In this article I develop an elementary system of axioms for Euclidean geometry. On one hand, the system is based on the symmetry principles which express our a priori ignorant approach to space: all places are the same to us, all directions are the same to us and all units of length we use to create geometric figures are the same to us. On the other hand, through the process of algebraic simplification, this system of axioms directly (...) provides the Weyl’s system of axioms for Euclidean geometry. The system of axioms, together with its a priori interpretation, offers new views to philosophy and pedagogy of mathematics: it supports the thesis that Euclidean geometry is a priori, it supports the thesis that in modern mathematics the Weyl’s system of axioms is dominant to the Euclid’s system because it reflects the a priori underlying symmetries, it gives a new and promising approach to learn geometry which, through the Weyl’s system of axioms, leads from the essential geometric symmetry principles of the mathematical nature directly to modern mathematics. (shrink)

In Weyl’s geometry the nonintegrability problem and difficulties in defining measuring standards are reconsidered. Approaches removing the nonintegrability of length in the interior of atoms are given, so that atoms can serve as measuring standards. The Weyl space becomes a well founded framework for classical theories of electromagnetism and gravitation.

Hermann Weyl was one of the most important figures involved in the early elaboration of the general theory of relativity and its fundamentally geometrical spacetime picture of the world. Weyl’s development of “pure infinitesimal geometry” out of relativity theory was the basis of his remarkable attempt at unifying gravitation and electromagnetism. Many interpreters have focused primarily on Weyl’s philosophical influences, especially the influence of Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology, as the motivation for these efforts. In this article, I argue (...) both that these efforts are most naturally understood as an outgrowth of the distinctive mathematical-physical tradition in Göttingen and also that phenomenology has little to no constructive role to play in them. (shrink)

It is proposed to remove the difficulty of nonitegrability of length in the Weyl geometry by modifying the law of parallel displacement and using “standard” vectors. The field equations are derived from a variational principle slightly different from that of Dirac and involving a parameter σ. For σ=0 one has the electromagnetic field. For σ<0 there is a vector meson field. This could be the electromagnetic field with finite-mass photons, or it could be a meson field providing the “missing (...) mass” of the universe. In cosmological models the two natural gauges are the Einstein gauge and the cosmic gauge. With the latter the universe has a fixed size, but the sizes of small systems decrease with time and their masses and energies increase, thus producing the Hubble effect. The field of a particle in this gauge is investigated, and it leads to an interesting solution of the Einstein equations that raises a question about the Schwarzschild solution. (shrink)

Two different derivations of the observed vacuum energy density are presented. One is based on a class of proper and novel generalizations of the de Sitter solutions in terms of a family of radial functions R that provides an explicit formula for the cosmological constant along with a natural explanation of the ultraviolet/infrared entanglement required to solve this problem. A nonvanishing value of the vacuum energy density of the order of ${10^{- 123} M_{\rm Planck}^4}$ is derived in agreement with the (...) experimental observations. A correct lower estimate of the mass of the observable universe related to the Dirac–Eddington–Weyl’s large number N = 1080 is also obtained. The presence of the radial function R is instrumental to understand why the cosmological constant is not zero and why it is so tiny. Finally, we rigorously prove why the proper use of Weyl’s Geometry within the context of Friedman–Lemaitre–Robertson–Walker cosmological models can account for both the origins and the value of the observed vacuum energy density. The source of dark energy is just the dilaton-like Jordan–Brans–Dicke scalar field that is required to implement Weyl invariance of the most simple of all possible actions. The full theory involving the dynamics of Weyl’s gauge field Aμ is very rich and may explain also the anomalous Pioneer acceleration and the temporal variations of the fundamental constants resulting from the expansion of the Universe. This is consistent with Dirac’s old idea of the plausible variation of the physical constants but with the advantage that it is not necessary to invoke extra dimensions. (shrink)

We present an elementary system of axioms for the geometry of Minkowski spacetime. It strikes a balance between a simple and streamlined set of axioms and the attempt to give a direct formalization in first-order logic of the standard account of Minkowski spacetime in Maudlin and Malament. It is intended for future use in the formalization of physical theories in Minkowski spacetime. The choice of primitives is in the spirit of Tarski : a predicate of betwenness and (...) a four place predicate to compare the square of the relativistic intervals. Minkowski spacetime is described as a four dimensional ‘vector space’ that can be decomposed everywhere into a spacelike hyperplane—which obeys the Euclidean axioms in Tarski and Givant, 175–214 1999)—and an orthogonal timelike line. The length of other ‘vectors’ are calculated according to Pythagoras’ theorem. We conclude with a Representation Theorem relating models \ of our system \ that satisfy second order continuity to the mathematical structure \, called ‘Minkowski spacetime’ in physics textbooks. (shrink)

It is widely believed that some puzzling and provocative remarks that Frege makes in his late writings indicate he rejected independence arguments in geometry, particularly arguments for the independence of the parallels axiom. I show that this is mistaken: Frege distinguished two approaches to independence arguments and his puzzling remarks apply only to one of them. Not only did Frege not reject independence arguments across the board, but also he had an interesting positive proposal about the logical structure of (...) correct independence arguments, deriving from the geometrical principle of duality and the associated idea of substitution invariance. The discussion also serves as a useful focal point for independently interesting details of Frege's mathematical environment. This feeds into a currently active scholarly debate because Frege's supposed attitude to independence arguments has been taken to support a widely accepted thesis (proposed by Ricketts among others) concerning Frege's attitude toward metatheory in general. I show that this thesis gains no support from Frege's puzzling remarks about independence arguments. (shrink)

Using the axiom system provided by Carsten Augat in [1], it is shown that the only 6-variable statement among the axioms of the axiom system for plane hyperbolic geometry (in Tarski's language L B =), we had provided in [3], is superfluous. The resulting axiom system is the simplest possible one, in the sense that each axiom is a statement in prenex form about at most 5 points, and there is no axiom system consisting entirely of at most (...) 4-variable statements. (shrink)

Following ideas elaborated by Hering in his celebrated analysis of color, the psychologist and gestalt theorist Otto Selz developed in the 1930s a theory of “natural space”, i.e., space as it is conceived by us. Selz’s thesis is that the geometric laws of natural space describe how the points of this space are related to each other by directions which are ordered in the same way as the points on a sphere. At the end of one of his articles, Selz (...) tries to derive within his framework two of Hilbert’s axioms for Euclidean geometry. Such derivations would, according to Selz, disclose the psychological origin and meaning of the geometric axioms and would thus contribute to a clarification of their epistemological status. In the present article Selz’s theory is explained and analyzed, his basic principles are amended, and implicit assumptions are made explicit. It is shown that the resulting system is one of ordered affine geometry in which all of Hilbert’s axioms except the axioms of congruence and those of continuity are derivable. The primary aim of the present paper is to make explicit the basic principles behind Selz’s geometry of natural space. The question of the logical independence of these principle is not investigated. (shrink)

This paper discusses some of the technical problems related to a Weylian geometrical interpretation of the Schrödinger and Klein-Gordon equations proposed by E. Santamato. Solutions to these technical problems are proposed. A general prescription for finding out the interdependence between a particle's effective mass and Weyl's scalar curvature is presented which leads to the fundamental equation of geometric quantum mechanics, $$m(R)\frac{{dm(R)}}{{dR}} = \frac{{\hbar ^2 }}{{c^2 }}$$ The Dirac equation is rigorously derived within this formulation, and further problems to be solved (...) are proposed in the conclusion. The main one is based on obtaining the relationship between Feynman's path integral quantization method, among others, and the methods of geometric quantum mechanics. The solution of this problem will be a crucial test for this theory that attempts to “geometrize” quantum mechanics rather than the conventional approach in the past of quantizing geometry. A numerical prediction of this theory yields a 3×10−35 eV correction to the ground-state energy of the hydrogen atom. (shrink)

I analyze the two main theses of Helmholtz's "The Applicability of the Axioms to the Physical World," in which he argued that the axioms of Euclidean geometry are not, as his neo-Kantian opponents had argued, binding on any experience of the external world. This required two argumentative steps: 1) a new account of the structure of our representations which was consistent both with the experience of our (for him) Euclidean world and with experience of a non-Euclidean one, (...) and 2) a demonstration of why geometric propositions are essentially connected to material and temporal aspects of experience. The effect of Helmholtz's discussion is to throw into relief an intermediate category of metrological objects--objects which are required for the properly theoretical activity of doing physical science (in this sense, a priori requirements for doing science), all while being recognizably contingent aspects of experience. (shrink)

We provide a quantifier-free axiom system for plane hyperbolic geometry in a language containing only absolute geometrically meaningful ternary operations (in the sense that they have the same interpretation in Euclidean geometry as well). Each axiom contains at most 4 variables. It is known that there is no axiom system for plane hyperbolic consisting of only prenex 3-variable axioms. Changing one of the axioms, one obtains an axiom system for plane Euclidean geometry, expressed in the (...) same language, all of whose axioms are also at most 4-variable universal sentences. We also provide an axiom system for plane hyperbolic geometry in Tarski's language L B which might be the simplest possible one in that language. (shrink)

In the range of his intellectual interests and the profundity of his mathematical thought Hermann Weyl towered above his contemporaries, many of whom viewed him with awe. This volume, the most ambitious study to date of Weyl's singular contributions to mathematics, physics, and philosophy, looks at the man and his work from a variety of perspectives, though its gaze remains fairly steadily fixed on Weyl the geometer and space‐time theorist. Structurally, the book falls into two parts, described in the general (...) introduction by the editor: Part 1 contains four essays on particular aspects of Weyl's work, highlighting ideas he developed in various editions of his classic Raum‐Zeit‐Materie. Part 2 presents a lengthy study by Robert Coleman and Herbert Korté covering nearly the whole gamut of Weyl's mathematical research, an impressive feat. Both in the introduction as well as in footnotes to the articles Erhard Scholz's editorial voice chimes in discreetly, helping tie all five studies together.Coleman and Korté begin chronologically with Weyl's early work in analysis and the modern theory of Riemann surfaces before turning to differential geometry, unified field theory, and the space problem, a topic they use as a springboard for a discussion of their own recent work on the foundations of space‐time. They then take up Weyl's shift to group representation theory and its applications to quantum mechanics, ending with his much earlier research on the structure of the continuum. All of these topics are well handled, but the authors' own agendas coupled with their penchant for overlooking chronology in order to package Weyl's work into neat little bundles leave one feeling rather stranded and far removed from the sources of Weyl's inspiration. Moreover, the narrative style makes this part of the volume read like a technical appendix, albeit a most informative one. Readers who tackle Scholz's far more contextualized essay will be amply rewarded by comparing his views with the opinions set forth by Coleman and Korté in Part 2.Scholz gives a masterful account of Weyl's intellectual journeys from 1917 to 1925 in a study that serves as a fulcrum for the entire volume. Drawing on a number of recently published studies, including his own, on the interplay between mathematics and physics inspired by Einstein's theory of general relativity, Scholz describes how Weyl responded to this challenge by developing a truly infinitesimal space‐time geometry that generalized classical Riemannian geometry. Although unconvinced by Einstein's critique of his unified field theory, Weyl shifted his focus from this realm to the classical space problem, analyzed earlier with more primitive techniques by Hermann Helmholtz and Sophus Lie. In this connection, it should be mentioned that Thomas Hawkins has given a probing analysis of Weyl's related work on the representation of Lie groups in his tour‐de‐force work, Emergence of the Theory of Lie Groups . Scholz argues that Weyl's struggle to tame his modernized version of the space problem stemmed from a deep‐seated belief in his geometrical ideas, which in turn were nourished by philosophical musings. By demonstrating the closely related conceptual links that motivated Weyl's research in infinitesimal geometry, space‐time physics, and the foundations of mathematics, Scholz nicely illuminates the underlying fabric of epistemological concerns that occupied Weyl's attention during this fertile period.The three remaining essays in Part 1 focus on other aspects of Weyl's work in mathematical physics and cosmology. Skuli Sigurdsson's “Journeys in Spacetime” offers a broad interpretation of Weyl's career, one that emphasizes Weyl's sensitivity to cultural tensions as reflected in his philosophical roots, which combined phenomenology with facets of German idealism. Shaken by the annihilation of cultural values in Nazi Germany, Weyl became deeply aware of the gulf that separated his earlier life in Göttingen and Zurich from the one he took up at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study in 1933. He tried to adapt, but felt out of place in an Anglo‐American scientific culture openly hostile toward metaphysics and speculative philosophy. Sigurdsson stresses these tensions, contrasting the introspective, creative individual against the backdrop of the collective in the age of the machine, but without spelling out which collective were most important for him. Wolfgang Pauli thought he knew and, like Einstein before him, he had no compunction about bluntly telling Weyl he was a mathematician, not a physicist.Pauli's opinions notwithstanding, Weyl did far more than just dabble around the mathematical edges of the new physics. If Coleman and Korté perhaps press their case for his visionary accomplishments too far, Norbert Straumann's essay “Ursprünge der Eichtheorien” suggests why Weyl's reputation among physicists has risen steadily ever since the advent of Yang‐Mills theory in the 1950s. In the course of describing Weyl's adaptation of his gauge transformation formalism to Dirac's electron theory, Straumann sheds considerable light on Pauli's role as self‐appointed watchman guarding the disciplinary boundary that separated theoretical physics from physical mathematics . He further suggests that disciplinary jealousy was a major reason why Pauli dismissed Weyl's two‐component formalism for spinors out of hand.In the realm of cosmology, on the other hand, Weyl's work has long since passed into the dustbins of history, as Hubert Goenner remarks in recounting a fascinating chapter in the infancy of space‐time physics. While doing so, Goenner shows how initially Weyl almost slavishly adopted what Einstein called Mach's principle, which asserts that the metric structure of space‐time is solely determined by the distribution of matter in the universe. This notion was quickly challenged by Willem De Sitter, who showed that Einstein's matter‐free field equations admitted a global solution with non‐zero constant curvature. Both Einstein and Weyl tried to argue that invisible masses must be present just over the “spatial horizon” of De Sitter's world in order to account for its curvature. Goenner meticulously analyzes the physical and mathematical issues at stake in this debate, stressing how Weyl gradually moved away from a strong physical interpretation to one in which mathematics models rather than physics models simply reveal natural phenomena. He argues further that Weyl's cosmological principle arose as the final expression of his search for a deeper physical meaning.Given the quality of these essays, it is regrettable that this book contains so little about Weyl's professional career, a weakness the editor could have redressed at least partially in his general introduction. This omission is all the more unfortunate given the dearth of readily accessible information about Weyl's life available elsewhere. For however mundane his outward existence may have been, the reader cannot be expected to appreciate the interplay between the world Weyl knew and his creative responses to it without fairly detailed knowledge of his biography. Shorn from these contexts, it becomes difficult to form a flesh‐and‐blood image of Weyl beyond the cliché‐ridden stereotype that sees him as a “heroic thinker in the grand German tradition.” While none of the authors falls into this trap, the collective impression they leave suggests a most enigmatic figure. Either Weyl the man tends to get lost in the shadows of his collected scientific output or he appears as a mystic loner, an outcast who abhorred the machine age in which he lived. Closer attention to the people in his life would no doubt produce a very different picture of the man and his interests. This major lacuna notwithstanding, the present volume will surely remain an indispensable resource for any future investigations of Weyl's staggering intellectual achievements. (shrink)

