Talk:mathematical realism

mathematical realism
I'm confused how this term could be anything but a sum of its parts. There is apparently a philosophical position called, and there is a kind of this that pertains to mathematics, which happens to be called. I note there is a Wikipedia article at, but the presence of an encyclopedia entry does not necessarily a term make.

I posit that, as a term, is wholly understandable from its constituent parts, and that this is therefore a sum-of-parts entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think I could have worked out what this meant by just considering the two words. Equinox ◑ 13:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you would get it if you knew it was in the context of philosophy. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I too failed to understood solely by its two parts. Having mathematical realism defined helped me understand. I vote to keep it. Amin wordie (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per 言語学的実在論 and 科学的実在論. The Wikipedia article even mentions "mathematical anti-realism". Nibiko (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Dan Polansky (talk) I created the entry and found it useful. Since two other editors above also seem to find it useful, I post a boldface keep. The two definitions of realism with respect to which this could be sum of parts are probably these:
 * (sciences) The viewpoint that an external reality exists independent of observation.
 * (philosophy) A doctrine that universals are real—they exist and are distinct from the particulars that instantiate them.
 * Based on them, I would not know that mathematical realism was "A doctrine that mathematical entities such as numbers and triangles exist independently of the human mind." --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (in the context of this thread) can be boiled down to “XXX exists independent of the observer”; can be boiled down to “numbers”.  Ergo,  = “numbers exist independent of the observer” = the sum of  + .  I fail to see how this isn't SOP, but I'm also happy to concede that there is no burning reason to remove the entry.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not so clear since, from realism, "universals are real—they exist and are distinct from the particulars that instantiate them" is distinct and, being philosophical, could apply. In mathematical unrealism, numbers could exist outside of human mind but only in the objects that instantiate them; so number 5 could exist "only" in e.g. my hand that has 5 fingers, and it would follow, possibly, that many positive integers don't exist since no physical collection of items instantiates them. In fact, this should better be clarified, and I hope the present definition of mathematical realism is correct. (Leaving aside that math is very far from being only about numbers.)--Dan Polansky (talk)


 * Dan: I'm not certain that I'm saying keep. I'm just not qualified, perhaps. I remember Stephen voting to keep various comp-sci entries that were evident SoPs, I assume (i) because as a translator he values SoPs anyway but also (ii) because (judging by the I-wouldn't-understand-it-from-the-two-words argument) he isn't a comp-sci specialist. A non-programmer won't know what a "static volatile void function" is, but it is nevertheless (to somebody who works in that field) the obvious combination of those four things, like a "sticky wet brown leaf". So perhaps in this case I'm just not familiar enough with the field of philosophy. (Actually, I did look at our entries for mathematical and realism, but maybe our entries just suck. I'm in a foul mood.) Equinox ◑ 14:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 21:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)