Hossein Bayat; musa akrami
Volume 4, Issue 8 , March 2015, , Pages 1-18
Abstract
The extension of the mathematical argumentation methods, in recent decades, has led to an essential critique of classic definition of mathematical proof. The critics often have suggested alternative definitions, which have different and sometimes incompatible presuppositions and implications. Such a ...
Read More
The extension of the mathematical argumentation methods, in recent decades, has led to an essential critique of classic definition of mathematical proof. The critics often have suggested alternative definitions, which have different and sometimes incompatible presuppositions and implications. Such a situation has exposed mathematics to relativism.
The problem of multiplicity of definitions, therefore, can be considered as one of the most important epistemological issues in mathematics. In this paper, we try, from third order or meta-methodological position, to answer this question: ‘what is the meta-criterion for choosing the best definition of mathematical proof?’ by answering this question we will be one step closer to a justified definition of mathematical proof.
The authors will show that the explanatory power meta-criterion, compared to the two other rivals, i.e. the equivalence meta-criterion and the consensus meta-criterion, is more tenable.
