1. One theory or many? In 2004 a very interesting and readable article by Lenore Blum, entitled “Computing over the reals: Where Turing meets Newton,” appeared in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society. It explained a basic model of computation over the reals due to Blum, Michael Shub and Steve Smale (1989), subsequently exposited at length in their influential book, Complexity and Real Computation (1997), coauthored with Felipe Cucker. The ‘Turing’ in the title of Blum’s article refers of course (...) to Alan Turing, famous for his explication of the notion of mechanical computation on discrete data such as the integers. The ‘Newton’ there has to do to with the well known numerical method due to Isaac Newton for approximating the zeros of continuous functions under suitable conditions that is taken to be a paradigm of scientific computing. Finally, the meaning of “Turing meets Newton” in the title of Blum’s article has another, more particular aspect: in connection with the problem of controlling errors in the numerical solution of linear equations and inversion of matrices,Turing (1948) defined a notion of condition for the relation of changes in the output of a computation due to small changes in the input that is analogous to Newton’s definition of the derivative. The thrust of Blum’s 2004 article was that the BSS model of computation on the reals is the appropriate foundation for scientific computing in general. By way of response, two years later another very interesting and equally readable article appeared in the Notices, this time by Mark Braverman and Stephen Cook (2006) entitled “Computing over the reals: Foundations for scientific computing,” in which the authors argued that the requisite foundation is provided by a quite different “bit computation” model, that is in fact prima facie incompatible with the BSS model. The bit computation model goes back to ideas due to Stefan Banach and Stanislaw Mazur in the latter part of the 1930s, but the first publication was not made until Mazur (1963).. (shrink)
2. Various philosophical and semantical theories are candidates for axiomatization (but not all, e.g. coherence, pragmatic, fuzzy theories). NB: axiomatizations are not uniquely determined.
In his provocative article for this issue, Geoffrey Hellman has astutely attacked the philosophical grounds for predicativity from several angles. Though I am not now nor never have been a predicativist, I have to admit to being a sympathizer since I am an avowed anti-platonist, at least insofar as set theory is concerned, and I grant the natural numbers a position of primacy in our mathematical thought. Philosophically, the predicative position may be characterized as the restriction to that which is (...) implicit in accepting the natural number structure. The subject has thus been of great interest to me and has periodically commanded much of my attention research-wise over the last forty years, especially as concerns its logical and mathematical potentialities. A caveat: a confirmed predicativist--if there be any such--would perhaps have stronger reasons than those marshalled here to defend the position on philosophical grounds. (shrink)
In the summer of 1957 at Cornell University the first of a cavalcade of large-scale meetings partially or completely devoted to logic took place--the five-week long Summer Institute for Symbolic Logic. That meeting turned out to be a watershed event in the development of logic: it was unique in bringing together for such an extended period researchers at every level in all parts of the subject, and the synergetic connections established there would thenceforth change the face of mathematical logic both (...) qualitatively and quantitatively. Prior to the Cornell meeting there had been nothing remotely like it for logicians. Previously, with the growing importance in the twentieth century of their subject both in mathematics and philosophy, it had been natural for many of the broadly representative meetings of mathematicians and of philosophers to include lectures by logicians or even have special sections devoted to logic. Only with the establishment of the Association for Symbolic Logic in 1936 did logicians begin to meet regularly by themselves, but until the 1950s these occasions were usually relatively short in duration, never more than a day or two. Alfred Tarski was one of the principal organizers of the Cornell institute and of some of the major meetings to follow on its heels. Before the outbreak of World War II, outside of Poland Tarski had primarily been involved in several Unity of Science Congresses, including the first, in Paris in 1935, and the fifth, at Harvard in September, 1939. (It was the latter which brought him to the United States and fortuitously left him stranded there following the Nazi invasion of Poland.) Much attention had been given to logic at these congresses and to Tarski’s own work, in particular, through the deep interest in it of Carnap, Quine and others. Following the end of the war, Tarski forged new alliances, especially in the United States logical and mathematical communities. To begin with, as part of the year-long celebration of the two-hundredth anniversary of the founding of Princeton University, a high-level conference on the Problems of Mathematics was held there in December 1946.. (shrink)
