Structuralism and Meta-Mathematics
- 129 Downloads
The debate on structuralism in the philosophy of mathematics has brought into focus a question about the status of meta-mathematics. It has been raised by Shapiro (2005), where he compares the ongoing discussion on structuralism in category theory to the Frege-Hilbert controversy on axiomatic systems. Shapiro outlines an answer according to which meta-mathematics is understood in structural terms and one according to which it is not. He finds both options viable and does not seem to prefer one over the other. The present paper reconsiders the nature of the formulae and symbols meta-mathematics is about and finds that, contrary to Charles Parsons’ influential view, meta-mathematical objects are not “quasi-concrete”. It is argued that, consequently, structuralists should extend their account of mathematics to meta-mathematics.
KeywordsMathematical structuralism Meta-mathematics Quasi-concrete objects Criteria of identity
I would like to thank Wilfried Keller and Felix Mühlhölzer for stimulating discussions and suggestions of how to improve the paper. Furthermore, I am grateful to Stewart Shapiro and an anonymous referee of Erkenntnis for many helpful comments on an earlier version.
- Awodey, S. (1996). Structure in mathematics and logic: A categorical perspective. Philosophia Mathematica , 4(3), 209–237.Google Scholar
- Feferman, S. (1960). Arithmetization of metamathematics in a general setting. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 49, 35–92.Google Scholar
- Frege, G. (1976). In G. Gabriel, H. Hermes, F. Kambartel, & C. Thiel (Eds.), Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
- Frege, G. (1980). In B. McGuiness (Ed.), Philosophical and mathematical correspondence (trans: Kaal, H.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Hellman, G. (1989). Mathematics without numbers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hellman, G. (2003). Does category theory provide a framework for mathematical structuralism? Philosophia Mathematica , 11(3), 129–157.Google Scholar
- Hellman, G. (2005). Structuralism. In S. Shapiro (Ed.), The oxford handbook of the philosophy of mathematics and logic (pp. 536–562). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hellman, G. (forthcoming). What is categorical structuralism?, available online at http://www.tc.umn.edu/hellm001/.
- Hilbert, D. (1899). Grundlagen der Geometrie. Leipzig: Teubner. Hilbert, D. (1959). Foundations of geometry (trans: Townsend, E.). La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.Google Scholar
- Ketland, J. (2006). Structuralism and the identity of indiscernibles. Analysis, 66, 303–315.Google Scholar
- MacBride, F. (2005). Structuralism reconsidered. In S. Shapiro (Ed.), The oxford handbook of the philosophy of mathematics and logic (pp. 563–589). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Mühlhölzer, F. (forthcoming). Wittgenstein and metamathematics. In P. Stekeler-Weithofer (Ed.), Wittgenstein, Philosophie und Wissenschaften. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
- Parsons, C. H. (1980). Mathematical intuition. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 80, 145–168.Google Scholar
- Parsons, C. H. (2008). Mathematical thought and its objects. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Resnik, M. D. (1997). Mathematics as a science of patterns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Shapiro, S. (2001). Thinking about mathematics: The philosophy of mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Wittgenstein, L. (1958). The blue and brown books. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar