We analyze the developments in mathematical rigor from the viewpoint of a Burgessian critique of nominalistic reconstructions. We apply such a critique to the reconstruction of infinitesimal analysis accomplished through the efforts of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass; to the reconstruction of Cauchy’s foundational work associated with the work of Boyer and Grabiner; and to Bishop’s constructivist reconstruction of classical analysis. We examine the effects of a nominalist disposition on historiography, teaching, and research.

The small, the tiny, and the infinitesimal have been the object of both fascination and vilification for millenia. One of the most vitriolic reviews in mathematics was that written by Errett Bishop about Keisler’s book Elementary Calculus: an Infinitesimal Approach. In this skit we investigate both the argument itself, and some of its roots in Bishop George Berkeley’s criticism of Leibnizian and Newtonian Calculus. We also explore some of the consequences to students for whom the infinitesimal approach is congenial. The (...) casual mathematical reader may be satisfied to read the text of the five act play, whereas the others may wish to delve into the 130 footnotes, some of which contain elucidation of the mathematics or comments on the history. (shrink)

The constructive mathematics developed by Bishop in Foundations of Constructive Analysis succeeded in gaining the attention of mathematicians, but discussions of its underlying philosophy are still rare in the literature. Commentators seem to conclude, from Bishop’s rejection of choice sequences and his severe criticism of Brouwerian intuitionism, that he is not an intuitionist–broadly understood as someone who maintains that mathematics is a mental creation, mathematics is meaningful and eludes formalization, mathematical objects are mind-dependent constructions given in intuition, and mathematical truths (...) are experienceable. This paper develops and defends an intuitionistic interpretation of Bishop’s philosophical views. (shrink)