanding, which can be found in this philosophical tradition, can also be fruitfully related with Dedekind’s idea of the “free creation” of mathematical objects.

Logicism finds a prominent place in textbooks as one of the main alternatives in the foundations of mathematics, even though it lost much of its attraction from about 1950. Of course the neologicist trend has revitalized the movement on the basis of Hume’s Principle and Frege’s Theorem, but even so neologicism restricts itself to arithmetic and does not aim to account for all of mathematics. The present contribution does not focus on the classical logicism of Frege and Dedekind, nor on the Russell-Carnap period, and also not on recent neologicism; its aim is to call attention to some forms of heritage from logicism that normally go quite unnoticed. In the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, the logicist thesis became a stimulus for some deep innovations in the field of mathematical logic. One can argue, in particular, that two key ideas linked with formal semantics had their origins in the conception of logic associated with the logicist trend – the expansion of metamathematics brought about by Tarski, opening the way to model theory, and the insistence on the “full” set-theoretic semantics as “standard” for second-order logic. The paper proposes an analysis of those inheritances and argues that that logical theory ought to avoid some of their implications.

Review by A. Kanamori, Boston University (author of The Higher Infinite), review in The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic: “Notwithstanding and braving the daunting complexities of this labyrinth, José Ferreirós has written a magisterial account of the history of set theory which is panoramic, balanced and engaging. Not only does this book synthesize much previous work and provide fresh insights and points of view, but it also features a major innovation, a full-fledged treatment of the emergence of the set-theoretic approach in mathematics from the early nineteenth century. Much of history is in the details, and much of good history is in tone, emphasis, and the drawing together of different strands. Without being Whiggish, Ferreirós is never far from major synthetic themes, themes that in the main work toward balance and pull back from excesses of emphasis of some recent histories. The main criticism of the book would have to be on matters of broad interpretation. Yet, Ferreirós brings a considerable mathematical acuity and expertise to his enterprise, and this makes his viewpoints the more compelling.”

This paper aims to outline an analysis and interpretation of the process that led to First-Order Logic and its consolidation as a core system of modern logic. We begin with an historical overview of landmarks along the road to modern logic, and proceed to a philosophical discussion casting doubt on the possibility of a purely rational justification of the actual delimitation of First-Order-Logic. On this basis, we advance the thesis that a certain historical tradition was essential to the emergence of modern logic; this traditional context is analyzed as consisting in some guiding principles and, particularly, a set of exemplares (i.e., paradigmatic instances). Then, we proceed to interpret the historical course of development reviewed in section 1, which can broadly be described as a two-phased movement of expansion and then restriction of the scope of logical theory. We shall try to pinpoint ambivalencies in the process, and the main motives for subsequent changes. Among the latter, one may emphasize the spirit of modern axiomatics, the situation of foundational insecurity in the 1920s, the resulting desire to find systems well-behaved from a proof-theoretical point of view, and the metatheoretical results of the 1930s. Not surprisingly, the mathematical and, more specifically, the foundational context in which Firs-Order-Logic matured will be seen to have played a primary role in its shaping

This book is part of a major project undertaken by the Centre for Studies in Civilizations , being one of a total of ninety-six planned volumes. The author is a statistician and computer scientist by training, who has concentrated on historical matters for the last ten years or so. The book has very ambitious aims, proposing an alternative philosophy of mathematics and a deviant history of the calculus. Throughout, there is an emphasis on the need to combine history and philosophy of mathematics, especially in order to evaluate properly the history of mathematics in India, in particular the history of the calculus.The pivotal goals of the book are to oppose the Eurocentric account of the history of science in general and mathematics in particular; to avoid the usual philosophical idea of the centrality of proof for mathematical knowledge, in favour of the traditional Indian notion of pramāṇa [validation] encompassing empirical elements and emphasizing calculation; to analyze the thousand-year-long development of infinite series in India, starting in the fifth century; and to show ‘how and why the calculus was imported into Europe’ from about 1500. The result is a picture in which inputs from the Indian subcontinent and epistemology are the driving forces of the history of mathematics, as people in the European subcontinent struggle to adopt new calculation techniques from the East in spite of Western philosophico-religious biases . Thus, a ‘first math war’ involved the algorismus de numero indorum, adopted for practical reasons, which forced Europeans to modify their epistemology of number and quantities. A ‘second math war’ revolved around infinite series and the calculus, since the background of Western epistemology created ‘spurious difficulties’ about infinities and infinitesimals, partially resolved with theories of real numbers. And a ‘third math war’ is …

A book-length study of Riemann's multi-dimensional work (in Spanish), which considers his contributions to physics, philosophy and mathematics. Plus a bi-lingual edition (German-Spanish) of some of his landmark papers: the lecture on geometry, with Weyl's comments; the paper introducing the Riemann Conjecture, part of his 1857 paper on function theory; all of the philosophical fragments, etc. These different contributions, and their interconnections, are carefully studied in the introductory essay of 150 pages.

