Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T18:02:17.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE GENETIC VERSUS THE AXIOMATIC METHOD: RESPONDING TO FEFERMAN 1977

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2012

ELAINE LANDRY
ELAINE LANDRY*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of California, Davis
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS, 1 SHIELDS AVE, DAVIS, CA 95616. E-mail: emlandry@ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feferman (1977) argues that category theory cannot stand on its own as a structuralist foundation for mathematics: he claims that, because the notions of operation and collection are both epistemically and logically prior, we require a background theory of operations and collections. Recently [2011], I have argued that in rationally reconstructing Hilbert’s organizational use of the axiomatic method, we can construct an algebraic version of category-theoretic structuralism. That is, in reply to Shapiro (2005), we can be structuralists all the way down; we do not have to appeal to some background theory to guarantee the truth of our axioms. In this paper, I again turn to Hilbert; I borrow his (Hilbert, 1900a) distinction between the genetic method and the axiomatic method to argue that even if the genetic method requires the notions of operation and collection, the axiomatic method does not. Even if the genetic method is in some sense epistemically or logically prior, the axiomatic method stands alone. Thus, if the claim that category theory can act as a structuralist foundation for mathematics arises from the organizational use of the axiomatic method, then it does not depend on the prior notions of operation or collection, and so we can be structuralists all the way up.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 24 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Awodey, S. (1996). Structure in mathematics and logic: A categorical perspective. Philosophia Mathematica, 4(3), 209–237.Google Scholar
Awodey, S. (2004). An answer to Hellman’s question: Does category theory provide a framework for mathematical structuralism? Philosophia Mathematica, 1(3), 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. L. (1981). Category theory and the foundations of mathematics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 32, 349–358.Google Scholar
Bell, J. L. (1986). From absolute to local mathematics. Synthese, 69, 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. L. (1988). Toposes and Local Set Theories. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bernays, P. (1967). Hilbert, David. In Edwards, P., editors. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan, pp. 496–504.Google Scholar
Eilenberg, S., & Mac Lane, S. (1945). General theory of natural equivalences. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 58, 231–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewald, W. (1999). From Kant to Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 2. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1884). (Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik) The Foundations of Arithmetic, Austin, J. L. (Trans.) (1986), Illinois: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1977). Categorical foundations and foundations of category theory. Foundations of mathematics and computability Theory. In Butts, R., and Hintikka, J., editors. Logic, Foundations of Mathematics and Computability. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 149–169.Google Scholar
Grothendieck, A. (1957). Sur quelques points d’algèbre homologique. Tôhoku Mathematics Journal, 9(2), 119–221.Google Scholar
Hallett, M., & Majer, U. (2004). David Hilbert’s Lectures on the Foundations of Geometry, 1891–1902. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G. (2003). Does category theory provide a framework for mathematical structuralism. Philosophia Mathematica, 11(2), 129–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbert, D. (1899). Grundlagen der Geometrie. Leipzig, Germany: Teuber; Foundations of Geometry, (1959), trans. E. Townsend, La Salle, Illnois, Open Court.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. (1900a). On the concept of number. In Ewald, W., editors. From Kant to Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 2. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 1089–1095.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. (1900b). Excerpt from “Mathematical Problems”. In Ewald, W., editors. From Kant to Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 2. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 1096–1105.Google Scholar
Kan, D. (1958). Functors involving C.S.S. complexes. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 87, 330–346.Google Scholar
Landry, E. (1999). Category theory: The language of mathematics. Philosophy of Science, 66(3), S14–S27.Google Scholar
Landry, E. (2006). Category theory as a framework for an In Re interpretation of mathematical structuralism. In van Benthem, J., Heinzmann, G., Rebuschi, M. and Visser, H., editors. The Age of Alternative Logics: Assessing Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics Today. Chicago, IL: Kluwer, pp. 163–179.Google Scholar
Landry, E. (2011). How to be a structuralist all the way down. Synthese, 179, 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landry, E., & Marquis, J.-P. (2005). Categories in context: Historical, foundational and philosophical. Philosophia Mathematica, 13(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
Lawvere, F. W. (1964). An elementary theory of the category of sets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 52, 1506–1511.Google Scholar
Lawvere, F. W. (1966). The category of categories as a foundation for mathematics. In Proceedings of the Conference on Categorical Algebra, La Jolla. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1968). Foundations of mathematics: Category theory. In Klibansky, R., editor. Contemporary Philosophy. Firenze, Italy: La Nuova Italia Editrice I, pp. 286–294.Google Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1988). Concepts and categories in perspective. In Askey, R. A., editor. A Century of Mathematics in America, Part I. Providence, RI: AMS, pp. 323–365.Google Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1996). Structure in mathematics. Philosophia Mathematica, 4(3), 174–183.Google Scholar
Marquis, J.-P. (2006). Categories, sets and the nature of mathematical entities. In van Benthem, J., Heinzmann, G., Rebuschi, M., and Visser, H., editors. The Age of Alternative Logics: Assessing Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics Today. The Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 181–192.Google Scholar
Marquis, J.-P. (2009). From a Geometrical Point of View: A Study in the History and Philosophy of Category Theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Marquis, J.-P. (2010). Category theory. In Zalta, E. N., editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition). Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/category-theory/.Google Scholar
McLarty, C. (2004). Exploring categorical structuralism. Philosophia Mathematica, 12(1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLarty, C. (2005). Learning from questions on categorical foundations. Philosophia Mathematica, 13(1), 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S. (2005). Categories, structures, and the Frege-Hilbert controversy: The status of meta-mathematics. Philosophia Mathematica, 13(1), 61–77.Google Scholar