Kant's arguments for the synthetic a priori status of geometry are generally taken to have been refuted by the development of non-Euclidean geometries. Recently, however, some philosophers have argued that, on the contrary, the development of non-Euclidean geometry has confirmed Kant's views, for since a demonstration of the consistency of non-Euclidean geometry depends on a demonstration of its equi-consistency with Euclidean geometry, one need only show that the axioms of Euclidean geometry have 'intuitive content' (...) in order to show that both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry are bodies of synthetic a priori truths. Michael Friedman has argued that this defence presumes a polyadic conception of logic that was foreign to Kant. According to Friedman, Kant held that geometrical reasoning itself relies essentially on intuition, and that this precludes the very possibility of non-Euclidean geometry. While Friedman's characterization of Kant's views on geometrical reasoning is correct, I argue that Friedman's conclusion that non-Euclidean geometries are logically impossible for Kant is not. I argue that Kant is best understood as a proto-constructivist and that modern constructive axiomatizations (unlike Hilbert-style axiomatizations) of both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry capture Kant's views on the essentially constructive nature of geometrical reasoning well. (shrink)

I state and prove, in the context of a space having only the metrical structure imposed by the geometrized version of Newtonian gravitational theory, a theorem analagous to that of Weyl's in a Lorentzian space. The theorem, loosely speaking, says that a projective structure and a suitably defined compatible conformal structure on such a space jointly suffice for fixing the metrical structure of a Newtonian spacetime model up to constant factors. It allows one to give a natural, physically compelling interpretation (...) of the spatiotemporal geometry of a geometrized Newtonian gravity spacetime manifold, in close analogy with the way Weyl's Theorem allows one to do in general relativity. (shrink)

This paper is an edited form of a letter written by the two authors (in the name of Tarski) to Wolfram Schwabhäuser around 1978. It contains extended remarks about Tarski's system of foundations for Euclidean geometry, in particular its distinctive features, its historical evolution, the history of specific axioms, the questions of independence of axioms and primitive notions, and versions of the system suitable for the development of 1-dimensional geometry.

Euclidean geometry, as presented by Euclid, consists of straightedge-and-compass constructions and rigorous reasoning about the results of those constructions. We show that Euclidean geometry can be developed using only intuitionistic logic. This involves finding “uniform” constructions where normally a case distinction is used. For example, in finding a perpendicular to line L through point p, one usually uses two different constructions, “erecting” a perpendicular when p is on L, and “dropping” a perpendicular when p is not on L, (...) but in constructive geometry, it must be done without a case distinction. Classically, the models of Euclidean geometry are planes over Euclidean fields. We prove a similar theorem for constructive Euclidean geometry, by showing how to define addition and multiplication without a case distinction about the sign of the arguments. With intuitionistic logic, there are two possible definitions of Euclidean fields, which turn out to correspond to different versions of the parallel postulate.We consider three versions of Euclid’s parallel postulate. The two most important are Euclid’s own formulation in his Postulate 5, which says that under certain conditions two lines meet, and Playfair’s axiom, which says there cannot be two distinct parallels to line L through the same point p. These differ in that Euclid 5 makes an existence assertion, while Playfair’s axiom does not. The third variant, which we call the strong parallel postulate, isolates the existence assertion from the geometry: it amounts to Playfair’s axiom plus the principle that two distinct lines that are not parallel do intersect. The first main result of this paper is that Euclid 5 suffices to define coordinates, addition, multiplication, and square roots geometrically.We completely settle the questions about implications between the three versions of the parallel postulate. The strong parallel postulate easily implies Euclid 5, and Euclid 5 also implies the strong parallel postulate, as a corollary of coordinatization and definability of arithmetic. We show that Playfair does not imply Euclid 5, and we also give some other independence results. Our independence proofs are given without discussing the exact choice of the other axioms of geometry; all we need is that one can interpret the geometric axioms in Euclidean field theory. The independence proofs use Kripke models of Euclidean field theories based on carefully constructed rings of real-valued functions. “Field elements” in these models are real-valued functions. (shrink)

