DOCSLIB.ORG

Infinitesimals for Metaphysics: Consequences for the Ontologies Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Infinitesimals for Metaphysics: Consequences for the Ontologies Of Infinitesimals for Metaphysics: Consequences for the Ontologies of Space and Time Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Patrick Reeder, MA Graduate Program in Philosophy The Ohio State University 2012 Dissertation Committee: Stewart Shapiro, Advisor Ben Caplan Neil Tennant Copyright by Patrick Reeder 2012 Abstract In this dissertation, I defend unorthodox conceptions of continuity: I argue that they're both conceptually viable and philosophically fruitful. After a brief introduc- tion in the first chapter, I argue in the second chapter that the standard conception of continuity|which comes to us from Georg Cantor and Richard Dedekind, and which uses the real numbers as a model|doesn't satisfy all of pretheoretic intuitions about continuity and indeed that no conception of continuity does. This opens up conceptual room for unorthodox conceptions of continuity. In the second chapter, I argue that an unorthodox conception of continuity based on infinitesimals|numbers as small as infinity is large|provides the basis for a novel account of contact: of when two material bodies touch. In the third chapter, I argue that two other unorthodox conceptions of continuity provide the basis for novel solutions to Zeno's paradox of the arrow. ii Dedication For Faye Bartlett Reeder, Ph.D. (1892-1973) iii Acknowledgments I would like to thank all those who have read and commented on significant por- tions of this dissertation: Scott Brown, Steven Brown, Wesley Cray, Justin D'Arms, Matthew Davidson, Salvatore Florio, Peter Forrest, Timothy Fuller, Alison Kerr, Teresa Kouri, Nicholaos Jones, Lindsey Mason, James McGlothlin, Michael Miller, Cathy Muller, Bradley Rettler, Tony Roy, David Sanson, Kevin Scharp, Timothy Schroeder, Lisa Shabel, Nathan Smith, Declan Smithies, William Taschek, Gabriel Uzquiano and Daniel Wilkenfeld. For those whose names I have forgotten, I hope they will accept my apologies. I wish to extend a special thanks to my advisors, Ben Caplan, Philip Ehrlich, Stewart Shapiro and Neil Tennant. Specifically, I want to thank Ben for being es- pecially assiduous and patient with some of my drafts. He has also saved me from making especially embarrassing metaphysical claims. Any remaining embarrassments are completely due to my own philosophical clumsiness, not for lack of help. Thanks to Phil Ehrlich of Ohio University for exposing me to a vast amount of literature on the continuum that I would have never seen otherwise. I am especially thankful for his drawing my attention to the work done by Paolo Giordano. I also appreciate his willingness to work with me, a student outside of his university. I want to thank Neil Tennant for encouraging this project from very early on and especially for continu- ally calling on me to finish my work in the mathematics department at Ohio State. Without the math background, there would be numerous papers that I would have been unable to read or use in this project. Together, my advisors have read several iv rounds of these chapters and poured many hours into helping me sharpen a number of the ideas here. Without them, this dissertation would not have come to be. I take full responsibility for any remaining errors. Finally, I wish to offer my warmest gratitude to the chair of my committee, Stewart Shapiro. First, this project has its origins in a reading group we did in the Summer of 2007 on John Bell's book, The Continuous and the Infinitesimal, [8]. I would not have ever known of the exciting landscape of infinitesimals were it not for him. More personally, he has sacrificed hundreds of hours on me alone, patiently meeting with me and reading endless pages and drafts. I cannot express my appreciation for the way he consistently balanced encouragement with incisive critique. I dedicate my dissertation to my great grandmother, Faye Bartlett Reeder (1892- 1973). She received her Ph.D. in History from Ohio State in 1937|exactly seventy- five years ago. Her dissertation was entitled The Evolution of the Virginia Land Grant System in the Eighteenth Century. While completing her