BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Karin Usadi Katz

Karin Usadi Katz contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
math.HOmath.CAmath.LO

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
3topics
1close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2012arXiv

A Burgessian critique of nominalistic tendencies in contemporary mathematics and its historiography

We analyze the developments in mathematical rigor from the viewpoint of a Burgessian critique of nominalistic reconstructions. We apply such a critique to the reconstruction of infinitesimal analysis accomplished through the efforts of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass; to the reconstruction of Cauchy's foundational work associated with the work of Boyer and Grabiner; and to Bishop's constructivist reconstruction of classical analysis. We examine the effects of a nominalist disposition on historiography, teaching, and research.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Meaning in Classical Mathematics: Is it at Odds with Intuitionism?

We examine the classical/intuitionist divide, and how it reflects on modern theories of infinitesimals. When leading intuitionist Heyting announced that "the creation of non-standard analysis is a standard model of important mathematical research", he was fully aware that he was breaking ranks with Brouwer. Was Errett Bishop faithful to either Kronecker or Brouwer? Through a comparative textual analysis of three of Bishop's texts, we analyze the ideological and/or pedagogical nature of his objections to infinitesimals a la Robinson. Bishop's famous "debasement" comment at the 1974 Boston workshop, published as part of his Crisis lecture, in reality was never uttered in front of an audience. We compare the realist and the anti-realist intuitionist narratives, and analyze the views of Dummett, Pourciau, Richman, Shapiro, and Tennant. Variational principles are important physical applications, currently lacking a constructive framework. We examine the case of the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem, already analyzed by Hellman in the context of the Quine-Putnam indispensability thesis.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

When is .999... less than 1?

We examine alternative interpretations of the symbol described as nought, point, nine recurring. Is "an infinite number of 9s" merely a figure of speech? How are such alternative interpretations related to infinite cardinalities? How are they expressed in Lightstone's "semicolon" notation? Is it possible to choose a canonical alternative interpretation? Should unital evaluation of the symbol .999 . . . be inculcated in a pre-limit teaching environment? The problem of the unital evaluation is hereby examined from the pre-R, pre-lim viewpoint of the student.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access