Abstract
Mathematicians and others often discuss mathematics as a universal language, and say that mathematics holds a special status among sciences. In particular, it is the language of science. In some way, it is the basis of the physical world, but globally it is beyond any other science, and it is not a mere servant of sciences. Apparently, mathematical language is simple, with a little grammar and a limited vocabulary, but very different from others. Unlike natural languages, it is a rigorously defined and unambiguous one. This characteristic constitutes its greatest advantage: its complete lack of ambiguity. Although it is limited in the range of things that can express, it can be adapted to the needs of any application, what constitutes a real challenge in terms of effectiveness. A language is a medium for expressing verbally or visually facts, opinions, thoughts, feelings, desires, commands, etc. Each language employs abstract symbols (verbal or visual) to represent things. Mathematics exhibits these characteristics as a language, albeit with different emphasis and importance. The range of topics communicated in natural languages and those communicated in mathematical language differ in significant ways. Feelings and emotions are not expressed in mathematical terms, and imprecisely defined terms are not allowed in mathematical language. The aim of this contribution will be to analyze some of the characteristics of mathematical language, the role of semiotic modes in reproducing the effectiveness of mathematics in science, and the relation of the problem of indispensability to the one of the reasonable effectiveness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
This image comes from Descartes (1682) p. 226. The author is grateful to the Biblioteca Històrica (Historical Library), Universitat de València, for the right to reproduce it.
- 2.
This image comes from Descartes (1682) p. 228. The author is grateful to the Biblioteca Històrica (Historical Library), Universitat de València, for the right to reproduce it.
References
Baber, R. L. (2011). The language of mathematics. Utilizing math in practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Bateman, J. (2014). Text and image. A critical introduction to the visual/verbal divide. London: Routledge.
Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: BBC and Penguin Books.
Burton, L., & Morgan, C. (2000). Mathematicians writing. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 429–453.
Cifoletti, G. (2006). Mathematics and rhetoric. Introduction. Early Science and Medicine, 11, 369–389.
Colyvan, M. (2009). Mathematics and the world. In A. D. Irvine (Ed.), Philosophy of mathematics (pp. 651–702). Oxford: Elsevier.
Davis, P. J. (1974). Visual geometry, computer graphics and theorems of perceived type. In J. P. LaSalle (Ed.), The influence of computing on mathematical research and education (pp. 113–127). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
Descartes, R. (1682). Renati Descartes epistolae: partim ab auctore latino sermone conscriptae, partim ex Gallico translatae: in quibus Omnis generis quaestiones philosophiae tractantur...: pars prima. Amstelodami: Ex typographia Blauiana: sumptibus societatis, Universitat de València, Biblioteca Històrica.
Devlin, K. (1998). The language of mathematics. Making the invisible visible. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Field, H. (1989). Realism, mathematics and modality. Oxford: Blackwell.
Frege, G. (1953). The foundations of arithmetic (2nd revised ed., J. L. Austin, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Grattan-Guinness, I. (2008). Solving Wigner’s mystery: The reasonable (though perhaps limited) effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 30(3), 7–17.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The collected works of M. A. K. Halliday. Volume 5: The Language of Science (J. J. Webster, Ed.). London: Continuum.
Jewitt, C. (Ed.). (2009). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (2nd ed.). London: Routledge, 2014.
Kant, I. (1786). The metaphysical foundations of natural science (M. Friedman, Trans. & Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Kvasz, L. (2008). Patterns of change. Linguistic innovations in the development of classical mathematics. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Morgan, C. (2014). Mathematical language. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 388–391). New York: Springer.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse. Language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2009). Historical changes in the semiotic landscape: From calculation to computation. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 98–113). London: Routledge.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2015). Mathematics as multimodal semiosis. In E. Davis & P. J. Davis (Eds.), Mathematics, substance and surmise views on the meaning and ontology of mathematics (pp. 287–303). New York: Springer.
Panza, M., & Sereni, A. (2015). On the indispensable premises of the indispensability argument. In G. Lolli, M. Panza, & G. Venturi (Eds.), From logic to practice. Italian studies in the philosophy of mathematics (pp. 241–276). New York: Springer.
Pólya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968.
Pólya, G. (1963). Mathematical methods in science. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
Putnam, H. (1979). Mathematics matter and method: Philosophical papers vol. I (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1980). From a logical point of view (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1981). Theories and things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sarukkai, S. (2005). Revisiting the “unreasonable effectiveness” of mathematics. Current Science, 88(3), 415–422.
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Steiner, M. (1998). The applicability of mathematics as a philosophical problem. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Steiner, M. (2005). Mathematics — Application and applicability. In S. Shapiro (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mathematics and logic (pp. 625–650). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weinberg, S. (1993). Dreams of a final theory. New York: Vintage.
Weyl, H. (1949). Philosophy of mathematics and natural science (Revised and augmented English edition based on a O. Helmer, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wigner, E. P. (1960). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13(1), 1–14.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation for supporting this work (FFI2014-53164 and PGC2018-095941-B-I009).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Alcolea, J. (2021). On Mathematical Language: Characteristics, Semiosis and Indispensability. In: Gonzalez, W.J. (eds) Language and Scientific Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60537-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60537-7_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60536-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-60537-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)