dissertation, she raised three boys as a single mother. The youngest of these is my grandfather, David W. Reeder (1927-). I'm sorry I never met her. She was the original Reeder Buckeye, the original Reeder scholar. v Vita 2004...................................................................................B.A., Ohio State University 2007...................................................................................M.A., Ohio State University Publications \A Scientific Enterprise? Penelope Maddy's Second Philosophy" (with Stewart Shapiro), Philosophia Mathematica, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2009. \Parts of Singletons" (with Ben Caplan and Chris Tillman), Journal of Philosophy, Vol. CVII, No. 10, Oct 2010. Fields of Study Major Field: Philosophy vi Contents Abstract ii Dedication iii Acknowledgments iv Vita vi List of Tables xi List of Figures xii 1 Prologue 1 1.1 The Thesis . 1 1.2 Philosophical Method . 2 1.3 Summary of Chapters . 4 2 The Labyrinth of Continuity 8 2.1 Infinite Divisibility . 11 2.2 Conceptual Terrain . 15 2.2.1 Top-Down or Bottom-Up . 16 2.2.2 Points on points . 20 2.3 Dedekind's Orthodox Conception . 22 2.3.1 Motivations . 23 vii 2.3.2 Reasons for Concern . 25 2.3.3 Fully Formalized . 26 2.4 Indecomposability and Excluded Middle . 30 2.4.1 Motivation . 31 2.4.2 Reasons for Concern . 34 2.4.3 Fully Formalized . 36 2.5 Infinitesimal Magnitudes . 40 2.5.1 Motivations . 42 2.5.2 Reasons for Concern . 46 2.5.3 Infinitesimals in The Hyperreals . 49 2.5.4 Infinitesimals in Giordano's Fermat Reals . 53 2.6 Aristotelian Intuitions: Non-Supervenience . 57 2.6.1 Motivation . 58 2.6.2 Reasons for Concern . 62 2.6.3 Fully Formalized . 63 2.7 Conclusion . 67 3 Zeno's Arrow 69 3.1 Zeno's Arrow . 71 3.2 Denying other Premises . 73 3.2.1 The Calculus and Premise (1) . 73 3.2.2 Aristotle and Premise (2) . 75 3.3 White on Zeno . 80 3.3.1 Robinson's Hyperreals . 80 3.3.2 White against Zeno . 82 3.3.3 Looking Elsewhere . 85 3.4 Outline for a Solution . 86 viii 3.4.1 Avoiding Arbitariness . 88 3.4.2 The Present in Mathematics . 89 3.4.3 The Miniature Present . 90 3.5 SIA and Kock-Lawvere Nilpotents . 92 3.5.1 Basic Presentation . 93 3.5.2 SIA and the Arrow . 95 3.5.3 Evaluating SIA . 96 3.6 Giordano's Fermat Reals . 99 3.6.1 Basic Presentation . 100 3.6.2 The Fermat Reals and the Arrow . 103 3.6.3 Evaluating the Fermat Reals . 103 3.7 Conclusion . 105 4 Contact 107 4.1 Parts and Places . 108 4.1.1 Parts . 108 4.1.2 Places . 110 4.2 The Problem . 112 4.2.1 Mixed Pairs . 113 4.2.2 Open Pairs . 114 4.2.3 Closed Pairs . 115 4.3 An Infinitesimal Solution . 116 4.3.1 Mathematical (Re-)Orientation . 117 4.3.2 The Theory . 118 4.4 Desiderata ................................. 120 4.4.1 First Priorities . 120 4.4.2 Second Priorities . 127 ix 4.4.3 Standing Up to the Desiderata . 128 4.5 Alternative Solutions . 133 4.5.1 Smith's Bite-the-Bullet View . 134 4.5.2 Gunky Solution . 137 4.5.3 Kilborn: Space-time is Discrete . 139 4.5.4 Hudson: Contact for Scattered Objects . 143 4.6 Refining the Desiderata .......................... 144 4.7 Conclusion . 147 5 Epilogue 149 Bibliography 151 x List of Tables 4.1. Comparisons of Theories of Contact on Desiderata. 145 4.2. Comparisons of Theories of Contact on Refined Desiderata . 147 xi List of Figures 2.1 Equilateral Construction from Euclid's Elements. 14 2.2 Sequence of Regular Polygons Converging to a Circle . 42 2.3 Inscribed Triangles in a Regular Octagon and Circle.. 44 2.4 Connection (α 1 β) Due to Convergence . .66 3.1 Hyperreals magnified by an infinite factor . .81 4.1 A Mixed Pair: the closed ball (left) includes the shared boundary point . 113 4.2 An Open Pair: the shared boundary point is not included in either ball . 114 4.3 A Closed Pair: Red and Green are always separated . .115 4.4 Sequence of Regular Polygons Converging to a Circle . 117 4.5 Discrete 3-4-5 Triangle. .122 xii Chapter 1 Prologue Only Geometry can provide a thread for the Labyrinth of the Composition of the Continuum . and no one will arrive at a truly solid metaphysics who has not passed through that labyrinth. |Leibniz, De usu geometriae1 For scientific inquiry to play a role in revealing the meaning of a term, it seems that either this term must be one that belongs entirely to scientific theory (like color in quantum chromodynamics), or else there must be some pre-theoretic meaning of the term that scientific inquiry can help clarify. \Continuous" seems to be of the latter type, for which pre-theoretic intuitions are essential to a complete understanding of the term. Perhaps it's a more difficult case than many others, because we don't have any clear instances of actual discontinuous motion, but this just suggests that empirical investigation of the actual may be even less useful than it is in explaining the meanings of other terms, like \heat." |M. Colyvan and K. Easwaran, \Mathematical and Physical Continuity"2 Chapter 1.1 The Thesis In this dissertation, I defend unorthodox conceptions of continuity: I argue that they're both conceptually viable and philosophically fruitful. Most specifically, I want to take very seriously conceptions of continuity that contain infinitesimal lengths in some way or another.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Introduction to Nonstandard Analysis 11
    AN INTRODUCTION TO NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS ISAAC DAVIS Abstract. In this paper we give an introduction to nonstandard analysis, starting with an ultrapower construction of the hyperreals. We then demon- strate how theorems in standard analysis \transfer over" to nonstandard anal- ysis, and how theorems in standard analysis can be proven using theorems in nonstandard analysis. 1. Introduction For many centuries, early mathematicians and physicists would solve problems by considering infinitesimally small pieces of a shape, or movement along a path by an infinitesimal amount. Archimedes derived the formula for the area of a circle by thinking of a circle as a polygon with infinitely many infinitesimal sides [1]. In particular, the construction of calculus was first motivated by this intuitive notion of infinitesimal change. G.W. Leibniz's derivation of calculus made extensive use of “infinitesimal” numbers, which were both nonzero but small enough to add to any real number without changing it noticeably. Although intuitively clear, infinitesi- mals were ultimately rejected as mathematically unsound, and were replaced with the common -δ method of computing limits and derivatives. However, in 1960 Abraham Robinson developed nonstandard analysis, in which the reals are rigor- ously extended to include infinitesimal numbers and infinite numbers; this new extended field is called the field of hyperreal numbers. The goal was to create a system of analysis that was more intuitively appealing than standard analysis but without losing any of the rigor of standard analysis. In this paper, we will explore the construction and various uses of nonstandard analysis. In section 2 we will introduce the notion of an ultrafilter, which will allow us to do a typical ultrapower construction of the hyperreal numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • Cauchy, Infinitesimals and Ghosts of Departed Quantifiers 3
    CAUCHY, INFINITESIMALS AND GHOSTS OF DEPARTED QUANTIFIERS JACQUES BAIR, PIOTR BLASZCZYK, ROBERT ELY, VALERIE´ HENRY, VLADIMIR KANOVEI, KARIN U. KATZ, MIKHAIL G. KATZ, TARAS KUDRYK, SEMEN S. KUTATELADZE, THOMAS MCGAFFEY, THOMAS MORMANN, DAVID M. SCHAPS, AND DAVID SHERRY Abstract. Procedures relying on infinitesimals in Leibniz, Euler and Cauchy have been interpreted in both a Weierstrassian and Robinson’s frameworks. The latter provides closer proxies for the procedures of the classical masters. Thus, Leibniz’s distinction be- tween assignable and inassignable numbers finds a proxy in the distinction between standard and nonstandard numbers in Robin- son’s framework, while Leibniz’s law of homogeneity with the im- plied notion of equality up to negligible terms finds a mathematical formalisation in terms of standard part. It is hard to provide paral- lel formalisations in a Weierstrassian framework but scholars since Ishiguro have engaged in a quest for ghosts of departed quantifiers to provide a Weierstrassian account for Leibniz’s infinitesimals. Euler similarly had notions of equality up to negligible terms, of which he distinguished two types: geometric and arithmetic. Eu- ler routinely used product decompositions into a specific infinite number of factors, and used the binomial formula with an infi- nite exponent. Such procedures have immediate hyperfinite ana- logues in Robinson’s framework, while in a Weierstrassian frame- work they can only be reinterpreted by means of paraphrases de- parting significantly from Euler’s own presentation. Cauchy gives lucid definitions of continuity in terms of infinitesimals that find ready formalisations in Robinson’s framework but scholars working in a Weierstrassian framework bend over backwards either to claim that Cauchy was vague or to engage in a quest for ghosts of de- arXiv:1712.00226v1 [math.HO] 1 Dec 2017 parted quantifiers in his work.
