Vol. 43 No. 1 (2023)
Articles

Purity of Method and Mathematical Practice: Challenges and Prospects

PDF (Español (España))
  • Guillermo Nigro Puente
Guillermo Nigro Puente
Instituto de Profesores "Artigas" (CFE - ANEP) / Universidad de la República / Universidade Federal da Bahia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2023.490

Published 2023-05-01

Keywords

  • Teorías matemáticas,
  • Construcción de teorías,
  • Método axiomático,
  • Desafío semántico,
  • Desafío del valor
  • Mathematical Theories,
  • Theory Formation,
  • Axiomatic Method,
  • Semantic Challenge,
  • Value Challenge
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Within the philosophy of mathematical practice, the question of purity of methods has been gaining a place in research and publication agendas. It is usually assumed that “pure” is a predicate of solutions or proofs, which is satisfied when they are intrinsic to the problems or theorems. In this paper I argue for the adoption of a broader conception, according to which purity of method emerges naturally in the practice of constructing autonomous mathematical theories, and I show how the usual conception is enriched from this.

PDF (Español (España))

References

  1. Abrusci, V. M. (1981). ‘Proof’, ‘theory’, and ‘foundations’ in Hilbert’s mathematical work from 1885 to 1900. En M. L. Dalla Chiara (Ed.), Italian studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 453-491). Springer.
  2. Arana, A. (2008). Logical and semantic purity. Protosociology, 25, 36-48. https://doi.org/10.5840/protosociology2008253
  3. Arana, A. (2014). Purity in arithmetic: Some formal and informal issues. En G. Link (Ed.), Formalism and beyond. On the nature of mathematical discourse (pp. 315-335). Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614518471.315
  4. Arana, A. (2017). On the alleged simplicity of impure proof. En R. Kossak & P. Ording (Eds.), Simplicity: Ideals of practice in mathematics and the arts (pp. 205-226). Springer.
  5. Arana, A., & Mancosu, P. (2012). On the relationship between plane and solid geometry. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(2), 294-353. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020312000020
  6. Aristóteles (1995). Tratados de lógica (Órganon) II (M. Candel Sanmartín, introducciones, traducciones y notas, Biblioteca Clásica Gredos, 115). Gredos.
  7. Awodey, S., & Reck, E. H. (2002). Completeness and categoricity. Part I: Nineteenth-century axiomatics to twentieth-century metalogic. History and Philosophy of Logic, 23(1), 1-30.
  8. Baldwin, J. T. (2013). Formalization, primitive concepts, and purity. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 6(1), 87-128. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020312000263
  9. Bennett, M. K. (2011). Affine and projective geometry. John Wiley & Sons.
  10. Cellucci, C. (2017). Rethinking knowledge: The heuristic view (vol. 4). Springer.
  11. Corry, L. (2003). Modern algebra and the rise of mathematical structures. Springer Science & Business Media.
  12. Corry, L. (2006). Axiomatics, empiricism, and anshauung in Hilbert's conception of geometry: Between arithmetic and general relativity. En J. Ferreirós & J. Gray (Eds.), The architecture of modern mathematics (pp. 133-156). Oxford University Press.
  13. Courant, R. & Robbins, H. (2002). ¿Qué son las matemáticas? Conceptos y métodos fundamentales. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  14. Dawson, J. W. (2015). Why prove it again? Alternative proofs in mathematical practice. Birkhäuser.
  15. Detlefsen, M. (2008). Purity as an ideal of proof. En P. Mancosu (Ed.), The philosophy of mathematical practice (pp. 179-197). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296453.003.0008
  16. Detlefsen, M. & Arana, A. (2011). Purity of methods. Philosophers’ Imprint, 11(2), 1-20.
  17. Enriques, F. (1898). Lezioni di geometria proiettiva. Nicola Zanichelli.
  18. Ferraro, G., & Panza, M. (2012). Lagrange’s theory of analytical functions and his ideal of purity of method. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 66(2), 95-197.
  19. Ferreirós, J. (2015). Mathematical knowledge and the interplay of practices. Princeton University Press.
  20. Ferreirós, J. (2016). Sobre la certeza de la aritmética. En J. Ferreirós & A. Lassalle Casanave (Eds.), El árbol de los números (pp. 193-118). Editorial Universidad de Sevilla.
  21. Giovannini, E. N. (2015). David Hilbert y los fundamentos de la geometría: 1981 - 1905. College Publications.
  22. Giovannini, E. N. (2016). Bridging the gap between analytic and synthetic geometry: Hilbert’s axiomatic approach. Synthese, 193(1), 31-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0743-z
