4 ms·
I'm talking the collapse of infinitesmals as a basis for Calculus, the development of a more rigorous foundation, the rise of axiomatization, debates around the
by btilly 6y ago
I'm talking the collapse of infinitesmals as a basis for Calculus, the development of a more rigorous foundation, the rise of axiomatization, debates around the validity of pure existence proofs, the failure of naive set theory, and so on.
On pure existence proofs, mathematicians have generally agreed that something can be proven to exist by proof by contradiction on an infinite set. The result is that we say that it exists even though there is no way to find it, and no way to verify that you have found it if you are presented with it. Nothing in Kant's philosophy had anything useful to say about the debate about whether to accept this kind of proof.
- ethn 6y agoThanks for your reply. The first part, although mostly true (axiomatization isn't new and Kant was well aware of Euclid), is wholly irrelevant so I'll comment on the second part. None of this contradicts the synthetic apriori of mathematics, in fact Kant's critique strictly tells you that analysis IS possible and guarantees its legitimacy. I would look to Wittgenstein and Godel for that expounded application of the transcendental idealism.