From 1931 until late in his life (at least 1970) Godel called for the pursuit of new axioms for mathematics to settle both undecided number-theoretical propositions (of the form obtained in his incompleteness results) and undecided set-theoretical propositions (in particular CH). As to the nature of these, Godel made a variety of suggestions, but most frequently he emphasized the route of introducing ever higher axioms of in nity. In particular, he speculated (in his 1946 Princeton remarks) that there might be (...) a uniform (though non-decidable) rationale for the choice of the latter. Despite the intense exploration of the \higher in nite" in the last 30-odd years, no single rationale of that character has emerged. Moreover, CH still remains undecided by such axioms, though they have been demonstrated to have many other interesting set-theoretical consequences. (shrink)
The background to the development of proof theory since 1960 is contained in the article (MATHEMATICS, FOUNDATIONS OF), Vol. 5, pp. 208- 209. Brie y, Hilbert's program (H.P.), inaugurated in the 1920s, aimed to secure the foundations of mathematics by giving nitary consistency proofs of formal systems such as for number theory, analysis and set theory, in which informal mathematics can be represented directly. These systems are based on classical logic and implicitly or explicitly depend on the assumption of \completed (...) in nite" totalities. Consistency of a system S (containing a modicum of elementary number theory) is su cient to ensure that any nitary meaningful statement about the natural numbers which is provable in S is correct under the intended interpretation. Thus, in Hilbert's view, consistency of S would serve to eliminate the \completed in nite" in favor of the \potential in nite" and thus secure the body of mathematics represented in S. Hilbert established the subject of proof theory as a technical part of mathematical logic by means of which his program was to be carried out its methods will be described below. In 1931, Godel's second incompleteness theorem raised a prima facieobstacle to H.P. for the system Z of elementary number theory (also called Peano Arithmetic, and denoted below by PA) since all previously recognized forms of nitary reasoning could be formalized within it. In any case, Hilbert's program could not possibly succeed for any system such as set theory in which all nitary notions and reasoning could unquestionably be formalized. These obstacles led workers in proof theory to modify H.P. in two kinds of ways. The rst was to seek reductions of various formal systems S to more constructive systems S 0. The second was to shift the aims from foundational ones to more mathematical ones. Examples of 1 the former move are the reductions of PA to intuitionistic arithmetic HA, and Gentzen's consistency proof of PA by nitary reasoning coupled with quanti er-free trans nite induction up to the ordinal , TI( 0), both obtained in the 1930s (cf.. (shrink)
1. Logic, determinism and free will. The determinism-free will debate is perhaps as old as philosophy itself and has been engaged in from a great variety of points of view including those of scientific, theological and logical character; my concern here is to limit attention to two arguments from logic. To begin with, there is an argument in support of determinism that dates back to Aristotle, if not farther. It rests on acceptance of the Law of Excluded Middle, according to (...) which every proposition is either true or false, no matter whether the proposition is about the past, present or future. In particular, the argument goes, whatever one does or does not do in the future is determined in the present by the truth or falsity of the corresponding proposition. Surely no such argument could really establish determinism, but one is hard pressed to explain where it goes wrong. One now classic dismantling of it has been given by Gilbert Ryle, in the chapter ‘What was to be’ of his fine book, Dilemmas (Ryle 1954). We leave it to the interested reader to pursue that and the subsequent literature. (shrink)
The purpose of this article is to explain why I believe that the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) is not a definite mathematical problem. My reason for that is that the concept of arbitrary set essential to its formulation is vague or underdetermined and there is no way to sharpen it without violating what it is supposed to be about. In addition, there is considerable circumstantial evidence to support the view that CH is not definite.
Like Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem has captured the public imagination, supposedly demonstrating that there are absolute limits to what can be known. More specifically, it is thought to tell us that there are mathematical truths which can never be proved. These are among the many misconceptions and misuses of Gödel’s theorem and its consequences. Incompleteness has been held to show, for example, that there cannot be a Theory of Everything, the so-called holy grail of modern physics. Some philosophers (...) and mathematicians say it proves that minds can’t be modelled by machines, while others argue that they can be modelled but that Gödel’s theorem shows we can’t know it. Postmodernists have claimed to find support in it for the view that objective truth is chimerical. And in the Bibliography of Christianity and Mathematics (yes, there is such a publication) it is asserted that ‘theologians can be comforted in their failure to systematize revealed truth because mathematicians cannot grasp all mathematical truths in their systems either.’ Not only that, the incompleteness theorem is held to imply the existence of God, since only He can decide all truths. Even Rebecca Goldstein’s book, whose laudable aim is to provide non-technical expositions of the incompleteness theorems (there are two) for a general audience and place them in their historical and biographical context, makes extravagant claims and distorts their significance. As Goldstein sees it, Gödel’s theorems are ‘the most prolix theorems in the history of mathematics’ and address themselves ‘to the central question of the humanities – ‘what is it to be human?’ – since they involve ‘such vast and messy areas as the nature of truth and knowledge and certainty’. Unfortunately, these weighty claims disintegrate under closer examination, while the book as a whole is marred by a number of disturbing conceptual and historical errors. On the face of it, Goldstein would appear to have been an ideal choice to present Gödel’s work: she received a PhD in Philosophy from Princeton University in 1977 and since then has taught philosophy of science and philosophy of mind at several.... (shrink)
I will talk here about three problems that have bothered me for a number of years, during which time I have experimented with a variety of solutions and encouraged others to work on them. I have raised each of them separately both in full and in passing in various contexts, but thought it would be worthwhile on this occasion to bring them to your attention side by side. In this talk I will explain the problems, together with some things that (...) have been tried in the past and some new ideas for their solution. (shrink)
The following is the text of an invited lecture for the LICS 2005 meeting held in Chicago June 26-29, 2005.1 Except for the addition of references, footnotes, corrections of a few points and stylistic changes, the text is essentially as delivered. Subsequent to the lecture I received interesting comments from several colleagues that would have led me to expand on some of the topics as well as the list of references, had I had the time to do so.
In his 1918 monograph \Das Kontinuum", HermannWeyl initiated a program for the arithmetical foundations of mathematics. In the years following, this was overshadowed by the foundational schemes of Hilbert's nitary consistency program and Brouwer's intuitionistic redevelopment of mathematics. In fact, not long after his own venture, Weyl became a convert to Brouwerian intuitionism and criticized his old teacher's program. Over the years, though, he became more and more pessimistic about the practical possibilities of reworking mathematics along (...) intuitionistic lines, and pointed to the value of his own early foundational e orts. Weyl's work in Das Kontinuum has come to be recognized for its importance as the opening chapter in the actual development of predicative mathematics, whose extent has been plumbed both mathematically and logically since the 1960s. (shrink)
1. Two kinds of logic. To a first approximation there are two main kinds of pursuit in logic. The first is the traditional one going back two millennia, concerned with characterizing the logically valid inferences. The second is the one that emerged most systematically only in the twentieth century, concerned with the semantics of logical operations. In the view of modern, model-theoretical eyes, the first requires the second, but not vice-versa. According to Tarski’s generally accepted account of logical consequence (1936), (...) inference from some statements as hypotheses to a statement as conclusion is logically valid if the truth of the hypotheses ensures the truth of the conclusion, in a way that depends only on the form of the statements involved, not on their content. Interpreted model-theoretically this means that every model of the hypotheses is a model of the conclusion. However, there is an ambiguity in Tarski’s explication, as he himself emphasized, since for the specification of form one needs to determine what are the logical notions. Once those are isolated and their semantical roles are settled, one can see how the truth of a statement (in a given model and relative to given assignments) is composed from the truth of its basic parts, in whatever way those are specified. The problem of what are the logical notions is an unsettled and controversial one (cf. Feferman 1999, Gómez-Torrente 2002). In the classical truthfunctional perspective, proposals range from those of first-order logic to generalized quantifiers to second and higher-order quantifiers to infinitary languages and beyond. Many of these stronger semantical notions have been treated in the volume Model Theoretic Logics (Barwise and Feferman 1987). In a series of singular, thought-provoking publications in recent years, Jaakko Hintikka has vigorously promoted consideration of an extension of first-order logic called IF logic, along with claims that its adoption promises to have revolutionary consequences.. (shrink)
✤ It is the characterization of those forms of reasoning that lead invariably from true sentences to true sentences, independently of the subject matter.
