Thought Experiments in Mathematics: Anything but Proof.

Q4 Arts and Humanities
J. P. Bendegem
{"title":"Thought Experiments in Mathematics: Anything but Proof.","authors":"J. P. Bendegem","doi":"10.21825/philosophica.82229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is apparently not an easy task to understand what thought experiments (TEs) could be, what they are, how they function, and so on. There are many, quite different definitions around that seem to be in conflict with one another (as the contributions to this volume will no doubt illustrate). Usually all examples of TEs come from the natural and, more exceptionally, the social sciences: Galileo' s falling bodies experiment, Newton's bucket, Einstein's light ray, Maxwell's Demon, are the prototypical cases. Occasionally, authors talk about mathematical thought experiments (MTEs). There the situation becomes even more complex: first, few authors actually believe that there are such things as MTEs and those that do believe so, put forward nearly contradictory definitions. Nevertheless, the aim of this paper is to suggest that, first, MTEs do exist, second that there is a wide class of such MTEs, and finally, that is necessary. to have MTEs in order to understand a major part of mathematical practice. The core thesis of this paper is this: if it is so that what mathematicians are searching for are proofs within the framework of a mathematical theory, then any consideration that (a) in the case where the","PeriodicalId":36843,"journal":{"name":"Argumenta Philosophica","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumenta Philosophica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

It is apparently not an easy task to understand what thought experiments (TEs) could be, what they are, how they function, and so on. There are many, quite different definitions around that seem to be in conflict with one another (as the contributions to this volume will no doubt illustrate). Usually all examples of TEs come from the natural and, more exceptionally, the social sciences: Galileo' s falling bodies experiment, Newton's bucket, Einstein's light ray, Maxwell's Demon, are the prototypical cases. Occasionally, authors talk about mathematical thought experiments (MTEs). There the situation becomes even more complex: first, few authors actually believe that there are such things as MTEs and those that do believe so, put forward nearly contradictory definitions. Nevertheless, the aim of this paper is to suggest that, first, MTEs do exist, second that there is a wide class of such MTEs, and finally, that is necessary. to have MTEs in order to understand a major part of mathematical practice. The core thesis of this paper is this: if it is so that what mathematicians are searching for are proofs within the framework of a mathematical theory, then any consideration that (a) in the case where the
数学中的思想实验:除了证明。
显然,要理解什么是思想实验(te)、它们是什么、它们如何运作等等,并不是一件容易的事。有许多不同的定义,似乎彼此冲突(正如本卷的贡献无疑会说明的那样)。通常,所有的te的例子都来自自然科学,更例外的是来自社会科学:伽利略的落体实验,牛顿的水桶,爱因斯坦的光线,麦克斯韦的恶魔,都是典型的例子。偶尔,作者会讨论数学思维实验(mte)。在那里,情况变得更加复杂:首先,很少有作者真正相信有mte这样的东西,而那些相信有mte的人,提出了几乎相互矛盾的定义。然而,本文的目的是建议,首先,mte确实存在,其次,这类mte有一个广泛的类别,最后,这是必要的。为了理解数学实践的主要部分本文的核心论点是这样的:如果数学家们正在寻找的是在数学理论框架内的证明,那么任何考虑(a)在这种情况下
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Argumenta Philosophica
Argumenta Philosophica Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信