Mathematical Explanation Requires Mathematical Truth

Author(s):  
Shamik Dasgupta ◽  
Ravit Dotan ◽  
Brad Weslake
Author(s):  
Margaret Morrison

After reviewing some of the recent literature on non-causal and mathematical explanation, this chapter develops an argument as to why renormalization group (RG) methods should be seen as providing non-causal, yet physical, information about certain kinds of systems/phenomena. The argument centres on the structural character of RG explanations and the relationship between RG and probability theory. These features are crucial for the claim that the non-causal status of RG explanations involves something different from simply ignoring or “averaging over” microphysical details—the kind of explanations common to statistical mechanics. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the role of RG in treating dynamical systems and how that role exemplifies the structural aspects of RG explanations which in turn exemplifies the non-causal features.


Author(s):  
Tim Button ◽  
Sean Walsh

This chapter considers whether internal categoricity can be used to leverage any claims about mathematical truth. We begin by noting that internal categoricity allows us to introduce a truth-operator which gives an object-language expression to the supervaluationist semantics. In this way, the univocity discussed in previous chapters might seem to secure an object-language expression of determinacy of truth-value; but this hope falls short, because such truth-operators must be carefully distinguished from truth-predicates. To introduce these truth-predicates, we outline an internalist attitude towards model theory itself. We then use this to illuminate the cryptic conclusions of Putnam's justly-famous paper ‘Models and Reality’. We close this chapter by presenting Tarski’s famous result that truth for lower-order languages can be defined in higher-order languages.


Technology has significantly emerged in various fields, including healthcare, government, and education. In the education field, students of all ages and backgrounds turn to modern technologies for learning instead of traditional methods, especially under challenging courses such as mathematics. However, students face many problems in understanding mathematical concepts and understanding how to benefit from them in real-life. Therefore, it can be challenging to design scientific materials suitable for learning mathematics and clarifying their applications in life that meet the students’ preferences. To solve this issue, we designed and developed an interactive platform based on user experience to learn an advanced concept in the idea of linear algebra called Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) and its applicability in image compression. The proposed platform considered the common design principles to map between the provider in terms of clear mathematical explanation and the receiver in terms of matching good user experience. Twenty participants between the ages of 16 and 30 tested the proposed platform. The results showed that learning using it gives better results than learning traditionally in terms of the number of correct and incorrect actions, effectiveness, efficiency, and safety factors. Consequently, we can say that designing an interactive learning platform to explain an advanced mathematical concept and clarify its applications in real-life is preferable by considering and following the common design principles.


2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penelope Maddy

Despite some discomfort with this grandly philosophical topic, I do in fact hope to address a venerable pair of philosophical chestnuts: mathematical truth and existence. My plan is to set out three possible stands on these issues, for an exercise in compare and contrast. A word of warning, though, to philosophical purists (and perhaps of comfort to more mathematical readers): I will explore these philosophical positions with an eye to their interconnections with some concrete issues of set theoretic method.Let me begin with a brief look at what to count as ‘philosophy’. To some extent, this is a matter of usage, and mathematicians sometimes classify as ‘philosophical’ any considerations other than outright proofs. So, for example, discussions of the propriety of particular mathematical methods would fall under this heading: should we prefer analytic or synthetic approaches in geometry? Should elliptic functions be treated in terms of explicit representations (as in Weierstrass) or geometrically (as in Riemann)? Should we allow impredicative definitions? Should we restrict ourselves to a logic without bivalence or the law of the excluded middle? Also included in this category would be the trains of thought that shaped our central concepts: should a function always be defined by a formula? Should a group be required to have an inverse for every element? Should ideal divisors be defined contextually or explicitly, treated computationally or abstractly? In addition, there are more general questions concerning mathematical values, aims and goals: Should we strive for powerful theories or low-risk theories? How much stress should be placed on the fact or promise of physical applications? How important are interconnections between the various branches of mathematics? These philosophical questions of method naturally include several peculiar to set theory: should set theorists focus their efforts on drawing consequences for areas of interest to mathematicians outside mathematical logic? Should exploration of the standard axioms of ZFC be preferred to the exploration and exploitation of new axioms? How should axioms for set theory be chosen? What would a solution to the Continuum Problem look like?


2007 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 1264-1274
Author(s):  
Jerry M. Straka ◽  
Katharine M. Kanak ◽  
Matthew S. Gilmore

Abstract This paper presents a mathematical explanation for the nonconservation of total number concentration Nt of hydrometeors for the continuous collection growth process, for which Nt physically should be conserved for selected one- and two-moment bulk parameterization schemes. Where possible, physical explanations are proposed. The assumption of a constant no in scheme A is physically inconsistent with the continuous collection growth process, as is the assumption of a constant Dn for scheme B. Scheme E also is nonconservative, but it seems this result is not because of a physically inconsistent specification; rather the solution scheme’s equations simply do not satisfy Nt conservation and Nt does not come into the derivation. Even scheme F, which perfectly conserves Nt, does not preserve the distribution shape in comparison with a bin model.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document