Advertisement

Foundations of Science

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 153–170 | Cite as

Independence of the Grossone-Based Infinity Methodology from Non-standard Analysis and Comments upon Logical Fallacies in Some Texts Asserting the Opposite

  • Yaroslav D. SergeyevEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper considers non-standard analysis and a recently introduced computational methodology based on the notion of ① (this symbol is called grossone). The latter approach was developed with the intention to allow one to work with infinities and infinitesimals numerically in a unique computational framework and in all the situations requiring these notions. Non-standard analysis is a classical purely symbolic technique that works with ultrafilters, external and internal sets, standard and non-standard numbers, etc. In its turn, the ①-based methodology does not use any of these notions and proposes a more physical treatment of mathematical objects separating the objects from tools used to study them. It both offers a possibility to create new numerical methods using infinities and infinitesimals in floating-point computations and allows one to study certain mathematical objects dealing with infinity more accurately than it is done traditionally. In these notes, we explain that even though both methodologies deal with infinities and infinitesimals, they are independent and represent two different philosophies of Mathematics that are not in a conflict. It is proved that texts (Gutman et al. in Found Sci 22(3):539–555, 2017; Gutman and Kutateladze in Sib Math J 49(5):835–841, 2008; Kutateladze in J Appl Ind Math 5(1):73–75, 2011) asserting that the ①-based methodology is a part of non-standard analysis unfortunately contain several logical fallacies. Their attempt to show that the ①-based methodology can be formalized within non-standard analysis is similar to trying to show that constructivism can be reduced to the traditional Mathematics.

Keywords

Numerical infinities and infinitesimals Grossone Infinity Computer Non-standard anallysis Logical fallacies 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The author thanks four unknown reviewers for their valuable comments. The author thanks Prof. Daniel Moskovich, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel for providing a preliminary list of logical fallacies present in Gutman et al. (2017).

