Philpapers section summaries (Ontology of Mathematics)

I have finished drafting section summaries with short reading guides to PhilPapers sections that I am editing.If you think I should revise, or that I forgot about something, drop me a line:

[EDIT: these below are links]


Aleksandra said…
There is a list of siblings on PhilPapers and it looks a bit different from the one in your post. There is a category called The Nature of Sets:
It does not yet have an editor, but looks like it is a part of Ontology of Mathematics section. Is that intentional?
Rafal Urbaniak said…
No, the nature of sets is not in Ontology of Mathematics (although, it is quite closely related), it's in set theory, but because it's related, it's also mentioned when you look at OoM. It has no editor (and therefore no summary). I'll try to take care of this stray cat.
Aleksandra said…
There is a suspicious list called "Subcategories" on the main OoM page. Sets and Psychologism seem to fit there, so I thought they just belong to OoM. There is a *-sign after Sets, but MPsychologism is just listed along the rest. Maybe they should go under "Related Categories" and before Subcategories section.

Mathematical Fictionalism (51)
Mathematical Nominalism (127)
Mathematical Platonism (141)
Mathematical Psychologism (13)
Mathematical Structuralism (106)
Mathematical Neo-Fregeanism (104)
Indeterminacy in Mathematics (10)
Indispensability Arguments in Mathematics (87)
Numbers (106)
The Nature of Sets* (144 | 63)

Sorry for caviling at the details anyway.
Rafal Urbaniak said…
MPsychologism is another stray one, it was created after I was made editor of the other ones, and I never got editor rights over it. But then, I never applied for it. Will try to fix it as well.
Mathieu Beirlaen said…
Hi Rafal,

No room for instrumentalism?
Rafal Urbaniak said…
Good call, Mathieu! I'll see what can be done.
Rafal Urbaniak said…
Although, on the second thought, instrumentalism can be constructed as a sort of nominalism, no?
Mathieu Beirlaen said…
It can, but then maybe so can fictionalism? I'm by far no specialist on these matters though.