The aim of this paper is to argue that there existed relevant interactions between mechanics and geometry during the first half of the nineteenth century, following a path that goes from Gauss to Riemann through Jacobi. By presenting a rich historical context we hope to throw light on the philosophical change of epistemological categories applied by these authors to the fundamental principles of both disciplines. We intend to show that presentations of the changing status of the principles of mechanics as a mere epiphenomenon of the emergence of non-Euclidean geometries are inaccurate, that the relations between the two disciplines were richer than what is usually considered in the literature. These claims will be based on historical and philosophical arguments, starting from the fact that disciplinary boundaries at the time were not rigid as we are used today. It is widely known that the main figures we target worked in different areas, which is a first piece of evidence for the plausibility of our main thesis.

We discuss critically some recent theses about geometric cognition, namely claims of universality made by Dehaene et al., and the idea of a “natural geometry” employed by Spelke et al. We offer arguments for the need to distinguish visuo-spatial cognition from basic geometric knowledge, furthermore we claim that the latter cannot be identified with Euclidean geometry. The main aim of the paper is to advance toward a characterization of basic, practical geometry – which in our view requires a combination of experiments on visuo-spatial cognition with studies in cognitive archaeology and comparative history. Examples from these fields are given, with special emphasis on the comparison of ancient Chinese and ancient Greek geometric ideas and procedures.

This is a contribution to the philosophy of experimental work, engaging with questions posed by Hacking, Franklin, Pickering, Schaffer and Collins. It focuses on the dynamics of experimentation and offers a detailed argument that one finds no "regress" of the kind posited by Collins. In particular, we reanalyze the celebrated series of experimental investigations by Newton on optical phenomena, taking into account Schaffer's partial reconstruction, and we show how it must be supplemented to obtain a more complete picture.

The place of Richard Dedekind in the history of logicism is a controversial matter. The conception of logic incorporated in his work is certainly old-fashioned, in spite of innovative elements that would play an important role in late 19th and early 20th century discussions. Yet his understanding of logic and logicism remains of interest for the light it throws upon the development of modern logic in general, and logicist views of the foundations of mathematics in particular. The paper clarifies Dedekind's views and their relation to transcendental logic, makes explicit the role of the principle of comprehension (unrestricted) and offers a reconstrucion ot his dichotomy conception. The last section explores the differences with Frege (half epistemic, half metaphysical) making clear that there were different brands of logicism, and that logicism does not necessarily lead to singularism or “essentialistic objectualism”.

© The Authors [2018]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] mathematics a reflection of some already-given realm? It would not matter whether we are talking about the empirical world in a Millian way, or the domain of a priori truths in Leibnizian or maybe Kantian style, or some world of analytical truths à la Carnap. Or perhaps — could mathematics be something more, or something less, than such a reflection? Might it be human, perhaps, dependent on our kind, on our forms of life? Could it just be a set of techniques and conceptions that we develop and employ to establish order and measure in the world around us, in our activities and our environment?Consider any basic mathematical notion that you may wish: e.g., number, function, or space. There is a long history to be told of changing conceptions of...

We offer an analysis of the disciplinary transformations underwent by mathematical or symbolic logic since its emergence in the late 19 th century. Examined are its origins as a hybrid of philosophy and mathematics, the maturity and institutionalisation attained under the label “logic and foundations,” a second wave of institutionalisation in the Postwar period, and the institutional developments since 1975 in connection with computer science and with the study of language and informatics. Although some “internal history” is discussed, the main focus is on the emergence, consolidation and convolutions of logic as a discipline, through various professional associations and journals, in centers such as Torino, Göttingen, Warsaw, Berkeley, Princeton, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, and Amsterdam.

Dedekind used to refer to Riemann as his main model concerning mathematical methodology, particularly regarding the use of abstract notions as a basis for mathematical theories. So, in passages written in 1876 and 1895 he compared his approach to ideal theory with Riemann’s theory of complex functions. In this paper, I try to make sense of those declarations, showing the role of abstract notions in Riemann’s function theory, its influence on Dedekind, and the importance of the methodological principle of avoiding ‘forms of representation’ in shaping ideal theory. In order to emphasize the abstract viewpoint of Riemann and Dedekind, I compare their work with that of their great german contemporaries, Weierstrass and Kronecker; so, an influential ‘Göttingen group’ is confronted with the ‘Berlin school’ of mathematics. Some light is also thrown on the relation between Riemann and Dedekind, particularly with respect to Dedekind’s interest on Riemann’s ideas --in function theory, geometry and topology--, beginning in the 1850s and through later works. The abstract approach of the ‘Göttingen group’ was determinant for the turn to abstract mathematics in our century, and the direct influence of Riemann on Dedekind shows how this approach developed.

The present paper is a contribution to the history of logic and its philosophy toward the mid-20th century. It examines the interplay between logic, type theory and set theory during the 1930s and 40s, before the reign of first-order logic, and the closely connected issue of the fate of logicism. After a brief presentation of the emergence of logicism, set theory, and type theory, Quine’s work is our central concern, since he was seemingly the most outstanding logicist around 1940, though he would shortly abandon that viewpoint and promote first-order logic as all of logic. Quine’s class-theoretic systems NF and ML, and his farewell to logicism, are examined. The last section attempts to summarize the motives why set theory was preferred to other systems, and first orderlogic won its position as the paradigm logic system after the great War.