A theorem obtained by van Benthem for preservation of formulas under Chu transforms between Chu spaces is strengthened and derived from a general many-sorted interpolation theorem. The latter has been established both by proof-theoretic and model-theoretic methods; there is some discussion as to how these methods compare and what languages they apply to. In the conclusion, several further questions are raised.
In this paper we specialize the notion of abstract computational procedure previously introduced for intensionally presented structures to those which are extensionally given. This is provided by a form of generalized recursion theory which uses schemata for explicit definition, conditional definition and least fixed point (LFP) recursion in functionals of type level ≤ 2 over any appropriate structure. It is applied here to the case of potentially infinite (and more general partial) streams as an abstract data type.
• This comes from my general view of the nature of mathematics, that it is humanly based and that it deals with more or less clear conceptions of mathematical structures; for want of a better word, I call that view conceptual structuralism.
This is a sequel to our article “Predicative foundations of arithmetic” (1995), referred to in the following as [PFA]; here we review and clarify what was accomplished in [PFA], present some improvements and extensions, and respond to several challenges. The classic challenge to a program of the sort exemplified by [PFA] was issued by Charles Parsons in a 1983 paper, subsequently revised and expanded as Parsons (1992). Another critique is due to Daniel Isaacson (1987). Most recently, Alexander George and Daniel (...) Velleman (1996) have examined [PFA] closely in the context of a general discussion of different philosophical approaches to the foundations of arithmetic. (shrink)
In the year 1900, the German mathematician David Hilbert gave a dramatic address in Paris, at the meeting of the 2nd International Congress of Mathematicians—an address which was to have lasting fame and importance. Hilbert was at that point a rapidly rising star, if not superstar, in mathematics, and before long he was to be ranked with Henri Poincar´.
Four requirements are suggested for an axiomatic system S to provide the foundations of category theory: (R1) S should allow us to construct the category of all structures of a given kind (without restriction), such as the category of all groups and the category of all categories; (R2) It should also allow us to construct the category of all functors between any two given categories including the ones constructed under (R1); (R3) In addition, S should allow us to establish the (...) existence of the usual basic mathematical structures and carry out the usual set-theoretical operations; and (R4) S should be shown to be consistent relative to currently accepted systems of set theory. This paper explains how all but parts of (R3) can be met using a system S extending NFU enriched by a stratified pairing operation; to meet more of (R3) a stronger system S∗ is introduced, but there are still some real obstacles to meeting this requirement in full. For (R4) it is sketched how both S and S∗ are shown to be consistent. (shrink)
A notion of finitary inductively presented (f.i.p.) logic is proposed here, which includes all syntactically described logics (formal systems)met in practice. A f.i.p. theory FS0 is set up which is universal for all f.i.p. logics; though formulated as a theory of functions and classes of expressions, FS0 is a conservative extension of PRA. The aims of this work are (i)conceptual, (ii)pedagogical and (iii)practical. The system FS0 serves under (i)and (ii)as a theoretical framework for the formalization of metamathematics. The general approach (...) may be used under (iii)for the computer implementation of logics. In all cases, the work aims to make the details manageable in a natural and direct way. (shrink)
Through his own contributions (individual and collaborative) and his extraordinary personal influence, Georg Kreisel did perhaps more than anyone else to promote the development of proof theory and the metamathematics of constructivity in the last forty-odd years. My purpose here is to give some idea of just one aspect of Kreisel’s contributions to these areas, namely that devoted to “unwinding” the constructive content of prima-facie nonconstructive mathematical proofs.1 This program was the subject of his first remarkable papers in the 1950’s, (...) and it has drawn his repeated attention ever since. (shrink)
In 1958, G¨ odel published in the journal Dialectica an interpretation of intuitionistic number theory in a quantifier-free theory of functionals of finite type; this subsequently came to be known as G¨ odel’s functional or Dialectica interpretation. The article itself was written in German for an issue of that journal in honor of Paul Bernays’ 70th birthday. In 1965, Bernays told G¨.
