Instructions and constructions in set theory proofs

Synthese 202 (2):1-17 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Traditional models of mathematical proof describe proofs as sequences of assertion where each assertion is a claim about mathematical objects. However, Tanswell observed that in practice, many proofs do not follow these models. Proofs often contain imperatives, and other instructions for the reader to perform mathematical actions. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of instructions in proofs by systematically analyzing how instructions are used in Kunen’s Set theory: An introduction to independence proofs, a widely used graduate text in set theory. I use Kunen’s text to describe how instructions and constructions in proof work in mathematical practice and explore epistemic consequences of how proofs are read and understood.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,154

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-07-22

Downloads
23 (#928,616)

6 months
7 (#673,909)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Mathematical rigor and proof.Yacin Hamami - 2022 - Review of Symbolic Logic 15 (2):409-449.
Set Theory.T. Jech - 2005 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 11 (2):243-245.
Why Do We Prove Theorems?Yehuda Rav - 1999 - Philosophia Mathematica 7 (1):5-41.
Reconciling Rigor and Intuition.Silvia De Toffoli - 2020 - Erkenntnis 86 (6):1783-1802.

View all 18 references / Add more references