In this paper, I critically discuss Frege’s philosophy of geometry with special emphasis on his position in The Foundations of Arithmetic of 1884. In Sect. 2, I argue that that what Frege calls faculty of intuition in his dissertation is probably meant to refer to a capacity of visualizing geometrical configurations structurally in a way which is essentially the same for most Western educated human beings. I further suggest that according to his Habilitationsschrift it is through spatial intuition that (...) we come to know the axioms of Euclidean geometry. In Sect. 3, I argue that Frege seems right in claiming in The Foundations, §14 that the synthetic nature of the Euclidean axioms follows from the fact that they are independent of one another and of the primitive laws of logic. If the former were dependent on the latter, they would be analytic in Frege’s sense of analyticity. But then they would not be independent of one another and due to their mutual provability would lose their status as axioms of Euclidean geometry, since according to Frege an axiom of a theory T is per definitionen unprovable in T. I further argue that only by invoking pure spatial intuition can Frege “explain” the epistemological status of the axioms of Euclidean geometry completely: their synthetic a priori nature. Finally, I argue that his view about independence in The Foundations, §14 seems to clash with his conception of independence in his mature period. In Sect. 4, I scrutinize Frege’s somewhat vague, but unduly neglected remarks in The Foundations, §26 on space, spatial intuition and the axioms of Euclidean geometry. I argue that for the sake of coherence Frege should have said unambiguously that space is objective, that it is independedent not only of our spatial intuition, but of our mental life altogether including our judgements about space, instead of encouraging the possible conjecture that in his view it contains an objective and a subjective component. I further argue that for Frege the objectivity of both space and the axioms of Euclidean geometry manifests itself in our universal and compulsory acknowledgement of the Euclidean axioms as true. I conclude Sect. 4 by arguing that there is a conflict between the subjectivity of our spatial intuitions as stressed in The Foundations, §26 and Frege’s thesis in his dissertation that the axioms of Euclidean geometry derive their validity from the nature of our faculty of intuition. To resolve this conflict, I propose that in the light of his avowed realism in The Foundations Frege could have replaced his early thesis by saying that although we come to know the axioms of Euclidean geometry through spatial intuition and are justified in acknowledging them as true on the basis of geometrical intuition, their truth is independent not only of the nature of our faculty of intuition and singular acts of intuition, but of our mental processes and activities in general, including the inner mental act of judging. In Sect. 5, I argue that Frege most likely did not adopt Kant’s method of acquiring geometrical knowledge via the ostensive construction of concepts in spatial intuition. In contrast to Kant, Frege holds that the axioms of three-dimensional Euclidean geometry express state of affairs about space obtaining independently of our spatial intuition. In Sect. 6, I conclude with a summarized assessment of Frege’s philosophy of geometry. (shrink)

John Corcoran and George Boger. Aristotelian logic and Euclidean geometry. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. 20 (2014) 131. -/- By an Aristotelian logic we mean any system of direct and indirect deductions, chains of reasoning linking conclusions to premises—complete syllogisms, to use Aristotle’s phrase—1) intended to show that their conclusions follow logically from their respective premises and 2) resembling those in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. Such systems presuppose existence of cases where it is not obvious that the conclusion follows from the (...) premises: there must be something deductions can show. Corcoran calls a proposition that follows from given premises a hidden consequence of those premises if it is not obvious that the proposition follows from those premises. By a Euclidean geometry we mean an extended discourse beginning with basic premises—axioms, postulates, definitions—1) treating a universe of geometrical figures and 2) resembling Euclid’s Elements. There were Euclidean geometries before Euclid (fl. 300 BCE), even before Aristotle (384–322 BCE). Bochenski, Lukasiewicz, Patzig and others never new this or if they did they found it inconvenient to mention. Euclid shows no awareness of Aristotle. It is obvious today—as it should have been obvious in Euclid’s time, if anyone knew both—that Aristotle’s logic was insufficient for Euclid’s geometry: few if any geometrical theorems can be deduced from Euclid’s premises by means of Aristotle’s deductions. Aristotle’s writings don’t say whether his logic is sufficient for Euclidean geometry. But, there is not even one fully-presented example. However, Aristotle’s writings do make clear that he endorsed the goal of a sufficient system. Nevertheless, incredible as this is today, many logicians after Aristotle claimed that Aristotelian logics are sufficient for Euclidean geometries. This paper reviews and analyses such claims by Mill, Boole, De Morgan, Russell, Poincaré, and others. It also examines early contrary statements by Hintikka, Mueller, Smith, and others. Special attention is given to the argumentations pro or con and especially to their logical, epistemic, and ontological presuppositions. What methodology is necessary or sufficient to show that a given logic is adequate or inadequate to serve as the underlying logi of a given science. (shrink)

This article is devoted to the problem of ontological foundations of three-dimensional Euclidean geometry. Starting from Bertrand Russell’s intuitions concerning the sensual world we try to show that it is possible to build a foundation for pure geometry by means of the so called regions of space. It is not our intention to present mathematically developed theory, but rather demonstrate basic assumptions, tools and techniques that are used in construction of systems of point-free geometry and topology by (...) means of mereology and Whitehead-like connection structures. We list and briefly analyze axioms for mereological structures, as well as those for connection structures. We argue that mereology is a good tool to model so called spatial relations. We also try to justify our choice of axioms for connection relation. Finally, we briefly discuss two theories: Grzegorczyk’s point-free topology and Tarski’s geometry of solids. (shrink)

This paper aims to show how the mathematical content of Hilbert's Axiom of Completeness consists in an attempt to solve the more general problem of the relationship between intuition and formalization. Hilbert found the accordance between these two sides of mathematical knowledge at a logical level, clarifying the necessary and sufficient conditions for a good formalization of geometry. We will tackle the problem of what is, for Hilbert, the definition of geometry. The solution of this problem will bring (...) out how Hilbert's conception of mathematics is not as innovative as his conception of the axiomatic method. The role that the demonstrative tools play in Hilbert's foundational reflections will also drive us to deal with the problem of the purity of methods, explicitly addressed by Hilbert. In this respect Hilbert's position is very innovative and deeply linked to his modern conception of the axiomatic method. In the end we will show that the role played by the Axiom of Completeness for geometry is the same as the Axiom of Induction for arithmetic and of Church-Turing thesis for computability theory. We end this paper arguing that set theory is the right context in which applying the axiomatic method to mathematics and we postpone to a sequel of this work the attempt to offer a solution similar to Hilbert's for the completeness of set theory. (shrink)

In order to measure the degree of dissimilarity between elements of a Boolean algebra, the author’s proposed to use pseudometrics satisfying generalizations of the usual axioms for identity. The proposal is extended, as far as is feasible, from Boolean algebras to Brouwerian algebras. The relation between Boolean and Brouwerian geometries of logic turns out to resemble in a curious way the relation between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries of physical space. The paper ends with a brief consideration of the problem (...) of the metrization of the algebra of theories. (shrink)

