Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-nvqbz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-08T06:27:34.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Penelop Maddy
Penelop Maddy*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As the time for preparing these remarks drew nearer, I found myself warming to our assigned topic—“New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics”. What I like about it is the suggestion that the speaker will be pointing in some inspiring style towards a new vista, a new set of problems, a new direction in the field rather than proposing a substantial contribution to the solution to some already well-known difficulty. This image makes me feel less guilty about having no solutions of any sort to offer today. What I do have is a problem to pose, a problem that seems to me quite serious. If it isn't completely new, I can at least say truly that it hasn't received the attention that it deserves, that it is far from solved, and that it has become more pressing in recent years.

Type
Part XI. New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1984 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1984 , 1984 , pp. 426 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

My thanks go to John Burgess for introducing me to the topics covered in this paper. I have benefitted more recently from correspondence and conversations with D. A. Martin and Yiannis Moschovakis. The support of an NEH summer grant in 1984 is also gratefully acknowledged.

References

Addison, J.W (1959). “Some Consequences of the Axiom of Constructibillty.” Fundamental Mathematicae 46: 337-357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Addison, J.W and Moschovakis, Y.N (1968). “Some Consequences of the Axiom of Definable Determinateness.” Proceedings of the National Aoaademv of Sciences, USA 59: 708-712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Addison, J.W (1974). “Current Problems in Descriptive Set Theory.” In Axiomatic Set Theory. Edited by Jech, T.J. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Pages 1-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Y (ed.). (1970). Mathematical Logic and the Foundations of Set Theory. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. (ed.). (1977). Handbook of Mathematical Logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Benacerraf, P (1973). “Mathematical Truth.” Journal of Philosophy 70: 661-680. (As reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam (1983). Pages 403-420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benacerraf, P and Putnam, H (eds.). (1983). Philosophy of Mathematics. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blackwell, D (1967). “Infinite Games and Analytic Sets.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 58: 1836-1837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boolos, G (1971). “The Iterative Conception of Set.” Journal of Philosophy 68: 215-231. (As reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam (1983). Pages 486-502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, P (1971). “Comments on the Foundations of Set Theory.” In Axiomatic Set Theory. Edited by Scott, D. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Pages 9-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, K.J (1979). Fundamentals of Contemporary Set Theory. Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, F (1974). Set Theory. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Fenstad, J.E (1971). “The Axiom of Determinateness.” In Proceedings of the Second Scandanavian Logic Symposium. Edited by Fenstad, J.E. Amsterdam: North Holland. Pages 41-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, G (1914). “Logic in Mathematics.” Unpublished manuscript. (As printed in Posthumous Writings, (trans.) P. Long and R. White. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Pages 203-250.Google Scholar
Gale, D and Stewart, F.M (1953). “Infinite Games With Perfect ‘ Information.” Contributions to Game Theory 2: 245-266.Google Scholar
Gödel, K (1938). “The Consistency of the Axiom of Choice and of the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. USA 24: 556-557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gödel, K (1944). “Russell's Mathematical Logic.” In The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell: Edited by P.A. Schlipp. New York: Tudor Publishing Co. Pages 125-153. (As revised and reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam (1983). Pages 447-469.Google Scholar
Gödel, K (1947/64). “What i s Cantor's Continuum Problem?” American Mathematical Monthly 54: 515-525. (As reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam (1983). Pages 470-485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, L (1978). “Analytic Determinancy and Off.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 43: 685-693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, R.B and Solovay, R.M (1970). “Some Applications of Almost Disjoint Sets.” In Bar-Hillel (1970). Pages 84-104.Google Scholar