    [Show full text]
  • Please Do Not Cite. a PROBLEM for CHRISTIAN MATERIALISM
    This is a Draft! Please do not Cite. WHEN CITING ALWAYS REFER TO THE FINAL VERSION PUBLISHED IN EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, VOL. 10, NO. 3., 205–213. WITH DOI: 10.24204/EJPR.V10I3.2631 A PROBLEM FOR CHRISTIAN MATERIALISM Elliot Knuths1 Northwestern University Peter van Inwagen and Dean Zimmerman have attempted to demonstrate the metaphysical compatibility of materialism and life after death as it is understood in orthodox Christianity. According to van Inwagen’s simulacrum account of resurrection, God replaces either the whole person or some crucial part of the “core person” with an exact replica at the moment of the person’s death.2 This removed original person — or frag- ment of an original person — provides the basis for personal continuity between an individual in her previ- DOI: 10.24204/EJPR.V10I3.2631 ous life and her post-resurrection life in the world to come. Alternatively, Zimmerman’s “Falling Elevator Model” of resurrection claims that, at the moment just before death, the body undergoes fission, leaving a nonliving lump of matter (a corpse) in the present and a living copy at some other point in space-time.3 In a recent paper, Taliaferro and I criticized these positions,4 arguing that each one lacks phenomenological realism, the quality of satisfactorily reflecting ordinary experience. That article focused primarily on what we consider the methodological shortcomings of van Inwagen’s and Zimmerman’s accounts of resurrection . Citable Version has Version . Citable in materialist terms and other philosophical explanations and thought experiments which clash with ordi- nary experience. We also raised in passing a more substantive challenge for explanations of resurrection in materialist terms which arises from scripture rather than a priori contemplation.
    [Show full text]
  • Model Theory and Ultraproducts
    P. I. C. M. – 2018 Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 2 (101–116) MODEL THEORY AND ULTRAPRODUCTS M M Abstract The article motivates recent work on saturation of ultrapowers from a general math- ematical point of view. Introduction In the history of mathematics the idea of the limit has had a remarkable effect on organizing and making visible a certain kind of structure. Its effects can be seen from calculus to extremal graph theory. At the end of the nineteenth century, Cantor introduced infinite cardinals, which allow for a stratification of size in a potentially much deeper way. It is often thought that these ideas, however beautiful, are studied in modern mathematics primarily by set theorists, and that aside from occasional independence results, the hierarchy of infinities has not profoundly influenced, say, algebra, geometry, analysis or topology, and perhaps is not suited to do so. What this conventional wisdom misses is a powerful kind of reflection or transmutation arising from the development of model theory. As the field of model theory has developed over the last century, its methods have allowed for serious interaction with algebraic geom- etry, number theory, and general topology. One of the unique successes of model theoretic classification theory is precisely in allowing for a kind of distillation and focusing of the information gleaned from the opening up of the hierarchy of infinities into definitions and tools for studying specific mathematical structures. By the time they are used, the form of the tools may not reflect this influence. However, if we are interested in advancing further, it may be useful to remember it.
    [Show full text]
  • Grade 7/8 Math Circles the Scale of Numbers Introduction
    Faculty of Mathematics Centre for Education in Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 Mathematics and Computing Grade 7/8 Math Circles November 21/22/23, 2017 The Scale of Numbers Introduction Last week we quickly took a look at scientific notation, which is one way we can write down really big numbers. We can also use scientific notation to write very small numbers. 1 × 103 = 1; 000 1 × 102 = 100 1 × 101 = 10 1 × 100 = 1 1 × 10−1 = 0:1 1 × 10−2 = 0:01 1 × 10−3 = 0:001 As you can see above, every time the value of the exponent decreases, the number gets smaller by a factor of 10. This pattern continues even into negative exponent values! Another way of picturing negative exponents is as a division by a positive exponent. 1 10−6 = = 0:000001 106 In this lesson we will be looking at some famous, interesting, or important small numbers, and begin slowly working our way up to the biggest numbers ever used in mathematics! Obviously we can come up with any arbitrary number that is either extremely small or extremely large, but the purpose of this lesson is to only look at numbers with some kind of mathematical or scientific significance. 1 Extremely Small Numbers 1. Zero • Zero or `0' is the number that represents nothingness. It is the number with the smallest magnitude. • Zero only began being used as a number around the year 500. Before this, ancient mathematicians struggled with the concept of `nothing' being `something'. 2. Planck's Constant This is the smallest number that we will be looking at today other than zero.
    [Show full text]
  • Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, and the Gang: the True History of the Concepts Of
    FERMAT, LEIBNIZ, EULER, AND THE GANG: THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE CONCEPTS OF LIMIT AND SHADOW TIZIANA BASCELLI, EMANUELE BOTTAZZI, FREDERIK HERZBERG, VLADIMIR KANOVEI, KARIN U. KATZ, MIKHAIL G. KATZ, TAHL NOWIK, DAVID SHERRY, AND STEVEN SHNIDER Abstract. Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, and Cauchy all used one or another form of approximate equality, or the idea of discarding “negligible” terms, so as to obtain a correct analytic answer. Their inferential moves find suitable proxies in the context of modern the- ories of infinitesimals, and specifically the concept of shadow. We give an application to decreasing rearrangements of real functions. Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Methodological remarks 4 2.1. A-track and B-track 5 2.2. Formal epistemology: Easwaran on hyperreals 6 2.3. Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms and the Feferman–Levy model 8 2.4. Skolem integers and Robinson integers 9 2.5. Williamson, complexity, and other arguments 10 2.6. Infinity and infinitesimal: let both pretty severely alone 13 3. Fermat’s adequality 13 3.1. Summary of Fermat’s algorithm 14 arXiv:1407.0233v1 [math.HO] 1 Jul 2014 3.2. Tangent line and convexity of parabola 15 3.3. Fermat, Galileo, and Wallis 17 4. Leibniz’s Transcendental law of homogeneity 18 4.1. When are quantities equal? 19 4.2. Product rule 20 5. Euler’s Principle of Cancellation 20 6. What did Cauchy mean by “limit”? 22 6.1. Cauchy on Leibniz 23 6.2. Cauchy on continuity 23 7. Modern formalisations: a case study 25 8. A combinatorial approach to decreasing rearrangements 26 9.
