Why should one believe that conscious awareness is solely the result of organizational complexity? What is the connection between consciousness and combinatorics: transformation of quantity into quality? The claim that the former is reducible to the other seems unconvincing—as unlike as chalk and cheese! In his book1 Penrose is at least attempting to compare like with like: the enigma of consciousness with the progress of physics.
to indicate that the object a is an element or member of the class A. We assume that every member of a class is an object. Lower-case letters a, b, c, x, y, z, … will always denote objects, and later, sets. Equality between classes is governed by the Axiom of Extensionality.
ABSTRACT: It is characteristic of a continuum that it be “all of one piece”, in the sense of being inseparable into two (or more) disjoint nonempty parts. By taking “part” to mean open (or closed) subset of the space, one obtains the usual topological concept of connectedness . Thus a space S is defined to be connected if it cannot be partitioned into two disjoint nonempty open (or closed) subsets – or equivalently, given any partition of S into two open (...) (or closed) subsets, one of the members of the partition must be empty. This holds, for example, for the space R of real numbers and for all of its open or closed intervals. Now a truly radical condition results from taking the idea of being “all of one piece” literally, that is, if it is taken to mean inseparability into any disjoint nonempty parts, or subsets, whatsoever . A space S satisfying this condition is called cohesive or indecomposable. While the law of excluded middle of classical logic reduces indecomposable spaces to the trivial empty space and one-point spaces, the use of intuitionistic logic makes it possible not only for nontrivial cohesive spaces to exist, but for every connected space to be cohesive.In this paper I describe the philosophical background to cohesiveness as well as some of the ways in which the idea is modelled in contemporary mathematics. (shrink)
The usual meaning of the word continuous is “unbroken” or “uninterrupted”: thus a continuous entity —a continuum—has no “gaps.” We commonly suppose that space and time are continuous, and certain philosophers have maintained that all natural processes occur continuously: witness, for example, Leibniz's famous apothegm natura non facit saltus—“nature makes no jump.” In mathematics the word is used in the same general sense, but has had to be furnished with increasingly precise definitions. So, for instance, in the later 18th century (...) continuity of a function was taken to mean that infinitesimal changes in the value of the argument induced infinitesimal changes in the value of the function. With the abandonment of infinitesimals in the 19th century this definition came to be replaced by one employing the more precise concept of limit. (shrink)
One of the most familiar uses of the Russell paradox, or, at least, of the idea underlying it, is in proving Cantor's theorem that the cardinality of any set is strictly less than that of its power set. The other method of proving Cantor's theorem ââ¬â employed by Cantor himself in showing that the set of real numbers is uncountable ââ¬â is that of diagonalization. Typically, diagonalization arguments are used to show that function spaces are "large" in a suitable sense. (...) Classically, these two methods are equivalent. But constructively they are not: while the argument for Russell's paradox is perfectly constructive, (i.e., employs intuitionistically acceptable principles of logic) the method of diagonalization fails to be so. I describe the ways in which these two methods.. (shrink)
Axioms for the continuum, or smooth real line R. These include the usual axioms for a commutative ring with unit expressed in terms of two operations + and i , and two distinguished elements 0 ≠ 1. In addition we stipulate that R is a local ring, i.e., the following axiom: ∃y x i y = 1 ∨ ∃y (1 – x) i y = 1. Axioms for the strict order relation < on R. These are: 1. a < b (...) and b < c implies a < c. 2. ¬(a < a) 3. a < b implies a + c < b + c for any c. ≤ 4. a < b and 0 < c implies acbc.. (shrink)
IN THEIR WELL-KNOWN PAPER, Kochen and Specker (1967) introduce the concept of partial Boolean algebra (pBa) and show that certain (finitely generated) partial Boolean algebras arising in quantum theory fail to possess morphisms to any Boolean algebra (we call such pBa's intractable in the sequel). In this note we begin by discussing partial..
A weak form of intuitionistic set theory WST lacking the axiom of extensionality is introduced. While WST is too weak to support the derivation of the law of excluded middle from the axiom of choice, we show that beefing up WST with moderate extensionality principles or quotient sets enables the derivation to go through.
On the contrary, I find nothing in logistic but shackles. It does not help us at all in the direction of conciseness, far from it; and if it requires 27 equations to establish that 1 is a number, how many will it require to demonstrate a real theorem?
I describe two approaches to modelling the universe, the one having its origin in topos theory and differential geometry, the other in set theory. The first is synthetic differential geometry. Traditionally, there have been two methods of deriving the theorems of geometry: the analytic and the synthetic. While the analytical method is based on the introduction of numerical coordinates, and so on the theory of real numbers, the idea behind the synthetic approach is to furnish the subject of geometry with (...) a purely geometric foundation in which the theorems are then deduced by purely logical means from an initial body of postulates. The most familiar examples of the synthetic geometry are classical Euclidean geometry and the synthetic projective geometry introduced by Desargues in the 17th century and revived and developed by Carnot, Poncelet, Steiner and others during the 19th century. The power of analytic geometry derives very largely from the fact that it permits the methods of the calculus, and, more generally, of mathematical analysis, to be introduced into geometry, leading in particular to differential geometry (a term, by the way, introduced in 1894 by the Italian geometer Luigi Bianchi). That being the case, the idea of a “synthetic” differential geometry seems elusive: how can differential geometry be placed on a “purely geometric” or “axiomatic” foundation when the apparatus of the calculus seems inextricably involved? To my knowledge there have been two attempts to develop a synthetic differential geometry. The first was initiated by Herbert Busemann in the 1940s, building on earlier work of Paul Finsler. Here the idea was to build a differential geometry that, in its author’s words, “requires no derivatives”: the basic objects in Busemann’s approach are not differentiable manifolds, but metric spaces of a certain type in which the notion of a geodesic can be defined in an intrinsic manner. I shall not have anything more to say about this approach. The second approach, that with which I shall be concerned here, was originally proposed in the 1960s by F.. (shrink)
Traditionally, there have been two methods of deriving the theorems of geometry: the analytic and the synthetic. While the analytical method is based on the introduction of numerical coordinates, and so on the theory of real numbers, the idea behind the synthetic approach is to furnish the subject of geometry with a purely geometric foundation in which the theorems are then deduced by purely logical means from an initial body of postulates. The most familiar examples of the synthetic geometry are (...) classical Euclidean geometry and the synthetic projective geometry introduced by Desargues in the 17th century and revived and developed by Carnot, Poncelet, Steiner and others during the 19th century. The power of analytic geometry derives very largely from the fact that it permits the methods of the calculus, and, more generally, of mathematical analysis, to be introduced into geometry, leading in particular to differential geometry (a term, by the way, introduced in 1894 by the Italian geometer Luigi Bianchi). That being the case, the idea of a “synthetic” differential geometry seems elusive: how can differential geometry be placed on a “purely geometric” or “axiomatic” foundation when the apparatus of the calculus seems inextricably involved? To my knowledge there have been two attempts to develop a synthetic differential geometry. The first was initiated by Herbert Busemann in the 1940s, building on earlier work of Paul Finsler. Here the idea was to build a differential geometry that, in its author’s words, “requires no derivatives”: the basic objects in Busemann’s approach are not differentiable manifolds, but metric spaces of a certain type in which the notion of a geodesic can be defined in an intrinsic manner. I shall not have anything more to say about this approach. The second approach, that with which I shall be concerned here, was originally proposed in the 1960s by F. W. Lawvere, who was in fact striving to fashion a decisive axiomatic framework for continuum mechanics.. (shrink)
This essay is an attempt to sketch the evolution of type theory from its beginnings early in the last century to the present day. Central to the development of the type concept has been its close relationship with set theory to begin with and later its even more intimate relationship with category theory. Since it is effectively impossible to describe these relationships (especially in regard to the latter) with any pretensions to completeness within the space of a comparatively short article, (...) I have elected to offer detailed technical presentations of just a few important instances. (shrink)
where f ′ (x) is the derivative of f(x) and A is a quantity whose value depends on both x and δx. Now if it were possible to take δx so small (but not demonstrably identical with 0) that (δx)2 = 0 then (1) would assume the simple form..
By a lattice we shall always mean a distributive lattice which is bounded, i.e. has both a bottom element 0 and a top element 1. Lattice homomorphisms will always be assumed to preserve 0 and 1.
My purpose in this paper is to analyze some aspects of the theory of Boolean algebras and distributive lattices within a constructive context, in particular, without employing the law of excluded middle. Throughout, we work within a constructive set theory which, provided with a suitable type-theoretic formulation, can be interpreted within an arbitrary topos (see,e.g. [3]).
