BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Andrei Rodin

Andrei Rodin appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
math.HOmath.CTmath.LO

Catalog footprint

What is connected

6works
3topics
0close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

One Mathematic(s) or Many? Foundations of Mathematics in Today's Mathematical Practice

The received Hilbert-style axiomatic foundations of mathematics has been designed by Hilbert and his followers as a tool for meta-theoretical research. Foundations of mathematics of this type fail to satisfactory perform more basic and more practically-oriented functions of theoretical foundations such as verification of mathematical constructions and proofs. Using alternative foundations of mathematics such as the Univalent Foundations is compatible with using the received set-theoretic foundations for meta-mathematical purposes provided the two foundations are mutually interpretable. Changes in foundations of mathematics do not, generally, disqualify mathematical theories based on older foundations but allow for reconstruction of these theories on new foundations. Mathematics is one but its foundations are many.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Doing and Showing

The persisting gap between the formal and the informal mathematics is due to an inadequate notion of mathematical theory behind the current formalization techniques. I mean the (informal) notion of axiomatic theory according to which a mathematical theory consists of a set of axioms and further theorems deduced from these axioms according to certain rules of logical inference. Thus the usual notion of axiomatic method is inadequate and needs a replacement.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Categories without structures

The popular view according to which Category theory provides a support for Mathematical Structuralism is erroneous. Category-theoretic foundations of mathematics require a different philosophy of mathematics. While structural mathematics studies invariant forms (Awodey) categorical mathematics studies covariant transformations which, generally, don t have any invariants. In this paper I develop a non-structuralist interpretation of categorical mathematics and show its consequences for history of mathematics and mathematics education.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Did Lobachevsky Have A Model Of His "imaginary Geometry"?

The invention of non-Euclidean geometries is often seen through the optics of Hilbertian formal axiomatic method developed later in the 19th century. However such an anachronistic approach fails to provide a sound reading of Lobachevsky's geometrical works. Although the modern notion of model of a given theory has a counterpart in Lobachevsky's writings its role in Lobachevsky's geometrical theory turns to be very unusual. Lobachevsky doesn't consider various models of Hyperbolic geometry, as the modern reader would expect, but uses a non-standard model of Euclidean plane (as a particular surface in the Hyperbolic 3-space). In this paper I consider this Lobachevsky's construction, and show how it can be better analyzed within an alternative non-Hilbertian foundational framework, which relates the history of geometry of the 19th century to some recent developments in the field.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access