Philosophy of mathematics was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
I see from Archive 2 that a paragraph on Badiou was deleted. I'd argue for a reference on grounds of notability. He is one of the better known living philosophers, mathematics is central to his work, and although he has stated that his main positions are not to be thought of as contributions to the Philosophy of Maths, he does have some papers on central PoM topics like the meaning of number. Unfortunately, I can't produce a paragraph with my current level of knowledge of his work. KD Jan 16 07
Chaitin's remarks on Erdos sohuld be deleted
I feel strongly that Chaitin's remarks about Erdos and his "book" should be deleted. First, they are undocumented, but I assume they are taken from Chaitin's book "MetaMath" (where such remarks do appear). This book is, at best, a popular account of some ideas in theoretical computer science. Gregory Chaitin is somewhere between a mathematician and a computer scientist -- he is certainly not a philosopher of mathematics. The general view on his work in the mainstream mathematical community is that his theorems are correct and are of some interest (note: we do not regard him as "one of the foremost mathematicians", a claim which appears on the back of the book) but that the philosophical conclusions he draws from them are at best wholly unjustified and at worst so sloppy and vague so as not to count as philosophy at all. In his books, Chaitin often phrases things so as to make clear that he has not done much research on a topic and is just giving his impression, as much as a personal statement as anything else. I do not know that Chaitin met Erdos or had any real idea of Erdos' ideas about mathematics. As regards "The Book", a form of it was published (first in 1998, several years before Chaitin's book). The book records beautiful proofs of theorems, often more than one. In fact, as regards the infinitude of primes, "Proofs from The Book" gives neither one nor three but six, including one which is is similar to (more sophisticated than but with stronger consequences) than Chaitin's "new" algorithmic information theory proof. In summary, what you are reporting is a hearsay opinion of one person on the thoughts and ideas of another, and that this opinion is unjustified is well documented.
There are a number of big sections in the article which are wholly lacking in any citation. I'd really appreciate some work being put intoi sticking in a few relevent citations into sections and asking for citations for new stuff being stuck in. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is "mankind" capitalized in section "Recurrent themes"?
... mankind is just mankind, a normal "thing" in this world. Which tradition would require it to be written with an uppercase 'M'? --User:Haraldmmueller 17:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The text says "A number was defined as a multitude. Therefore, 3, for example, represented a certain multitude of units, and was thus not "truly" a number." Doesn't this imply rather that 3 was a number? Or does the word "represent" mean "was not really"? In that case perhaps the word "merely" or "only" should be inserted in front of it. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I shouldn't have posted until I had read the whole section on Greek mathematics. The whole section is hard to understand. What do "translators" have to do with it, unless the author mean "commentators"? κτλ Lots of good information, but needs to be edited by someone who knows the field. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)