Does Principia Mathematica Live Up to Its Name?

  • Thread starter skywo1f
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Mathematica
In summary, the conversation revolves around the book "Principia Mathematica" by Whitehead and Russell. The speakers discuss their opinions on the book, with some finding it too specialized and not relevant to the rest of mathematics. They also recommend other books, such as "How to Solve It" by George Polya and "How to Prove It" by Velleman, for those interested in learning math proofs. Overall, the book "Principia Mathematica" is considered as not suitable for the average mathematician and may be a waste of time.
  • #1
skywo1f
6
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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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...
 

1. What is "Principia mathematica"?

"Principia mathematica" is a three-volume work written by mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead and mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell. It was published between 1910 and 1913 and is considered one of the most influential works in the field of mathematical logic and philosophy.

2. What is the purpose of "Principia mathematica"?

The purpose of "Principia mathematica" was to provide a foundation for mathematics using symbolic logic and axiomatic methods. Whitehead and Russell aimed to show that all mathematical truths could be derived from a small set of logical axioms and rules.

3. What makes "Principia mathematica" significant?

"Principia mathematica" is significant because it introduced new methods and approaches to the foundations of mathematics. It also influenced the development of symbolic logic and had a major impact on the philosophy of mathematics.

4. What are some key concepts in "Principia mathematica"?

Some key concepts in "Principia mathematica" include the use of symbolic logic, the theory of types, and the concept of logical inference. The work also covers topics such as the theory of classes, relations, and cardinal numbers.

5. What are some criticisms of "Principia mathematica"?

One of the main criticisms of "Principia mathematica" is that it is highly complex and difficult to understand, making it inaccessible to most people. Another criticism is that it is based on a limited set of axioms, which some argue is not enough to fully capture all of mathematics.

Similar threads

  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
326
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
636
  • General Math
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
2
Replies
39
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
5K
Back
Top