FOM: what is the value of reverse mathematics?
Karlis Podnieks
podnieks at cclu.lv
Fri Aug 6 03:31:55 EDT 1999
I'd like to keep my concepts as simple as possible, and my
postings - as short as possible. For me, over-simplification is
mathematical, but making as many distinctions as possible is
not.
If the task of the "direct mathematics" is deriving of theorems
from a fixed set of postulates, then the task of the "reverse
mathematics" is determining of the minimum set(s) of postulates
necessary to prove a fixed set of theorems.
As a rule, reverse tasks are much more difficult than the
corresponding direct tasks (a well known example from the
Calculus: integration is much more difficult than
differentiation).
For me, reverse mathematics was not invented in 1990s. The
invention of groups, rings, fields, modules etc. also was a kind
of reverse mathematics - determining of the minimum sets of
"axioms" necessary to prove significant sets of properties of
different mathematical structures.
Hence, reverse mathematics seems to be a normal mathematical
approach to some problems. Are you afraid that reverse
mathematics is trying to replace the "direct mathematics"
causing mass unemployment among "direct mathematicians"? I'm not
(because I'm not a mathematician).
Karlis Podnieks
University of Latvia, Institute of Mathematics and Computer
Science
More information about the FOM
mailing list