Abstract
Relations among distinct areas of mathematical activity are most commonly discussed in terms of the reduction of axiomatized theories, where reduction is defined to be the deductive derivation of the axioms of the reduced theory as theorems of the reducing theory. Such derivation requires that the characteristic vocabulary of the reduced theory be redefined in terms of the vocabulary of the reducing theory; these definitions are called bridge laws. In this century, philosophers of mathematics have discussed relations among arithmetic, geometry, predicate logic, and set theory in these terms, and have claimed variously that geometry may be reduced to arithmetic, arithmetic to predicate logic, and arithmetic and geometry to set theory. Their arguments run parallel to those made by philosophers of science, who claim variously that biology may be reduced to chemistry and chemistry to physics, and that within physics, classical mechanics may be reduced to some combination of relativity theory and quantum mechanics.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bos, H. J. M. (1974/5). “Differentials, Higher-Order Differentials, and the Derivative in the Leibnizian Calculus.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences. Vol. 14: 1–90.
Bos, H. J. M. (1981). “On the Representation of Curves in Descartes’ Géométrie.” Archive for History of the Exact Sciences. Vol. 24: 295–338.
Bos, H. J. M. (1988). “Tractional Motion and the Legitimation of Transcendental Curves.” Centaurus. Vol. 31: 9–62.
Descartes, R. (1954). D. E. Smith and M. L. Latham (Eds.). The Geometry of René Descartes. New York: Dover Publications.
Gillies, D.(Ed.). (1992). Revolutions in Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grosholz, E. (1991). Cartesian Method and the Problem of Reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grosholz, E. (1992). “Was Leibniz a Mathematical Revolutionary?” in (Gillies 1992, 117–33).
Hempel, C. G. and Oppenheim, P. (1948). “Studies in the Logic of Explanation,” Philosophy of Science. Vol. 15: 491–99.
Leibniz, G. W. (1971). Mathematische Schriften. C. I.Gerhardt (Ed.). Georg Olms Verlag.
Maull, N. (1977). “Unifying Science Without Reduction,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Vol. 8: 143–62.
Nagel, E. (1949). “The Meaning of Reduction in the Natural Sciences,” in (Stauffer 1949, 99–135).
Nickles, T. (1973). “Two Concepts of Inter-Theoretic Reduction,” Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 70: 181–201.
Rohrlich, F. (1988). “Pluralistic Ontology and Theory Reduction in the Physical Sciences.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 39: 295–312.
Scerri, E. (1991). “The Electronic Configuration Model, Quantum Mechanics, and Reduction.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 42, No. 4: 309–25.
Schaffner, K. (1974). “The Peripherality of Reductionism in the Development of Molecular Biology.” Journal of the History of Biology. Vol. 7: 111–29.
Stauffer, R. C. (1949). Science and Civilization. Madison: University of Wiscons in Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grosholz, E.R. (2000). The Partial Unification of Domains, Hybrids, and the Growth of Mathematical Knowledge. In: Grosholz, E., Breger, H. (eds) The Growth of Mathematical Knowledge. Synthese Library, vol 289. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9558-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9558-2_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5391-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9558-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive