Abstract
AbstractAn account of mathematical understanding should account for the differences between theorems whose proofs are “easy” to discover, and those whose proofs are difficult to discover. Though Hilbert seems to have created proof theory with the idea that it would address this kind of “discovermental complexity”, much more attention has been paid to the lengths of proofs, a measure of the difficulty of verifying of a given formal object that it is a proof of a given formula in a given formal system. In this paper we will shift attention back to discovermental complexity, by addressing a “topological” measure of proof complexity recently highlighted by Alessandra Carbone (2009). Though we will contend that Carbone’s measure fails as a measure of discovermental complexity, it forefronts numerous important formal and epistemological issues that we will discuss, including the structure of proofs and the question of whether impure proofs are systematically simpler than pure proofs.
Funder
Lumina quaeruntur fellowship
H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference59 articles.
1. Arana, A. (2015). On the depth of Szemerédi’s theorem. Philosophia Mathematica, 23(2), 163–176.
2. Arana, A. (2016). Imagination in mathematics. In A. Kind (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of philosophy of imagination (pp. 463–477). Routledge.
3. Arana, A. (2017). On the alleged simplicity of impure proof. In R. Kossak & P. Ording (Eds.), Simplicity: Ideals of practice in mathematics and the arts (pp. 205–226). Springer.
4. Archdeacon, D. (1986). The orientable genus is nonadditive. Journal of Graph Theory, 10(3), 385–401.
5. Avigad, J. (2003). Number theory and elementary arithmetic. Philosophia Mathematica, 11, 257–284.