On the inconsistency of Mumma's Eu (Q424577): Difference between revisions

The author of this paper has presented in his PhD thesis in 2001, published in book form as [Euclid and his twentieth century rivals. Diagrams in the logic of Euclidean geometry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (2007; Zbl 1129.01001)], a diagrammatic formal system for Euclidean geometry, \(\mathbf{FG}\), aimed at reconstructing Euclid's deductions as essentially diagrammatic. Later on, \textit{J. Mumma} has presented a different formal system \(\mathbf{Eu}\) with the same aim in [Intuition formalized. Ancient and modern methods of proof in Elementary geometry. PhD Thesis. Carnegie Mellon University (2006)], of which some parts were published in [Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 5223, 222--235 (2008; Zbl 1189.03018); Synthese 175, No. 2, 255--287 (2010; Zbl 1198.03021)]. In [\textit{J. Avigad}, \textit{E. Dean} and \textit{J. Mumma}, Rev. Symb. Log. 2, No. 4, 700--768 (2009; Zbl 1188.03008)], building on Mumma's \(\mathbf{Eu}\), a significantly modified version of \(\mathbf{Eu}\), called \(\mathbf{E}\), was published with the same aim. In Mumma's review of Miller's book of 2006 in [Philos. Math. (3) 16, No. 2, 256--281 (2008)], he states that his own work was motivated by the desire to ``to improve upon Miller's work'', to which he grants having achieved ``substantial progress'' towards its aim, while not providing ``a wholly convincing account of the \textit{Elements}' long-standing reputation (in his words) as `the gold standard for careful reasoning and mathematical rigor'''. Mumma's criticism focused on the case distinctions required in \(\mathbf{FG}\), which he finds ``foreign to Euclid's geometry'', but his overall account of Miller's work is positive, as can be read from the following concluding remarks: ``These shortcomings, however, do not diminish Miller's great achievement in leading us to a more convincing account.'' The paper under review is to be understood as ``payback time'', and seems to be motivated by an unhealthy amount of \textit{Schadenfreude}. The author discovers several weak spots of the system \(\mathbf{Eu}\) that render it ``unsound, incorrect, and inconsistent'', claims to try to fix \(\mathbf{Eu}\), but deems such efforts doomed, stemming from the fact that ``\(\mathbf{Eu}\) doesn't have a way to branch into cases''. The author willfully ignores Mumma's Addendum to the Thesis, posted in September 2010 on \url{http://www.johnmumma.org/Writings_files/Website thing.pdf} as well as the very existence of the modified system \(\mathbf{E}\), to which none of the criticism leveled at \(\mathbf{Eu}\) applies.