Hilbert's program and the omega-rule
Journal of Symbolic Logic 59 (1):322-343 (1994)
| Abstract | In the first part of this paper we discuss some aspects of Detlefsen's attempt to save Hilbert's Program from the consequences of Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem. His arguments are based on his interpretation of the long standing and well-known controversy on what, exactly, finitistic means are. In his paper [1] Detlefsen takes the position that there is a form of the ω-rule which is a finitistically valid means of proof, sufficient to prove the consistency of elementary number theory Z. On the other hand, he claims that Z with its first-order logic is not strong enough to allow a formalization of such an ω-rule. This would explain why the unprovability of $\operatorname{Con}(Z)$ in Z does not imply that the consistency of Z cannot be proved by finitistic means. We show that Detlefsen's proposal is unacceptable as originally formulated in [1], but that a reasonable modification of the rule he suggest leads to a partial program already studied for many years. We investigate the scope of such a program in terms of proof-theoretic reducibilities. We also show that this partial program encompasses mathematically important theories studied in the "Reverse Mathematics" program. In order to investigate the provability with such a modified rule, we define new consistency and provability predicates which are weaker than the usual ones. We then investigate their properties, including a few that have no apparent philosophical significance but compare interestingly with the properties of the program based on the iteration of our ω-rule. We determine some of the limitations of such programs, pointing out that these limitations partly explain why partial programs that have been successfully carried out use quite different and substantially more radical extensions of finitistic methods with more general forms of restricted reasoning | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSolomon Feferman (2008). Lieber Herr Bernays!, Lieber Herr Gödel! Gödel on Finitism, Constructivity and Hilbert's Program. Dialectica 62 (2: Table of Contents"/> Select):179–203.
Michael Detlefsen (1990). On an Alleged Refutation of Hilbert's Program Using Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem. Journal of Philosophical Logic 19 (4):343 - 377.
Yingrui Yang & Selmer Bringsjord (2003). Newell's Program, Like Hilbert's, is Dead; Let's Move On. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):627-627.
Panu Raatikainen (2003). Hilbert's Program Revisited. Synthese 137 (1-2):157 - 177.
Aleksandar Ignjatovic (1994). Hilbert's Program and the Omega-Rule. Journal of Symbolic Logic 59 (1).
Thomas Hofweber (2000). Proof-Theoretic Reduction as a Philosopher's Tool. Erkenntnis 53 (1-2):127-146.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads3 ( #202,008 of 549,122 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,122 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
