[۱] دری، فاطمه؛ رفیعپور، ابوالفضل، تکوین تاریخی متغیرِ مؤثر ولی مغفولِ نگرش ریاضی، ریاضی و جامعه، ۵ (۱۳۹۹)، شمارۀ ۴، ۵۳-۶۸.
[۲] فرگه، گوتلوب، مبانی علم حساب، ترجمۀ طالب جباری، ققنوس، تهران، ۱۳۹۵.
[۳] گرینبرگ، ماروین جی.، هندسههای اقلیدسی و نااقلیدسی، ترجمۀ محمدهادی شفیعیها، مرکز نشر دانشگاهی، تهران، ۱۳۶۱.
[۴] منیری، مرتضی، ساختارگرایی در فلسفۀ ریاضی معاصر، فرهنگ و اندیشۀ ریاضی، ۳۷ (۱۳۹۷)، شمارۀ ۲،
.۵۰-۳۷
[5] Benacerraf, P., What numbers could not be, The Philosophical Review, 74 (1965), no. 1, 47-73.
[6] Blanchette, P., Frege’s critique of ‘modern’ axioms, in Frege: Freund(e) und Feind(e), Proceedings of the International Conference, D. Schott, ed., Logos-Verlag, Berlin, 2015, 105-120.
[7] Blanchette, P., Frege on mathematical progress, in Early Analytic Philosophy: New Perspectives on the Tradition, S. Costreie, ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2016, 3-19.
[8] Blanchette, P., Models in geometry and logic: 1870-1920, in Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science – Proceedings of the 15th International Congress, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Päivi Seppälä, Elliott Sober, eds., College Publications, 2017, 41-61.
[9] Brown, J. R., Philosophy of Mathematics: A Contemporary Introduction to the World of Proofs and Pictures, Routledge, New York, 2008.
[10] Boddy, R., Frege on the fruitfulness of definitions, Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy, 9 (2021), no. 11, 100-114.
[11] Burris, Stanley N., Sankappanavar, H. P., A Course in Universal Algebra, available at https:// www.math.uwaterloo.ca/ snburris/htdocs/ualg.html.
[12] Frege, G., The Basic Laws of Arithmetic: Exposition of the System, University of California Press, 1964.
[13] Frege, G., Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence, Blackwell, Brasil, 1980.
[14] Greenberg, M. J., Old and new results in the foundations of elementary plane Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries, Amer. Math. Monthly, 117 (2010), 198-219.
[15] Hamkins, J. D., Lectures on the Philosophy of Mathematics, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2020.
[16] Hilbert, D., The Foundations of Geometry, Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, Illinois, 1950.
[17] Jech, T., Set Theory: The Third Millennium Edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003.
[18] Klymchuk, S., Counterexamples in Calculus, Mathematical Association of America, Washington, D.C., 2010.
[19] Korbmacher, J., Schiemer, G., What are structural properties?, Philos. Math. (3), 26 (2018), no. 3, 295-323.
[20] Linnebo, O., Structuralism and the notion of dependence, Philoshopical Quarterly, 58 (2008), 59-79.
[21] Maddy, P., Väänänen, J., Philosophical Uses of Categoricity Arguments, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2023.
[22] Musgrave, A., Pigden, Ch., Imre Lakatos, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta, Uri Nodelman, eds., 2023, available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives /spr2023/entries/lakatos/.
[23] Poincaré, H., Non-Euclidean Geometries, available at https://mathshistory.st-andr-ews.ac.uk/Extras/Poincare_non-Euclidean/.
[24] Rohr, T., The Frege–Hilbert controversy in context, Synthese, 202 (2023), article no.: 12.
[25] Reck, E. H., Frege-Russell numbers: Analysis or explication?, in The Analytic Turn, Michael Beaney, ed., Routledge, London, 2007, 33-50.
[26] Rivello, E., Frege and Peano on definitions, in Frege: Freund(e) und Feind(e), Proceedings of the International Conference, D. Schott, ed., Logos-Verlag, Berlin, 2015, 176-186.
[27] Shapiro, S., Categories, structures, and the Frege-Hilbert controversy: The status of metamathematics, Philos. Math. (3), 13 (2005), no. 1, 61-77.