References

  1. Adamatzky, A. (2006). Book review: Ya.D. Sergeyev, Arithmetic of Infinity, Edizioni Orizzonti Meridionali, 2003. International Journal of Unconventional Computing, 2(2), 193–194.Google Scholar
  2. Amodio, P., Iavernaro, F., Mazzia, F., Mukhametzhanov, M. S., & Sergeyev, Y. D. (2017). A generalized Taylor method of order three for the solution of initial value problems in standard and infinity floating-point arithmetic. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 141, 24–39.Google Scholar
  3. Butterworth, B., Reeve, R., Reynolds, F., & Lloyd, D. (2008). Numerical thought with and without words: Evidence from indigenous Australian children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(35), 13179–13184.Google Scholar
  4. Caldarola, F. (2018). The Sierpinski curve viewed by numerical computations with infinities and infinitesimals. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 318, 321–328.Google Scholar
  5. Cococcioni, M., Pappalardo, M., & Sergeyev, Y. D. (2018). Lexicographic multi-objective linear programming using grossone methodology: Theory and algorithm. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 318, 298–311.Google Scholar
  6. Crowell, B., & Khafateh, M. http://www.lightandmatter.com/calc/inf/.
  7. D’Alotto, L. (2012). Cellular automata using infinite computations. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218(16), 8077–8082.Google Scholar
  8. D’Alotto, L. (2013). A classification of two-dimensional cellular automata using infinite computations. Indian Journal of Mathematics, 55, 143–158.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, M. (2005). Applied nonstandard analysis. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  10. De Cosmis, S., & De Leone, R. (2012). The use of grossone in mathematical programming and operations research. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218(16), 8029–8038.Google Scholar
  11. De Leone, R. (2018). Nonlinear programming and grossone: Quadratic programming and the role of constraint qualifications. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 318, 290–297.Google Scholar
  12. Gaudioso, M., Giallombardo, G., & Mukhametzhanov, M. S. (2018). Numerical infinitesimals in a variable metric method for convex nonsmooth optimization. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 318, 312–320.Google Scholar
  13. Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306, 496–499.Google Scholar
  14. Gutman, A. E., Katz, M. G., Kudryk, T. S., & Kutateladze, S. S. (2017). The mathematical intelligencer flunks the olympics. Foundations of Science, 22(3), 539–555.Google Scholar
  15. Gutman, A. E., & Kutateladze, S. S. (2008). On the theory of grossone. Siberian Mathematical Journal, 49(5), 835–841.Google Scholar
  16. Iudin, D. I., Sergeyev, Y. D., & Hayakawa, M. (2015). Infinity computations in cellular automaton forest-fire model. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 20(3), 861–870.Google Scholar
  17. Kutateladze, S. S. (2011). A pennorth of grossone. Journal of Applied and Industrial Mathematics, 5(1), 73–75.Google Scholar
  18. Linnebo, Ø. (2017). Philosophy of mathematics (Princeton Foundations of Contemporary Philosophy). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lolli, G. (2002). Filosofia della matematica. L’eredità del Novecento. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  20. Lolli, G. (2012). Infinitesimals and infinites in the history of mathematics: A brief survey. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218(16), 7979–7988.Google Scholar
  21. Lolli, G. (2015). Metamathematical investigations on the theory of grossone. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 255, 3–14.Google Scholar
  22. Margenstern, M. (2011). Using grossone to count the number of elements of infinite sets and the connection with bijections. p-Adic Numbers, Ultrametric Analysis and Applications, 3(3), 196–204.Google Scholar
  23. Margenstern, M. (2015). Fibonacci words, hyperbolic tilings and grossone. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 21(1–3), 3–11.Google Scholar
  24. Montagna, F., Simi, G., & Sorbi, A. (2015). Taking the Pirah a seriously. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 21(1–3), 52–69.Google Scholar
  25. Pardalos, P. M. (2006). Book review: Ya.D. Sergeyev, Arithmetic of Infinity, Edizioni Orizzonti Meridionali, 2003. Journal of Global Optimization, 34, 157–158.Google Scholar
  26. Prokopyev, O. (2006). Book review: Ya.D. Sergeyev, Arithmetic of Infinity, Edizioni Orizzonti Meridionali, 2003. Optimization Methods and Software, 21(6), 995–996.Google Scholar
  27. Rizza, D. (2017). A study of mathematical determination through Bertrands Paradox. Philosophia Mathematica.  https://doi.org/10.1093/philmat/nkx035.
  28. Rizza, D. (2016). Supertasks and numeral systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on “numerical computations: Theory and algorithms”, Vol. 1776. AIP Publishing, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Robinson, A. (1996). Non-standard analysis. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2013). Arithmetic of infinity, 2nd ed. Edizioni Orizzonti Meridionali, CS, 2003.Google Scholar
  31. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2007). Blinking fractals and their quantitative analysis using infinite and infinitesimal numbers. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 33(1), 50–75.Google Scholar
  32. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2008). A new applied approach for executing computations with infinite and infinitesimal quantities. Informatica, 19(4), 567–596.Google Scholar
  33. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2009a). Evaluating the exact infinitesimal values of area of Sierpinski’s carpet and volume of Menger’s sponge. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 42(5), 3042–3046.Google Scholar
  34. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2009b). Numerical point of view on Calculus for functions assuming finite, infinite, and infinitesimal values over finite, infinite, and infinitesimal domains. Nonlinear Analysis Series A: Theory, Methods & Applications, 71(12), e1688–e1707.Google Scholar
  35. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2010a). Computer system for storing infinite, infinitesimal, and finite quantities and executing arithmetical operations with them. USA patent 7,860,914.Google Scholar
  36. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2010b). Counting systems and the First Hilbert problem. Nonlinear Analysis Series A: Theory, Methods & Applications, 72(3–4), 1701–1708.Google Scholar
  37. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2010c). Lagrange lecture: Methodology of numerical computations with infinities and infinitesimals. Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico dell’Università e del Politecnico di Torino, 68(2), 95–113.Google Scholar
  38. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2011a). Higher order numerical differentiation on the Infinity Computer. Optimization Letters, 5(4), 575–585.Google Scholar
  39. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2011b). On accuracy of mathematical languages used to deal with the Riemann zeta function and the Dirichlet eta function. p-Adic Numbers, Ultrametric Analysis and Applications, 3(2), 129–148.Google Scholar
  40. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2011c). Using blinking fractals for mathematical modelling of processes of growth in biological systems. Informatica, 22(4), 559–576.Google Scholar
  41. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2013). Solving ordinary differential equations by working with infinitesimals numerically on the Infinity Computer. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 219(22), 10668–10681.Google Scholar
  42. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2015a). The Olympic medals ranks, lexicographic ordering, and numerical infinities. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 37(2), 4–8.Google Scholar
  43. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2015b). Un semplice modo per trattare le grandezze infinite ed infinitesime. Matematica nella Società e nella Cultura: Rivista della Unione Matematica Italiana, 8(1), 111–147.Google Scholar
  44. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2016). The exact (up to infinitesimals) infinite perimeter of the Koch snowflake and its finite area. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 31(1–3), 21–29.Google Scholar
  45. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2017). Numerical infinities and infinitesimals: Methodology, applications, and repercussions on two Hilbert problems. EMS Surveys in Mathematical Sciences, 4(2), 219–320.Google Scholar
  46. Sergeyev, Y. D. (2018). Numerical infinities applied for studying Riemann series theorem and Ramanujan summation. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1978, 020004.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5043649.Google Scholar
  47. Sergeyev, Y. D., & Garro, A. (2010). Observability of Turing machines: A refinement of the theory of computation. Informatica, 21(3), 425–454.Google Scholar
  48. Sergeyev, Y. D., & Garro, A. (2013). Single-tape and multi-tape Turing machines through the lens of the Grossone methodology. Journal of Supercomputing, 65(2), 645–663.Google Scholar
  49. Sergeyev, Y. D., Kvasov, D. E., & Mukhametzhanov, M. S. (2018). On strong homogeneity of a class of global optimization algorithms working with infinite and infinitesimal scales. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 59, 319–330.Google Scholar
  50. Sergeyev, Y. D., Mukhametzhanov, M. S., Mazzia, F., Iavernaro, F., & Amodio, P. (2016). Numerical methods for solving initial value problems on the Infinity Computer. International Journal of Unconventional Computing, 12(1), 3–23.Google Scholar
  51. Shapiro, S. (2001). Thinking about mathematics: The philosophy of mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Shylo, V. P. (2006). Book review: Ya.D. Sergeyev, Arithmetic of Infinity, Edizioni Orizzonti Meridionali, 2003. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, 42(6), 183.Google Scholar
  53. Trigiante, D. (2007). Book review: Ya.D. Sergeyev, Arithmetic of Infinity, Edizioni Orizzonti Meridionali, 2003. Computational Management Science, 4(1), 85–86.Google Scholar
  54. Vita, M. C., De Bartolo, S., Fallico, C., & Veltri, M. (2012). Usage of infinitesimals in the Menger’s Sponge model of porosity. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218(16), 8187–8196.Google Scholar
  55. Zhigljavsky, A. (2012). Computing sums of conditionally convergent and divergent series using the concept of grossone. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218(16), 8064–8076.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CalabriaRendeItaly

Personalised recommendations