A non-standard analysis of a cultural icon: The case of Paul Halmos
Piotr Blaszczyk, Alexandre Borovik, Vladimir Kanovei, Mikhail G. Katz,, Taras Kudryk, Semen S. Kutateladze, David Sherry

TL;DR
This paper critically examines Paul Halmos' views on various mathematical concepts, highlighting his philosophical stance and contrasting it with Robinson's nonstandard analysis, revealing the depth of set-theoretic and logical debates.
Contribution
It offers a detailed analysis of Halmos' philosophical perspective on logic and nonstandard models, contrasting it with Robinson's framework, and discusses implications for mathematical realism.
Findings
Halmos was skeptical of nonstandard models and Robinson's infinitesimals.
Robinson's framework enables deeper set-theoretic exploration than Halmos acknowledged.
The paper highlights philosophical differences impacting the understanding of mathematical foundations.
Abstract
We examine Paul Halmos' comments on category theory, Dedekind cuts, devil worship, logic, and Robinson's infinitesimals. Halmos' scepticism about category theory derives from his philosophical position of naive set-theoretic realism. In the words of an MAA biography, Halmos thought that mathematics is "certainty" and "architecture" yet 20th century logic teaches us is that mathematics is full of uncertainty or more precisely incompleteness. If the term architecture meant to imply that mathematics is one great solid castle, then modern logic tends to teach us the opposite lession, namely that the castle is floating in midair. Halmos' realism tends to color his judgment of purely scientific aspects of logic and the way it is practiced and applied. He often expressed distaste for nonstandard models, and made a sustained effort to eliminate first-order logic, the logicians' concept of…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
