The "Artificial Mathematician" Objection: Exploring the (Im)possibility of Automating Mathematical Understanding

Reuben Hersh confided to us that, about forty years ago, the late Paul Cohen predicted to him that at some unspecified point in the future, mathematicians would be replaced by computers. Rather than focus on computers replacing mathematicians, however, our aim is to consider the (im)possibility of human mathematicians being joined by “artificial mathematicians” in the proving practice—not just as a method of inquiry but as a fellow inquirer

Conceptual engineering for mathematical concepts

In this paper I investigate how conceptual engineering applies to mathematical concepts in particular. I begin with a discussion of Waismann’s notion of open texture, and compare it to Shapiro’s modern usage of the term. Next I set out the position taken by Lakatos which sees mathematical concepts as dynamic and open to improvement and development, arguing that Waismann’s open texture applies to mathematical concepts too. With the perspective of mathematics as open-textured, I make the case that this allows us to deploy the tools of conceptual engineering in mathematics. I will examine Cappelen’s recent argument that there are no conceptual safe spaces and consider whether mathematics constitutes a counterexample. I argue that it does not, drawing on Haslanger’s distinction between manifest and operative concepts, and applying this in a novel way to set-theoretic foundations. I then set out some of the questions that need to be engaged with to establish mathematics as involving a kind of conceptual engineering. I finish with a case study of how the tools of conceptual engineering will give us a way to progress in the debate between advocates of the Universe view and the Multiverse view in set theory

Playing with LEGO and proving theorems

LEGO and math are both about what one do with the objects. In LEGO, he/she can build sets following the instructions, or alternatively dump a whole bunch of LEGO on the floor and build whatever he/she like. In math, he/she have a similar freedom to create new things, solve problems, and play around. Geometry makes far greater use of pictures and diagrams than tends to be the case for other areas of mathematics. This chapter focuses on diagrammatic proofs as a key case where proofs guide him/her through a series of actions. If one accepts the LEGO account of diagrammatic proofs then he/she has strongly sided with the geometers against Plato. The main principle of departure from Plato is to focus on mathematical activities. The same thought is meant to apply to LEGO: the particular bricks are only important insofar as they facilitate the things we can practically do with them. </p

Conceptual engineering for mathematical concepts

In this paper I investigate how conceptual engineering applies to mathematical concepts in particular. I begin with a discussion of Waismann’s notion of open texture, and compare it to Shapiro’s modern usage of the term. Next I set out the position taken by Lakatos which sees mathematical concepts as dynamic and open to improvement and development, arguing that Waismann’s open texture applies to mathematical concepts too. With the perspective of mathematics as open-textured, I make the case that this allows us to deploy the tools of conceptual engineering in mathematics. I will examine Cappelen’s recent argument that there are no conceptual safe spaces and consider whether mathematics constitutes a counterexample. I argue that it does not, drawing on Haslanger’s distinction between manifest and operative concepts, and applying this in a novel way to set-theoretic foundations. I then set out some of the questions that need to be engaged with to establish mathematics as involving a kind of conceptual engineering. I finish with a case study of how the tools of conceptual engineering will give us a way to progress in the debate between advocates of the Universe view and the Multiverse view in set theory

Group Knowledge and Mathematical Collaboration: A Philosophical Examination of the Classification of Finite Simple Groups

In this paper we apply social epistemology to mathematical proofs and their role in mathematical knowledge. The most famous modern collaborative mathematical proof effort is the Classification of Finite Simple Groups. The history and sociology of this proof have been well-documented by Alma Steingart (2012), who highlights a number of surprising and unusual features of this collaborative endeavour that set it apart from smaller-scale pieces of mathematics. These features raise a number of interesting philosophical issues, but have received very little attention. In this paper, we will consider the philosophical tensions that Steingart uncovers, and use them to argue that the best account of the epistemic status of the Classification Theorem will be essentially and ineliminably social. This forms part of the broader argument that in order to understand mathematical proofs, we must appreciate their social aspects

Playing with LEGO and proving theorems

LEGO and math are both about what one do with the objects. In LEGO, he/she can build sets following the instructions, or alternatively dump a whole bunch of LEGO on the floor and build whatever he/she like. In math, he/she have a similar freedom to create new things, solve problems, and play around. Geometry makes far greater use of pictures and diagrams than tends to be the case for other areas of mathematics. This chapter focuses on diagrammatic proofs as a key case where proofs guide him/her through a series of actions. If one accepts the LEGO account of diagrammatic proofs then he/she has strongly sided with the geometers against Plato. The main principle of departure from Plato is to focus on mathematical activities. The same thought is meant to apply to LEGO: the particular bricks are only important insofar as they facilitate the things we can practically do with them. </p