MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399642600 · doi:10.1353/rss.2024.a929932

Review of Principia Mathematica

2024· article· en· W4399642600 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalculus (dental)Computer scienceMedicineOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from 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...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it