4.0 Article

MATHEMATICAL RIGOR AND PROOF

期刊

REVIEW OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 409-449

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1755020319000443

关键词

mathematical rigor; mathematical proof; formal proof; mathematical practice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mathematical proofs must be rigorous to be considered proper justification for mathematical knowledge. The standard view that mathematical proofs should be able to be translated into formal proofs is widely accepted by contemporary mathematicians, but has also been criticized in the philosophy of mathematics literature. Debate on this topic is currently blocked by a lack of precise formulation.
Mathematical proof is the primary form of justification for mathematical knowledge, but in order to count as a proper justification for a piece of mathematical knowledge, a mathematical proof must be rigorous. What does it mean then for a mathematical proof to be rigorous? According to what I shall call the standard view, a mathematical proof is rigorous if and only if it can be routinely translated into a formal proof. The standard view is almost an orthodoxy among contemporary mathematicians, and is endorsed by many logicians and philosophers, but it has also been heavily criticized in the philosophy of mathematics literature. Progress on the debate between the proponents and opponents of the standard view is, however, currently blocked by a major obstacle, namely, the absence of a precise formulation of it. To remedy this deficiency, I undertake in this paper to provide a precise formulation and a thorough evaluation of the standard view of mathematical rigor. The upshot of this study is that the standard view is more robust to criticisms than it transpires from the various arguments advanced against it, but that it also requires a certain conception of how mathematical proofs are judged to be rigorous in mathematical practice, a conception that can be challenged on empirical grounds by exhibiting rigor judgments of mathematical proofs in mathematical practice conflicting with it.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据