Criteria of acceptability for mathematical proofs are field-dependent. In topology, though not in most other domains, it is sometimes acceptable to appeal to visual intuition to support inferential steps. In previous work (De Toffoli and Giardino in Erkenntnis 79(3):829-842, 2014; Lolli, Panza, Venturi (eds) From logic to practice, Springer, Berlin, 2015; Larvor (ed) Mathematical cultures, Springer, Berlin, 2016) my co-author and I aimed at spelling out how topological proofs work on their own terms, without appealing to formal proofs which might be associated with them. In this article, I address two criticisms that have been raised in Tatton-Brown (Erkenntnis, 2019. 10.1007/s10670-019-00180-92019) against our approach: (1) that it leads to a form of relativism according to which validity is equated with social agreement and (2) that it implies an antiformalizability thesis according to which it is not the case that all rigorous mathematical proofs can be formalized. I reject both criticisms and suggest that our previous case studies provide insight into the plausibility of two related but quite different theses.

Reconciling Rigor and Intuition

Silvia De Toffoli
2021-01-01

Abstract

Criteria of acceptability for mathematical proofs are field-dependent. In topology, though not in most other domains, it is sometimes acceptable to appeal to visual intuition to support inferential steps. In previous work (De Toffoli and Giardino in Erkenntnis 79(3):829-842, 2014; Lolli, Panza, Venturi (eds) From logic to practice, Springer, Berlin, 2015; Larvor (ed) Mathematical cultures, Springer, Berlin, 2016) my co-author and I aimed at spelling out how topological proofs work on their own terms, without appealing to formal proofs which might be associated with them. In this article, I address two criticisms that have been raised in Tatton-Brown (Erkenntnis, 2019. 10.1007/s10670-019-00180-92019) against our approach: (1) that it leads to a form of relativism according to which validity is equated with social agreement and (2) that it implies an antiformalizability thesis according to which it is not the case that all rigorous mathematical proofs can be formalized. I reject both criticisms and suggest that our previous case studies provide insight into the plausibility of two related but quite different theses.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12076/14539
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 11
social impact