Online research in philosophy

Bertand's Postulate is proved in Peano Arithmetic minus the Successor Axiom.

How-many numbers, such as 2 and 1000, relate or are capable of expressing the size of a group or set. Both Cantor and Frege analyzed how-many number in terms of one-to-one correspondence between two sets. That is to say, one arrived at numbers by either abstracting from the concept of correspondence, in the case of Cantor, or by using it to provide an out-and-out definition, in the case of Frege.

These notes are meant to continue from the paper on Consistency, in proving number-theoretic theorems from the second-order arithmetical system called FFFF. Its ultimate target is Quadratic Reciprocity, although it introduces and proves some facts about the least common multiple at the start.

For those who have understood the solution to the Liarʼs Paradox and the Paradoxes of Predication, presented in A Comprehensive Solution to the Paradoxes and The Solution to the Liarʼs Paradox1, it will come as no surprise how the Berry Paradox should be solved. Nonetheless, the solution will be presented here in a short note, for completenessʼ sake.

Second-order Peano Arithmetic minus the Successor Axiom is developed from first principles through Quadratic Reciprocity and a proof of self-consistency. This paper combines 4 other papers of the author in a self-contained exposition.

In a short, technical note, the system of arithmetic, F, introduced in Systems for a Foundation of Arithmetic and "True" Arithmetic Can Prove Its Own Consistency and Proving Quadratic Reciprocity, is demonstrated to be equivalent to a sub-theory of Peano Arithmetic; the sub-theory is missing, most notably, the Successor Axiom.

Note to the reader: To avoid confusion and possible misinterpretations of the author's intentions, whenever a paragraph contains a definition or explication of how the author means the meaning of a word, asterisks have been placed after the paragraph number and before the word or words in question. The reader is warned that some words may be meant idiosyncratically.

The system of arithmetic considered in Consistency, which is essentially second-order Peano Arithmetic without the Successor Axiom, is used to prove more theorems of arithmetic, up to Quadratic Reciprocity.

The system called F is essentially a sub-theory of Frege Arithmetic without the ad infinitum assumption that there is always a next number. In a series of papers (Systems for a Foundation of Arithmetic, True” Arithmetic Can Prove Its Own Consistency and Proving Quadratic Reciprocity) it was shown that F proves a large number of basic arithmetic truths, such as the Euclidean Algorithm, Unique Prime Factorization (i.e. the Fundamental Law of Arithmetic), and Quadratic Reciprocity, indeed a sizable amount of arithmetic. (...) In particular, F proves some (but not all) of the Peano Axioms; that is, F proves the axioms of a sub-theory - call it FPA - of second-order Peano-Arithmetic. This short technical note will demonstrate that the converse also holds, in the following sense. F has the same language as second-order Peano Arithmetic except that, in addition, it has a two-place predicate symbol “Μ”. Then it is possible to provide a definition, indeed a reasonable definition, for “Μ” such that FPA proves all the axioms of F. So F and FPA effectively have the same proof-theoretic strength. In particular FPA, which lacks the Successor Axiom stating that every natural number has a successor, is able to prove the Euclidean Algorithm, Unique Prime Factorization, and Quadratic Reciprocity, indeed (again) a sizable amount of arithmetic. (shrink)

Using an axiomatization of second-order arithmetic (essentially second-order Peano Arithmetic without the Successor Axiom), arithmetic's basic operations are defined and its fundamental laws, up to unique prime factorization, are proven. Two manners of expressing a system's consistency are presented - the "Godel" consistency, where a wff is represented by a natural number, and the "real" consistency, where a wff is represented as a second-order sequence, which is a stronger notion. It is shown that the system can prove at least its (...) Godel consistency and that closely allied systems can prove their real consistency. (shrink)

Neo-logicism uses definitions and Hume's Principle to derive arithmetic in second-order logic. This paper investigates how much arithmetic can be derived using definitions alone, without any additional principle such as Hume's.

A solution to the paradoxes has two sides: the philosophical and the technical. The paradoxes are, first and foremost, a philosophical problem. A philosophical solution must pinpoint the exact step where the reasoning that leads to contradiction is fallacious, and then explain why it is so.

Herein is presented a natural first-order arithmetic system which can prove its own consistency, both in the weaker Godelian sense using traditional Godel numbering and, more importantly, in a more robust and direct sense; yet it is strong enough to prove many arithmetic theorems, including the Euclidean Algorithm, Quadratic Reciprocity, and Bertrand’s Postulate.

As it is currently used, "foundations of arithmetic" can be a misleading expression. It is not always, as the name might indicate, being used as a plural term meaning X = {x : x is a foundation of arithmetic}. Instead it has come to stand for a philosophico-logical domain of knowledge, concerned with axiom systems, structures, and analyses of arithmetic concepts. It is a bit as if "rock" had come to mean "geology." The conflation of subject matter and its study (...) is a serious one, because in the end, one can lose sight of what one should be doing in the first place. Perhaps it is taking matters too literally, but it seems that there is something to be said for taking the term to represent X. Doing so and accepting the term to have some kind of significance, it is then natural to focus on the question of what a foundation of arithmetic should be; and, if one exists, what one is. Whatever the case, that is what shall be done in this paper. (shrink)

What an individual means by a word sometimes, if not always, is dependent on the individual, on what he believes, and on his memories; and so on what kind of life he has lived and what kind of experiences he has had, the manner in which he learned the word, and so forth. For instance, someone who lives in a hot climate will surely mean the word ʻcoldʼ in a different way than someone who comes from a cold one. Indeed (...) the same individual sometimes, if not usually or always, means the same word in different ways. After all, his memory and experiences will change, even if a little, between uses. For instance, a person who lives in a hot climate and them moves to a cold climate, will surely mean the word ʻcoldʼ in a different way, because he has learned something and has had new experiences. Still, it would be incorrect to identify the meaning of the word with any of these parameters, because even two people, with exactly the same lives and experiences, could, or indeed would, mean different things by the same word, just because they are different individuals to begin with, and so have been influenced by their experiences in different ways. (shrink)

On the one hand, first-order theories are able to assert the existence of objects. For instance, ZF set theory asserts the existence of objects called the power set, while Peano Arithmetic asserts the existence of zero. On the other hand, a first-order theory may or not be consistent: it is if and only if no contradiction is a theorem. Let us ask, What is the connection between consistency and existence?

These notes are meant to continue from the paper on Consistency, in proving number-theoretic theorems from the second-order arithmetical system called FFFF. Its ultimate target is Quadratic Reciprocity, although it introduces and proves some facts about the least common multiple at the start.

I recently had the occasion to reread Naming and Necessity by Saul Kripke. NaN struck me this time, as it always has, as breathtakingly clear and lucid. It also struck me this time, as it always has, as wrong-headed in several major ways, both in its methodology and its content. Herein is a brief explanation why.

Consider a one-good economy where money is not used and only barter holds. As is traditional, the unique good can be exchanged for labor, which itself is used to produce the good; and there are capitalists, who own the means of production, who contract for the labor and keep whatever of the good is left from production after paying the workers. The only unusual feature of the economy is that the various economic agents can also make promises of future delivery (...) of the good, and barter these promises against the good itself. (shrink)

In "The Nature and Meaning of Numbers," Dedekind produces an original, quite remarkable proof for the holy grail in the foundations of elementary arithmetic, that there are an infinite number of things. It goes like this. [p, 64 in the Dover edition.] Consider the set S of things which can be objects of my thought. Define the function phi(s), which maps an element s of S to the thought that s can be an object of my thought. Then phi is (...) evidently one-to-one, and the image of phi is contained in S. Indeed, it is properly contained in S, because I myself can be an object of my thoughts and so belong to S, but I myself am not a mere thought. Thus S is infinite. (shrink)

General Arithmetic is the theory consisting of induction on a successor function. Normal arithmetic, say in the system called Peano Arithmetic, makes certain additional demands on the successor function. First, that it be total. Secondly, that it be one-to-one. And thirdly, that there be a first element which is not in its image. General Arithmetic abandons all of these further assumptions, yet is still able to prove many meaningful arithmetic truths, such as, most basically, Commutativity and Associativity of Addition and (...) Multiplication, but also Lagrange’s Four-Square Theorem. Adding one more axiom, the one-oneness of succession, one can prove many more theorems, such as Quadratic Reciprocity and Fermat’s Little Theorem. By looking at arithmetic in this general setting, one receives a deeper understanding of the underlying structures. (shrink)

The Successor Axiom asserts that every number has a successor, or in other words, that the number series goes on and on ad infinitum. The present work investigates a particular subsystem of Frege Arithmetic, called F, which turns out to be equivalent to second-order Peano Arithmetic minus the Successor Axiom, and shows how this system can develop arithmetic up through Gauss' Quadratic Reciprocity Law. It then goes on to represent questions of provability in F, and shows that F can prove (...) its own consistency and indeed the consistency of stronger systems. So, arithmetic without the Successor Axiom has an exceptional combination of three chracteristics: it is natural, it is strong, and it proves its own, as well as stronger systems’, consistency. (shrink)

In its descriptive sense ethical language allows one to make assertions, which like other assertions may be true or not. “One should not torture,” descriptively, makes an assertion about torture - that it is an act that one should not do. While the peculiar force of ethical language comes from its overloading of different types of uses - descriptive, imperative, and emotive -, our concern here will be with the descriptive. Many of our assertions will focus on the English word (...) ʻshould,ʼ although mutatis mutandi they hold as well for other ethical terms, such as ʻjust.ʼ.. (shrink)

A new second-order axiomatization of arithmetic, with Frege's definition of successor replaced, is presented and compared to other systems in the field of Frege Arithmetic. The key in proving the Peano Axioms turns out to be a proposition about infinity, which a reduced subset of the axioms proves.

I begin with a personal confession. Philosophical discussions of existence have always bored me. When they occur, my eyes glaze over and my attention falters. Basically ontological questions often seem best decided by banging on the table--rocks exist, fairies do not. Argument can appear long-winded and miss the point. Sometimes a quick distinction resolves any apparent difficulty. Does a falling tree in an earless forest make noise, ie does the noise exist? Well, if noise means that an ear must be (...) there to hear it, then the answer to the question is evidently "no." But if noise means that, if there were (counterfactually) someone there, then he would hear it, then just as obviously, the answer becomes "yes.". (shrink)

A solution to the Liar must do two things. First, it should say exactly which step in the Liar reasoning - the reasoning which leads to a contradiction - is invalid. Secondly, it should explains why this step is invalid.

It might seem that three of Godel’s results - the Completeness and the First and Second Incompleteness Theorems - assume so little that they are reasonably indisputable. A version of the Completeness Theorem, for instance, can be proven in RCA0, which is the weakest system studied extensively in Simpson’s encyclopaedic Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic. And it often seems that the minimum requirements for a system just to express the Incompleteness Theorems are sufficient to prove them. However, it will be (...) shown that a particular sub-system of Peano Arithmetic is powerful enough to express assertions about syntax, provability, consistency, and models, while being too weak to allow the standard proofs of the theorems to go through. An alternative proof is available for the First Incompleteness Theorem, but is of such a different nature that the import of the theorem changes. And there are no alternative proofs for (certainly) the Completeness and (apparently) the Second Incompleteness Theorems. It is therefore perfectly rational for someone to be skeptical about Godel’s results. (shrink)

In the Foundations of Arithmetic, Frege famously developed a theory which today goes by the name of logicism - that it is possible to prove the truths of arithmetic using only logical principles and definitions. Logicism fell out of favor for various reasons, most spectacular of which was that the system, which Frege thought would definitively prove his thesis, turned out to be inconsistent. In the early 1980s a movement called neo-logicism was begun by Crispin Wright. Neo-logicism holds that Frege (...) was almost right, in that arithmetic can be proven in second-order logic using only definitions and one quasi-logical proposition, called Hume's Principle, which says that the number of Ps equals the number of Qs if and only if they can be put into one-to-one correspondence. There has been some controversy about the status of Hume’s Principle - for instance, whether it counts as a logical or analytic proposition. (See e.g. the similarly titled, “Is Hume’s Principle Analytic?, by Crispin Wright and George Boolos.) In this paper a different tack will be tried. Indeed Frege is almost right. He is almost right because a large part of arithmetic and number theory, or at the least a large part of something which looks like them, can indeed be generated using only logical principles and definitions, without the assumption of any quasi-logical assertion and in particular without Hume’s Principle. Specifically, logic will be taken as second-order logic with full comprehension and the addition of one distinguished 2-ary predicate “!”. A large amount of arithmetic and number theory will then be developed, using only (second-order) logical principles and definitions. It can thus be seen that the epistemological status of this large part of arithmetic is independent of the question of the status of Hume’s Principle. (shrink)

Because it is time-dependent, parallel computation is fundamentally different from sequential computation. Parallel programs are non-deterministic and are not effective procedures. Given the brain operates in parallel, this casts doubt on AI's attempt to make sequential computers intelligent.