A structure is a triple A = (A, {Ri: i ∈ I}, {ej: j ∈ J}), where A, the domain or universe of A, is a nonempty set, {Ri: i ∈ I} is an indexed family of relations on A and {ej: j ∈ J}) is an indexed set of elements —the designated elements of A. For each i ∈ I there is then a natural number λ(i) —the degree of Ri —such that Ri is a λ(i)-place relation on A, (...) i.e., Ri ⊆ Aλ(i). This λ may be regarded as a function from I to the set ω of natural numbers; the pair (λ, J) is called the type of A. Structures of the same type are said to be similar. Note that since an n-place operation f: An → A can be regarded as an (n+1)-place relation on A, algebraic structures containing operations such as groups, rings, vector spaces, etc. may be construed as structures in the above sense. (shrink)
Despite the great success of Weierstrass, Dedekind and Cantor in constructing the continuum from arithmetical materials, a number of thinkers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries remained opposed, in varying degrees, to the idea of explicating the continuum concept entirely in discrete terms. These include the mathematicians du Bois-Reymond, Veronese, Poincaré, Brouwer and Weyl, and the philosophers Brentano..
In spacetime physics any set C of events—a causal set—is taken to be partially ordered by the relation ≤ of possible causation: for p, q ∈ C, p ≤ q means that q is in p’s future light cone. In her groundbreaking paper The internal description of a causal set: What the universe looks like from the inside, Fotini Markopoulou proposes that the causal structure of spacetime itself be represented by “sets evolving over C” —that is, in essence, by the (...) topos SetC of presheaves on Cop. To enable what she has done to be the more easily expressed within the framework presented here, I will reverse the causal ordering, that is, C will be replaced by Cop, and the latter written as P—which will, moreover, be required to be no more than a preordered set. Specifically, then: P is a set of events preordered by the relation ≤, where p ≤ q is intended to mean that p is in q’s future light cone—that q could be the cause of p, or, equally, that p could be an effect of q. In that case, for each event p, the set p↓ = {q: q ≤ p} may be identified as the causal future of p, or the set of potential effects of p. In requiring that ≤ be no more than a preordering—in dropping, that is, the antisymmetry of ≤—I am, in physical terms, allowing for the possibility that the universe is of Gödelian type, containing closed timelike lines. (shrink)
In the present paper the concept of a covering is presented and developed. The relationship between cover schemes, frames (complete Heyting algebras), Kripke models, and frame-valued set theory is discussed. Finally cover schemes and framevalued set theory are applied in the context of Markopoulou’s account of discrete spacetime as sets “evolving” over a causal set. We observe that Markopoulou’s proposal may be effectively realized by working within an appropriate frame-valued model of set theory. We go on to show that, within (...) this framework, cover schemes may be used to force certain conditions to prevail in the associated models: for example, rendering the universe timeless, obliterating a given event or forcing it to become the universe’s “beginning”. (shrink)
In a Vedic hymn, Reality or Being is proclaimed as having “arisen from Nothing”. By contrast, in Jaina cosmology time has no beginning; the universe, uncreated, has always existed.In Plato’s Timaeus the universe is conceived as not having existed eternally, but as having been created at some past time by a demiurge acting on pre-existing substance. We are all familiar with the arresting first line of Genesis.
Continuous entities are accordingly distinguished by the feature that—in principle at least— they can be divided indefinitely without altering their essential nature. So, for instance, the water in a bucket may be indefinitely halved and yet remain water. Aristotle nowhere to my knowledge defines discreteness as such but we may take the notion as signifying the opposite of continuity—that is, incapable of being indefinitely divided into parts. Thus discrete entities, typically, cannot be divided without effecting a change in their nature: (...) half a wheel is plainly no longer a wheel1. Thus we have two contrasting properties: on the one hand, the property of being indivisible, separate or discrete, and, on the other, the property of being indefinitely divisible and continuous although not actually divided into parts. Still, one and the same object can, in a sense, possess both of these properties. For example, if the wheel is regarded simply as a piece of matter, it remains so on being divided in half. In other words, the wheel qua wheel is discrete, but as a piece of matter, it is continuous. Examples like this show that continuity and discreteness are complementary attributes originating through the mind's ability to perform acts of abstraction, the one arising by abstracting an object’s divisibility and the other its self-identity. In mathematics it is the concept of whole number, later elaborated into the set concept, that provides an embodiment of the idea of pure discreteness, that is, of the idea of a collection of separate individual objects, all of whose properties—apart from their distinctness—have been refined away. The basic mathematical representation of the idea of continuity, on the other hand, is the geometric figure, and more particularly the straight line. By their very nature geometric figures are continuous; discreteness is injected into geometry, the realm of the.. (shrink)
In what seems to have been his last paper, Insight and Reflection (1954), Hermann Weyl provides an illuminating sketch of his intellectual development, and describes the principal influences—scientific and philosophical—exerted on him in the course of his career as a mathematician. Of the latter the most important in the earlier stages was Husserl’s phenomenology. In Weyl’s work of 1918-22 we find much evidence of the great influence Husserl’s ideas had on Weyl’s philosophical outlook—one need merely glance through the pages of (...) Space-Time-Matter or The Continuum to see it. Witness, for example, the following passages from the former. (shrink)
MATHEMATICS AND PHILOSOPHY ARE CLOSELY LINKED, and several great mathematicians who were at the same time great philosophers come to mind— Pythagoras, Descartes and Leibniz, for instance. One great mathematician of the modern era in whose thinking philosophy played a major role was Hermann Weyl (1885–1955), whose work encompassed analysis, number theory, topology, differential geometry, relativity theory, quantum mechanics, and mathematical logic. His many writings are informed by a vast erudition, an acute philosophical awareness, and even, on occasion, a certain (...) playfulness. No matter what the subject may be—mathematics, physics, philosophy—Weyl’s writing fascinates both by the depth of insight it reveals and by its startling departures from academic convention. Who else would have the daring to liken (as he does in the discussion of Space and Time in his Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science), a coordinate system to “the residue of the annihilation of the ego”1? Or then (somewhat further on in the same discussion) to express the belief in the impossibility of a completely objective account of individual consciousness by the assertion “...it is shattered by Judas’ desperate outcry, ‘Why did I have to be Judas?’”2. (shrink)
The opposed concepts of continuity and discreteness have figured prominently in the development of mathematics, and have also commanded the attention of philosophers. Continuous entities may be characterized by the fact that they can be divided indefinitely without altering their essential nature. So, for instance, the water in a bucket may be indefinitely halved and yet remain water. (For the purposes of illustration I ignore the atomic nature of matter which has been established by modern physics.) Discrete entities, on the (...) other hand, typically cannot be divided without effecting a change in their nature: half a wheel is plainly no longer a wheel. Thus we have two contrasting properties: on the one hand, the property of being indivisible, separate or discrete, and, on the other, the property of being indefinitely divisible and continuous although not actually divided into parts. (shrink)
We begin with the following quotation from Karp [1964]: My interest in infinitary logic dates back to a February day in 1956 when I remarked to my thesis supervisor, Professor Leon Henkin, that a particularly vexing problem would be so simple if only I could write a formula which would say x = 0 or x = 1 or x = 2 etc. To my surprise, he replied, "Well, go ahead." Traditionally, expressions in formal systems have been regarded as signifying (...) finite inscriptions which are—at least in principle—capable of actually being written out in primitive notation. However, the fact that (first-order) formulas may be identified with natural numbers (via "Gödel numbering") and hence with finite sets makes it no longer necessary to regard formulas as inscriptions, and suggests the possibility of fashioning "languages" some of whose formulas— such as that in the above quotation—would be naturally identified as infinite sets. A "language" of this kind is called an infinitary language: in this article we discuss those infinitary languages which can be obtained in a straightforward manner from first-order languages by allowing conjunctions, disjunctions and, possibly, quantifier sequences, to be of infinite length. In the course of the discussion we shall see that, while the expressive power of such languages far exceeds that of their finitary (first-order) counterparts, very few of them possess the "attractive" features (e.g., compactness and completeness) of the latter. Accordingly, the infinitary languages that do in fact possess these features merit special attention. In §1 we lay down the basic syntax and semantics of infinitary languages and demonstrate their expressive power by means of examples. §2 is devoted to those infinitary languages which permit only finite quantifier sequences: these languages turn out to be relatively well-behaved. In §3 we discuss the compactness problem for infinitary languages and its.. (shrink)
THE CLOSE CONNECTION BETWEEN mathematics and philosophy has long been recognized by practitioners of both disciplines. The apparent timelessness of mathematical truth, the exactness and objective nature of its concepts, its applicability to the phenomena of the empirical world— explicating such facts presents philosophy with some of its subtlest problems. Let me begin by reminding you of some celebrated past attempts made by philosophers and mathematicians to explicate the nature of mathematics.
Let κ be an infinite cardinal. A κ-complete nonprincipal ultrafilter, or, for short, a κ- ultrafilter on a set A is a (nonempty) family U of subsets of A satisfying (i) S ⊆ U & |S|1 < κ ⇒ ∩S ∈ U (κ-completeness) (ii) X ∈ U & X ⊆ Y ⊆ A ⇒ Y ∈ U, (iii) ∀X ⊆ A [X ∈ U or A – X ∈ U] (iv) {a} ∉ U for any a..
We are all familiar with the idea of a set, also called a class or collection. As examples, we may consider the set of all coins in one's pocket, the set of all human beings, the set of all planets in the solar system, etc. These are all concrete sets in the sense that the objects constituting them—their elements or members—are material things. In mathematics and logic we wish also to consider abstract sets whose members are not necessarily material things, (...) but abstract entities such as numbers, lines, ideas, names, etc. We shall use the term set to cover concrete and abstract sets, as well as sets which contain a mixture of material and abstract elements. (shrink)
In this paper a number of oppositions which have haunted mathematics and philosophy are described and analyzed. These include the Continuous and the Discrete, the One and the Many, the Finite and the Infinite, the Whole and the Part, and the Constant and the Variable.
Theorem 3.1. can be strengthened. Let S be a (well-termed) local set theory and (E, ≤) a partially ordered S-set. An element m of E is internally maximal if it satisfies S ∀x∈E [m ≤ x → m = x]. We can then prove the..
In classical set theory, Zorn’s Lemma is equivalent to the axiom of choice and a host of other principles and theorems. But in intuitionistic set theory (IZF), in which the law of excluded middle is not assumed, the situation is quite different. (A presentation of IZF may be found in Chapter VIII of [3].) Here, Zorn’s lemma turns out to be remarkably weak: not only does it fail to imply the axiom of choice, but one cannot even prove from it, (...) for example, the Boolean prime ideal theorem or the Stone representation theorem. (This is because, as shown in [4], Zorn’s lemma has no nonconstructive purely logical consequences, while both the axiom of choice and the Stone representation theorem imply the law of excluded middle, and the Boolean prime ideal theorem implies the nonconstructive form of de Morgan’s law: see [5].) In fact, the vast majority of the assertions intuitionistically provable from Zorn’s lemma make explicit mention of the notion of maximality: for example, the existence of maximal chains in partially ordered sets and the maximal ideal theorem for rings. (A conspicuous exception to this is the Sikorski extension theorem for complete Boolean algebras which is intuitionistically derivable from Zorn’s lemma: see [4].) In this note two apparently new results are proved, neither of which make explicit reference to maximality—the one a fixpoint theorem for complete lattices, the other a result concerning binary relations—and each is shown to be intuitionistically equivalent to Zorn’s lemma. (shrink)
In 1949 the great logician Kurt Gödel constructed the first mathematical models of the universe in which travel into the past is, in theory at least, possible. Within the framework of Einstein’s general theory of relativity Gödel produced cosmological solutions to Einstein’s field equations which contain closed time-like curves, that is, curves in spacetime which, despite being closed, still represent possible paths of bodies. An object moving along such a path would travel back into its own past, to the very (...) moment at which it “began” the journey. More generally, Gödel showed that, in his “universe”, for any two points P and Q on a body’s track through spacetime (its world line), such that P temporally precedes Q, there is a timelike curve linking P and Q on which Q temporally precedes P. This means that, in principle at least, one could board a “time machine” and travel to any point of the past. Gödel inferred, in consonance (as he observes) with the views of Parmenides, Kant and the modern idealists, that under these circumstances there could be no such thing as an objective lapse of time, that time or, more generally, change, is an illusion arising from our special mode of perception. For consider an observer initially at point P (with time coordinate t seconds as indicated by his own clock). At point Q (with time coordinate t′) he boards a time machine and travels back to point P, taking time t′′ to do so. In that case, according to his own clock, t′ – t + t′′ > 0 seconds have elapsed, and yet an identical clock left at P would show that 0 seconds have elapsed. In short, there has been no “objective” lapse of time at all. Gödel remarks that in his universe this situation is typical: for every possible definition of an “objective” time one could travel into regions which are past according to that definition. He continues. (shrink)
The principle of set theory known as the Axiom of Choice (AC) has been hailed as “probably the most interesting and, in spite of its late appearance, the most discussed axiom of mathematics, second only to Euclid’s axiom of parallels which was introduced more than two thousand years ago”1 It has been employed in countless mathematical papers, a number of monographs have been exclusively devoted to it, and it has long played a prominently role in discussions on the foundations of (...) mathematics. (shrink)
In constructive mathematics the axiom of choice (AC) has a somewhat ambiguous status. On the one hand, in intuitionistic set theory, or the local set theory associated with a topos ([2]) it can be shown to entail the law of excluded middle (LEM) ([ 3 ], [ 5 ]). On the other hand, under the “propositions-as types” interpretation which lies at the heart of constructive predicative type theories such as that of Martin-Löf [9], the axiom of choice is actually derivable (...) (see, e.g. [11] ), and so certainly cannot entail the law of excluded middle. This incongruity has been the subject of a number of recent investigations, for example [6], [7], [9], [12]. What has emerged is that for the derivation of LEM from AC to go through it is sufficient that sets (in particular power sets), or functions, have a degree of extensionality which is, so to speak, built into the usual set theories but is incompatible with constructive type theories Another condition, independent of extensionality, ensuring that the derivation goes through is that any equivalence relation determines a quotient set. LEM can also be shown to follow from a suitably extensionalized version of AC. The arguments establishing these intriguing results have mostly been formulated within a type-theoretic framework. It is my purpose here to formulate and derive analogous results within a comparatively straightforward set-theoretic framework. The core principles of this framework form a theory – weak set theory WST – which lacks the axiom of extensionality1 and supports only minimal set-theoretic constructions. WST may be considered a fragment both of (intuitionistic) ∆0-Zermelo set theory and Aczel’s constructive set theory ([1]). In particular WST is, like constructive type theories, too weak to allow the derivation of LEM from AC. But we shall see that , as with constructive type theories, beefing up WST with extensionality principles (even very moderate ones) or quotient sets enables the derivation to go through.. (shrink)
The relation ≤ on R is defined by a ≤ b ⇔ ¬b < a. The open interval (a, b) and closed interval [a, b] are defined as usual, viz. (a, b) = {x: a < x < b} and [a, b] = {x: a ≤ x ≤ b}; similarly for half-open, half-closed, and unbounded intervals.
THE CLOSE CONNECTION BETWEEN mathematics and philosophy has long been recognized by practitioners of both disciplines. The apparent timelessness of mathematical truth, the exactness and objective nature of its concepts, its applicability to the phenomena of the empirical world—explicating such facts presents philosophy with some of its subtlest problems. We shall discuss some of the attempts made by philosophers and mathematicians to explain the nature of mathematics. We begin with a brief presentation of the views of four major classical philosophers: (...) Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, and Kant. We conclude with a more detailed discussion of the three “schools” of mathematical philosophy which have emerged in the twentieth century: Logicism, Formalism, and Intuitionism. (shrink)
This book is written for those who are in sympathy with its spirit. This spirit is different from the one which informs the vast stream of European and American civilization in which all of us stand. That spirit expresses itself in an onwards movement, in building ever larger and more complicated structures; the other in striving in clarity and perspicuity in no matter what structure. The first tries to grasp the world by way of its periphery—in its variety; the second (...) at its centre—in its essence. And so the first adds one construction to another, moving on and up, as it were, from one thing to the next, while the other remains where it is and what it tries to grasp is always the same. (shrink)
This third edition, now available in paperback, is a follow up to the author's classic Boolean-Valued Models and Independence Proofs in Set Theory,. It provides an exposition of some of the most important results in set theory obtained in the 20th century: the independence of the continuum hypothesis and the axiom of choice. Aimed at graduate students and researchers in mathematics, mathematical logic, philosophy, and computer science, the third edition has been extensively updated with expanded introductory material, new chapters, and (...) a new appendix on category theory. It covers recent developments in the field and contains numerous exercises, along with updated and increased coverage of the background material. This new paperback edition includes additional corrections and, for the first time, will make this landmark text accessible to students in logic and set theory. (shrink)
Traditionally, expressions in formal systems have been regarded as signifying finite inscriptions which are—at least in principle—capable of actually being written out in primitive notation. However, the fact that (first-order) formulas may be identified with natural numbers (via "Gödel numbering") and hence with finite sets makes it no longer necessary to regard formulas as inscriptions, and suggests the possibility of fashioning "languages" some of whose formulas would be naturally identified as infinite sets . A "language" of this kind is called (...) an infinitary language : in this article I discuss those infinitary languages which can be obtained in a straightforward manner from first-order languages by allowing conjunctions, disjunctions and, possibly, quantifier sequences, to be of infinite length. In the course of the discussion it will be seen that, while the expressive power of such languages far exceeds that of their finitary (first-order) counterparts, very few of them possess the "attractive" features (e.g., compactness and completeness) of the latter. Accordingly, the infinitary languages that do in fact possess these features merit special attention. (shrink)
The principle of set theory known as the Axiom of Choice has been hailed as “probably the most interesting and, in spite of its late appearance, the most discussed axiom of mathematics, second only to Euclid's axiom of parallels which was introduced more than two thousand years ago” (Fraenkel, Bar-Hillel & Levy 1973, §II.4). The fulsomeness of this description might lead those unfamiliar with the axiom to expect it to be as startling as, say, the Principle of the Constancy of (...) the Velocity of Light or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But in fact the Axiom of Choice as it is usually stated appears humdrum, even self-evident. For it amounts to nothing more than the claim that, given any collection of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, it is possible to assemble a new set — a transversal or choice set — containing exactly one element from each member of the given collection. Nevertheless, this seemingly innocuous principle has far-reaching mathematical consequences — many indispensable, some startling — and has come to figure prominently in discussions on the foundations of mathematics. It (or its equivalents) have been employed in countless mathematical papers, and a number of monographs have been exclusively devoted to it. (shrink)
Full proofs of the Gödel incompleteness theorems are highly intricate affairs. Much of the intricacy lies in the details of setting up and checking the properties of a coding system representing the syntax of an object language (typically, that of arithmetic) within that same language. These details are seldom illuminating and tend to obscure the core of the argument. For this reason a number of efforts have been made to present the essentials of the proofs of Gödel’s theorems without getting (...) mired in syntactic or computational details. One of the most important of these efforts was made by Löb [8] in connection with his analysis of sentences asserting their own provability. Löb formulated three conditions (now known as the Hilbert-Bernays-Löb derivability conditions), on the provability predicate in a formal system which are jointly sufficient to yield the Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem for it. A key role in Löb’s analysis is played by (a special case of) what later became known as the diagonalization or fixed point property of formal systems, a property which had already, in essence, been exploited by Gödel in his original proofs of the incompleteness theorems. The fixed point property plays a central role in Lawvere’s [7] category-theoretic account of incompleteness phenomena (see also [10]). Incompleteness theorems have also been subjected to intensive investigation within the framework of modal logic (see, e.g.[4], [5]). In this formulation the modal operator takes up the role previously played by the provability predicate, and the derivability conditions on the latter are translated into algebraic conditions (the so-called GL, i.e., Gödel–Löb, conditions) on the former. My purpose here is to present a framework for incompleteness phenomena, fully compatible with intuitionistic or constructive principles, in which the idea of a coding system is retained, only in a 2 simple, but very general form, a form wholly free of syntactical notions. As codes we shall take the elements of an arbitrary given nonempty set, possibly, but not necessarily, the set of natural numbers.. (shrink)
In this paper a number of oppositions which have haunted mathematics and philosophy are described and analyzed. These include the Continuous and the Discrete, the One and the Many, the Finite and the Infinite, the Whole and the Part, and the Constant and the Variable.
