Truth, Existence and Explanation pp 163-188 | Cite as

# Can Proofs by Mathematical Induction Be Explanatory?

## Abstract

In this paper I discuss Marc Lange’s argument for the claim that inductive proofs can never be explanatory. I show that several of the assumptions on which Lange’s argument relies are problematic, and I argue that there are cases of explanatory inductive proof, providing a number of examples to back up my claim. I finish with a positive proposal on which the examples I put forward can be accounted for by Lange’s own account of mathematical explanation.

## Notes

### Acknowledgements

I would like to thank audiences in Cambridge, Chieti, London and Umeå for stimulating and helpful discussion. Particular thanks are due to Luke Fenton-Glynn and Marcus Giaquinto for their insightful comments on earlier versions of the paper. I worked on the paper while I was supported by grants from the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council and then the Royal Institute of Philosophy, Jacobsen Trust; my thanks to both institutions.

## References

- Baker, Alan. 2010. Mathematical induction and explanation.
*Analysis*70(4): 681–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Baker, Alan. 2012. Science-driven mathematical explanation.
*Mind*121(482): 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Baldwin, John. 2016. Foundations of mathematics: Reliability and clarity: The explanatory role of mathematical induction. In
*Logic, language, information, and computation*. WoLLIC 2016, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 9803, ed. J. Väänänen, Å. Hirvonen, and R. de Queiroz, 68–82. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar - Brown, James R. 1997. Proofs and pictures.
*British Journal for the Philosophy of Science*48: 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cariani, Fabrizio. Mathematical induction and explanatory value in mathematics. http://cariani.org/files/MIEV.cariani.pdf, manuscript.
- Dubeau, Francois. 1991. Cauchy and mathematical induction.
*International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology*22(6): 965–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Giaquinto, Marcus. 2011. Crossing curves: A limit to the use of diagrams in proofs.
*Philosophia Mathematica*19: 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hafner, Johannes, and Paolo Mancosu. 2005. Varieties of mathematical explanation. In
*Visualization, explanation and reasoning styles in mathematics*, ed. P. Mancosu, K. Jørgensen, and S. Pedersen, 215–250. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hanna, Gila. 1989. Proofs that prove and proofs that explain. In
*Proceedings of the 13th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*, vol. II, ed. G. Vergnaud, J. Rogalski, and M. Artigue, 45–51. Paris: Laboratoire PSYDEE.Google Scholar - Hoeltje, Miguel, Benjamin Schnieder, and Alex Steinberg. 2013. Explanation by induction?
*Synthese*190(3): 509–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lange, Marc. Ground and explanation in mathematics.
*Manuscript*.Google Scholar - Lange, Marc. 2009. Why proofs by mathematical induction are generally not explanatory.
*Analysis*69(2): 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lange, Marc. 2010. What are mathematical coincidences (and why does it matter)?
*Mind*119(474): 307–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lange, Marc. 2014. Aspects of mathematical explanation: Symmetry, unity, and salience.
*Philosophical Review*4: 485–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Palla, Marina, Despina Potari, and Panagiotis Spyrou. 2012. Secondary school students’ understanding of mathematical induction: Structural characteristics and the process of proof construction.
*International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education*10(5): 1023–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Steiner, Mark. 1978. Mathematical explanation.
*Philosophical Studies*34: 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar