scholarly journals Abstract relations: bibliography and the infra-structures of modern mathematics

Synthese ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Barany
Keyword(s):  
Modern Mathematics

A Priority and Application: Philosophy of Mathematics in the Modern Period

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Shabel
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Mathematical Reasoning ◽  
Philosophy Of Mathematics ◽  
Mathematical Practice ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Pure Mathematics ◽  
Philosophical Account ◽  
Mathematical Ontology ◽  
To Come ◽  
Modern Mathematics

The state of modern mathematical practice called for a modern philosopher of mathematics to answer two interrelated questions. Given that mathematical ontology includes quantifiable empirical objects, how to explain the paradigmatic features of pure mathematical reasoning: universality, certainty, necessity. And, without giving up the special status of pure mathematical reasoning, how to explain the ability of pure mathematics to come into contact with and describe the empirically accessible natural world. The first question comes to a demand for apriority: a viable philosophical account of early modern mathematics must explain the apriority of mathematical reasoning. The second question comes to a demand for applicability: a viable philosophical account of early modern mathematics must explain the applicability of mathematical reasoning. This article begins by providing a brief account of a relevant aspect of early modern mathematical practice, in order to situate philosophers in their historical and mathematical context.

Lectures on Modern Mathematics. Volume 1

1964 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 67-68
Author(s):  
R O Gibson
Keyword(s):  
Modern Mathematics

Model Theory: Geometrical and Set-Theoretic Aspects and Prospects

2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angus Macintyre
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Category Theory ◽  
Theoretic Model ◽  
Topos Theory ◽  
Sheaf Theory ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
Algebraic Spaces ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Modern Mathematics

I see model theory as becoming increasingly detached from set theory, and the Tarskian notion of set-theoretic model being no longer central to model theory. In much of modern mathematics, the set-theoretic component is of minor interest, and basic notions are geometric or category-theoretic. In algebraic geometry, schemes or algebraic spaces are the basic notions, with the older “sets of points in affine or projective space” no more than restrictive special cases. The basic notions may be given sheaf-theoretically, or functorially. To understand in depth the historically important affine cases, one does best to work with more general schemes. The resulting relativization and “transfer of structure” is incomparably more flexible and powerful than anything yet known in “set-theoretic model theory”.It seems to me now uncontroversial to see the fine structure of definitions as becoming the central concern of model theory, to the extent that one can easily imagine the subject being called “Definability Theory” in the near future.Tarski's set-theoretic foundational formulations are still favoured by the majority of model-theorists, and evolution towards a more suggestive language has been perplexingly slow. None of the main texts uses in any nontrivial way the language of category theory, far less sheaf theory or topos theory. Given that the most notable interactions of model theory with geometry are in areas of geometry where the language of sheaves is almost indispensable (to the geometers), this is a curious situation, and I find it hard to imagine that it will not change soon, and rapidly.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document