Complete inferential rigour is achieved by breaking down arguments into steps that are as small as possible: inferential ‘atoms’. For example, a mathematical or philosophical argument may be made completely inferentially rigorous by decomposing its inferential steps into the type of step found in a natural deduction system. It is commonly thought that atomization, paradigmatically in mathematics but also more generally, is pro tanto epistemically valuable. The paper considers some plausible candidates for the epistemic value arising from atomization and finds (...) that none of them fits the bill. In particular, atomized arguments do not ground the correctness of their unatomized counterparts; they are typically not credence-preserving; and they need not reveal the source of inferential disagreement. The moral this suggests is that complete rigour is not even a defeasible epistemic ideal. (shrink)

Written by experts in the field, this volume presents a comprehensive investigation into the relationship between argumentation theory and the philosophy of mathematical practice. Argumentation theory studies reasoning and argument, and especially those aspects not addressed, or not addressed well, by formal deduction. The philosophy of mathematical practice diverges from mainstream philosophy of mathematics in the emphasis it places on what the majority of working mathematicians actually do, rather than on mathematical foundations. -/- The book begins by first challenging the (...) assumption that there is no role for informal logic in mathematics. Next, it details the usefulness of argumentation theory in the understanding of mathematical practice, offering an impressively diverse set of examples, covering the history of mathematics, mathematics education and, perhaps surprisingly, formal proof verification. From there, the book demonstrates that mathematics also offers a valuable testbed for argumentation theory. Coverage concludes by defending attention to mathematical argumentation as the basis for new perspectives on the philosophy of mathematics. ​. (shrink)

In Section 2, I survey some of the ways that computers are used in mathematics. These raise questions that seem to have a generally epistemological character, although they do not fall squarely under a traditional philosophical purview. The goal of this article is to try to articulate some of these questions more clearly, and assess the philosophical methods that may be brought to bear. In Section 3, I note that most of the issues can be classified under two headings: some (...) deal with the ability of computers to deliver appropriate “evidence” for mathematical assertions, a notion that is explored in Section 4, while others deal with the ability of computers to deliver appropriate mathematical “understanding,” a notion that is considered in Section 5. Final thoughts are provided in Section 6. (shrink)

On the history of the book: In the early 1990s several new methods and perspectives in au- mated deduction emerged. We just mention the superposition calculus, meta-term inference and schematization, deductive decision procedures, and automated model building. It was this last?eld which brought the authors of this book together. In 1994 they met at the Conference on Automated Deduction in Nancy and agreed upon the general point of view, that semantics and, in particular, construction of models should play a central (...) role in the?eld of automated deduction. In the following years the deduction groups of the laboratory LEIBNIZ at IMAG Grenoble and the University of Technology in Vienna organized several bilateral projects promoting this topic. This book emerged as a main result of this cooperation. The authors are aware of the fact, that the book does not cover all relevant methods of automated model building ; instead the book focuses on deduction-based symbolic methods for the construction of Herbrand models developed in the last 12 years. Other methods of automated model building, in particular also?nite model building, are mainly treated in the?nal chapter; this chapter is less formal and detailed but gives a broader view on the topic and a comparison of di?erent approaches. Howtoreadthisbook: In the introduction we give an overview of automated deduction in a historical context, taking into account its relationship with the human views on formal and informal proofs. (shrink)