### Abstract

We argue that Robinson's hyperreals have just as much claim to applicability as the garden variety reals. In a recent text, Easwaran and Towsner (ET) analyze the applicability of mathematical techniques in the sciences, and introduce a distinction between techniques that are applicable and those that are merely instrumental. Unfortunately the authors have not shown that their distinction is a clear and fruitful one, as the examples they provide are superficial and unconvincing. Moreover, their analysis is vitiated by a reliance on a naive version of object realism which has long been abandoned by most philosophical realists in favor of truth-value realism. ET's argument against the applicability of hyperreals based on automorphisms of hyperreal models involves massaging the evidence and is similarly unconvincing. The purpose of the ET text is to argue that Robinson's infinitesimal analysis is merely instrumental rather than applicable. Yet in spite of Robinson's techniques being applied in physics, probability, and economics (see e.g., [70, Chapter IX], [1], [76], [60]), ET don't bother to provide a meaningful analysis of even a single case in which these techniques are used. Instead, ET produce page after page of speculations mainly imitating Connesian chimera-type arguments 'from first principles' against Robinson. In an earlier paper Easwaran endorsed real applicability of the σ-additivity of measures, whereas the ET text rejects real applicability of the axiom of choice, voicing a preference for ZF. Since it is consistent with ZF that the Lebesgue measure is not σ-additive, Easwaran is thereby walking back his earlier endorsement. We note a related inaccuracy in the textbook Measure Theory by Paul Halmos. ET's arguments are unacceptable to mathematicians because they ignore a large body of applications of infinitesimals in science, and massage the evidence of some crucial mathematical details to conform with their philosophical conclusions.

Original language | English (US) |
---|---|

Pages (from-to) | 200-224 |

Number of pages | 25 |

Journal | Matematychni Studii |

Volume | 51 |

Issue number | 2 |

DOIs | |

State | Published - Jan 1 2019 |

### Fingerprint

### Keywords

- Applicability
- Automorphism
- Hyperreals
- Infinitesimals
- Instrumentalism
- Lebesgue measure
- Lotka-Volterra model
- object realism
- Rigidity
- Truth-value realism
- σ-additivity

### ASJC Scopus subject areas

- Mathematics(all)

### Cite this

*Matematychni Studii*,

*51*(2), 200-224. https://doi.org/10.15330/ms.51.2.200-224

**On mathematical realism and applicability of hyperreals.** / Bottazzi, E.; Kanovei, V.; Katz, M.; Mormann, T.; Sherry, David M.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

*Matematychni Studii*, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 200-224. https://doi.org/10.15330/ms.51.2.200-224

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - On mathematical realism and applicability of hyperreals

AU - Bottazzi, E.

AU - Kanovei, V.

AU - Katz, M.

AU - Mormann, T.

AU - Sherry, David M

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - We argue that Robinson's hyperreals have just as much claim to applicability as the garden variety reals. In a recent text, Easwaran and Towsner (ET) analyze the applicability of mathematical techniques in the sciences, and introduce a distinction between techniques that are applicable and those that are merely instrumental. Unfortunately the authors have not shown that their distinction is a clear and fruitful one, as the examples they provide are superficial and unconvincing. Moreover, their analysis is vitiated by a reliance on a naive version of object realism which has long been abandoned by most philosophical realists in favor of truth-value realism. ET's argument against the applicability of hyperreals based on automorphisms of hyperreal models involves massaging the evidence and is similarly unconvincing. The purpose of the ET text is to argue that Robinson's infinitesimal analysis is merely instrumental rather than applicable. Yet in spite of Robinson's techniques being applied in physics, probability, and economics (see e.g., [70, Chapter IX], [1], [76], [60]), ET don't bother to provide a meaningful analysis of even a single case in which these techniques are used. Instead, ET produce page after page of speculations mainly imitating Connesian chimera-type arguments 'from first principles' against Robinson. In an earlier paper Easwaran endorsed real applicability of the σ-additivity of measures, whereas the ET text rejects real applicability of the axiom of choice, voicing a preference for ZF. Since it is consistent with ZF that the Lebesgue measure is not σ-additive, Easwaran is thereby walking back his earlier endorsement. We note a related inaccuracy in the textbook Measure Theory by Paul Halmos. ET's arguments are unacceptable to mathematicians because they ignore a large body of applications of infinitesimals in science, and massage the evidence of some crucial mathematical details to conform with their philosophical conclusions.

AB - We argue that Robinson's hyperreals have just as much claim to applicability as the garden variety reals. In a recent text, Easwaran and Towsner (ET) analyze the applicability of mathematical techniques in the sciences, and introduce a distinction between techniques that are applicable and those that are merely instrumental. Unfortunately the authors have not shown that their distinction is a clear and fruitful one, as the examples they provide are superficial and unconvincing. Moreover, their analysis is vitiated by a reliance on a naive version of object realism which has long been abandoned by most philosophical realists in favor of truth-value realism. ET's argument against the applicability of hyperreals based on automorphisms of hyperreal models involves massaging the evidence and is similarly unconvincing. The purpose of the ET text is to argue that Robinson's infinitesimal analysis is merely instrumental rather than applicable. Yet in spite of Robinson's techniques being applied in physics, probability, and economics (see e.g., [70, Chapter IX], [1], [76], [60]), ET don't bother to provide a meaningful analysis of even a single case in which these techniques are used. Instead, ET produce page after page of speculations mainly imitating Connesian chimera-type arguments 'from first principles' against Robinson. In an earlier paper Easwaran endorsed real applicability of the σ-additivity of measures, whereas the ET text rejects real applicability of the axiom of choice, voicing a preference for ZF. Since it is consistent with ZF that the Lebesgue measure is not σ-additive, Easwaran is thereby walking back his earlier endorsement. We note a related inaccuracy in the textbook Measure Theory by Paul Halmos. ET's arguments are unacceptable to mathematicians because they ignore a large body of applications of infinitesimals in science, and massage the evidence of some crucial mathematical details to conform with their philosophical conclusions.

KW - Applicability

KW - Automorphism

KW - Hyperreals

KW - Infinitesimals

KW - Instrumentalism

KW - Lebesgue measure

KW - Lotka-Volterra model

KW - object realism

KW - Rigidity

KW - Truth-value realism

KW - σ-additivity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070108205&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85070108205&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.15330/ms.51.2.200-224

DO - 10.15330/ms.51.2.200-224

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85070108205

VL - 51

SP - 200

EP - 224

JO - Matematychni Studii

JF - Matematychni Studii

SN - 1027-4634

IS - 2

ER -