1

My question pertains to how intuitionist perspectives on the philosophy of mathematics might apply to Greek geometry and number theory. It seems that the standard examples given to justify the intuitionist point of view are ultimately rooted in ambiguities arising from 1) the arithmetization of the continuum or 2) assumptions about actual as opposed to potential infinities. However, given that the Greek tradition 1) establishes a fundamental separation between the study of number and continuous magnitudes (length, area, volume, etc.) and 2) rejects the notion of actual infinity, I am curious about whether there are any instances at all of results from Greek geometry and/or number theory that an intuitionist might find unsatisfactory in some way.

To be slightly more specific, perhaps I can request an example (if one exists) of a proposition derived from, say, Hilbert's axioms for Euclidean geometry that is provable in classical but not intutionistic logic.

12
  • The introduction of a duality is already Platonic, with the world of ideas as primary: Aristotle, arguably the actual father of western philosophy, is a naturalist as opposed to an idealist, where the separation persists, just the primality is opposite. That said, contrary to what you seem to have surmised, it is Aristotle who introduced the distinction "potential" vs "actual": indeed, there is no such thing as a rejection of "actual infinity" in classical (Aristotelian) Greek philosophy. But, in fact, Intuitionism (AFAIK) is not about a rejection of infinity, absolute or otherwise... Commented Jul 8 at 18:08
  • In my understanding mathematicians generally were all intuitionist/constructivist until Cantor.
    – Rushi
    Commented Jul 8 at 19:17
  • @Rushi - really? Newton, Leibniz... all "constructivists"?? Commented Jul 9 at 9:06
  • @JulioDiEgidio - re "there is no such thing as a rejection of "actual infinity" in classical (Aristotelian) Greek philosophy". See Infinity: "It would be hard to exaggerate the role played by Aristotle in the history of infinity. He articulated some essential conceptual distinctions that were to influence all subsequent discussions. He was a finitist in the sense that in his universe, everything is finite. The cosmos is finite, bodies are finite, geometrical segments are finite, each number is finite, etc. 1/2 Commented Jul 9 at 9:08
  • 1
    You acn see M. Beeson, Brouwer and Euclid (2017) for an interesting discussion about the issue: Is Euclid constructive? Commented Jul 9 at 9:15

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .