Abstract
The mathematical philosophies of constructivism and structuralism may at first appear to be at odds with each other. The emphasis on direct construction and lack of a full-fledged abstract set-theoretic or type-theoretic language in early approaches seemed to preclude a structuralist view of mathematics in constructivism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aczel, P. 1978. The type theoretic interpretation of constructive set theory. Logic Colloquium ’77 (Proc. Conf., Wroclaw, 1977). Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics, vol. 96, 55–66. Amsterdam/New York: North-Holland.
Awodey, S., and M.A. Warren. 2005/2006. Predicative algebraic set theory. Theory and Applications of Categories 15(1): 1–39.
Bishop, E. 1967. Foundations of constructive analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bishop, E. 1970a. Mathematics as a numerical language. In Intuitionism and proof theory, 53–71. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hofmann, M. 1994. On the interpretation of type theory in locally cartesian closed categories. In Proceedings of the Computer Science Logic ’94, Kazimierz, Poland, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 933, ed. J. Tiuryn and L Pacholski. New York: Springer.
Johnstone, P.T. 2002. Sketches of an elephant: a Topos theory compendium, vols. 1, 2. New York: Oxford University Press.
Joyal, A., and I. Moerdijk. 1995. Algebraic set theory. London: Cambridge University Press.
Lawvere, F.W. 2005. An elementary theory of the category of sets (long version). Theory and Applications of Categories 11: 7–35.
Lawvere, F.W., and R. Rosebrugh. 2003. Sets for mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mac Lane, S. 1998. Categories for the working mathematician, 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
Maietti, M.E. 2005. Modular correspondence between dependent type theories and categories including pretopoi and topoi. Mathematical Structures for Computer Science 15(6): 1089–1149.
Maietti, M.E., and G. Sambin. 2005. Toward a minimalist foundation for constructive mathematics. In From sets and types to topology and analysis, Oxford Logic Guides, vol. 48, ed. L. Crosilla and P. Schuster, 91–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Makkai, M. 1996. Avoiding the axiom of choice in general category theory. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 108: 109–173.
Martin-Löf, P. 1975. An intuitionistic theory of types: predicative part. In Logic Colloquium ’73, ed. H.E. Rose and J. Shepherdson. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
McLarty, C. 2004. Exploring categorical structuralism. Philosophy of Mathematics 12: 37–53.
McLarty, C. 2005. ETCS and philosophy of mathematics. Theory and Applications of Categories 11: 2–4.
Moerdijk, I., and E. Palmgren. 2000. Well-founded trees in categories. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 104: 189–218.
Moerdijk, I., and E. Palmgren. 2002. Type theories, toposes and constructive set theory: predicative aspects of AST. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 114: 155–201.
Myhill, J. 1975. Constructive set theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 40(3): 347–382.
Osius, G. 1974. Categorical set theory: a characterization of the category of sets. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 4: 79–119.
Palmgren, E. Constructivist and structuralist foundations: Bishop’s and Lawvere’s theories of sets. Submitted to annals of pure and applied logic.
Tait, W.W. 2000. Cantor’s Grundlagen and the paradoxes of set theory. In Between logic and intuition: essays in honor of Charles Parsons, ed. G. Sher and R. Tieszen, 269–290. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van den Berg, B. 2005. Inductive types and exact completions. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 134: 95–121.
van den Berg, B., and I. Moerdijk. 2008. Aspects of predicative algebraic set theory I: exact completion. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 156: 123–159.
Acknowledgements
The main results of this article were obtained while the author was a fellow of the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study, January–June 2009. Many thanks go to the Collegium and its principal Professor Björn Wittrock for the opportunity to work in this most stimulating research environment, and for the challenging task to give a talk on philosophy of mathematics to researchers in sociology and history.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Palmgren, E. (2012). Constructivist Versus Structuralist Foundations. In: Dybjer, P., Lindström, S., Palmgren, E., Sundholm, G. (eds) Epistemology versus Ontology. Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, vol 27. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4435-6_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4435-6_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4434-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4435-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)