    [Show full text]
  • 0.999… = 1 an Infinitesimal Explanation Bryan Dawson
    0 1 2 0.9999999999999999 0.999… = 1 An Infinitesimal Explanation Bryan Dawson know the proofs, but I still don’t What exactly does that mean? Just as real num- believe it.” Those words were uttered bers have decimal expansions, with one digit for each to me by a very good undergraduate integer power of 10, so do hyperreal numbers. But the mathematics major regarding hyperreals contain “infinite integers,” so there are digits This fact is possibly the most-argued- representing not just (the 237th digit past “Iabout result of arithmetic, one that can evoke great the decimal point) and (the 12,598th digit), passion. But why? but also (the Yth digit past the decimal point), According to Robert Ely [2] (see also Tall and where is a negative infinite hyperreal integer. Vinner [4]), the answer for some students lies in their We have four 0s followed by a 1 in intuition about the infinitely small: While they may the fifth decimal place, and also where understand that the difference between and 1 is represents zeros, followed by a 1 in the Yth less than any positive real number, they still perceive a decimal place. (Since we’ll see later that not all infinite nonzero but infinitely small difference—an infinitesimal hyperreal integers are equal, a more precise, but also difference—between the two. And it’s not just uglier, notation would be students; most professional mathematicians have not or formally studied infinitesimals and their larger setting, the hyperreal numbers, and as a result sometimes Confused? Perhaps a little background information wonder .
    [Show full text]
  • The Exponential Function
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln MAT Exam Expository Papers Math in the Middle Institute Partnership 5-2006 The Exponential Function Shawn A. Mousel University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/mathmidexppap Part of the Science and Mathematics Education Commons Mousel, Shawn A., "The Exponential Function" (2006). MAT Exam Expository Papers. 26. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/mathmidexppap/26 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Math in the Middle Institute Partnership at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in MAT Exam Expository Papers by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. The Exponential Function Expository Paper Shawn A. Mousel In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters of Arts in Teaching with a Specialization in the Teaching of Middle Level Mathematics in the Department of Mathematics. Jim Lewis, Advisor May 2006 Mousel – MAT Expository Paper - 1 One of the basic principles studied in mathematics is the observation of relationships between two connected quantities. A function is this connecting relationship, typically expressed in a formula that describes how one element from the domain is related to exactly one element located in the range (Lial & Miller, 1975). An exponential function is a function with the basic form f (x) = ax , where a (a fixed base that is a real, positive number) is greater than zero and not equal to 1. The exponential function is not to be confused with the polynomial functions, such as x 2. One way to recognize the difference between the two functions is by the name of the function.
    [Show full text]
  • Simple Statements, Large Numbers
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln MAT Exam Expository Papers Math in the Middle Institute Partnership 7-2007 Simple Statements, Large Numbers Shana Streeks University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/mathmidexppap Part of the Science and Mathematics Education Commons Streeks, Shana, "Simple Statements, Large Numbers" (2007). MAT Exam Expository Papers. 41. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/mathmidexppap/41 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Math in the Middle Institute Partnership at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in MAT Exam Expository Papers by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) Masters Exam Shana Streeks In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts in Teaching with a Specialization in the Teaching of Middle Level Mathematics in the Department of Mathematics. Gordon Woodward, Advisor July 2007 Simple Statements, Large Numbers Shana Streeks July 2007 Page 1 Streeks Simple Statements, Large Numbers Large numbers are numbers that are significantly larger than those ordinarily used in everyday life, as defined by Wikipedia (2007). Large numbers typically refer to large positive integers, or more generally, large positive real numbers, but may also be used in other contexts. Very large numbers often occur in fields such as mathematics, cosmology, and cryptography. Sometimes people refer to numbers as being “astronomically large”. However, it is easy to mathematically define numbers that are much larger than those even in astronomy. We are familiar with the large magnitudes, such as million or billion.
