Does Principia Mathematica Live Up to Its Name?

  • Thread starter Thread starter skywo1f
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mathematica
Click For Summary
Principia Mathematica by Whitehead and Russell is perceived by some as overly philosophical and lacking in mathematical content, leading to frustration among readers seeking practical math proofs. The text is known for its extensive and intricate logical arguments, such as the lengthy proof that one plus one equals two, which some find tedious and not reflective of broader mathematical concepts. Recommendations for improving proof skills include George Polya's "How to Solve It" and Daniel Velleman's "How to Prove It." Many participants in the discussion express that Principia is not suited for the average mathematician and may not be enjoyable for those looking for more engaging mathematical content. Overall, the consensus suggests that while Principia aims for a complete logical system, it may not meet the expectations of those interested in practical mathematics.
skywo1f
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
so I've been studying principia mathematica by whitehead and russell.
it seems like its all principia and no mathematica. it just feels like I am taking philosophy logic again.

does it get more mathy later?

any books that will help me with math proofs?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
For proofs, have a look at George Polya's How to solve it. Another book that has been recommended to me (but I have less experience with it) is How to read and do proofs.

Principia is extremely specialized. The old joke about it is that it takes hundreds of pages to "prove" that one plus one equals two. If you're really interested in the topic then by all means delve into it, but that sort of logic doesn't map well into the deep structures of my brain. In my humble opinion, I don't think it really has much to do with a lot of the rest of mathematics. There's a lot of other cool stuff out there if Principia isn't your cup of tea.
 
I don't think Principia is suited for the average mathematician. I remember mathwonk reviewed it (from a mathematician's standpoint) and basically called it a waste of time lol. If you're just trying to learn math proofs, I'd agree. I never felt comfortable with trying to prove extremely basic things like the commutativity of natural number addition. This never seemed any more or less obvious than the concept of a set, so if I take one for granted, why not the other?

Yeah, I know the basics of natural numbers are classic topics in a first year grad course and that it's better to limit your axioms, but I really don't care. A book taking 100 pages to prove that 1+1=2 just doesn't seem like fun. I guess if you agree then it's not for you.

I like "How to Prove it" by Velleman, and most introductory Linear Algebra books double as a sort of introduction to proofs book, so you may look into those.
 
Tobias Funke said:
I remember mathwonk reviewed it (from a mathematician's standpoint) and basically called it a waste of time lol.

They were hoping to make a complete and consistent system, ridding any paradoxes they knew about. Then a man named Godel came along and...
 
Good morning I have been refreshing my memory about Leibniz differentiation of integrals and found some useful videos from digital-university.org on YouTube. Although the audio quality is poor and the speaker proceeds a bit slowly, the explanations and processes are clear. However, it seems that one video in the Leibniz rule series is missing. While the videos are still present on YouTube, the referring website no longer exists but is preserved on the internet archive...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
5K