Advertisement

Putnam on Foundations: Models, Modals, Muddles

  • John P. Burgess
Chapter
Part of the Outstanding Contributions to Logic book series (OCTR, volume 9)

Abstract

Putnam has famously offered a sketch of a mathematics without foundations, existing in two equivalent descriptions, set-theoretic and modal-logical. Here his proposal is critically examined, with attention to difficulties surrounding both the modal-logical description itself and especially the notion of equivalence of descriptions.

References

  1. Benacerraf, P., & Putnam, H. (Eds.). (1964). Philosophy of mathematics: Selected readings (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Benacerraf, P., & Putnam, H. (Eds.). (1983). Philosophy of mathematics: Selected readings (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Burgess, J. P., & Rosen, G. (1997). A subject with no object. Princeton: Princeton University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, M., Putnam, H., & Robinson, J. (1961). The decision problem for exponential diophantine equations. Annals of Mathematics, 74, 425–436.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hellman, G. (1989). Mathematics without numbers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Kreisel, G. (1972). Review of Putnam 1967b. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 37, 402–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). In Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Putnam, H. (1967a). The thesis that mathematics is logic. In R. Schoenman (Ed.), Bertrand Russell: Philosopher of the century (pp. 273–303). London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  9. Putnam, H. (1967b). Mathematics without foundations. Journal of Philosophy, 64, 1–22. (Reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam, 295–313, 1983).Google Scholar
  10. Putnam, H. (1971). Philosophy of logic. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  11. Putnam, H. (1980). Models and reality. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 45, 464–482. (Reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam, 421–445, 1983).Google Scholar
  12. Putnam, H. (2002). Is analytic philosophy a good thing? Why I am ambivalent. Lecture at the Einstein Forum: Die Zukunft der Analytischen Philosophie [The Future of Analytic Philosophy], Potsdam.Google Scholar
  13. Putnam, H. (2012). Indispensability arguments in the philosophy of mathematics. In M. De Caro & D. Macarthur (Eds.), Chapter 9 of philosophy in an age of science: Physics, mathematics, and skepticism (pp. 181–201). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations