Skip to content

Philosophy of Mathematics


Geoffrey Hellman


Pages 412 - 424



There is a surprising variety of programs in the philosophy and foundations of mathematics that have found mereology a useful and, in some cases, an indispensable tool. After emphasising a number of key relevant features of mereology, we will briefly examine five such programs, including (1) Goodman and Quine’s (1947) efforts to recover the syntax of mathematical language as part of a finitist, formalist philosophy of mathematics; (2) Tarski (1929; 1956), Menger (1940), et al.’s programs to reconstruct geometry and topology from regions of a space, introducing points and any other objects of lower dimensionality only by definitions in terms of regions and relations thereof; (3) Field’s (1980) and Burgess’ (1984) ‘synthetic mechanics’ as an effort to recover nominalistically certain applications of mathematics in physics inspired by synthetic geometry; (4) Lewis’ (1991) attempt to ground set theory on a combination of mereology and plural logic, which he called ‘megethology’ (theory of size); (5) Hellman’s (1989; 1996)) modalstructuralism employing the same machinery as (4) together with modal logic, but to provide an eliminative structuralist alternative to platonist, face-value readings of abstract mathematical theories.




1Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota



1 Bell, J. L., (1998), A Primer of Infinitesimal Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2 Boolos, G., (1985), “Nominalist Platonism”, Philosophical Review 94: 327-344.

3 Burgess, J., (1984), “Synthetic Mechanics”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 13: 379-395.

4 Burgess, J.; Hazen, A.; Lewis. D., (1991), Appendix on pairing, in Lewis (1991).

5 Field, H., (1980), Science without Numbers, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

6 Goodman, N.; Quine, W.V., (1947), “Steps toward a Constructive Nominalism”, Journal of Symbolic Logic 12: 105-122.

7 Hellman, G., (1989), Mathematics without Numbers: Towards a Modal-Structural Interpretation, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

8 Hellman, G., (1996), “Structuralism without Structures”, Philosophia Mathematica 4: 100-123.

9 Hellman, G., (2005), “Structuralism”, Ch. 17 in Shapiro, S. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 536-562.

10 Hellman, G.; Shapiro, S., (2012), “Towards a Point-free Account of the Continuous”, Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly 61: 263-287.

11 Hellman, G.; Shapiro, S., (2013), “The Classical Continuum without Points”, Review of Symbolic Logic. 6 (3): 488-512.

12 Lewis, D., (1991), Parts of Classes, Oxford: Blackwell.

13 Lewis, D., (1993), “Mathematics Is Megethology”, Philosophia Mathematica 1: 3-23.

14 Menger, K., (1940), “Topology without Points”, Rice Institute Pamphlets, 27: 80-107.

15 Pieri, M., (1908), “La geometria elementare instituita sulle nozione di ‘punto’ e ‘sfera’”, Memorie di Matematica e di Fisica della Società Italiana delle Scienze, Serie Terza, XV, 345-450.

16 Putnam, H., (1967, 1975), “Mathematics without Foundations” in Benacerraf, P; Putnam, H. (eds.), Philosophy of Mathematics 2d Ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 295-311.

17 Quine, W. V., (1951), Mathematical Logic, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

18 Shapiro, S., (1983), “Conservativeness and Incompleteness”, Journal of Philosophy 80: 521-531.

19 Tarski, A., (1929), “Foundations of the Geometry of Solids”, in Tarski, A. Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956: 24-29.

20 Zermelo, E., (1930), “Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche: neue Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre”, Fundamenta Mathematicae 16: 29-47.

Share


Export Citation