Facets and Levels of Mathematical Abstraction

International audienceMathematical abstraction is the process of considering and manipulating operations, rules, methods and concepts divested from their reference to real world phenomena and circumstances, and also deprived from the content connected to particular applications. There is no one single way of performing mathematical abstraction. The term "abstraction" does not name a unique procedure but a general process, which goes many ways that are mostly simultaneous and intertwined ; in particular, the process does not amount only to logical subsumption. I will consider comparatively how philosophers consider abstraction and how mathematicians perform it, with the aim to bring to light the fundamental thinking processes at play, and to illustrate by significant examples how much intricate and multi-leveled may be the combination of typical mathematical techniques which include axiomatic method, invarianceprinciples, equivalence relations and functional correspondences.L'abstraction mathématique consiste en la considération et la manipulation d'opérations, règles et concepts indépendamment du contenu dont les nantissent des applications particulières et du rapport qu'ils peuvent avoir avec les phénomènes et les circonstances du monde réel. L'abstraction mathématique emprunte diverses voies. Le terme " abstraction " ne désigne pasune procédure unique, mais un processus général où s'entrecroisent divers procédés employés successivement ou simultanément. En particulier, l'abstraction mathématique ne se réduit pas à la subsomption logique. Je vais étudier comparativement en quels termes les philosophes expliquent l'abstraction et par quels moyens les mathématiciens la mettent en oeuvre. Je voudrais parlà mettre en lumière les principaux processus de pensée en jeu et illustrer par des exemples divers niveaux d'intrication de techniques mathématiques récurrentes, qui incluent notamment la méthode axiomatique, les principes d'invariance, les relations d'équivalence et les correspondances fonctionnelles

On proof and progress in mathematics

In response to Jaffe and Quinn [math.HO/9307227], the author discusses forms of progress in mathematics that are not captured by formal proofs of theorems, especially in his own work in the theory of foliations and geometrization of 3-manifolds and dynamical systems.Comment: 17 pages. Abstract added in migration

Instructional strategies in explicating the discovery function of proof for lower secondary school students

In this paper, we report on the analysis of teaching episodes selected from our pedagogical and cognitive research on geometry teaching that illustrate how carefully-chosen instructional strategies can guide Grade 8 students to see and appreciate the discovery function of proof in geometr