The centrality of the whole/part relation in mathematics is demonstrated through the presentation and analysis of examples from algebra, geometry, functional analysis,logic, topology and category theory.
is a presentation of mathematics in terms of the fundamental concepts of transformation, and composition of transformations. While the importance of these concepts had long been recognized in algebra (for example, by Galois through the idea of a group of permutations) and in geometry (for example, by Klein in his Erlanger Programm), the truly universal role they play in mathematics did not really begin to be appreciated until the rise of abstract algebra in the 1930s. In abstract algebra the idea (...) of transformation of structure (homomorphism) was central from the beginning, and it soon became apparent to algebraists that its most important concepts and constructions were in fact formulable in terms of that idea alone. Thus emerged the view that the essence of a mathematical structure is to be sought not in its internal constitution, but rather in the nature of its relationships with other structures of the same kind, as manifested through the network of transformations. This idea has achieved its fullest expression in category theory, an axiomatic framework within which the notions of transformation (as morphism or arrow) and composition (and also structure, as object) are fundamental, that is, are not defined in terms of anything else. (shrink)
If we imagine a chess-board with alternate blue and red squares, then this is something in which the individual red and blue areas allow themselves to be distinguished from each other in juxtaposition, and something similar holds also if we imagine each of the squares divided into four smaller squares also alternating between these two colours. If, however, we were to continue with such divisions until we had exceeded the boundary of noticeability for the individual small squares which result, then (...) it would no longer be possible to apprehend the individual red and blue areas in their respective positions. But would we then see nothing at all? Not in the least; rather we would see the whole chessboard as violet, i.e. apprehend it as something that participates simultaneously in red and blue. (shrink)
Hermann Weyl, one of the twentieth century's greatest mathematicians, was unusual in possessing acute literary and philosophical sensibilities—sensibilities to which he gave full expression in his writings. In this paper I use quotations from these writings to provide a sketch of Weyl's philosophical orientation, following which I attempt to elucidate his views on the mathematical continuum, bringing out the central role he assigned to intuition.
In this paper the view is developed that classes should not be understood as individuals, but, rather, as classes as many of individuals. To correlate classes with individuals labelling and colabelling functions are introduced and sets identified with a certain subdomain of the classes on which the labelling and colabelling functions are mutually inverse. A minimal axiomatization of the resulting system is formulated and some of its extensions are related to various systems of set theory, including nonwellfounded set theories.
Call a family F of subsets of a set E inductive if ∅ ∈ F and F is closed under unions with disjoint singletons, that is, if ∀X∈F ∀x∈E–X(X ∪ {x} ∈ F]. A Frege structure is a pair (E.
then E has a subset which is the domain of a model of Peano's axioms for the natural numbers. (This result is proved explicitly, using classical reasoning, in section 3 of [1].) My purpose in this note is to strengthen this result in two directions: first, the premise will be weakened so as to require only that the map ν be defined on the family of (Kuratowski) finite subsets of the set E, and secondly, the argument will be constructive, i.e., (...) will involve no use of the law of excluded middle. To be precise, we will prove, in constructive (or intuitionistic) set theory3, the following.. (shrink)
This paper is concerned with Wittgenstein's early doctrine of the independence of elementary propositions. Using the notion of a free generator for a logical calculus ââ¬â a concept we claim was anticipated by Wittgensteinââ¬â we show precisely why certain difficulties associated with his doctrine cannot be overcome. We then show that Russell's version of logical atomism ââ¬â with independent particulars instead of elementary propositions ââ¬â avoids the same difficulties.
This third book in the Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence series continues the established format and includes contributions from distinguished scholars in the field, each attempting to relate legal theory to specific areas of the law. Among the eminent contributors are Andrew Ashworth, Peter Cane, Hugh Collins, Anne de Moor, Jim Harris, Simon Lee, Bernard Rudden, and Christopher McCrudden.
This paper treats some of the issues raised by Putnam's discussion of, and claims for, quantum logic, specifically: that its proposal is a response to experimental difficulties; that it is a reasonable replacement for classical logic because its connectives retain their classical meanings, and because it can be derived as a logic of tests. We argue that the first claim is wrong (1), and that while conjunction and disjunction can be considered to retain their classical meanings, negation crucially does not. (...) The argument is conducted via a thorough analysis of how the meet, join and complementation operations are defined in the relevant logical structures, respectively Boolean- and ortholattices (3). Since Putnam wishes to reinstate a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, we ask how quantum logic can be a logic of realism. We show that it certainly cannot be a logic of bivalence realism (i.e., of truth and falsity), although it is consistent with some form of ontological realism (4). Finally, we show that while a reasonable explication of the idealized notion of test yields interesting mathematical structure, it by no means yields the rich ortholattice structure which Putnam (following Finkelstein) seeks. (shrink)