In this paper, we discuss a proposal for reform in the teaching of Euclidean geometry that reveals the symbiotic relationship between axiomatics and pedagogy. We examine the role of intuition in this kind of reform, as expressed by Mario Pieri, a prominent member of the Schools of Peano and Segre at the University of Turin. We are well aware of the centuries of attention paid to the notion of intuition by mathematicians, mathematics educators, philosophers, psychologists, historians, and others. To (...) set a context for Pieri’s proposal, we only seek to open a small window on views of the pedagogical role of intuition, from primary education to university study that may have informed early 20th century efforts to improve the teaching of geometry at the secondary school level. Pieri addressed the topic of intuition in many of his axiomatizations, including those in projective geometry which was his main area of concentration in foundations. We focus here primarily on his axiom systems for elementary geometry, which embraced the transformational approach of Felix Klein’s vision for the subject. Our goal is to convey Pieri’s thoughts on how to integrate two types of intuition, denoted as sensible and rational, in his endeavors to improve the teaching of the geometry of Euclid. We show how Pieri’s views on geometric intuition and pedagogical reform were either ignored or misrepresented in several notable publications at the turn of the 20th century. In particular, we give Pieri a voice in response to specific comments made in the early 1900s by Federigo Enriques, Ugo Amaldi, and Florian Cajori in widely circulated publications inspired by Klein. (shrink)

To represent extension of objects in particle physics, a modified Weyl theory is used by gauging the curvature radius of the local fibers in a soldered bundle over space-time possessing a homogeneous space G/H of the (4, 1)-de Sitter group G as fiber. Objects with extension determined by a fundamental length parameter R0 appear as islands D(i) in space-time characterized by a geometry of the Cartan-Weyl type (i.e., involving torsion and modified Weyl degrees of freedom). Farther away from the (...) domains D(i), space-time is identified with the pseudo-Riemannian space of general relativity. Extension and symmetry breaking are described by a set of additional fields ( $(\tilde \xi ^a (x),R(x)) \in {G \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {G H}} \right. \kern-0em} H}x R^ +$ , given as a section on an associated bundle $\tilde E(B,{G \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {G H}} \right. \kern-0em} H}x R^ + ,\tilde G)$ over space-time B with structural group $\tilde G$ = G ⊗ D(1), where D(1) is the dilation group. Field equations for the quantities defining the underlying bundle geometry and for the fields $\tilde \xi ^a (x)$ are established involving matter source currents derived from a generalized spinor wave function. Einstein's equations for the metric are regarded as the part of the $\tilde G$ -gauge theory related to the Lorentz subgroup H of G exhibiting thereby the broken nature of the $\tilde G$ -symmetry for regions outside the domains D(i). (shrink)

I start by considering Mark Steiner’s startling claim that Hume takes geometry to be synthetic a priori, which engenders the Kantian challenge to explain how such knowledge is possible. I argue, in response, that Steiner misinterprets the (deceptive) relevant passage from Hume, and that Hume, as the received view has it, takes geometry to be analytic, although in a more expansive sense of the word than the modern one. I then note a new challenge geometry engenders for (...) Hume. Unlike Euclidean space, Humean space is finitely divisible, for which several Euclidean axioms and theorems do not hold. I argue, in response, that (crucially for his scientific project) Hume can account for our belief in the truth of Euclidean geometry on the basis of non-Euclidean ideas, although (innocuously for him) not all should be true. I conclude by arguing, on a less optimistic note, that Hume cannot point to a geometry that is true of our (discrete) ideas. (shrink)

ArgumentHermann von Helmholtz’s distinction between “pure intuitive” and “physical” geometry must be counted as the most influential of his many contributions to the philosophy of science. In a series of papers from the 1860s and 70s, Helmholtz argued against Kant’s claim that our knowledge of Euclidean geometry was an a priori condition for empirical knowledge. He claimed that geometrical propositions could be meaningful only if they were taken to concern the behaviors of physical bodies used in measurement, from (...) which it followed that it was posterior to our acquaintance with this behavior. This paper argues that Helmholtz’s understanding of geometry was fundamentally shaped by his work in sense-physiology, above all on the continuum of colors. For in the course of that research, Helmholtz was forced to realize that the color-space had no inherent metrical structure. The latter was a product of axiomatic definitions of color-addition and the empirical results of such additions. Helmholtz’s development of these views is explained with detailed reference to the competing work of the mathematician Hermann Grassmann and that of the young James Clerk Maxwell. It is this separation between 1) essential properties of a continuum, 2) supplementary axioms concerning distance-measurement, and 3) the behaviors of the physical apparatus used to realize the axioms, which is definitive of Helmholtz’s arguments concerning geometry. (shrink)

El artículo documenta y analiza las vicisitudes en torno a la incorporación de Hilbert de su famoso axioma de completitud, en el sistema axiomático para la geometría euclídea. Esta tarea es emprendida sobre la base del material que aportan sus notas manuscritas para clases, correspondientes al período 1894–1905. Se argumenta que este análisis histórico y conceptual no sólo permite ganar claridad respecto de cómo Hilbert concibió originalmentela naturaleza y función del axioma de completitud en su versión geométrica, sino que además (...) permite disipar equívocos en cuanto a la relación de este axioma con la propiedad metalógica de completitud de un sistema axiomático, tal como fue concebida por Hilbert en esta etapa inicial.The paper reports and analyzes the vicissitudes around Hilbert’s inclusion of his famous axiom of completeness, into his axiomatic system for Euclidean geometry. This task is undertaken on the basis of his unpublished notes for lecture courses, corresponding to the period 1894–1905. It is argued that this historical and conceptual analysis not only sheds new light on how Hilbert conceived originally the nature of his geometrical axiom of completeness, but also it allows to clarify some misunderstandings regarding this axiom and the metalogical property of completeness of an axiomatic system, as it was understoodby Hilbert in this initial stage. (shrink)

We show that plane hyperbolic geometry, expressed in terms of points and the ternary relation of collinearity alone, cannot be expressed by means of axioms of complexity at most ∀∃∀, but that there is an axiom system, all of whose axioms are ∀∃∀∃ sentences. This remains true for Klingenberg's generalized hyperbolic planes, with arbitrary ordered fields as coordinate fields.

