Why the Naïve Derivation Recipe Model Cannot Explain How Mathematicians’ Proofs Secure Mathematical Knowledge

Philosophia Mathematica 24 (3):401-404 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The view that a mathematical proof is a sketch of or recipe for a formal derivation requires the proof to function as an argument that there is a suitable derivation. This is a mathematical conclusion, and to avoid a regress we require some other account of how the proof can establish it.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-07-05

Downloads
164 (#252,810)

6 months
41 (#201,489)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Brendan Larvor
University of Hertfordshire

References found in this work

Proofs and refutations (IV).I. Lakatos - 1963 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 14 (56):296-342.
Proofs and Refutations.Imre Lakatos - 1980 - Noûs 14 (3):474-478.
Why Do We Prove Theorems?Yehuda Rav - 1999 - Philosophia Mathematica 7 (1):5-41.
Mathematics, Form and Function.Saunders MacLane - 1986 - Journal of Philosophy 84 (1):33-37.
Proofs and refutations (II).Imre Lakatos - 1963 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 14 (54):120-139.

View all 17 references / Add more references