Realizability and recursive mathematics

Section 1: Philosophy, logic and constructivityPhilosophy, formal logic and the theory of computation all bear on problems in the foundations of constructive mathematics. There are few places where these, often competing, disciplines converge more neatly than in the theory of realizability structures. Uealizability applies recursion-theoretic concepts to give interpretations of constructivism along lines suggested originally by Heyting and Kleene. The research reported in the dissertation revives the original insights of Kleene—by which realizability structures are viewed as models rather than proof-theoretic interpretations—to solve a major problem of classification and to draw mathematical consequences from its solution.Section 2: Intuitionism and recursion: the problem of classificationThe internal structure of constructivism presents an interesting problem. Mathematically, it is a problem of classification; for philosophy, it is one of conceptual organization. Within the past seventy years, constructive mathematics has grown into a jungle of fullydeveloped "constructivities," approaches to the mathematics of the calculable which range from strict finitism through hyperarithmetic model theory. The problem we address is taxonomic: to sort through the jungle, set standards for classification and determine those features which run through everything that is properly "constructive."There are two notable approaches to constructivity; these must appear prominently in any proposed classification. The most famous is Brouwer's intuitioniam. Intuitionism relies on a complete constructivization of the basic mathematical objects and logical operations. The other is classical recursive mathematics, as represented by the work of Dekker, Myhill, and Nerode. Classical constructivists use standard logic in a mathematical universe restricted to coded objects and recursive operations.The theorems of the dissertation give a precise answer to the classification problem for intuitionism and classical constructivism. Between these realms arc connected semantically through a model of intuitionistic set theory. The intuitionistic set theory IZF encompasses all of the intuitionistic mathematics that does not involve choice sequences. (This includes all the work of the Bishop school.) IZF has as a model a recursion-theoretic structure, V(A7), based on Kleene realizability. Since realizability takes set variables to range over "effective" objects, large parts of classical constructivism appear over the model as inter¬ preted subsystems of intuitionistic set theory. For example, the entire first-order classical theory of recursive cardinals and ordinals comes out as an intuitionistic theory of cardinals and ordinals under realizability. In brief, we prove that a satisfactory partial solution to the classification problem exists; theories in classical recursive constructivism are identical, under a natural interpretation, to intuitionistic theories. The interpretation is especially satisfactory because it is not a Godel-style translation; the interpretation can be developed so that it leaves the classical logical forms unchanged.Section 3: Mathematical applications of the translation:The solution to the classification problem is a bridge capable of carrying two-way mathematical traffic. In one direction, an identification of classical constructivism with intuitionism yields a certain elimination of recursion theory from the standard mathematical theory of effective structures, leaving pure set theory and a bit of model theory. Not only are the theorems of classical effective mathematics faithfully represented in intuitionistic set theory, but also the arguments that provide proofs of those theorems. Via realizability, one can find set-theoretic proofs of many effective results, and the set-theoretic proofs are often more straightforward than their recursion-theoretic counterparts. The new proofs are also more transparent, because they involve, rather than recursion theory plus set theory, at most the set-theoretic "axioms" of effective mathematics.Working the other way, many of the negative ("cannot be obtained recursively") results of classical constructivism carry over immediately into strong independence results from intuitionism. The theorems of Kalantari and Retzlaff on effective topology, for instance, turn into independence proofs concerning the structure of the usual topology on the intuitionistic reals.The realizability methods that shed so much light over recursive set theory can be applied to "recursive theories" generally. We devote a chapter to verifying that the realizability techniques can be used to good effect in the semantical foundations of computer science. The classical theory of effectively given computational domains a la Scott can be subsumed into the Kleene realizability universe as a species of countable noneffective domains. In this way, the theory of effective domains becomes a chapter (under interpre¬ tation) in an intuitionistic study of denotational semantics. We then show how the "extra information" captured in the logical signs under realizability can be used to give proofs of classical theorems about effective domains.Section 4: Solutions to metamathematical problems:The realizability model for set theory is very tractible; in many ways, it resembles a Boolean-valued universe. The tractibility is apparent in the solutions it offers to a number of open problems in the metamathematics of constructivity. First, there is the perennial problem of finding and delimiting in the wide constructive universe those features that correspond to structures familiar from classical mathematics. In the realizability model, it is easy to locate the collection of classical ordinals and to show that they form, intuitionistically, a set rather than a proper class. Also, one interprets an argument of Dekker and Myhill to prove that the classical powerset of the natural numbers contains at least continuum-many distinct cardinals.Second, a major tenet of Bishop's program for constructivity has been that constructive mathematics is "numerical:" all the properties of constructive objects, including the real numbers, can be represented as properties of the natural numbers. The realizability model shows that Bishop's numericalization of mathematics can, in principle, be accomplished. Every set over the model with decidable equality and every metric space is enumerated by a collection of natural numbers

IDEF5 Ontology Description Capture Method: Concept Paper

The results of research towards an ontology capture method referred to as IDEF5 are presented. Viewed simply as the study of what exists in a domain, ontology is an activity that can be understood to be at work across the full range of human inquiry prompted by the persistent effort to understand the world in which it has found itself - and which it has helped to shape. In the contest of information management, ontology is the task of extracting the structure of a given engineering, manufacturing, business, or logistical domain and storing it in an usable representational medium. A key to effective integration is a system ontology that can be accessed and modified across domains and which captures common features of the overall system relevant to the goals of the disparate domains. If the focus is on information integration, then the strongest motivation for ontology comes from the need to support data sharing and function interoperability. In the correct architecture, an enterprise ontology base would allow th e construction of an integrated environment in which legacy systems appear to be open architecture integrated resources. If the focus is on system/software development, then support for the rapid acquisition of reliable systems is perhaps the strongest motivation for ontology. Finally, ontological analysis was demonstrated to be an effective first step in the construction of robust knowledge based systems