|
Non-standard analysis and its offshoot, non-standard calculus, have been criticized by several authors, notably Errett Bishop, Paul Halmos, and Alain Connes. These criticisms are analyzed below. ==Introduction== The evaluation of non-standard analysis in the literature has varied greatly. Paul Halmos described it as a technical special development in mathematical logic. Fields medalist Terence Tao summed up the advantage of the hyperreal framework by noting that it:〔Tao, T.: Structure and randomness. Pages from year one of a mathematical blog. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008. p. 55.〕 The nature of the criticisms is not directly related to the logical status of the results proved using non-standard analysis. In terms of conventional mathematical foundations in classical logic, such results are quite acceptable. Abraham Robinson's non-standard analysis does not need any axioms beyond Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZFC) (as shown explicitly by Wilhelmus Luxemburg's ultrapower construction of the hyperreals), while its variant by Edward Nelson, known as IST, is similarly a conservative extension of ZFC.〔This is shown in Edward Nelson's AMS 1977 paper in an appendix written by William Powell.〕 It provides an assurance that the newness of non-standard analysis is entirely as a strategy of proof, not in range of results. Further, model theoretic non-standard analysis, for example based on superstructures, which is now a commonly used approach, does not need any new set-theoretic axioms beyond those of ZFC. Controversy has existed on issues of mathematical pedagogy. Also non-standard analysis as developed is not the only candidate to fulfill the aims of a theory of infinitesimals (see Smooth infinitesimal analysis). Philip J. Davis wrote, in a book review of ''Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms'' (2002) by Diane Ravitch: :There was the nonstandard analysis movement for teaching elementary calculus. Its stock rose a bit before the movement collapsed from inner complexity and scant necessity.〔http://www.siam.org/news/news.php?id=527〕 Non-standard calculus in the classroom has been analysed in the study by K. Sullivan of schools in the Chicago area, as reflected in secondary literature at Influence of non-standard analysis. Sullivan showed that students following the NSA course were better able to interpret the sense of the mathematical formalism of calculus than a control group following a standard syllabus. This was also noted by Artigue (1994), page 172; Chihara (2007); and Dauben (1988). 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Criticism of non-standard analysis」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|