  23. Giovannini, E. N., Lassalle Casanave, A., & Veloso, P. A. (2017). De la práctica euclidiana a la práctica hilbertiana: Las teorías del área plana. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofía, 73(3/4), 1263-1294.
  24. Hallett, M. (2008). Reflections on the purity of method in Hilbert’s Grundlagen der Geometrie. En P. Mancosu (Ed.), The philosophy of mathematical practice (pp. 198-255). Oxford University Press.
  25. Hartshorne, R. (1967). Foundations of projective geometry. W. A. Benjamin.
  26. Heiberg, J. L. (1884). Euclidis opera omnia (vol. 1307). BG Teubneri.
  27. Hilbert, D. (1891/2004). Projektive geometrie. En M. Hallett & U. Majer (Eds.), David Hilbert’s lectures on the foundations of geometry 1891–1902 (vol. I, pp. 21-55). Springer Science & Business Media.
  28. Hilbert, D. (1894). Zwei neue beweise für die zerlegbarkeit der zahlen eines körpers in primideale. Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 3, 59-59.
  29. Hilbert, D. (1896). Ein neuer beweis des kronecker´schen fundamentalsatzes über abelsche zahlkörper. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, 1896, 29-39.
  30. Hilbert, D. (1899a/2004). Elemente der euklidischen geometrie. En M. Hallett & U. Majer (Eds.), David Hilbert’s lectures on the foundations of geometry 1891–1902 (vol. I, pp. 302-394). Springer Science & Business Media.
  31. Hilbert, D. (1899b/2004). Grundlagen der euklidischen geometrie. En M. Hallett & U. Majer (Eds.), David Hilbert’s lectures on the foundations of geometry 1891–1902 (vol. I, pp. 221-286). Springer Science & Business Media, 2004.
  32. Hilbert, D. (1902a). Mathematical problems. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 8(10), 437-479.
  33. Hilbert, D. (1902b/2004). Grundlagen der geometrie. En M. Hallett & U. Majer (Eds.), David Hilbert’s lectures on the foundations of geometry 1891–1902 (vol. I, pp. 540-602). Springer Science & Business Media.
  34. Hilbert, D. (1971). Foundations of geometry (L. Unger, Trad.). Open Court.
  35. Hilbert, D. (1996). El pensamiento axiomático. En C. Álvarez y F. Segura (Eds.), Fundamentos de las matemáticas (pp. 23-35). UNAM.
  36. Hilbert, D. (1998). The theory of algebraic number fields. Springer Science & Business Media.
  37. Kahle, R., & Pulcini, G. (2018). Towards an operational view of purity. En P. Arazim & Tomáš Lávička (Eds.), The Logica Yearbook 2017 (pp. 125-138). College Publications.
  38. Klein, F. (1979). Development of mathematics in the 19th Century: Appendices, “Kleinian mathematics from an advanced standpoint” (vol. 9). Math Science Press.
  39. Kreisel, G. (1980). Kurt Gödel, 28 April 1906 - 14 January 1978. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, 26, 148-224.
  40. Lassalle Casanave, A. & Giovannini, E. N. (2021), From magnitudes to geometry and back: De Zolt’s postulate. Theoria, 88(3), 629-652. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12385
  41. Lehet, E. (2021). Impurity in contemporary mathematics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 62(1), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1215/00294527-2021-0003
  42. Mancosu, P., & Arana, A. (2015). Plane and solid geometry: A note on purity of methods. En G. Lolli, M. Panza & G. Venturi (Eds.), From logic to practice (pp. 23-31). Springer.
  43. Pambuccian, V. (2001). Fragments of euclidean and hyperbolic geometry. Scientiae Mathematicae Japonicae, 53(2), 361-400.
  44. Pasch, M. (2013). Vorlesungen über die neuere geometrie: Mit einem anhang von Max Dehn: Die grundlegung der geometrie in historischer entwicklung (vol. 23). Springer.
  45. Pillay, A. (2021). Remarks on purity of methods. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 62(1), 193-200. https://doi.org/10.1215/00294527-2021-0008
  46. Prawitz, D. (1971). Ideas and results in proof theory. En J. E. Fenstad (Ed.), Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics (vol. 63, pp. 235-307). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-237X(08)70849-8
  47. Rav, Y. (1999). Why do we prove theorems? Philosophia Mathematica, 7(1), 5-41. https://doi.org/10.1093/philmat/7.1.5
  48. Schlimm, D. (2013). Axioms in mathematical practice. Philosophia Mathematica, 21(1), 37-92. https://doi.org/10.1093/philmat/nks036
  49. Schur, F. (1898). Über den fundamentalsatz der projectiven geometrie. Mathematische Annalen, 51(3), 401-409.
  50. Sieg, W. (2009). Hilbert’s proof theory. En D. Gabbay & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the history of logic: Volume 5. Logic from Russell to Church (pp. 321-384). Elsevier.
  51. Troelstra, A. (1975). Non-extensional equality. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 82(4), 307- 322. http://eudml.org/doc/214670
  52. Wiener, H. (1890). Ueber grundlagen und aufbau der geometrie. Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 1, 45-48.