Applicability Problems Generalized

  • Michele Ginammi
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 334)


In this paper, I will do preparatory work for a generalized account of applicability, that is, for an account which works for math-to-physics, math-to-math, and physics-to-math application. I am going to present and discuss some examples of these three kinds of application, and I will confront them in order to see whether it is possible to find analogies among them and whether they can be ultimately considered as instantiations of a unique pattern. I will argue that these analogies can be exploited in order to get a better understanding of the applicability of mathematics to physics and of the complex relationship between physics and mathematics.



I would like to thank Prof. Gabriele Lolli, for his constant support; Prof. Charlotte Werndl for her suggestions on a previous draft of this paper; Prof. Mario Piazza and Prof. Gabriele Pulcini for their work in making this volume possible; an anonimous referee, for their precious comments. Finally, a special thank to Pauline van Wierst, who read the paper and helped me with constant support and important insights.


  1. Atiyah, Michael. 2003. The work of Edward Witten. In Fields medallists’ lectures, World scientific series in 20th century mathematics, ed. M. Atiyah and D. Iagolnitzer, vol. 9, 2nd ed., 522–526. New Jersey/London/Singapore/Hong Kong: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  2. Aubert, B. et al. 2006. Measurement of the spin of the Ω hyperon. Physical Review Letters 97: 112001. BABAR collaboration.Google Scholar
  3. Bangu, Sorin. 2008. Reifying mathematics? Prediction and symmetry classification. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 39: 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bangu, Sorin. 2012. The applicability of mathematics in science: Indispensability and ontology. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes, V.E. et al. 1964. Observation of a hyperon with strangeness minus three. Physical Review Letters 12(8): 204–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bueno, Octavio, and Mark Colyvan. 2011. An inferential conception of the application of mathematics. Noûs 45(2): 345–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Devine Thomas, K. 2010. The fundamental lemma: From minor irritant to central problem. The institute letter – Institute for advanced studies (Princeton, NJ) Summer. Available online at Accessed on 23 May 2017.
  8. French, Steven. 1999. Models and mathematics in physics: The role of group theory. In From physics to philosophy, ed. J. Butterfield and C. Pagonis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. French, Steven. 2000. The reasonable effectiveness of mathematics: Partial structures and the application of group theory to physics. Synthese 125: 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ginammi, Michele. 2015. Structure and applicability. In From logic to practice. Italian studies in philosophy of mathematics, Boston studies in the philosophy of science, ed. G. Lolli, M. Panza, and G. Venturi, vol. 308, chapter 11. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Ginammi, Michele. 2016. Avoiding reification. Heuristic effectiveness of mathematics and the prediction of the omega minus particle. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 53: 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hacking, Ian. 2014. Why is there philosophy of mathematics at all? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levy-Leblond, Jean-Marc. 1992. Why does physics need mathematics? In The scientific enterprise, Boston studies in the philosophy and history of science, ed. E. Ullmann-Margalit, vol. 146, 145–161. Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ne’eman, Yuval, and Yoram Kirsh. 1996. The particle hunters, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pincock, Christopher. 2012. Mathematics and scientific representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Redhead, Michael. 1975. Symmetry in intertheory relations. Synthese 32: 77–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Steiner, Mark. 1998. The applicability of mathematics as a philosophical problem. Cambridge (Mass): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Suárez, Mauricio. 2015. Representation in science. In Oxford handbook in philosophy of science, ed. P. Humphreys. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Urquhart, Alasdair. 2008a. The boundary between mathematics and physics. In The philosophy of mathematical practice, ed. P. Mancosu, 407–416. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Urquhart, Alasdair. 2008b. Mathematics and physics: Strategies of assimilation. In The philosophy of mathematical practice, ed. P. Mancosu, 417–440. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weil, André. 2005. Letter to Simone Weil. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 52(3):334–341. Translated by Martin H. Krieger.Google Scholar
  22. Wigner, Eugene Paul. 1960. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics 13(1): 1–14. Reprinted in Symmetries and Reflections. 1967. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wilson, Mark. 2000. The unreasonable uncooperativeness of mathematics. The Monist 83(2): 296–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Ginammi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy (KGW Fakultät)University of SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations