Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The only four division algebras built on the real numbers are the reals (ℝ), complex numbers (ℂ), quaternions (ℍ), and octonions (𝕆).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
The Kervaire-Bott-Milnor result presupposes the standard definition of 'division algebra' requiring finite dimensionality over ℝ.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Infinite-dimensional normed division algebras, such as those explored in non-standard analysis, are not ruled out by this theorem.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Therefore the claim's scope is restricted to a conventional definitional choice, not a metaphysically necessary boundary on algebraic structure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Mathematical existence proofs establish formal consistency within axiomatic systems, not mind-independent Platonic facts about what algebras 'exist'.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A fictionalist or formalist about mathematics, following Hartry Field or Hilbert, would deny the claim describes a discovery about abstract objects.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The theorem thus characterizes a structural feature of a human-constructed formal system, making 'only four exist' a category error if read realistically.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Kervaire (1958) independently proved that only four division algebras built on the reals exist.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Bott and Milnor (1958) independently proved the same result.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.