Abstract

In this work we argue that there is no strong demarcation between pure and applied mathematics. We show this first by stressing non-deductive components within pure mathematics, like axiomatization and theory-building in general. We also stress the “purer” components of applied mathematics, like the theory of the models that are concerned with practical purposes. We further show that some mathematical theories can be viewed through either a pure or applied lens. These different lenses are tied to different communities, which endorse different evaluative standards for theories. We evaluate the distinction between pure and applied mathematics from a late Wittgensteinian perspective. We note that the classical exegesis of the later Wittgenstein’s philosophy of mathematics, due to Maddy, leads to a clear-cut but misguided demarcation. We then turn our attention to a more niche interpretation of Wittgenstein by Dawson, which captures aspects of the aforementioned distinction more accurately. Building on this newer, maverick interpretation of the later Wittgenstein’s philosophy of mathematics, and endorsing an extended notion of meaning as use which includes social, mundane uses, we elaborate a fuzzy, but more realistic, demarcation. This demarcation, relying on family resemblance, is based on how direct and intended technical applications are, the kind of evaluative standards featured, and the range of rhetorical purposes at stake.

Highlights

  • The pure/applied distinction in mathematics is often taken for granted without much thought put into it

  • According to Maddy’s Wittgenstein, the demarcation between pure and applied mathematics consists in that only the latter has applications. This reading leads to a very clear demarcation, consistent with the popular belief that pure mathematics is about theory and applied mathematics is about applications, we argue that it does not do justice to how actual mathematics works

  • Pure and applied mathematicians – two sociologically demarcated groups – differ in their criteria to select the theories they study and how to evaluate them, but other than that there seems to be no major difference with respect to the character of the mathematics with which they are involved

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The pure/applied distinction in mathematics is often taken for granted without much thought put into it. We show that Maddy’s exegesis of the later Wittgenstein’s philosophy of mathematics (Maddy, 1993) fails to capture such practice-based differences, and is not useful for our main aim, namely, to build a demarcation between pure mathematics and applied mathematics. In line with late Wittgensteinian philosophy, we believe that this sociological distinction is rooted in the different ways in which each community uses mathematics. We analyze their uses of mathematics to understand what is meant when one talks about applied mathematics or pure mathematics. Maddy’s Wittgenstein holds that only applied mathematics is meaningful and that pure mathematics in contrast is a meaningless sign game

Maddy’s interpretation of the later Wittgenstein
Page 4 of 22
Bridging pure and applied mathematics
Bridging from the applied perspective
Page 6 of 22
Bridging from the pure perspective
Page 8 of 22
Page 10 of 22
The embodied world and mathematics
The neo‐Aristotelian view
Page 12 of 22
On the metaphorical view
Readings of the later Wittgenstein’s philosophy of mathematics
Page 14 of 22
Page 16 of 22
Page 18 of 22
Conclusion
Page 20 of 22
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call