MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4399642600 · doi:10.1353/rss.2024.a929932

Review of Principia Mathematica

2024· article· en· W4399642600 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Giuseppe Peano

Notice bibliographique

RevueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMathematics
ThématiqueMathematics and Applications
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCalculus (dental)Computer scienceMedicineOrthodontics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Review of Principia Mathematica Giuseppe Peano and Giovanni B. Ratti (bio) Introduced, translated and edited by GIOVANNI B. RATTI As all historians of logic know, Russell met Peano for the first time at the 1900 International Congress of Philosophy in Paris. He was so impressed by the way Peano and his school clearly articulated their ideas and held the upper hand in every debate that he famously recalled this revelation in two different places, namely in My Philosophical Development and the Autobiography.1 Along these lines, Hans Freudenthal once wrote [End Page 87] of the Paris congress that "In the field of the philosophy of sciences the Italian phalanx was supreme: Peano, Burali-Forti, Padoa, Pieri absolutely dominated the discussion. For Russell, who read a paper that was philosophical in the worst sense, Paris was the road to Damascus."2 From that moment on, Russell began to develop his own conception of analytic philosophy. After the Paris Congress, Russell claims, he mastered Peano's logical-mathematical notations in a few months and, equipped with such powerful technical tools, began his remarkable journey into the foundations of mathematics at an incredible pace.3 The "epiphany" of Russell's first meeting with Peano is a milestone in the history of mathematical logic and is often recalled in the history of philosophy. However, subsequent relations between the two are usually neglected. In the general literature, it is sometimes implied that Russell adopted the new symbolism he so urgently needed for his logical project from Peano and then went his own way without any further contact with the Italian mathematician. This impression has probably been created by the fact that Peano's "decline" coincided with Russell's rise in the field of mathematical logic. The Paris Congress can be seen as a "passing of the baton", so to speak.4 This metaphorical reading is nevertheless somewhat misleading as far as historical facts are concerned. Peano and Russell met several more times and exchanged letters over a number of years.5 It is not always easy to reconstruct [End Page 88] this correspondence, still less the entire philosophical relationship between the two men, as some important pieces of evidence are missing. Evidence that the relationship between the two was particularly intense in the period between the Paris Congress (1900) and the publication of Russell's Principles of Mathematics (1903) can be traced relatively easily. Russell was keen to contribute (including financially) to Peano's publishing efforts and sent two essays, in which he mainly extended Peano's system to the logic of relations, to Peano's Rivista di matematica (Revue de mathématiques).6 Letters and notes were therefore frequently exchanged between Turin and England, although the evidence here is one-sided as Russell's letters to Peano are no longer available and are probably lost for good. As mentioned, this period ends with the appearance of Principles of Mathematics,7 which Peano hails as marking a new epoch in the philosophy of mathematics in a letter to Russell dated 27 March 1903 (ra1 710.054224). Peano reiterated this opinion in 1904 at the Academy of Sciences in Turin, saying that Russell's book was the best work on the subject. Another important exchange took place in 1906, when two letters from Peano dealt with the axiom of choice (which he himself discovered—and rejected—in 1890, fourteen years before Zermelo) and logical antinomies, respectively. Again, Russell's replies are not extant. In the same year, Peano, in what was probably his last original contribution to logic,8 published a paper dealing with logical antinomies in which he provided "perhaps the most penetrating commentaries on [Richard's] paradox",9 systematized Russell's paradox as a generalization of the Burali-Forti's paradox, and made a groundbreaking distinction between [End Page 89] linguistic and mathematical antinomies.10 Early in April 1908 Peano and Russell were both in Rome for the Fourth International Congress of Mathematicians, although there is no record of a meeting between them. However, Ernst Zermelo mentions in a letter to Georg Cantor written in late July that he had had friendly conversations with both men.11 The last known correspondence and...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,018
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,060

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0060,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0040,005
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0180,010

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,083
Tête enseignante GPT0,378
Écart entre enseignants0,295 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell StudiesMême sujetMathematics and ApplicationsTravaux en français237 207