Kechris, A.S and Moschovakis, Y.N (eds.). (1978). Cabal Seminar 76-77. (Proceedings of the Caltech-UCLA Logic Seminar. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Volume 689.) Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kechris, A.S; Martin, D.A and Mosohovakis, Y.N (eds.). (1981). Cabal Seminar 77-79. (Proceedings of the Calteoh-UCLA Logic Seminar, Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Volume 839.) Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kechris, A.S; Martin, D.A and Mosohovakis, Y.N (eds.). (1983). Cabal Seminar 79-81. (Proceedings of the Calteoh-UCLA Logic Seminar, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Volume 1019.) Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Kim, J (1981). “The Role of Perception in A Priori Knowledge.” Philosophical Studies 40: 339-354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P (1983). The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, A and Solovay, R.M (1967). “Measurable Cardinals and the Continuum Hypothesis.” Israel Journal of Mathematics 5: 234-248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddy, P (1980). “Perception and Mathematical Intuition.” The Philosophical Review 89: 163-196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, D.A (1968). “The Axiom of Determinateness and Reduction Principles in the Analytic Hierarchy.” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 74: 687-689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, D.A (1970). “Measurable Cardinals and Analytic Games.” Fundamenta Mathematicae 66: 287-291.Google Scholar
Martin, D.A and Solovay, R.M (1970). “Internal Cohen Extensions.” Annals of Mathematical Logic 2: 143-178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, D.A (1975). “Borel Determinacy.” Annals of Mathematics 102: 363-371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, D.A (1976). “Hubert's First Problem: The Continuum Hypothesis.” In Mathematical Developments Arising From Hilbert's Problems. Edited by Browder, F. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Pages 81-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, D.A (1977). “Descriptive Set Theory: Projeetive Sets.” In Barwise (1977). Pages 783-815.Google Scholar
Martin, D.A (1980). “Infinite Games.” In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians. Edited by Olli Lento. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica. Pages 269-273.Google Scholar
Martin, D.A and Kechris, A.S (1980). “Infinite Games and Descriptive Set Theory.” In Analytic Sets. Edited by C.A. Rogers et al. New York: Academic Press. Pages 403-470.Google Scholar
Martin, D.A. (????). “Projeetive Sets and Cardinal Numbers: Some Questions Related to the Continuum Problem.” Circulated xerox.Google Scholar
Hoschovakis, Y.N (1970). “Determlnacy and Prewellorderings of the Continuum.” In Bar-Hillel (1970). Pages 24-62.Google Scholar
Hoschovakis, Y.N (1971). “Uniformization in a Playful Universe.” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 77: 731-736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoschovakis, Y.N (1980). Descriptive Set Theory. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Mycielski, J and Steinhaus, H (1962). “A Mathematical Axiom Contradicting the Axiom of Choice.” Bulletin de L'Academie Polonaise des Sciences 10: 1-3.Google Scholar
Mycielski, J (1964). “On the Axiom of Determinateness.” Fundamenta Mathematicae 53: 205-224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, C (1977). “What is the Iterative Conception of Set?” In Logic, Foundations of Mathematics, and Computabilitv Theory. (The University of Western Ontario Studies in Philosophy of Science, Volume 9.) Edited by Butts, Robert E and Hintikka, Jaakk. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages 335-367. (As reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam (1983). Pages 503-529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, C. (1979/80). “Mathematical Intuition.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 80: 145-168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesnik, M (1981). “Mathematics as a Science of Patterns: Ontology and Reference.” Nous 15: 529-550.Google Scholar
Hesnik, M (1982). “Mathematics as a Science of Patterns: Epistemology.” Nous 16: 95-105.Google Scholar
Shoenfield, J.R (1977). “The Axioms of Set Theory.” In Barwise (1977). Pages 321-344.Google Scholar
Solovay, R.M (1967a). “Measurable Cardinals and the Axiom of Oeterminaoy.” Lecture Notes from the Summer Institute on Axiomatic Set Theory at UCLA, Summer 1967.Google Scholar
Solovay, R.M (1967b). “A Non-Constructible A3 set of integers.” Transactions of the AMS 127: 58-75.Google Scholar
Solovay, R.M (1969). “On the Cardinality of t\ sets of Reals.” In Foundations of Mathematics. Edited by Bulloff, J.J, Holyoke, T.C and Hahn, S.W. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Pages 58-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solovay, R.M (1970). “A Model of Set Theory in Which Every Set of Reals is Lebesgue Measurable.” Annals of Mathematics 92: 1-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solovay, R.M.; Reinhardt, H.N.; and Kanamori, A (1978). “Strong Axioms of Infinity and Elementary Embeddings.” Annals of Mathematical Logic. 13: 73-116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Heijenoort, J (ed.). (1967). From Freee to Gödel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
wang, H (1974). “The Concept of Set.” In From Mathematics to Philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Pages 181-223. (As reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam (1983). Pages 530-570.Google Scholar
Zermelo, E (1908a). “Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre I.” Mathematische Annalen 65: 261-281. (As reprinted as “Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory I.” In van Heijenoort (1967). Pages 199-215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zermelo, E (1908b). “Neuer Bewis für die Möglichkeit einer Hohlordnung.” Mathematische Annalen 65: 107-128. (As reprinted as “A New Proof of the Possibility of a Hellordering.” In van Heijenoort (1967). Pages 183-198.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar