David Hilbert proposed his well-known Hilbert Program in the early 1920s for foundations of mathematics. The purpose of his program was to prove the consistency of mathematics by using the finitary methods and relying on axiomatic system. Thus, riddles and paradoxes related with the foundations of mathematics could be solved. Hilbert considers, formalizing whole mathematics in a consistent finite way depending on axioms, as an effort to develop a proof theory. So much so that any problems which may occur (...) in a mathematical system, including those related to infinity, will be solved. Hilbert begins with finite number of signs and rules and then proceeds to develop various proved consistent statements. From there, he continues to a higher-order mathematics that includes ideal objects. Hilbert's development of the program started in 1899 with the Foundations of Geometry, and completed by The Grounding of Elementary Number Theory in 1931. In this paper, we will exhibit the various stages and attempts of Hilbert to found the numbers. Our thesis states that Hilbert has always maintained an intuitive apprehension in these foundational attempts i.e. Hilbert advocates intuitional insight prior to any logical inference that makes it possible to found the numbers. Although Hilbert did not define himself as a formalist in any of his works, he was named as a formalist because of Brouwer's criticism of him. Hilbert’s emphasis on intuition reveals that a kind of formalism which is a mere play of signs can be associated with him. In this paper, we will also deal with the relations Hilbert established between signs, axioms, logic and intuition. (shrink)

The criticism of Hilbert's axiomatic system of geometry by Mate Meršić (Merchich, 1850-1928), presented in his work "Organistik der Geometrie" (1914, also in "Modernes und Modriges", 1914), is analyzed and discussed. According to Meršić, geometry cannot be based on its own axioms, as a logical analysis of spatial intuition, but must be derived as a "spatial concretion" using "higher" axioms of arithmetic, logic, and "rational algorithmics." Geometry can only be one, because space is also only one. It cannot be (...) reduced to manipulation with symbols but has to deal with concepts and provide real knowledge. According to Meršić, aiming at some particular proof of the consistency of the whole axiomatic system is meaningless because the consistency follows from the truth of individual axioms based on spatial intuition. It is impossible, according to Meršić, for the geometric axioms to be mutually independent because they must be interconnected as essential parts of a whole. Although Meršić did not recognize all the advantages of Hilbert's formalization of geometry, he clearly pointed out some crucial limitations of the axiomatic method. (shrink)

In 1900 David Hilbert announced his famous list of then-opened mathematical problems; the problem number 6 in this list is axiomatization of physical theories. Since then a lot of systematic efforts have been invested into solving this problem. However the results of these efforts turned to be less successful than the early enthusiasts of axiomatic method expected. The existing axiomatizations of physical and biological theories provide a valuable logical analysis of these theories but they do not constitute anything (...) like their standard presentation,which can be used for transmission, evaluation, and justification of physical and biological knowledge. This state of theart in the axiomatization of physics is strong evidence that the standard notion of axiomatic theory stemming from Hilbert and Tarski is not appropriate for thet ask. However in the recent years in mathematics there emerged a new axiomatic approach best represented by the Homotopy Type theory (HoTT). We argue that the constructive axiomatic architecture used in HoTT has better chances to be successfully applied in physics as well as in computer science and engineering. (shrink)

In 1900 David Hilbert announced his famous list of then-opened mathematical problems; the problem number 6 in this list is axiomatization of physical theories. Since then a lot of systematic efforts have been invested into solving this problem. However the results of these efforts turned to be less successful than the early enthusiasts of axiomatic method expected. The existing axiomatizations of physical and biological theories provide a valuable logical analysis of these theories but they do not constitute anything (...) like their standard presentation,which can be used for transmission, evaluation, and justification of physical and biological knowledge. This state of theart in the axiomatization of physics is strong evidence that the standard notion of axiomatic theory stemming from Hilbert and Tarski is not appropriate for thet ask. However in the recent years in mathematics there emerged a new axiomatic approach best represented by the Homotopy Type theory (HoTT). We argue that the constructive axiomatic architecture used in HoTT has better chances to be successfully applied in physics as well as in computer science and engineering. (shrink)

In the article, philosophical and methodological analysis of the program of Hilbert’s formalism as a really working direction for consideration of the bases of modern mathematics is presented. For the professional mathematicians methodological advantages of the program of formalism advanced by David Hilbert, consist primarily in the fact that the highest possible level of theoretical rigor of modern mathematical theories was practically represented there. To resolve the fundamental difficulties of the problem of bases of mathematics, according to Hilbert, the theory (...) of mathematical proof is needed, but contrary to popular belief rigorous formalization of the proof is not a synonym of reliability and rigor of mathematical reasoning from the point of view of the philosophy of the foundations of mathematics. In fact, the consistency of the theories is "more important" than their logical consistency because not every statement, which does not contradict to the reasonable ones, can be attributed to a true statement. However, for working mathematicians, Hilbert is logical and consistent and the axiomatic method and formalism are an essential part of their rules of thinking. (shrink)

As is well known, some paradoxes arise through inadequate analysis of the meanings of terms in a language, an adequate analysis showing that the paradoxes arise through a lack of separation of an object theory and a metatheory. Under such an adequate analysis in which parts of the metatheory are modelled in the object theory, the paradoxes give way to remarkable theorems establishing limitations of the object theory.Such a modelling is often accomplished by a Gödel numbering. Here we shall use (...) a somewhat different technique in axiomatic set theory, from which we shall reap a few results having the effect of comparing the strength of various axiom schema of comprehension for sets and classes. Similar results were obtained by A. Mostowski [7] using Gödel numbering. (shrink)

Ever since the first edition appeared in 1952, Wilder's book has been a mainstay of courses in the philosophy and foundations of mathematics, and deservedly so, for it covers most of the topics which provide an insight into the nature of this formal science. There are two parts: the first is a rapid but thorough survey of the axiomatic method, set theory, especially infinite sets, cardinal and ordinal numbers, the linear continuum, and the theory of groups with reference (...) to foundational problems. The second part develops various views on the nature of the foundations of mathematics: it begins with a look at the naïve 19th-century approach and its transformation into Zermelo's axiomatic set theory; the Logicistic thesis is covered in great detail; intuitionism and Hilbert's formalistic view come next; the last chapter discusses the cultural setting of mathematics. The changes since the first edition have been in the way of making certain presentations more relevant to current problems. There is an excellent bibliography. This book could be used in a one semester course on philosophy or on foundations of mathematics, or in a longer course in which symbolic logic was developed extensively.—P. J. M. (shrink)

This is a collection of papers, all but one of which were previously published, by one of England's leading logicians. Goodstein has described his position in the philosophy of mathematics as that of a "constructive formalist": leaning toward the Hilbert school, but emphasizing the constructive nature of mathematical entities. The papers are more or less technical and symbolic; those most difficult are "The Nature of Mathematics," "The Decision Problem," and "The Definition of Number." Other titles are "Proof by Reductio ad (...) Absurdum," "Logic Paradoxes", "Language and Experience," "The Meaning of Counting," "Mathematical Systems," "The Axiomatic Method," "Pure and Applied Mathematics," and "The Significance of Incompleteness Theorems"; the last-mentioned paper is also quite difficult, but it constitutes not only one of the best semi-formal presentations of Gödel's theorems, but also helps make quite clear what their relevance is to considerations of the expressive power of formal languages in general. This collection constitutes a fine introduction to the philosophy of mathematics.—P. J. M. (shrink)

In a letter to Frege of 29 December 1899, Hilbert advances his formalist doctrine, according to which consistency of an arbitrary set of mathematical sentences is a sufficient condition for its truth and for the existence of the concepts described by it. This paper discusses Frege's analysis, as carried out in the context of the Frege-Hilbert correspondence, of the formalist approach in particular and the axiomatic method in general. We close with a speculation about Frege's influence on Hilbert's (...) later work in foundations, which we consider to have been greater than previously assumed. This conjecture is based on a hitherto neglected revision of Hilbert's talk "Über den Zahlbegriff". (shrink)

Hilbert's axiomatic approach was an optimistic take over on the side of the logical foundations. It was also a response to various restrictive views of mathematics supposedly bounded by the reaches of epistemic elements in mathematics. A complete axiomatization should be able to exclude epistemic or ontic elements from mathematical theorizing, according to Hilbert. This exclusion is not necessarily a logicism in similar form to Frege's or Dedekind's projects. That is, intuition can still have a role in mathematical reasoning. (...) Nevertheless, this role is to be given a structural orientation with the help of explications of the underlying logic of axiomatization. (shrink)

This paper aims to show how the mathematical content of Hilbert's Axiom of Completeness consists in an attempt to solve the more general problem of the relationship between intuition and formalization. Hilbert found the accordance between these two sides of mathematical knowledge at a logical level, clarifying the necessary and sufficient conditions for a good formalization of geometry. We will tackle the problem of what is, for Hilbert, the definition of geometry. The solution of this problem will bring out how (...) Hilbert's conception of mathematics is not as innovative as his conception of the axiomatic method. The role that the demonstrative tools play in Hilbert's foundational reflections will also drive us to deal with the problem of the purity of methods, explicitly addressed by Hilbert. In this respect Hilbert's position is very innovative and deeply linked to his modern conception of the axiomatic method. In the end we will show that the role played by the Axiom of Completeness for geometry is the same as the Axiom of Induction for arithmetic and of Church-Turing thesis for computability theory. We end this paper arguing that set theory is the right context in which applying the axiomatic method to mathematics and we postpone to a sequel of this work the attempt to offer a solution similar to Hilbert's for the completeness of set theory. (shrink)

: In this article we analyze the key concept of Hilbert's axiomatic method, namely that of axiom. We will find two different concepts: the first one from the period of Hilbert's foundation of geometry and the second one at the time of the development of his proof theory. Both conceptions are linked to two different notions of intuition and show how Hilbert's ideas are far from a purely formalist conception of mathematics. The principal thesis of this article is (...) that one of the main problems that Hilbert encountered in his foundational studies consisted in securing a link between formalization and intuition. We will also analyze a related problem, that we will call "Frege's Problem", form the time of the foundation of geometry and investigate the role of the Axiom of Completeness in its solution. (shrink)

A comprehensive historical overview of formalist ideas in the philosophy of mathematics.

El artículo presenta y analiza un conjunto de notas manuscritas de clases para cursos sobre geometría, dictados por David Hilbert entre 1891 y 1905. Se argumenta que en estos cursos el autor elabora la concepción de la geometría que subyace a sus investigaciones axiomáticas en Fundamentos de la geometría . Por un lado, afirmo que lo que caracteriza esta concepción de la geometría es: i) una posición axiomática abstracta o formal; ii) una posición empirista respecto del origen de la geometría (...) y de su lugar dentro de las distintas teorías matemáticas. Por otro lado, sostengo que el papel que Hilbert le confiere a la intuición geométrica en el proceso de axiomatización de esta teoría, permite apreciar claramente su oposición respecto de las posiciones formalistas con las que habitualmente es identificado. (shrink)

We present a proof of the equivalence between two deductive systems for constructive necessity, namely an axiomatic characterisation inspired by Hakli and Negri's system of derivations from assumptions for modal logic , a Hilbert-style formalism designed to ensure the validity of the deduction theorem, and the judgmental reconstruction given by Pfenning and Davies by means of a natural deduction approach that makes a distinction between valid and true formulae, constructively. Both systems and the proof of their equivalence are formally (...) verified using the state-of-the-art proof assistant Coq. The proof approach taken throughout the paper unveils the use of some alternative proof methods that allow for a smooth transition from the high-level mathematical proofs to their mechanised counterparts. (shrink)

This volume explores the many different meanings of the notion of the axiomatic method, offering an insightful historical and philosophical discussion about how these notions changed over the millennia. The author, a well-known philosopher and historian of mathematics, first examines Euclid, who is considered the father of the axiomatic method, before moving onto Hilbert and Lawvere. He then presents a deep textual analysis of each writer and describes how their ideas are different and even how their (...) ideas progressed over time. Next, the book explores category theory and details how it has revolutionized the notion of the axiomatic method. It considers the question of identity/equality in mathematics as well as examines the received theories of mathematical structuralism. In the end, Rodin presents a hypothetical New Axiomatic Method, which establishes closer relationships between mathematics and physics. Lawvere's axiomatization of topos theory and Voevodsky's axiomatization of higher homotopy theory exemplify a new way of axiomatic theory building, which goes beyond the classical Hilbert-style Axiomatic Method. The new notion of Axiomatic Method that emerges in categorical logic opens new possibilities for using this method in physics and other natural sciences. This volume offers readers a coherent look at the past, present and anticipated future of the Axiomatic Method. (shrink)

The material contained in the following translation was given in substance by Professor Hilbertas a course of lectures on euclidean geometry at the University of G]ottingen during the wintersemester of 1898-1899. The results of his investigation were re-arranged and put into the formin which they appear here as a memorial address published in connection with the celebration atthe unveiling of the Gauss-Weber monument at G]ottingen, in June, 1899. In the French edition, which appeared soon after, Professor Hilbert made some additions, (...) particularly in the concludingremarks, where he gave an account of the results of a recent investigation made by Dr. Dehn.These additions have been incorporated in the following translation.Geometry, like arithmetic, requires for its logical development only a small number ofsimple, fundamental principles. These fundamental principles are called the axioms ofgeometry. The choice of the axioms and the investigation of their relations to one anotheris a problem which, since the time of Euclid, has been discussed in numerous excellentmemoirs to be found in the mathematical literature.1 This problem is tantamount to thelogical analysis of our intuition of space. (shrink)

Feferman argues that category theory cannot stand on its own as a structuralist foundation for mathematics: he claims that, because the notions of operation and collection are both epistemically and logically prior, we require a background theory of operations and collections. Recently [2011], I have argued that in rationally reconstructing Hilbert’s organizational use of the axiomatic method, we can construct an algebraic version of category-theoretic structuralism. That is, in reply to Shapiro, we can be structuralists all the way (...) down ; we do not have to appeal to some background theory to guarantee the truth of our axioms. In this paper, I again turn to Hilbert; I borrow his distinction between the genetic method and the axiomatic method to argue that even if the genetic method requires the notions of operation and collection, the axiomatic method does not. Even if the genetic method is in some sense epistemically or logically prior, the axiomatic method stands alone. Thus, if the claim that category theory can act as a structuralist foundation for mathematics arises from the organizational use of the axiomatic method, then it does not depend on the prior notions of operation or collection, and so we can be structuralists all the way up. (shrink)

In this paper I provide a brief reconstruction of Otto Hölder’s conception of proof. My reconstruction focuses on Hölder’s critical assessment of David Hilbert’s account of axiomatics in general, and of Hilbert’s conception of metamathematics in particular. I argue that Hölder’s analysis of Hilbert’s general methodological ideas and, more importantly, Hölder’s analysis of the logical structure of the proofs provided by Hilbert in his Grundlagen der Geometrie of 1899 are helpful in reaching a clearer understanding of van der Waerden’s claim (...) linking Hölder’s conception of proof to the tradition established by Kurt Gödel. (shrink)

In this paper I provide a brief reconstruction of Otto Hölder’s conception of proof. My reconstruction focuses on Hölder’s critical assessment of David Hilbert’s account of axiomatics in general, and of Hilbert’s conception of metamathematics in particular. I argue that Hölder’s analysis of Hilbert’s general methodological ideas and, more importantly, Hölder’s analysis of the logical structure of the proofs provided by Hilbert in his Grundlagen der Geometrie of 1899 are helpful in reaching a clearer understanding of van der Waerden’s claim (...) linking Hölder’s conception of proof to the tradition established by Kurt Gödel. (shrink)

This book continues from where the authors' previous book, Structural Proof Theory, ended. It presents an extension of the methods of analysis of proofs in pure logic to elementary axiomatic systems and to what is known as philosophical logic. A self-contained brief introduction to the proof theory of pure logic is included that serves both the mathematically and philosophically oriented reader. The method is built up gradually, with examples drawn from theories of order, lattice theory and elementary geometry. (...) The aim is, in each of the examples, to help the reader grasp the combinatorial behaviour of an axiom system, which typically leads to decidability results. The last part presents, as an application and extension of all that precedes it, a proof-theoretical approach to the Kripke semantics of modal and related logics, with a great number of new results, providing essential reading for mathematical and philosophical logicians. (shrink)

Those inquiring into the nature of mind have long been interested in the foundations of mathematics, and conversely this branch of knowledge is distinctive in that our access to it is purely through thought. A better understanding of mathematical thought should clarify the conceptual foundations of mathematics, and a deeper grasp of the latter should in turn illuminate the powers of mind through which mathematics is made available to us. The link between conceptions of mind and of mathematics has been (...) a central theme running through the great competing philosophies of mathematics of the twentieth century, though each has refashioned the connection and its import in distinctive ways. The present collection will be of interest to students of both mathematics and of mind. Contents include: "Introduction" by Alexander George; "What is Mathematics About?" by Michael Dummett; "The Advantages of Honest Toil over Theft" by George Boolos; "The Law of Excluded Middle and the Axiom of Choice" by W.W. Tait; "Mechanical Procedures and Mathematical Experience" by Wilfried Sieg; "Mathematical Intuition and Objectivity" by Daniel Isaacson; "Intuition and Number" by Charles Parsons; and "Hilbert's Axiomatic Method and the Laws of Thought" by Michael Hallett. (shrink)

Walter Dubislav (1895–1937) was a leading member of the Berlin Group for scientific philosophy. This “sister group” of the more famous Vienna Circle emerged around Hans Reichenbach’s seminars at the University of Berlin in 1927 and 1928. Dubislav was to collaborate with Reichenbach, an association that eventuated in their conjointly conducting university colloquia. Dubislav produced original work in philosophy of mathematics, logic, and science, consequently following David Hilbert’s axiomatic method. This brought him to defend formalism in these disciplines (...) as well as to explore the problems of substantiating (Begründung) human knowledge. Dubislav also developed elements of general philosophy of science. Sadly, the political changes in Germany in 1933 proved ruinous to Dubislav. He published scarcely anything after Hitler came to power and in 1937 committed suicide under tragic circumstances. The intent here is to pass in review Dubislav’s philosophy of logic, mathematics, and science and so to shed light on some seminal yet hitherto largely neglected currents in the history of philosophy of science. (shrink)

Hyperboolean algebras are Boolean algebras with operators, constructed as algebras of complexes (or, power structures) of Boolean algebras. They provide an algebraic semantics for a modal logic (called here a {\em hyperboolean modal logic}) with a Kripke semantics accordingly based on frames in which the worlds are elements of Boolean algebras and the relations correspond to the Boolean operations. We introduce the hyperboolean modal logic, give a complete axiomatization of it, and show that it lacks the finite model property. The (...) method of axiomatization hinges upon the fact that a "difference" operator is definable in hyperboolean algebras, and makes use of additional non-Hilbert-style rules. Finally, we discuss a number of open questions and directions for further research. (shrink)

We are used to seeing foundations linked to the mainstream mathematics of the late nineteenth century: the arithmetization of analysis, non-Euclidean geometry, and the rise of abstract structures in algebra. And a growing number of case studies bring a more philosophy-of-science viewpoint to the latest mathematics, as in [Carter, 2005; Corfield, 2006; Krieger, 2003; Leng, 2002]. Mac Lane's autobiography is a valuable bridge between these, recounting his experience of how the mid- and late-twentieth-century mainstream grew especially through Hilbert's school.An autobiography (...) at age 94 obviously has a lot of ground to cover. Mac Lane entered Yale in 1926 to study chemistry as a good practical career field but by the end of his first year he had won a $50 prize in mathematics and learned that you could make a living with it—as an actuary. He decided to do that. The next year he was excited to learn from his philosophy professor F.S.C. Northrop that you can also pursue new mathematical discoveries! Northrop had studied with A.N. Whitehead and sold Mac Lane on the excitement of Principia Mathematica. In a pattern that foreshadowed his career Mac Lane bought and annotated a copy of the first volume of Principia but his planned tutorial study of the book turned into a study of [Hausdorff, 1914] applying set theory to topology and analysis. As a graduate student at Chicago he was powerfully influenced by E.H. Moore, who taught the new axiomatic methods as tools for unifying and advancing the most classical analysis . Then he went to Göttingen. He heard Hilbert lecture on philosophy. He studied mathematics and its philosophy with Weyl. He followed Noether's lectures on abstract algebra for number theory. He had gone there to study logic and he wrote a …. (shrink)

Bibliography of A. A. Fraenkel (p. ix-x)--Axiomatic set theory. Zur Frage der Unendlichkeitsschemata in der axiomatischen Mengenlehre, von P. Bernays.--On some problems involving inaccessible cardinals, by P. Erdös and A. Tarski.--Comparing the axioms of local and universal choice, by A. Lévy.--Frankel's addition to the axioms of Zermelo, by R. Mantague.--More on the axiom of extensionality, by D. Scott.--The problem of predicativity, by J. R. Shoenfield.--Mathematical logic. Grundgedanken einer typenfreien Logik, von W. Ackermann.--On the use of Hilbert's [epsilon]-operator in scientific (...) theories, by R. Carnap.--Basic verifiability in the combinatory theory of restricted generality, by H. B. Curry.--Uniqueness ordinals in constructive number classes, by H. Putnam.--On the construction of models, by A. Robinson.--Interpretation of mathematical theories in the first order predicate calculus, by T. Skolem.--The elementary character of two notions from general algebra, by R. Vaught.--Foundations of arithmetic and analysis. Axiomatic method and intuitionism, by A. Heyting.--On rank-decreasing functions, by G. Kurepa.--On non-standard models for number theory, by E. Mendelson.--Concerning the problem of axiomatizability of the field of real numbers in the weak second order logic, by A. Mostowski.--Non-standard models and independence of the induction axiom, by M. O. Rabin.--Sur les ensembles raréfiés de nombres naturels, par W. Sierpinski.--Philosophy of logic and mathematics. Remarks on the paradoxes of logic and set theory, by E. W. Beth.--Logique formalisée et raisonnement juridique, par R. Feys.--Im Umkreis der sogenannten Raumprobleme, von H. Freudenthal.--Process and existence in mathematics, by H. Wang. (shrink)

This lecture will deal with the heuristic power of the deductive method and its contributions to the scientific task of finding new knowledge. I will argue for a new reading of the term 'deductive method.' It will be presented as an architectural scheme for the reconstruction of the processes of gaining reliable scientific knowledge. This scheme combines the activities of doing science with the activities of presenting scientific results. It combines the heuristic and the deductive side of science. (...) The heuristic side is represented, e.g., by the creative methods to find the 'best' hypotheses, to design experimental systems for empirical research in order to formulate general laws, or to create axiomatic systems. The other side consists of the production of deductive knowledge. This combination leads to a clear hierarchy: the heuristic side provides the basic presuppositions from which the deductive side takes off. The former is used to make deductions possible. The deductive method can be presented as an analysis-synthesis scheme as it can be found, e.g., in the tradition of Kant, Jakob Friedrich Fries, and Leonard Nelson. Nelson's critical philosophy can be seen as a key for understanding the philosophy behind David Hilbert's early axiomatic method. This axiomatic method is usually restricted to a non-philosophical approach to pure mathematics. But Hilbert was not an exclusive formalist; he proposed a mathesis universalis in the Cartesian-Leibnizian sense according to which mathematics is the syntactical tool for a general philosophy of science, applicable to all scientific disciplines. In this function, mathematics takes its problems from the sciences. Hilbert did not deny that mathematics should play a role in explaining the world. The analysis-synthesis scheme helps to provide a consistent interpretation of these two sides of Hilbert's attitude towards his working field. (shrink)

It is a remarkable fact that Hilbert's programmatic papers from the 1920s still shape, almost exclusively, the standard contemporary perspective of his views concerning (the foundations of) mathematics; even his own, quite different work on the foundations of geometry and arithmetic from the late 1890s is often understood from that vantage point. My essay pursues one main goal, namely, to contrast Hilbert's formal axiomatic method from the early 1920s with his existential axiomatic approach from the 1890s. Such (...) a contrast illuminates the circuitous beginnings of the finitist consistency program and connects the complex emergence of existential axiomatics with transformations in mathematics and philosophy during the 19th century; the sheer complexity and methodological difficulties of the latter development are partially reflected in the well known, but not well understood correspondence between Frege and Hilbert. Taking seriously the goal of formalizing mathematics in an effective logical framework leads also to contemporary tasks, not just historical and systematic insights; those are briefly described as “one direction” for fascinating work. (shrink)

In the paper, a detailed analysis of some new logical aspects of Cantor’s diagonal proof of the uncountability of continuum is presented. For the first time, strict formal, axiomatic, and algorithmic definitions of the notions of potential and actual infinities are presented. It is shown that the actualization of infinite sets and sequences used in Cantor’s proof is a necessary, but hidden, condition of the proof. The explication of the necessary condition and its factual usage within the framework of (...) Cantor’s proof makes, Cantor’s proof invalid. It’s shown that traditional Cantor’s proof has a second necessary, but hidden as well, condition which is teleological by its nature, i.e., is not mathematical. The explication of the second necessary condition makes Cantor’s statement on the uncountability of continuum unprovable from the point of view of classical logic.One of the most dramatic facts in history of science is connected just with the notion of actual infinity and consists in the following. On the one hand, Aristotle, Berkeley, Locke, Descartes, Spinoza, Gauss, Kant, Cauchy, Kronecker, Hermite, Poincaré, Bair, Borel, Brouwer, Quine, Wittgenstein, Weyl, Luzin, and a lot of other outstanding creators of classical logic and classical mathematics, during millenniums, stated categorically and insistently warned about that the actual infinity is a self-contradictory notion and its usage in mathematics is inadmissible (e.g., according to Poincare, “There is no actual infinity. - Cantorians forgot that and fell into contradictions. Later generations will regard Mengenlehre (set theory) as a disease from which one has recovered”). On the other hand, a lot of outstanding scientists of the XX c.c., such as Hilbert, Church, Turing, Gödel, etc., and modern axiomatic set theory as a whole ignored this (intuitive though) opinion of genii and accepted Cantor’s “transfinite paradise”, based on the actual infinity. In the paper some logical, philosophical, and psychological aspects of this historical “favorable opposition” are analyzed, and the fact that the scientific intuition of genii has won the historical battle against the mytho-’logic’ of Cantor’s transfinite ‘paradise’ is explained and logically justified. (shrink)

In the paper, a detailed analysis of some new logical aspects of Cantor’s diagonal proof of the uncountability of continuum is presented. For the first time, strict formal, axiomatic, and algorithmic definitions of the notions of potential and actual infinities are presented. It is shown that the actualization of infinite sets and sequences used in Cantor’s proof is a necessary, but hidden, condition of the proof. The explication of the necessary condition and its factual usage within the framework of (...) Cantor’s proof makes, Cantor’s proof invalid. It’s shown that traditional Cantor’s proof has a second necessary, but hidden as well, condition which is teleological by its nature, i.e., is not mathematical. The explication of the second necessary condition makes Cantor’s statement on the uncountability of continuum unprovable from the point of view of classical logic.One of the most dramatic facts in history of science is connected just with the notion of actual infinity and consists in the following. On the one hand, Aristotle, Berkeley, Locke, Descartes, Spinoza, Gauss, Kant, Cauchy, Kronecker, Hermite, Poincaré, Bair, Borel, Brouwer, Quine, Wittgenstein, Weyl, Luzin, and a lot of other outstanding creators of classical logic and classical mathematics, during millenniums, stated categorically and insistently warned about that the actual infinity is a self-contradictory notion and its usage in mathematics is inadmissible (e.g., according to Poincare, “There is no actual infinity. - Cantorians forgot that and fell into contradictions. Later generations will regard Mengenlehre (set theory) as a disease from which one has recovered”). On the other hand, a lot of outstanding scientists of the XX c.c., such as Hilbert, Church, Turing, Gödel, etc., and modern axiomatic set theory as a whole ignored this (intuitive though) opinion of genii and accepted Cantor’s “transfinite paradise”, based on the actual infinity. In the paper some logical, philosophical, and psychological aspects of this historical “favorable opposition” are analyzed, and the fact that the scientific intuition of genii has won the historical battle against the mytho-’logic’ of Cantor’s transfinite ‘paradise’ is explained and logically justified. (shrink)

The contents of this book, pedagogically sound and intellectually rigorous, live up to the high standards one would expect of its author. A two or three semester course based upon this book will carry the student through all of the requisite foundational material to many of the important contemporary results in recursion theory, nonstandard arithmetic, and other more esoteric areas. The book combines features of a rigorous logic text and a book on the foundations of mathematics and elementary recursion theory. (...) In the first chapter of this latter part, Kleene gives a discussion of such topics as countable sets, Cantor's diagonal method, the paradoxes, axiomatic vs. intuitive thinking in mathematics, metamathematics, formal number theory and various formal systems. The material here parallels that in Part I of the author's previous work, Introduction to Metamathematics, but is more reliant upon logic and less upon informal set theory. The chapter on recursion theory begins with the concept of the Turing machine, and then uses this to develop the incompleteness and undecidability results of Church and Gödel. Additional topics include Gödel's completeness theorem for various types of formal systems, Skolem's paradox and nonstandard arithmetic, Herbrand's theorem and Craig's interpolation theorem. Many results and theorems of the present work bear the same indexical number as the corresponding item in IM, and the book as a whole can serve as a prolegomenon to that more advanced work.—H. P. K. (shrink)

The proposition that a decreasing sequence of ordinals necessarily terminates has been given a new, and perhaps unexpected, importance by the rôle which it plays in Gentzen's proof of the freedom from contradiction of the “reine Zahlentheorie.” Gödel's construction of non-demonstrable propositions and the establishment of the impossibility of a proof of freedom from contradiction, within the framework of a certain type of formal system, showed that a proof of freedom from contradiction could be found only by transcending the axioms (...) and proof processes of that formal system. Gentzen's proof succeeds by utilisingtransfinite inductionto prove that certain sequences of reduction processes, enumerated by ordinals less than ε (the first ordinal to satisfy ε = ὡ) are finite. Were it possible to provethe restricted ordinal theorem, that a descending sequence of ordinals, less thanε, is finite, in Gentzen's “reine Zahlentheorie,” then it would be possible to determine a contradiction in that number system. In his paper, Gentzen proves the theorem of transfinite induction, which he requires, by an intuitive argument. There is also a method of reducing transfinite induction, for ordinals less than ε, to a number-theoretic principle given by Hilbert and Bernays, and a similar method by Ackermann. None of these proofs of transfinite induction isfinitist. (shrink)

The paper outlines an interpretation of one of the most important and original contributions of David Hilbert’s monograph Foundations of Geometry , namely his internal arithmetization of geometry. It is claimed that Hilbert’s profound interest in the problem of the introduction of numbers into geometry responded to certain epistemological aims and methodological concerns that were fundamental to his early axiomatic investigations into the foundations of elementary geometry. In particular, it is shown that a central concern that motivated Hilbert’s (...) class='Hi'>axiomatic investigations from very early on was the aim of providing an independent basis for geometry. Accordingly, these concerns about an independent grounding for elementary geometry determined very clear methodological constraints in the process of embedding it into a formal axiomatic system. It is argued that Hilbert not only sought to show that geometry could be considered a pure mathematical theory, once it was presented as a formal axiomatic system; he also aimed at showing that in the construction of such an axiomatic system one could proceed purely geometrically, avoiding concept formations borrowed from other mathematical disciplines like arithmetic or analysis. (shrink)

This very interesting and extremely useful study raises the question, by virtue of its title and what it does not do, of what is, or ought to be, meant by the philosophy of mathematics. The author begins his study of Euclid with a brief discussion of Hilbert's axiomatization of geometry. The two main points in this discussion are: "Hilbertian geometry and many other parts of modern mathematics are the study of structure", i.e., of the interpretations of axiom-systems; and intuition of (...) geometrical form becomes irrelevant to the content of mathematics. Greek mathematics, and specifically Euclid, cannot be understood in these terms; hence, Euclid's use of the axiomatic method differs from ours. One may also say that logic, "the theory of structure-preserving inference", becomes central to modern mathematics, as it was not for Euclid. But, the author continues, it does not follow that one cannot exhibit the logical structure employed by Euclid. The bulk of Mueller's book is concerned to do just this, thanks to a formalization of Euclid which attempts to be faithful to his principal concepts, while at the same time employing contemporary logical techniques. (shrink)

This very interesting and extremely useful study raises the question, by virtue of its title and what it does not do, of what is, or ought to be, meant by the philosophy of mathematics. The author begins his study of Euclid with a brief discussion of Hilbert's axiomatization of geometry. The two main points in this discussion are: "Hilbertian geometry and many other parts of modern mathematics are the study of structure", i.e., of the interpretations of axiom-systems; and intuition of (...) geometrical form becomes irrelevant to the content of mathematics. Greek mathematics, and specifically Euclid, cannot be understood in these terms; hence, Euclid's use of the axiomatic method differs from ours. One may also say that logic, "the theory of structure-preserving inference", becomes central to modern mathematics, as it was not for Euclid. But, the author continues, it does not follow that one cannot exhibit the logical structure employed by Euclid. The bulk of Mueller's book is concerned to do just this, thanks to a formalization of Euclid which attempts to be faithful to his principal concepts, while at the same time employing contemporary logical techniques. (shrink)

While claiming that diagrams can only be admitted as a method of strict proof if the underlying axioms are precisely known and explicitly spelled out, Hilbert praised Minkowski’s Geometry of Numbers and his diagram-based reasoning as a specimen of an arithmetical theory operating “rigorously” with geometrical concepts and signs. In this connection, in the first phase of his foundational views on the axiomatic method, Hilbert also held that diagrams are to be thought of as “drawn formulas”, and (...) formulas as “written diagrams”, thus suggesting that the former encapsulate propositional information which can be extracted and translated into formulas. In the case of Minkowski diagrams, local geometrical axioms were actually being produced, starting with the diagrams, by a process that was both constrained and fostered by the requirement, brought about by the axiomatic method itself, that geometry ought to be made independent of analysis. This paper aims at making a twofold point. On the one hand, it shows that Minkowski’s diagrammatic methods in number theory prompted Hilbert’s axiomatic investigations into the notion of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points, which start from his earlier work focused on the role of the triangle inequality property in the foundations of geometry, and lead up to his formulation of the 1900 Fourth Problem. On the other hand, it purports to make clear how Hilbert’s assessment of Minkowski’s diagram-based reasoning in number theory both raises and illuminates conceptual compatibility concerns that were crucial to his philosophy of mathematics. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to show that intuition plays no role in mathematics. That intuition plays a role in mathematics is mainly associated to the view that the method of mathematics is the axiomatic method. It is assumed that axioms are directly (Gödel) or indirectly (Hilbert) justified by intuition. This article argues that all attempts to justify axioms in terms of intuition fail. As an alternative, the article supports the view that the method of (...) mathematics is the analytic method, a method originally used by the mathematician Hippocrates of Chios and the physician Hippocrates of Cos, and first explicitly formulated by Plato. The article examines the main features of the analytic method, and argues that, while intuition plays an essential role in the axiomatic method, it plays no role in the analytic method, either in the discovery or in the justification of hypotheses. That the method of mathematics is the analytic method involves that mathematical knowledge is not absolutely certain but only plausible, but the article argues that this is the best we can achieve. (shrink)

We formulate a Hilbert-style axiomatic system and a tableau calculus for the STIT-based logic of imagination recently proposed in Wansing. Completeness of the axiom system is shown by the method of canonical models; completeness of the tableau system is also shown by using standard methods.

The foundational ideas of David Hilbert have been generally misunderstood. In this dissertation prospectus, different aims of Hilbert are summarized and a new interpretation of Hilbert's work in the foundations of mathematics is roughly sketched out. Hilbert's view of the axiomatic method, his response to criticisms of set theory and intuitionist criticisms of the classical foundations of mathematics, and his view of the role of logical inference in mathematical reasoning are briefly outlined.

This book is a wonderful resource for historians and philosophers of mathematics and physics alike, not just for Hilbert's own work in physics, but also because Corry sets Hilbert in context, bringing out the people with whom Hilbert had contact, describing their work and possible links with Hilbert's work, and describing the activities going on around Hilbert. The historical thesis of this book is that Hilbert worked on a wide range of issues in physics for a period lasting more than (...) two decades, employing and developing his axiomatic approach throughout. One conclusion that follows from this is that Hilbert's 1915–1917 work relating to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was a natural continuation of Hilbert's pre-existing interests and activities, and not a one-off foray into foreign territory. 1Of especial interest to philosophers of mathematics are two further theses. Corry stresses that for Hilbert geometry is an empirical science, and related to this argues first, that Hilbert intends the axiomatic method to be used in enhancing our understanding of the content of a given theory via relating the results of the axiomatic investigation back to the intuitive content of the axioms; and, second, that to understand Hilbert's axiomatic approach in mathematics we must pay serious attention to his work in physics.Corry also hopes to show ‘the significant and unique contribution of Hilbert to certain important developments in twentieth-century physics’ . 2 In the end, this assessment of Hilbert's contribution to physics is far from clear cut: the two cases where Hilbert goes into the details of a physical theory show him lacking feel for what is important physically with respect to that theory. Nevertheless, philosophers and historians of physics will find a great deal to interest them in the story of Hilbert's involvement in physics, and in the details …. (shrink)

In the literature, different axiomatizations of Public Announcement Logic (PAL) have been proposed. Most of these axiomatizations share a “core set” of the so-called “reduction axioms”. In this paper, by designing non-standard Kripke semantics for the language of PAL, we show that the proof system based on this core set of axioms does not completely axiomatize PAL without additional axioms and rules. In fact, many of the intuitive axioms and rules we took for granted could not be derived from the (...) core set. Moreover, we also propose and advocate an alternative yet meaningful axiomatization of PAL without the reduction axioms. The completeness is proved directly by a detour method using the canonical model where announcements are treated as merely labels for modalities as in normal modal logics. This new axiomatization and its completeness proof may sharpen our understanding of PAL and can be adapted to other dynamic epistemic logics. (shrink)

This dissertation examines several of the problems that Hilbert discovered in the foundations of mathematics, from a metalogical perspective. The problems manifest themselves in four different aspects of Hilbert’s views: (i) Hilbert’s axiomatic approach to the foundations of mathematics; (ii) His response to criticisms of set theory; (iii) His response to intuitionist criticisms of classical mathematics; (iv) Hilbert’s contribution to the specification of the role of logical inference in mathematical reasoning. This dissertation argues that Hilbert’s axiomatic approach was (...) guided primarily by model theoretical concerns. Accordingly, the ultimate aim of his consistency program was to prove the model-theoretical consistency of mathematical theories. It turns out that for the purpose of carrying out such consistency proofs, a suitable modification of the ordinary first-order logic is needed. To effect this modification, independence-friendly logic is needed as the appropriate conceptual framework. It is then shown how the model theoretical consistency of arithmetic can be proved by using IF logic as its basic logic. Hilbert’s other problems, manifesting themselves as aspects (ii), (iii), and (iv)—most notably the problem of the status of the axiom of choice, the problem of the role of the law of excluded middle, and the problem of giving an elementary account of quantification—can likewise be approached by using the resources of IF logic. It is shown that by means of IF logic one can carry out Hilbertian solutions to all these problems. The two major results concerning aspects (ii), (iii) and (iv) are the following: (a) The axiom of choice is a logical principle; (b) The law of excluded middle divides metamathematical methods into elementary and non-elementary ones. It is argued that these results show that IF logic helps to vindicate Hilbert’s nominalist philosophy of mathematics. On the basis of an elementary approach to logic, which enriches the expressive resources of ordinary first-order logic, this dissertation shows how the different problems that Hilbert discovered in the foundations of mathematics can be solved. (shrink)

David Hilbert’s early foundational views, especially those corresponding to the 1890s, are analysed here. I consider strong evidence for the fact that Hilbert was a logicist at that time, following upon Dedekind’s footsteps in his understanding of pure mathematics. This insight makes it possible to throw new light on the evolution of Hilbert’s foundational ideas, including his early contributions to the foundations of geometry and the real number system. The context of Dedekind-style logicism makes it possible to offer a new (...) analysis of the emergence of Hilbert’s famous ideas on mathematical existence, now seen as a revision of basic principles of the “naive logic” of sets. At the same time, careful scrutiny of his published and unpublished work around the turn of the century uncovers deep differences between his ideas about consistency proofs before and after 1904. Along the way, we cover topics such as the role of sets and of the dichotomic conception of set theory in Hilbert’s early axiomatics, and offer detailed analyses of Hilbert’s paradox and of his completeness axiom (Vollständigkeitsaxiom). (shrink)

1 Choice conjecture In axiomatizing nonclassical extensions of classical sentential logic one tries to make do, if one can, with adding to classical sentential logic a finite number of axiom schemes of the simplest kind and a finite number of inference rules of the simplest kind. The simplest kind of axiom scheme in effect states of a particular formula P that for any substitution of formulas for atoms the result of its application to P is to count as an axiom. (...) The simplest kind of onepremise inference rule in effect states of a particular pair of formulas P and Q that for any substitution of formulas for atoms, if the result of its application to P is a theorem, then the result of its application to Q is to count as a theorem; similarly for many-premise rules. Such are the schemes and rules of all the best-known modal and tense logics, for instance. Sometimes it is difficult to find such simple schemes and rules. In that case one may resort to less simple schemes or less simple rules. There is no generally recognized rigorous definition of "next simplest kind" of scheme. Neither is there any generally recognized definition of "next simplest kind" of rule, and hence there is no fully rigorous enunciation of the choice conjecture, the conjecture that schemes of the next simplest kind can always be avoided in favor of rules of the next simplest kind and vice versa. Nonetheless, there are cases where intuitively one does recognize that the schemes or rules in a given axiomatization are only slightly more complex than the simplest kind, including cases where one does have a choice between adopting slightly-more-complex-than-simplest schemes and adopting slightly-more-complex-than-simplest rules. In tense logic early examples of slightly more complex rules are found in [2] and [3] : there is one example of the embarrassed use of such rules in the former, and many examples of the enthusiastic use of such rules in the latter and its sequels. Accordingly the rules in question have come to be called "Gabbay-style" rules. (shrink)

It is known that even seemingly small fragments of the first-order temporal logic over the natural numbers are not recursively enumerable. In this paper we show that the monodic fragment is an exception by constructing its finite Hilbert-style axiomatization. We also show that the monodic fragment with equality is not recursively axiomatizable.

This book presents a comprehensive treatment of basic mathematical logic. The author's aim is to make exact the vague, intuitive notions of natural number, preciseness, and correctness, and to invent a method whereby these notions can be communicated to others and stored in the memory. He adopts a symbolic language in which ideas about natural numbers can be stated precisely and meaningfully, and then investigates the properties and limitations of this language. The treatment of mathematical concepts in the main (...) body of the text is rigorous, but, a section of 'historical remarks' traces the evolution of the ideas presented in each chapter. Sources of the original accounts of these developments are listed in the bibliography. (shrink)

Hilbert’s axiomatic approach to the sciences was characterized by a dynamic methodology tied to scientific and mathematical fields under investigation. In particular, it is an analytic art for choosing axioms but, at the same time, it has to include dynamically synthetic procedures and meta-theoretical reflections. Axioms have to be useful, or capture something, or help as part of explanations. The Andréka-Németi group use several formal axiomatic theories together to re-capture, predict, recover or explain the phenomena of special relativity, (...) general relativity and classical kinematics. Their scientific methodology is close to Hilbert’s conceptions of how science should be done ideally. In this paper, we compare Formica’s reading of Hilbert’s axiomatic method to the method used by the Andréka-Németi group. (shrink)

Recently discovered documents have shown how Gentzen had arrived at the final form of natural deduction, namely by trying out a great number of alternative formulations. What led him to natural deduction in the first place, other than the general idea of studying “mathematical inference as it appears in practice,” is not indicated anywhere in his publications or preserved manuscripts. It is suggested that formal work in axiomatic logic lies behind the birth of Gentzen’s natural deduction, rather than any (...) single decisive influence in the work of others. Various axiomatizations are explored in turn, from the classical axioms of Hilbert and Ackermann to the intuitionistic axiomatization of Heyting. (shrink)

Charles Parsons’ book “Mathematical Thought and Its Objects” of 2008 (Cambridge University Press, New York) is critically discussed by concentrating on one of Parsons’ main themes: the role of intuition in our understanding of arithmetic (“intuition” in the specific sense of Kant and Hilbert). Parsons argues for a version of structuralism which is restricted by the condition that some paradigmatic structure should be presented that makes clear the actual existence of structures of the necessary sort. Parsons’ paradigmatic structure is the (...) so-called ‘intuitive model’ of arithmetic realized by Hilbert’s strings of strokes. This paper argues that Hilbert’s strings, considered as given in intuition, cannot play the role Parsons assigns to them: the criteria of identity of these strings do not have the sharpness that Parsons wants to see in them, and Parsons inadvertently projects abstract structures into his ‘intuitive model’. This diagnosis is exemplified with respect to (a) Parsons’ distinction between addition and multiplication on the one hand and exponentiation on the other and (b) his analysis of arithmetical knowledge in simple cases like “7 + 5 = 12”. All in all, it is claimed that Parsons book contains many important insights with respect to, for example, different versions structuralism, the notion of “natural number” and its uniqueness, induction, predicativity and other things, for which he is rightly famous, but that his way of drawing on the notion of intuition leaves too many questions unanswered. (shrink)