Abstract
Though pictures are often used to present mathematical arguments, they are not typically thought to be an acceptable means for presenting mathematical arguments rigorously. With respect to the proofs in the Elements in particular, the received view is that Euclid’s reliance on geometric diagrams undermines his efforts to develop a gap-free deductive theory. The central difficulty concerns the generality of the theory. How can inferences made from a particular diagrams license general mathematical results? After surveying the history behind the received view, this essay provides a contrary analysis by introducing a formal account of Euclid’s proofs, termed Eu. Eu solves the puzzle of generality surrounding Euclid’s arguments. It specifies what diagrams Euclid’s diagrams are, in a precise formal sense, and defines generality-preserving proof rules in terms of them. After the central principles behind the formalization are laid out, its implications with respect to the question of what does and does not constitute a genuine picture proof are explored.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Avigad, J., Dean, E., & Mumma, J. (2009). A formal system for Euclid’s elements. The Review of Symbolic Logic (to appear).
Azzouni J. (2004) Derivation indicator view of mathematical practice. Philosophia Mathematica, 12(2): 81–106
Barwise J., Hammer E. (1996) Diagrams and the concept of a logical system. In: Allwen G., Barwise J. (eds) Logical reasoning with diagrams. Oxford University Press, New York
Brown J.R. (1997) Proofs and pictures. British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, 48(2): 161–180
Dove I. (2002) Can pictures prove?. Logique & Analyse, 45(179–180): 309–340
Frege G. (1964) The basic laws of arithmetic, translated by montgomery furth. University of California Press, Berkeley
Hilbert D. (2004). David Hilbert’s lectures on the foundations of geometry: 1891–1902. In: Hallet M., Majer U. (eds). Berlin, Springer
Klein, F. (1939). Elementary mathematics from an advanced standpoint. Dover Publications.
Leibniz G. (1949) New essays concerning human understanding. LaSalle, Illinois, Open Court Publishing
Mancosu, P. (2005). Visualization in logic and mathematics. In P. Mancosu, K. F. Jorgensen, & S. A. Pedersen (Eds.), Visualization, explanation, and reasoning styles in mathematics. Springer.
Manders K. (2008) The euclidean diagram. In: Mancosu P. (eds) Philosophy of mathematical practice. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Miller N. (2007) Euclid and his twentieth century rivals: Diagrams in the logic of euclidean geometry. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, California
Morrow, G. (eds) (1970) Proclus: A commentary on the first book of Euclid’s elements. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Mueller I. (1981) Philosophy of mathematics and deductive structure in Euclid’s elements. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mumma, J. (2006). Intuition formalized: Ancient and modern methods of proof in elementary euclidean geometry. PhD Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University. htp://www.andrew.cmu.edu/jmumma.
Mumma J. (2008) Review of Euclid and his twentieth century rivals: Diagrams in the logic of euclidean geometry. Philosophia Mathematica, 16(2): 256–264
Netz R. (1999) The shaping of deduction in greek mathematics: A study of cognitive history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Norman J. (2005) After Euclid: Visual reasoning and the epistemology of diagrams. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, California
Pasch M. (1882) Vorlesungen über Neuere Geometrie. B.G. Teubner, Leipzig
Rav Y. (1999) Why do we prove theorems?. Philosophia Mathematica, 7(1): 5–41
Rav Y. (2007) A critique of a formalist-mechanist version of the justification of arguments in mathematicians’ proof practices. Philosophia Mathematica, 15(3): 291–320
Shabel L. (2006). Kant’s philosophy of mathematics. In: Guyer P. (eds). The cambridge companion of Kant, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.
Shimojima A. (1996) Operational constraints in diagrammatic reasoning. In: Allwen G., Barwise J. (eds) Logical reasoning with diagrams. Oxford University Press, New York
Shin S. (1994) The logical status of diagrams. Cambridge University Press, New York
Stenning, K. (2000). Distinctions with differences: Comparing criteria for distinguishing diagrammatic from sentential systems. In Proceedings of the first international conference on theory and application of diagrams. London: Springer Verlag.
Tarski A. (1959) What is elementary geometry?. In: Henkin L., Suppes P., Tarski A. (eds) The axiomatic method, with special reference to geometry and physics. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam
Veblen, O. (1914). The foundations of geometry. In Monographs on topics of modern mathematics, relevant to the elementary field. Longsmand, Green, and Company.