Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. (1 other version)Why Do We Prove Theorems?Yehuda Rav - 1999 - Philosophia Mathematica 7 (1):5-41.
    Ordinary mathematical proofs—to be distinguished from formal derivations—are the locus of mathematical knowledge. Their epistemic content goes way beyond what is summarised in the form of theorems. Objections are raised against the formalist thesis that every mainstream informal proof can be formalised in some first-order formal system. Foundationalism is at the heart of Hilbert's program and calls for methods of formal logic to prove consistency. On the other hand, ‘systemic cohesiveness’, as proposed here, seeks to explicate why mathematical knowledge is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   93 citations  
  • A Century Later.Stephen Neale - 2005 - Mind 114 (456):809-871.
    This is the introductory essay to a collection commemorating the 100th anniversary of the publication in Mind of Bertrand Russell’s paper ‘On Denoting’.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  • Meanings in Ordinary Language and in Mathematics.R. S. D. Thomas - 1991 - Philosophia Mathematica (1):3-38.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Why do we believe theorems?Andrzej Pelc - 2009 - Philosophia Mathematica 17 (1):84-94.
    The formalist point of view maintains that formal derivations underlying proofs, although usually not carried out in practice, contribute to the confidence in mathematical theorems. Opposing this opinion, the main claim of the present paper is that such a gain of confidence obtained from any link between proofs and formal derivations is, even in principle, impossible in the present state of knowledge. Our argument is based on considerations concerning length of formal derivations. Thanks to Jody Azzouni for enlightening discussions concerning (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations