13.07.2015 Views

Mancosu - Philosophy of Mathematical Practice (Oxford, 2008).pdf

Mancosu - Philosophy of Mathematical Practice (Oxford, 2008).pdf

Mancosu - Philosophy of Mathematical Practice (Oxford, 2008).pdf

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

402 colin mclartyrams. The equation expresses an isomorphism <strong>of</strong> sets#(dogs in this sheep pen) = #(rams){dogs in this sheep pen} ∼ = {rams}and the real interest is the specific correspondence: at this moment my dogs arefacing one ram each and that is all the rams. Corfield gives practically importantexamples from combinatorics and topology, as our Sections 14.2.1 and 14.2.2raised equations <strong>of</strong> Betti numbers into isomorphisms <strong>of</strong> homology groups.Turning every equation into an isomorphism is just the same thing as turningevery isomorphism into an equivalence—an ‘isomorphism up to isomorphism’.It is not clear how far this can be taken. We have seen that mathematicianscannot entirely dispense with isomorphism in favor <strong>of</strong> equivalence and socannot entirely dispense with equality in favor <strong>of</strong> isomorphism. On theother hand, as Corfield says, philosophers have missed the real importance<strong>of</strong> equivalence as a kind <strong>of</strong> sameness <strong>of</strong> structure (2005, p.76). <strong>Mathematical</strong>physicist John Baez has taken this viewpoint very far, originally using n-categoriesor higher dimensional algebra as a revealing approach to quantum gravity, but alsolooking at it conceptually all across mathematics (Baez and Dolan, 2001).Philosophers are right that structural mathematics raises issues such as: howare purely structural definitions possible? And what is the role <strong>of</strong> identity versusstructural isomorphism? But let us take Resnik’s point that ‘mathematicianshave emphasized that mathematics is concerned with structures involving mathematicalobjects and not with the ‘‘internal’’ nature <strong>of</strong> the objects themselves’(Resnik, 1981, p.529). This is already the rigorous practice <strong>of</strong> mathematics.That practice <strong>of</strong>fers working answers with powerful and beautiful results.Acknowledgments. I thank Karine Chemla, José Ferreirós, and Jeremy Grayfor discussions <strong>of</strong> the topics here, and William Lawvere for extensive critique<strong>of</strong> the article.BibliographyAlexandr<strong>of</strong>f,Paul(1932), Einfachste Grundbegriffe der Topologie (Berlin: Julius Springer).Translated as Elementary Concepts <strong>of</strong> Topology (New York: Dover, 1962).Alexandr<strong>of</strong>f, Paul and Hopf, Heinz (1935), Topologie (Berlin: Julius Springer).Reprinted 1965 (New York: Chelsea Publishing).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!