Skip to main content
Log in

Comparing the structures of mathematical objects

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript


A popular method for comparing the structures of mathematical objects, which I call the ‘subset approach’, says that X has more structure than Y just in case X’s automorphisms form a proper subset of Y’s automorphisms. This approach is attractive, in part, because it seems to yield the right results in some comparisons of spacetime structure. But as I show, it yields the wrong results in a number of other cases. The problem is that the subset approach compares structure using automorphism sets. So a different approach is needed: structure should be compared using automorphism groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. I will principally focus on the method of group contraction explored by İnönü and Wigner (1953), but for my purposes, other methods would be equally acceptable.

  2. The most I will say is contained in the rough, heuristic gloss given before: to a first approximation, automorphisms can be used to quantify, or measure, an object’s structure.

  3. A diffeomorphism between two manifolds is a one-to-one, onto function f such that f and \(f^{-1}\) are smooth. A function is smooth just in case at every point in its domain, it can be differentiated any finite number of times.

  4. In his (2015b), Barrett formulates \(SYM^{*}\) using an ‘if’ rather than an ‘if and only if’. But in order for Barrett’s argument in that paper to be valid, he must accept the stronger ‘if and only if’ version. Thanks to Barrett (personal communication) for confirming that \(SYM^{*}\)—with an ‘if and only if’—is indeed the principle he intended to endorse.

  5. The label ‘\(SYM^{*}\)’ comes from (Swanson and Halvorson 2012) and (Barrett 2015b).

  6. Additional motivation for \(SYM^{*}\) stems from the theory of definability. See (Swanson and Halvorson 2012) and (Barrett 2018b) for discussion.

  7. That is, both spacetimes have the local structure of \(\mathbb {R}^{4}\).

  8. To see that \((P,+_{P})\) and \((Q,+_{Q})\) are isomorphic, map 0 to and 1 to .

  9. One might wonder whether Subgroup is equivalent to certain category-theoretic criteria for comparing structure. According to one category-theoretic criterion, which associates each mathematical object with a category consisting of a single object and arrows for that object’s automorphisms, one object has at least as much structure as another just in case there is an isomorphism of categories between the former object’s associated category and a subcategory of the latter object’s associated category. This category-theoretic criterion may well be equivalent to Subgroup in some important sense or other. But in this paper, I will not investigate the possibility, or plausibility, of category-theoretic criteria like these; that would take us too far afield of my main aims here. Regardless, I am not sure whether the second principle for comparing structures using automorphisms—the principle discussed below—has any neat category-theoretic formulation. So the question of the equivalence of Subgroup to any category-theoretic proposals will ultimately be somewhat irrelevant, when I turn to that second principle.

  10. An aside: Barrett (2015a, p. 823) briefly mentions a principle akin to Subgroup, but he discards it because of problems it generates. The main problem which that principle faces—it implies that some mathematical objects have strictly more structure than themselves—is not faced by Subgroup. The other problem is mentioned below, in the discussion of the special case where Aut(X) is trivial. As I will argue, it is not really a problem.

  11. Since both \((R,+_{R})\) and \((S,+_{S})\) are generated by the same number of elements—namely, one—there may be a sense in which they have the same structure. But given that they have different numbers of automorphisms, there is also a sense in which they do not. It is enough for my purposes that Subgroup captures this latter sense of ‘at least as much structure as’.

  12. This follows from the dimensions of the three groups; see (Souriau 1997).

  13. It can be shown that there is no subgroup of Aut(G) to which Aut(M) is isomorphic, and there is no subgroup of Aut(M) to which Aut(G) is isomorphic (Guillemin and Sternberg 1984).

  14. A Lie group is a group that is also a smooth manifold. See (Souriau 1997) for details.

  15. For more thorough descriptions, see (Gilmore 1974; İnönü and Wigner 1953; Saletan 1961).

  16. The reason has to do with the kinds of subgroups that Aut(G) has. See (Gilmore 1974) for discussion.


  • Awodey, S. (2010). Category theory (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, T. W. (2015a). On the structure of classical mechanics. British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, 66, 801–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, T. W. (2015b). Spacetime structure. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 51, 37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, T. W. (2018a). Equivalent and inequivalent formulations of classical mechanics. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70, 1167–1199.

  • Barrett, T. W. (2018b). What do symmetries tell us about structure? Philosophy of Science, 85, 617–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, C. (2020). The Non-equivalence of Einstein and Lorentz. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1–23.

  • Das, A., & Okubo, S. (2014). Lie groups and Lie algebras for physicists. Hackensack: World Scientific.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Earman, J. (1989). World Enough and Space-Time. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, S. (2014). The structure of the world. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1983). Foundations of space-time theories. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geroch, R. (1978). General relativity from A to B. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore, R. (1974). Lie groups, Lie algebras, and some of their applications. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guillemin, V., & Sternberg, S. (1984). Symplectic techniques in physics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatcher, A. (2002). Algebraic topology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, A. E., & Loeb, P. A. (1985). An introduction to nonstandard real analysis. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • İnönü, E., & Wigner, E. P. (1953). On the contraction of groups and their representations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 39(6), 510–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, F. (1893). A comparative review of recent researches in geometry. Bulletin of the New York Mathematical Society (M. W. Haskell, Trans.), 2(10), 215–249.

  • Knox, E. (2014). Newtonian spacetime structure in light of the equivalence principle. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 65, 863–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Lane, S. (1986). Mathematics, form and function. New York: Springer.

  • Maudlin, T. (2012). Philosophy of physics: space and time. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • North, J. (2009). The “Structure” of Physics: A Case Study. The Journal of Philosophy, 106(2), 57–88.

  • Redhead, M. (2003). The interpretation of gauge symmetry. In K. Brading & E. Castellani (Eds.), Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections (pp. 124–139). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Saletan, E. J. (1961). Contraction of Lie groups. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 2(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, B. (1980). Geometrical methods of mathematical physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sklar, L. (1974). Space, time, and spacetime. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Solomon, R. (2001). A brief history of the classification of the finite simple groups. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 38(3), 315–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souriau, J. M. (1997). Structure of Dynamical Systems (C. H. Cushman-de Vries, Trans.). Boston: Birkhäuser.

  • Swanson, N., & Halvorson, H. (2012). On North’s “The Structure of Physics”. Unpublished manuscript. Available at

  • Wallace, D. (2019). Who’s afraid of coordinate systems? An essay on representation of spacetime structure. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 67, 125–136.

  • Weatherall, J. O. (2016). Are Newtonian Gravitation and Geometrized Newtonian Gravitation Theoretically Equivalent? Erkenntnis, 81, 1073–1091.

Download references


Many thanks to David Albert, Thomas Barrett, Gordon Belot, Eddy Chen, Hans Halvorson, Barry Loewer, Tim Maudlin, Alex Meehan, Aidan Ottoni-Wilhelm, Simon Saunders, Jonathan Schaffer, Ted Sider, Noel Swanson, Shadi Tahvildar-Zadeh, the audience at the 2017 British Society for the Philosophy of Science, the audience at the 2018 Canadian Society for the History and Philosophy of Science, the audience at the 2018 Society for Exact Philosophy, the audience at the 2018 Eastern American Philosophical Association, and especially Jill North, for much helpful feedback and discussion.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isaac Wilhelm.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilhelm, I. Comparing the structures of mathematical objects. Synthese 199, 6357–6369 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: