Michael Detlefsen

(1948 - 2019)

This is a paper on a type of purity of proof I call topical purity. This is purity which, practically speaking, enforces a certain symmetry between the conceptual resources used to prove a theorem and those needed for the clarification of its content. The basic idea is that the resources of proof ought ideally to be restricted to those which determine its content. For some, this has been regarded as an epistemic ideal concerning the type of knowledge that proof ought to or at least might ideally provide. For others, including many working mathematicians, it has been largely a strategic or pragmatic ideal. Even these, however, see it (i.e. the ideal of purity) as serving generally epistemic ends.

Throughout history, mathematicians have expressed preference for solutions to problems that avoid introducing concepts that are in one sense or another “foreign” or “alien” to the problem under investigation. This preference for “purity” (which German writers commonly referred to as “methoden Reinheit”) has taken various forms. It has also been persistent. This notwithstanding, it has not been analyzed at even a basic philosophical level. In this paper we give a basic analysis of one conception of purity—what we call topical purity—and discuss its epistemological significance

Hide Ishiguro, Leibniz’s philosophy of logic and language. 2nd ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1990. x + 246pp. £27.50/$49.50 ; £10.95/$16.95 Massimo Mugnai, Leibniz’ theory of relations. Stuttgart:Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992. 291 pp. 96 DM W. A. Wallace, Galileo’s logic of discovery and proof The background, content, and use of his appropriated treatises on Aristotle’s posterior analytics. Dordrecht, Boston, and London:Kluwer, 1992. xxiii + 323 pp. £84, $139, DF1240 W. A. Wallace, Galileo’s logical treatises. A translation, with notes and commentary, of his appropriated Latin questions on Aristotle’s posterior analytics. Dordrecht, Boston, and London:Kluwer, 1992. xix + 239 pp. £65, $;99, DF1185 W. A. Wallace, Galileo’s early notebooks:the physical questions ; Prelude to Galileo: essays on medieval and sixteenth-century sources of Galileo’s thought ; Galileo and his sources: the heritage of the Collegio Romano in Galileo’s science ; and Galileo Galilei:Tractatio de Precognitionibus et Praecognitis and Tractatio de Démonstration Raymond M. Smullyan, GödeVs incompleteness theorems, New York, Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1992. xiii + 139. pp. $29.95 Raymond M. Smullyan, Recursion theory for metamathematics, New York, Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1993. xiv + 163 pp. $29.95 D. MiéVille, Kurt Gödel:Actes du Colloque, Neuchâtel 13-14 juin 1991. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Centre de Recherches Sémiologiques, Université de Neuchâtel, 1992. iv +200pp. 15 Sfr Geoffrey Hellman, Mathematics without numbers. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1989. xi + 154 pp. £22.50 Michael Detlefsen Proof, logic and formalization. London and New York:Routledge, 1992. x + 241 pp. £40.00 J. Cavaillès, Método axiomâtico y formalismo. Foreword by S. Ramirez. Translation from the French by C. Alvarez and S. Ramirez. Mexico:Servicios Editoriales de la Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, 1992. 199pp. No price stated Roberto Poli, Ontologia formale. Genoa:Marietti, 1992, 542 pp. No price stated Jon Barwise and John Etchemendy, The language of first-order logic, 3rd edition, Stanford, CA:CLSI Lecture Notes No. 34, 1992, xiv + 329pp. US $34.95

This volume of essays addresses the main problem confronting an epistemology for mathematics; namely, the nature and sources of mathematical justification. Attending to both particular and general issues, the essays, by leading philosophers of mathematics, raise important issues for our current understanding of mathematics. Is mathematical justification a priori or a posteriori? What role, if any, does logic play in mathematical reasoning or inference? And of what epistemological importance is the formalizability of proof? The editor, Michael Detlefsen, has brought together an outstanding collection of essays, only one of which has previously appeared. It will be essential for philosophers and historians of mathematics, as well as philosophically inclined logicians and philosophers interested in the nature of reasoning and justification. A companion volume entitled Proof, Logic and Formalization, edited by Michael Detlefsen, is also available from Routledge.

Formalism in the philosophy of mathematics has taken a variety of forms and has been advocated for widely divergent reasons. In Sects. 1 and 2, I briefly introduce the major formalist doctrines of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These are what I call empirico-semantic formalism, game formalism and instrumental formalism. After describing these views, I note some basic points of similarity and difference between them. In the remainder of the paper, I turn my attention to Hilbert’s instrumental formalism. My primary aim there will be to develop its formalist elements more fully. These are, in the main, its rejection of the axiom-centric focus of traditional model-construction approaches to consistency problems, its departure from the traditional understanding of the basic nature of proof and its distinctively descriptive or observational orientation with regard to the consistency problem for arithmetic. More specifically, I will highlight what I see as the salient points of connection between Hilbert’s formalist attitude and his finitist standard for the consistency proof for arithmetic. I will also note what I see as a significant tension between Hilbert’s observational approach to the consistency problem for arithmetic and his expressed hope that his solution of that problem would dispense with certain epistemological concerns regarding arithmetic once and for all.

The type of completeness Whitehead and Russell aimed for in their Principia Mathematica was what I call descriptive completeness. This is completeness with respect to the propositions that have been proved in traditional mathematics. The notion of completeness addressed by Gödel in his famous work of 1930 and 1931 was completeness with respect to the truths expressible in a given language. What are the relative significances of these different conceptions of completeness for traditional mathematics? What, if any, effects does incompleteness of the type Gödel had in mind have for the evaluation of the Principia Mathematica project and other projects like it?

© The Author [2017]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] author makes clear that he does not see this book as a contribution to the philosophy of mathematics as traditionally understood. He takes it instead to be an essay about the philosophy of mathematics, one whose purpose is to explain its existence and to make clear the limited extent to which its current and past forms are properly regarded as philosophies of mathematics per se.A little more exactly, the aim is to explain the seemingly ‘perennial’ interest1 western philosophers have had in mathematics 2 and how this became significant enough to give rise to and sustain an identified sub-discipline of philosophy....Hacking identifies two principal reasons for this, both of which he sees as having originated in what might broadly be termed our experience of mathematics. The first of...

The aims of this paper are twofold: firstly, to say something about that philosophy of mathematics known as 'intuitionism' and, secondly, to fit these remarks into a more general message for the philosophy of mathematics as a whole. What I have to say on the first score can, without too much inaccuracy, be compressed into two theses. The first is that the intuitionistic critique of classical mathematics can be seen as based primarily on epistemological rather than on meaning-theoretic considerations. The second is that the intuitionist's chief objection to the classical mathematician's use of logic does not center on the use of particular logical principles (in particular, the law of excluded middle and its ilk). Rather on the role the classical mathematician assigns (or at least extends) generally (i.e. regardless of the particular principles used) to the use of logic in the production mathematical proofs. Thus, the intuitionist critique of logic that we shall be presenting is far more radical than that which has commonly been presented. Concerning the second, more general, theme, my claim is this: some restriction of the role of logical inference in mathematical proof such as that mentioned above is necessary if one is to account for the seeming difference in the epistemic conditions of provers whose reasoning is based on genuine insight into the subject-matter being investigated, and would-be provers whose reasoning is based not on such insight, but rather on principles of inference which hold of every subject-matter indifferently.