The Bolzano-Poincaré Type Theorems

In 1883–1884, Henri Poincaré announced the result about the structure of the set of zeros of function ∶→, or alternatively the existence of solutions of the equation ()=0. In the case =1 the Poincaré Theorem is well known Bolzano Theorem. In 1940 Miranda rediscovered the Poincaré Theorem. Except for few isolated results it is essentially a non-algorithmic theory. The aim of this article is to introduce an algorithmical proof of the Theorem “On the existence of a chain” and for =3 an algorithmical proof of the Bolzano-Poincaré Theorem and to show the equivalence of Poincaré, Brouwer and “On the existence of a chain” theorems

Poincare and the analytic tradition

There is no substantive agreement about the philosophical views of analytic philosophers. Nevertheless, for much of them logical analysis is widely recognized to be important. It is true that Poincare used no logical analysis but refused nevertheless the old metaphysics. Indeed, the analytic tradition of philosophy of science is perhaps better characterized by several overlapping similarities, which are the clincher for my main thesis: Analytic philosophy of science has one of its origins in the philosophical network in France around 1900 and, especially, in Poincare

Poincare and the analytic tradition

There is no substantive agreement about the philosophical views of analytic philosophers. Nevertheless, for much of them logical analysis is widely recognized to be important. It is true that Poincare used no logical analysis but refused nevertheless the old metaphysics. Indeed, the analytic tradition of philosophy of science is perhaps better characterized by several overlapping similarities, which are the clincher for my main thesis: Analytic philosophy of science has one of its origins in the philosophical network in France around 1900 and, especially, in Poincare

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

Infinity

This essay surveys the different types of infinity that occur in pure and applied mathematics, with emphasis on: 1. the contrast between potential infinity and actual infinity; 2. Cantor's distinction between transfinite sets and absolute infinity; 3. the constructivist view of infinite quantifiers and the meaning of constructive proof; 4. the concept of feasibility and the philosophical problems surrounding feasible arithmetic; 5. Zeno's paradoxes and modern paradoxes of physical infinity involving supertasks

A compactness result for BV functions in metric spaces

We prove a compactness result for bounded sequences (u_j) of functions with bounded variation in metric spaces (X,d_j) where the space X is fixed but the metric may vary with j. We also provide an application to Carnot\u2013Carath\ue9odory spaces

Philosophical Method and Galileo's Paradox of Infinity

We consider an approach to some philosophical problems that I call the Method of Conceptual Articulation: to recognize that a question may lack any determinate answer, and to re-engineer concepts so that the question acquires a definite answer in such a way as to serve the epistemic motivations behind the question. As a case study we examine “Galileo’s Paradox”, that the perfect square numbers seem to be at once as numerous as the whole numbers, by one-to-one correspondence, and yet less numerous, being a proper subset. I argue that Cantor resolved this paradox by a method at least close to that proposed—not by discovering the true nature of cardinal number, but by articulating several useful and appealing extensions of number to the infinite. Galileo was right to suggest that the concept of relative size did not apply to the infinite, for the concept he possessed did not. Nor was Bolzano simply wrong to reject Hume’s Principle (that one-to-one correspondence implies equal number) in the infinitary case, in favor of Euclid’s Common Notion 5 (that the whole is greater than the part), for the concept of cardinal number (in the sense of “number of elements”) was not clearly defined for infinite collections. Order extension theorems now suggest that a theory of cardinality upholding Euclid’s principle instead of Hume’s is possible. Cantor’s refinements of number are not the only ones possible, and they appear to have been shaped by motivations and fruitfulness, for they evolved in discernible stages correlated with emerging applications and results. Galileo, Bolzano, and Cantor shared interests in the particulate analysis of the continuum and in physical applications. Cantor’s concepts proved fruitful for those pursuits. Finally, Gödel was mistaken to claim that Cantor’s concept of cardinality is forced on us; though Gödel gives an intuitively compelling argument, he ignores the fact that Euclid’s Common Notion is also intuitively compelling, and we are therefore forced to make a choice. The success of Cantor’s concept of cardinality lies not in its truth (for concepts are not true or false), nor its uniqueness (for it is not the only extension of number possible), but in its intuitive appeal, and most of all, its usefulness to the understanding

Philosophical Method and Galileo's Paradox of Infinity

We consider an approach to some philosophical problems that I call the Method of Conceptual Articulation: to recognize that a question may lack any determinate answer, and to re-engineer concepts so that the question acquires a definite answer in such a way as to serve the epistemic motivations behind the question. As a case study we examine “Galileo’s Paradox”, that the perfect square numbers seem to be at once as numerous as the whole numbers, by one-to-one correspondence, and yet less numerous, being a proper subset. I argue that Cantor resolved this paradox by a method at least close to that proposed—not by discovering the true nature of cardinal number, but by articulating several useful and appealing extensions of number to the infinite. Galileo was right to suggest that the concept of relative size did not apply to the infinite, for the concept he possessed did not. Nor was Bolzano simply wrong to reject Hume’s Principle (that one-to-one correspondence implies equal number) in the infinitary case, in favor of Euclid’s Common Notion 5 (that the whole is greater than the part), for the concept of cardinal number (in the sense of “number of elements”) was not clearly defined for infinite collections. Order extension theorems now suggest that a theory of cardinality upholding Euclid’s principle instead of Hume’s is possible. Cantor’s refinements of number are not the only ones possible, and they appear to have been shaped by motivations and fruitfulness, for they evolved in discernible stages correlated with emerging applications and results. Galileo, Bolzano, and Cantor shared interests in the particulate analysis of the continuum and in physical applications. Cantor’s concepts proved fruitful for those pursuits. Finally, Gödel was mistaken to claim that Cantor’s concept of cardinality is forced on us; though Gödel gives an intuitively compelling argument, he ignores the fact that Euclid’s Common Notion is also intuitively compelling, and we are therefore forced to make a choice. The success of Cantor’s concept of cardinality lies not in its truth (for concepts are not true or false), nor its uniqueness (for it is not the only extension of number possible), but in its intuitive appeal, and most of all, its usefulness to the understanding

Intuitionism and Logical Tolerance

Geschiedenis en Filosofie van Logica en Semantie