ABSTRACT We present and discuss a change in the introduction of Hilbert’s Grundlagen der Geometrie between the first and the subsequent editions: the disappearance of the reference to the independence of the axioms. We briefly outline the theoretical relevance of the notion of independence in Hilbert’s work and we suggest that a possible reason for this disappearance is the discovery that Hilbert’s axioms were not, in fact, independent. In the end we show how this change gives textual evidence (...) for the connection between the notions of independence and simplicity. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:62. 'HUME ON SPACE AND GEOMETRY': ONE RESERVATION In so far as Rosemary Newman disagrees with any2 thing said in my 'Infinite Divisibility in Hume's Treatise ' - which seems, happily, not to be so very far - I hasten to report that I am now persuaded. Thus my suggested reason for refusing to allow that an impression of blackness could give rise to the idea of extension (...) was not, after all, 3 Hume's. And no doubt his conviction that whatever ^s capable of being divided in_ infinitum, must consist of an infinite number of parts (T26) was in part sustained by "the atomistic type of phenomenalism advanced in the first Part 4 of Book I of the Treatise". For to any objection that this nowadays so plainly unacceptable conviction had been accepted as obviously correct by such formidable predecessors as Berkeley and Hobbes, it could be replied that they too had their commitments to their own brands of atomism. In her further comments upon "Hume's phenomenalist atomism" Newman notices, as "a very curious claim", his statement that when - like the true philosopher he was! - he locked at a table:- My senses convey to me only the impressions of colour 'd points, dispos 'd in a certain manner (T34). So I was sorry that she seems to have missed the bold priority claim which, referring to the same passage, I made on Hume's behalf in that article: "Anyone familiar with the theories and the paintings of Seurat might also mischievously characterize the Hume of this Section as 'the Father of Pointillisme' "! But at the end of her paper, although I think only at the end, Newman begins to go very wrong indeed. She says: "Turning to the Enquiry there is little to indicate any shift in Hume's opinion of geometry as a body of synthetic but necessary knowledge." After remarking that Hume does not repeat "any of his earlier arguments" against infinite divisibility "nor those in support of a system of mathematical 63. points", she notices that, in the paragraph characterizing propositions stating only the relations of ideas, geometry "is classed as a science alongside arithmetic and algebra (E25) ".7 Next she quotes the end of that paragraph, and at once comments: "Flew thinks that in the Enquiry Hume is to be seen as 'restoring pure geometry to its place alongside Q the other two elements in the trinity',..." Newman does not, so far as I can see, offer any reason for dismissing this suggestion - apart, that is, from asserting that the paragraph from which she has just quoted "can be interpreted so as to remove any apparent inconsistency with the claim that the impossibility of conceiving the negation of a geometrical axiom has the same ground in the Enquiry as in the Treatise, namely, the invariant character of sensible space." She just tells us that "Where geometry is concerned I follow Atkinson's opinion in finding no reason to suppose that 9 Hume abandoned the Treatise stand." This I find, to say the least, surprising since the very sentence of Hume's Philosophy of Belief from which she quoted my contrary opinion does provide what I still consider to be a quite decisive reason. Since she does not discuss either my reason or the Hume passage to which I was referring, I can here do nothing else or better than repeat myself; adding only and by the way that Professor Atkinson's paper 'Hume on Mathematics' was published a year before that book:Besides restoring pure geometry to its place alongside the other two elements of the trinity, the Inquiry also sketches an account of applied mathematics. This is something the earlier book did not provide at all. 'Every part of mixed mathematics proceeds on the supposition that certain laws are established by nature in her operations, and abstract reasonings are employed, either to assist experience in the discovery of these laws or to determine their influence in particular instances... Thus it is a law of motion, discovered by experience, that the moment or force of any body in motion is in 64. the compound ratio or proportion of its solid contents and its velocity, and, consequently... (shrink)

Weyl famously argued that if space were discrete, then Euclidean geometry could not hold even approximately. Since then, many philosophers have responded to this argument by advancing alternative accounts of discrete geometry that recover approximately Euclidean space. However, they have missed an importantly flawed assumption in Weyl’s argument: physical geometry is determined by fundamental spacetime structures independently from dynamical laws. In this paper, I aim to show its falsity through two rigorous examples: random walks in statistical (...) physics and quantum mechanics. (shrink)

Into the Others’ mind. Remarks on the philosophy of geometry from Kant onwards The post-Kantian debate on the philosophy of geometry prevalently revolved around the question whether axioms are synthetic or analytic. In my view, this suggests that even though Kant’s philosophy often appeared as a critical target, it nonetheless provided a general frame of discussion. In this paper, I aim to expand on this and to show that along with this frame, Kant’s agonists inherited the structure (...) of his transcendental argument for the foundation of spatial cognition. After a short introduction, in the second section, I will thus reconstruct Kant’s transcendental claim, by highlighting that the supposition of the existence of extra-terrestrial minds is pivotal to ground the ‘infra-subjective’ character of the intuition of space. In this respect, I will also show that this hypothesis allows us, at least to a certain degree, to lower the importance of the unicity of intuition and thus the apodicticity of Euclidean geometry. In the third section, I will deal with von Helmholtz’s revision of Kantianism and explain that the endorsement of empiricism is nevertheless coupled with an example whose structure is undoubtedly Kantian. In the fourth section, I will dwell upon Poincaré’s reflection on similar examples and present the idea that conventionalism is in resonance with Kant’s infra-subjectivity. The final section contains concluding remarks. (shrink)

The prediction of general relativity on the gravitational collapse of matter ending in a point is viewed as an absurdity of the kind to be expected in any consistent physical theory due to ultimate conflicts of the axioms of geometry with the properties of physical objects. The necessity to introduce a probability interpretation for the solution of partial differential equations in space time for quantum theory points to similar roots. It is pointed out that quantum theory in the (...) very small is not going to eliminate the problem, but macroscopic quantum effects in the large, modifying the properties of the horizon, may achieve it. Solutions such as wormholes allow as much empirical evidence as any science fiction. The present approach considers successive modifications of the field equations and equations of motion of gravitational theory by admixture of terms with higher derivatives. The rigorous application of a gauge principle combines Einstein's equations with the tensor analog of Maxwell's equations which are of third order for the metric. It is speculated that the natural presence of torsion in such a gauge theory is related to matter sources. (shrink)

The axioms of projective and affine plane geometry are turned into rules of proof by which formal derivations are constructed. The rules act only on atomic formulas. It is shown that proof search for the derivability of atomic cases from atomic assumptions by these rules terminates . This decision method is based on the central result of the combinatorial analysis of derivations by the geometric rules: The geometric objects that occur in derivations by the rules can be restricted (...) to those known from the assumptions and cases. This “subterm property” is proved by permuting suitably the order of application of the geometric rules. As an example of the decision method, it is shown that there cannot exist a derivation of Euclid’s fifth postulate if the rule that corresponds to the uniqueness of the parallel line construction is taken away from the system of plane affine geometry. (shrink)

