|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article is about Intuitionism in mathematics and philosophical logic. For other uses, see Ethical intuitionism.
In the philosophy of mathematics, intuitionism, or neointuitionism (opposed to preintuitionism), is an approach to mathematics as the constructive mental activity of humans. That is, mathematics does not consist of analytic activities wherein deep properties of existence are revealed and applied. Instead, logic and mathematics are the application of internally consistent methods to realize more complex mental constructs.
Truth and proofThe fundamental distinguishing characteristic of intuitionism is its interpretation of what it means for a mathematical statement to be true. As the name suggests, in Brouwer's original intuitionism, the truth of a statement is taken to be equivalent to the mathematician being able to intuit the statement. The vagueness of the intuitionistic notion of truth often leads to misinterpretations about its meaning. Kleene formally defined intuitionistic truth from a realist position, however Brouwer would likely reject this formalization as meaningless, given his rejection of the realist/Platonist position. Intuitionistic truth therefore remains somewhat ill defined. Regardless of how it is interpreted, intuitionism does not equate the truth of a mathematical statement with its provability. However, because the intuitionistic notion of truth is more restrictive than that of classical mathematics, the intuitionist must reject some assumptions of classical logic to ensure that everything he/she proves is in fact intuitionistically true. This gives rise to intuitionistic logic. To claim an object with certain properties exists is, to an intuitionist, to claim to be able to construct a certain object with those properties. Any mathematical object is considered to be a product of a construction of a mind, and therefore, the existence of an object is equivalent to the possibility of its construction. This contrasts with the classical approach, which states that the existence of an entity can be proved by refuting its non-existence. For the intuitionist, this is not valid; the refutation of the non-existence does not mean that it is possible to find a constructive proof of existence. As such, intuitionism is a variety of mathematical constructivism; but it is not the only kind. As well, to say A or B, to an intuitionist, is to claim that either A or B can be proved. In particular, the law of excluded middle, A or not A, is disallowed since one can construct, via Gödel's incompleteness theorems, a mathematical statement that can be neither proven nor disproved. The interpretation of negation is also different. In classical logic, the negation of a statement asserts that the statement is false; to an intuitionist, it means the statement is refutable (i.e., that there is a proof that there is no proof of it). The asymmetry between a positive and negative statement becomes apparent. If a statement P is provable, then it is certainly impossible to prove that there is no proof of P; however, just because there is no proof that P is not true, we cannot conclude from this absence that there is a proof of P. Thus P is a stronger statement than not-not-P. Intuitionistic logic substitutes justification for truth in its logical calculus. The logical calculus preserves justification, rather than truth, across transformations yielding derived propositions. It has given philosophical support to several schools of philosophy, most notably the Anti-realism of Michael Dummett. Intuitionism and infinityAmong the different formulations of intuitionism, there are several different positions on the meaning and reality of infinity. The term potential infinity refers to a mathematical procedure in which there is an unending series of steps. After each step has been completed, there is always another step to be performed. For example, consider the process of counting: 1, 2, 3, ... The term actual infinity refers to a completed mathematical object which contains an infinite number of elements. An example is the set of natural numbers, N = {0, 1, 2, ...}. In Cantor's formulation of set theory, there are many different infinite sets, some of which are larger than others. For example, the set of all real numbers "R" is larger than "N", because any procedure that you attempt to use to put the natural numbers into one-to-one correspondence with the real numbers will always fail: there will always be an infinite number of real numbers "left over". Any infinite set that can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers is said to be "countable". Infinite sets larger than this are said to be "uncountable". Cantor's approach to set theory (in revised form) is the foundation of modern mainstream mathematics. Intuitionism was created, in part, as a reaction to Cantor's set theory. All forms of intuitionism reject the reality of uncountable infinite sets. Modern constructive set theory does include the axiom of infinity from Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (or a revised version of this axiom), and includes the set N of natural numbers. Most modern constructive mathematicians accept the reality of countably infinite sets (however, see Alexander Esenin-Volpin for a counter-example). Brouwer rejected the concept of actual infinity, but admitted the idea of potential infinity.
Finitism is an extreme version of Intuitionism that rejects the idea of potential infinity. According to Finitism, a mathematical object does not exist unless it can be constructed from the natural numbers in a finite number of steps. History of IntuitionismIntuitionism's history can be traced to two controversies in nineteenth century mathematics. The first of these was the invention of transfinite arithmetic by Georg Cantor and its subsequent rejection by a number of prominent mathematicians including most famously his teacher Leopold Kronecker — a confirmed finitist. The second of these was Gottlob Frege's effort to reduce all of mathematics to a logical formulation via set theory and its derailing by a youthful Bertrand Russell, the discoverer of Russell's paradox. Frege had planned a three volume definitive work, however shortly after the first volume had been published, Russell sent Frege a letter outlining his paradox which demonstrated that one of Frege's rules of self-reference was self-contradictory. Frege, the story goes, plunged into depression and did not publish the second and third volumes of his work as he had planned. For more see Davis (2000) Chapters 3 and 4: Frege: From Breakthrough to Despair and Cantor: Detour through Infinity. See van Heijenoort for the original works and Heijenoort's commentary. These controversies are strongly linked as the logical methods used by Cantor in proving his results in transfinite arithmetic are essentially the same as those used by Russell in constructing his paradox. Hence how one chooses to resolve Russell's paradox has direct implications on the status accorded to Cantor's transfinite arithmetic. In the early twentieth century L. E. J. Brouwer represented the intuitionist position and David Hilbert the formalist position — see van Heijenoort. Kurt Gödel offered opinions referred to as Platonist (see various sources re Gödel). Alan Turing considers: "non-constructive systems of logic with which not all the steps in a proof are mechanical, some being intuitive" (Turing (1939) Systems of Logic Based on Ordinals in Undecidable, p. 210) Later, Stephen Cole Kleene brought forth a more rational consideration of intuitionism in his Introduction to Meta-mathematics (1952). For the view that there are no paradoxes in Cantorian set theory — thus calling into question the program of intuitionist mathematics, see Alejandro Garciadiego's now-classic Bertrand Russell and the Origins of the Set-Theoretic Paradoxes. Contributors to intuitionismBranches of intuitionistic mathematics
See also
Further reading
Secondary References
External links
|
| All Right Reserved © 2007, Designed by Stylish Blog. |