    [Show full text]
  • Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics
    Found Sci DOI 10.1007/s10699-012-9316-5 Tools, Objects, and Chimeras: Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics Vladimir Kanovei · Mikhail G. Katz · Thomas Mormann © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract We examine some of Connes’ criticisms of Robinson’s infinitesimals starting in 1995. Connes sought to exploit the Solovay model S as ammunition against non-standard analysis, but the model tends to boomerang, undercutting Connes’ own earlier work in func- tional analysis. Connes described the hyperreals as both a “virtual theory” and a “chimera”, yet acknowledged that his argument relies on the transfer principle. We analyze Connes’ “dart-throwing” thought experiment, but reach an opposite conclusion. In S, all definable sets of reals are Lebesgue measurable, suggesting that Connes views a theory as being “vir- tual” if it is not definable in a suitable model of ZFC. If so, Connes’ claim that a theory of the hyperreals is “virtual” is refuted by the existence of a definable model of the hyperreal field due to Kanovei and Shelah. Free ultrafilters aren’t definable, yet Connes exploited such ultrafilters both in his own earlier work on the classification of factors in the 1970s and 80s, and in Noncommutative Geometry, raising the question whether the latter may not be vulnera- ble to Connes’ criticism of virtuality. We analyze the philosophical underpinnings of Connes’ argument based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and detect an apparent circularity in Connes’ logic. We document the reliance on non-constructive foundational material, and specifically on the Dixmier trace − (featured on the front cover of Connes’ magnum opus) V.
    [Show full text]
  • ULTRAPRODUCTS in ANALYSIS It Appears That the Concept Of
    ULTRAPRODUCTS IN ANALYSIS JUNG JIN LEE Abstract. Basic concepts of ultraproduct and some applications in Analysis, mainly in Banach spaces theory, will be discussed. It appears that the concept of ultraproduct, originated as a fundamental method of a model theory, is widely used as an important tool in analysis. When one studies local properties of a Banach space, for example, these constructions turned out to be useful as we will see later. In this writing we are invited to look at some basic ideas of these applications. 1. Ultrafilter and Ultralimit Let us start with the de¯nition of ¯lters on a given index set. De¯nition 1.1. A ¯lter F on a given index set I is a collection of nonempty subsets of I such that (1) A; B 2 F =) A \ B 2 F , and (2) A 2 F ;A ½ C =) C 2 F . Proposition 1.2. Each ¯lter on a given index set I is dominated by a maximal ¯lter. Proof. Immediate consequence of Zorn's lemma. ¤ De¯nition 1.3. A ¯lter which is maximal is called an ultra¯lter. We have following important characterization of an ultra¯lter. Proposition 1.4. Let F be a ¯lter on I. Then F is an ultra¯lter if and only if for any subset Y ½ I, we have either Y 2 F or Y c 2 F . Proof. (=)) Since I 2 F , suppose ; 6= Y2 = F . We have to show that Y c 2 F . De¯ne G = fZ ½ I : 9A 2 F such that A \ Y c ½ Zg.
    [Show full text]
  • Abraham Robinson, 1918 - 1974
    BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 83, Number 4, July 1977 ABRAHAM ROBINSON, 1918 - 1974 BY ANGUS J. MACINTYRE 1. Abraham Robinson died in New Haven on April 11, 1974, some six months after the diagnosis of an incurable cancer of the pancreas. In the fall of 1973 he was vigorously and enthusiastically involved at Yale in joint work with Peter Roquette on a new model-theoretic approach to diophantine problems. He finished a draft of this in November, shortly before he underwent surgery. He spoke of his satisfaction in having finished this work, and he bore with unforgettable dignity the loss of his strength and the fading of his bright plans. He was supported until the end by Reneé Robinson, who had shared with him since 1944 a life given to science and art. There is common consent that Robinson was one of the greatest of mathematical logicians, and Gödel has stressed that Robinson more than any other brought logic closer to mathematics as traditionally understood. His early work on metamathematics of algebra undoubtedly guided Ax and Kochen to the solution of the Artin Conjecture. One can reasonably hope that his memory will be further honored by future applications of his penetrating ideas. Robinson was a gentleman, unfailingly courteous, with inexhaustible enthu­ siasm. He took modest pleasure in his many honors. He was much respected for his willingness to listen, and for the sincerity of his advice. As far as I know, nothing in mathematics was alien to him. Certainly his work in logic reveals an amazing store of general mathematical knowledge.
    [Show full text]