The Cartan equations defining simple spinors (renamed “pure” by C. Chevalley) are interpreted as equations of motion in compact momentum spaces, in a constructive approach in which at each step the dimensions of spinor space are doubled while those of momentum space increased by two. The construction is possible only in the frame of the geometry of simple or pure spinors, which imposes contraint equations on spinors with more than four components, and then momentum spaces result compact, isomorphic to (...) invariant-mass-spheres imbedded in each other, since the signatures result steadily Lorentzian; starting from dimension four (Minkowski) up to dimension ten with Clifford algebra ℂℓ(1, 9), where the construction naturally ends. The equations of motion met in the construction are most of those traditionally postulated ad hoc: from Weyl equations for neutrinos (and Maxwell's) to Majorana ones, to those for the electroweak model and for the nucleons interacting with the pseudoscalar pion, up to those for the 3 baryon-lepton families, steadily progressing from the description of lower energy phenomena to that of higher ones. The 3 division algebras: complex numbers, quaternions and octonions appear to be strictly correlated with Clifford algebras and then with this spinor-geometrical approach, from which they appear to gradually emerge in the construction, where they play a basic role for the physical interpretation: at the third step complex numbers generate U(1), possible origin of the electric charge and of the existence of charged—neutral fermion pairs, explaining also easily the opposite charges of proton-electron. Another U(1) appears to generate the strong charge at the fourth step. Quaternions generate the signature of space-time at the first step, the SU(2) internal symmetry of isospin and, in the gauge term, the SU(2) L one, of the electroweak model at the third step; they are also at the origin of 3 families; in number equal to that of quaternion imaginary units. At the fifth and last step octonions generate the SU(3) internal symmetry of flavour, with SU(2) isospin subgroup and, in the gauge term, the one of color, correlated with SU(2) L of the electroweak model. These 3 division algebras seem then to be at the origin of charges, families and of the groups of the Standard model. In this approach there seems to be no need of higher dimensional (>4) space-time, here generated by the four Poincaré translations, and dimensional reduction from ℂℓ(1,9) to ℂℓ(1,3) is equivalent to decoupling of the equations of motion. This spinor-geometrical approach is compatible with that based on strings, since these may be expressed bilinearly (as integrals) in terms of Majorana–Weyl simple or pure spinors which are admitted by ℂℓ(1, 9) = R(32). (shrink)

The most majestic scientific achievement, of this century in mathematical beauty, axiomatic consistency, and experimental verifications has been special relativity with its unitary structure at the operator level, and canonical structure at the classical levels, which has turned out to be exactly valid for point particles moving in the homogenenous and isotropic vacuum (exterior dynamical problems). In recent decades a number of authors have studied nonunitary and noncanonical theories, here generally calleddeformations for the representation of broader conditions, such as extended (...) and deformable particles moving within inhomogeneous and anisotrophic physical media (interior dynamical problems). In this paper we show that nonunitary deformations, including, q-, k-, quatum-, Lie-isotopic, Lie-admissible, and other deformations, even thoughmathematically correct, have a number of problematic aspects ofphysical character when formulated on conventional spaces over conditional fields, such as lack of invariance of the basic space-time units, ambiguous applicability to measurements, loss of Hermiticity-observability in time, lack of invariant numerical predictions, loss of the axions of special relativity, and others. We then show that the classical noncanonical counterparts of the above nonunitary deformations are equally afflicted by corresponding problems of physical consistency. We also show that the contemporary formulation of gravity is afflicted by similar problematic aspects because Riemannian spaces are noncanonical deformations of Minkowskian spaces, thus having noninvariant space-time units. We then point out that new mathematical methods, calledisotopies, genotopies, hyperstructures and their isoduals, offer the possibilities of constructing a nonunitary theory, known asrelativistic hadronic mechanics which: (1) is as axiomatically consistent as relativistic quantum mechanics, (2) preserves the abstract axioms of special relativity, and (3) results in a completion of the conventional mechanics much along the celebrated Einstein-Podolski-Rosen argument. A number of novel applications are indicated, such as a geometric unification of the special and general relativity via the isominkowskian geometry in which the two relativities are differentiated via the invariant basic unit, while preserving conventional Riemannian metrics, Einstein's field equations, and related experimental verifications; a novel operator form of gravity verifying the axioms of relativistic quantum mechanics under the universal isopoincaré symmetry; a new structure model of hadrons with conventional massive particles as physical constituents which is compatile with composite quarks and with established unitary classifications; and other novels applications in nuclear physics, astrophysics, theoretical biology, and other fields. The paper ends with the proposal of a number of new experiments, some of which may imply new practical applications, such as conceivable new forms of recycling nuclear waste. The achievement of axiomatic consistency in the study of the above physical problems has been possible for the first time in this paper thanks to mathematical advances that recently appeared in a special issue of theRendiconti Circolo Matematico Palermo, and in other journals identified in the Acknowledgements. (shrink)

Peano's axiomatizations of geometry are abstract and non-intuitive in character, whereas Peano stresses his appeal to concrete spatial intuition in the choice of the axioms. This poses the problem of understanding the interrelationship between abstraction and intuition in his geometrical works. In this article I argue that axiomatization is, for Peano, a methodology to restructure geometry and isolate its organizing principles. The restructuring produces a more abstract presentation of geometry, which does not contradict its intuitive content (...) but only puts it into a particular form. (shrink)

The present first part about the eventual completeness of mathematics (called “Hilbert mathematics”) is concentrated on the Gödel incompleteness (1931) statement: if it is an axiom rather than a theorem inferable from the axioms of (Peano) arithmetic, (ZFC) set theory, and propositional logic, this would pioneer the pathway to Hilbert mathematics. One of the main arguments that it is an axiom consists in the direct contradiction of the axiom of induction in arithmetic and the axiom of infinity in set (...) theory. Thus, the pair of arithmetic and set are to be similar to Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries distinguishably only by the Fifth postulate now, i.e. after replacing it and its negation correspondingly by the axiom of finiteness (induction) versus that of finiteness being idempotent negations to each other. Indeed, the axiom of choice, as far as it is equivalent to the well-ordering “theorem”, transforms any set in a well-ordering either necessarily finite according to the axiom of induction or also optionally infinite according to the axiom of infinity. So, the Gödel incompleteness statement relies on the logical contradiction of the axiom of induction and the axiom of infinity in the final analysis. Nonetheless, both can be considered as two idempotent versions of the same axiom (analogically to the Fifth postulate) and then unified after logicism and its inherent intensionality since the opposition of finiteness and infinity can be only extensional (i.e., relevant to the elements of any set rather than to the set by itself or its characteristic property being a proposition). So, the pathway for interpreting the Gödel incompleteness statement as an axiom and the originating from that assumption for “Hilbert mathematics” accepting its negation is pioneered. A much wider context relevant to realizing the Gödel incompleteness statement as a metamathematical axiom is consistently built step by step. The horizon of Hilbert mathematics is the proper subject in the third part of the paper, and a reinterpretation of Gödel’s papers (1930; 1931) as an apology of logicism as the only consistent foundations of mathematics is the topic of the next second part. (shrink)

In this paper, we are concerned with the development of a general set theory using the single axiom version of Leśniewski’s mereology. The specification of mereology, and further of Tarski’s geometry of solids will rely on the Calculus of Inductive Constructions (CIC). In the first part, we provide a specification of Leśniewski’s mereology as a model for an atomless Boolean algebra using Clay’s ideas. In the second part, we interpret Leśniewski’s mereology in monadic second-order logic using names and develop (...) a full version of mereology referred to as CIC-based Monadic Mereology (λ-MM) allowing an expressive theory while involving only two axioms. In the third part, we propose a modeling of Tarski’s solid geometry relying on λ-MM. It is intended to serve as a basis for spatial reasoning. All parts have been proved using a translation in type theory. (shrink)

A rigorous ab initio derivation of the (square of) Dirac’s equation for a particle with spin is presented. The Lagrangian of the classical relativistic spherical top is modified so to render it invariant with respect conformal changes of the metric of the top configuration space. The conformal invariance is achieved by replacing the particle mass in the Lagrangian with the conformal Weyl scalar curvature. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the particle is found to be linearized, exactly and in closed form, by (...) an ansatz solution that can be straightforwardly interpreted as the “quantum wave function” of the 4-spinor solution of Dirac’s equation. All quantum features arise from the subtle interplay between the conformal curvature acting on the particle as a potential and the particle motion which affects the geometric “pre-potential” associated to the conformal curvature itself. The theory, carried out here by assuming a Minkowski metric, can be easily extended to arbitrary space-time Riemann metric, e.g. the one adopted in the context of General Relativity. This novel theoretical scenario appears to be of general application and is expected to open a promising perspective in the modern endeavor aimed at the unification of the natural forces with gravitation. (shrink)

Dependencies are identified in two recently proposed first-order axiom systems for plane hyperbolic geometry. Since the dependencies do not specifically concern hyperbolic geometry, our results yield two simpler axiom systems for absolute geometry.

It is commonplace to view the rigor of the mathematics in Euclid's Elements in the way an experienced teacher views the work of an earnest beginner: respectable relative to an early stage of development, but ultimately flawed. Given the close connection in content between Euclid's Elements and high-school geometry classes, this is understandable. Euclid, it seems, never realized what everyone who moves beyond elementary geometry into more advanced mathematics is now customarily taught: a fully rigorous proof cannot rely (...) on geometric intuition. In his arguments he seems to call illicitly upon our understanding of how objects like triangles and circles behave rather than grounding everything rigorously in axioms.Though widespread, the attitude is in a historical sense puzzling. For over two millenia, mathematicians of all levels studied the arguments in Elements and found nothing substantial missing. The book, on the contrary, represented the limit of mathematical explicitness. It served as the paradigm for careful and exact reasoning. How it could enjoy this reputation for so long is mysterious if careful and exact reasoning demands that all inferences be grounded in a modern axiomatic theory in the way Hilbert did in his famous Foundations of Geometry. By these standards, Euclid's work is deeply flawed. The holes in his arguments are not minor and excusable, but massive and cryptic.With his book Euclid and His Twentieth Century Rivals, Nathaniel Miller makes substantial progress in clearing this mystery up. The book is an explication of FG , a formal system of proof developed by Miller which reconstructs Euclid's deductions as essentially diagrammatic. The holes in Euclid's arguments are taken to appear precisely at those steps which are unintelligible without an accompanying geometric diagram. Interpreting the reasoning in the Elements in terms of a modern axiomatization , …. (shrink)

The main goal of part 1 is to challenge the widely held view that Poincaré orders the sciences in a hierarchy of dependence, such that all others presuppose arithmetic. Commentators have suggested that the intuition that grounds the use of induction in arithmetic also underlies the conception of a continuum, that the consistency of geometrical axioms must be proved through arithmetical induction, and that arithmetical induction licenses the supposition that certain operations form a group. I criticize each of these (...) readings. More fully, I argue that the justification Poincaré offers for the use of the group notion in geometry appears to extend to set-theoretic notions that would suffice to put arithmetic on a logical foundation, thus undermining his own case for the necessity of intuition in arithmetic. In part 2, I offer an interpretation of intuition’s role on which it justifies the use of group-theoretic, but not set-theoretic, notions. (shrink)

Our aim is to propose several itineraries which follow the scenario having as a first step Euclid’s Fifth Postulate; as a second step the Bolyai–Lobachevsky’s non-Euclidean geometries and as a third step Einstein’s relativity theory. The role of Euclid’s fifth postulate is successively assumed by Archimedes’ axiom; Zermelo’s choice axiom; Cantor’s continuum hypothesis; von Neumann’s foundation axiom for set theory; Church–Turing thesis and Turing’s computability; the validity of classical logic under the form of the principles of identity, non-contradiction and excluded (...) middle; the macroscopic universe assumed as form of existence, including the fact that humans are macroscopic beings; human language and semiosis assumed as the unique way to approach understanding and communication; the old Greek ideal of order, symmetry and harmony, adopted for representation of the world in Art and Poetry. The common denominator of these starting steps is the fact that they all correspond to the sensorial-empirical perception of the world. We point out the strong interaction among the steps corresponding, in these different itineraries, to Einstein’s relativity theory. We infer in this way the need of a transdisciplinary approach. (shrink)

In this transdisciplinary article which stems from philosophical considerations (that depart from phenomenology—after Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger and Rosen—and Hegelian dialectics), we develop a conception based on topological (the Moebius surface and the Klein bottle) and geometrical considerations (based on torsion and non-orientability of manifolds), and multivalued logics which we develop into a unified world conception that surmounts the Cartesian cut and Aristotelian logic. The role of torsion appears in a self-referential construction of space and time, which will be further related to (...) the commutator of the True and False operators of matrix logic, still with a quantum superposed state related to a Moebius surface, and as the physical field at the basis of Spencer-Brown’s primitive distinction in the protologic of the calculus of distinction. In this setting, paradox, self-reference, depth, time and space, higher-order non-dual logic, perception, spin and a time operator, the Klein bottle, hypernumbers due to Musès which include non-trivial square roots of ±1 and in particular non-trivial nilpotents, quantum field operators, the transformation of cognition to spin for two-state quantum systems, are found to be keenly interwoven in a world conception compatible with the philosophical approach taken for basis of this article. The Klein bottle is found not only to be the topological in-formation for self-reference and paradox whose logical counterpart in the calculus of indications are the paradoxical imaginary time waves, but also a classical-quantum transformer (Hadamard’s gate in quantum computation) which is indispensable to be able to obtain a complete multivalued logical system, and still to generate the matrix extension of classical connective Boolean logic. We further find that the multivalued logic that stems from considering the paradoxical equation in the calculus of distinctions, and in particular, the imaginary solutions to this equation, generates the matrix logic which supersedes the classical logic of connectives and which has for particular subtheories fuzzy and quantum logics. Thus, from a primitive distinction in the vacuum plane and the axioms of the calculus of distinction, we can derive by incorporating paradox, the world conception succinctly described above. (shrink)

With each projective geometry we can associate a Lyndon algebra. Such an algebra always satisfies Tarski's axioms for relation algebras and Lyndon algebras thus form an interesting connection between the fields of projective geometry and algebraic logic. In this paper we prove that if G is a class of projective geometries which contains an infinite projective geometry of dimension at least three, then the class L(G) of Lyndon algebras associated with projective geometries in G has an (...) undecidable equational theory. In our proof we develop and use a connection between projective geometries and diagonal-free cylindric algebras. (shrink)