Most axiomatizations of set theory that have been treated metamathematically have been based either entirely on classical logic or entirely on intuitionistic logic. But a natural conception of the settheoretic universe is as an indefinite (or “potential”) totality, to which intuitionistic logic is more appropriately applied, while each set is taken to be a definite (or “completed”) totality, for which classical logic is appropriate; so on that view, set theory should be axiomatized on some correspondingly mixed basis. Similarly, in the (...) case of predicative analysis, the natural numbers are considered to form a definite totality, while the universe of sets (or functions) of natural numbers are viewed as an indefinite totality, so that, again, a mixed semi-constructive logic should be the appropriate one to treat the two together. Various such semiconstructive systems of analysis and set theory are formulated here and their proof-theoretic strength is characterized. Interestingly, though the logic is weakened, one can in compensation strengthen certain principles in a way that could be advantageous for mathematical applications. (shrink)
What is predicativity? While the term suggests that there is a single idea involved, what the history will show is that there are a number of ideas of predicativity which may lead to different logical analyses, and I shall uncover these only gradually. A central question will then be what, if anything, unifies them. Though early discussions are often muddy on the concepts and their employment, in a number of important respects they set the stage for the further developments, and (...) so I shall give them special attention. NB. Ahistorically, modern logical and set-theoretical notation will be used throughout, as long as it does not conflict with original intentions. (shrink)
When I was a teenager growing up in Los Angeles in the early 1940s, my dream was to become a mathematical physicist: I was fascinated by the ideas of relativity theory and quantum mechanics, and I read popular expositions which, in those days, besides Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity, was limited to books by the likes of Arthur S. Eddington and James Jeans. I breezed through the high-school mathematics courses (calculus was not then on offer, and my teachers barely understood (...) it), but did less well in physics, which I should have taken as a reality check. On the philosophical side I read a mixed bag of Bertrand Russell, John Dewey and Alfred Korzybski (the missionary for “General Semantics” in Science and Sanity, a mish-mash of the theory of types, non-. (shrink)
The point of departure for this panel is a somewhat controversial paper that I published in the American Mathematical Monthly under the title “Does mathematics need new axioms?” [4]. The paper itself was based on a lecture that I gave in 1997 to a joint session of the American Mathematical Society and the Mathematical Association of America, and it was thus written for a general mathematical audience. Basically, it was intended as an assessment of Gödel’s program for new axioms that (...) he had advanced most prominently in his 1947 paper for the Monthly, entitled “What is Cantor’s continuum problem?” [7]. My paper aimed to be an assessment of that program in the light of research in mathematical logic in the intervening years, beginning in the 1960s, but especially in more recent years. (shrink)
Both the constructive and predicative approaches to mathematics arose during the period of what was felt to be a foundational crisis in the early part of this century. Each critiqued an essential logical aspect of classical mathematics, namely concerning the unrestricted use of the law of excluded middle on the one hand, and of apparently circular \impredicative" de nitions on the other. But the positive redevelopment of mathematics along constructive, resp. predicative grounds did not emerge as really viable alternatives to (...) classical, set-theoretically based mathematics until the 1960s. Now we have a massive amount of information, to which this lecture will constitute an introduction, about what can be done by what means, and about the theoretical interrelationships between various formal systems for constructive, predicative and classical analysis. (shrink)
Ambiguity is a property of syntactic expressions which is ubiquitous in all informal languages–natural, scientific and mathematical; the efficient use of language depends to an exceptional extent on this feature. Disambiguation is the process of separating out the possible meanings of ambiguous expressions. Ambiguity is typical if the process of disambiguation can be carried out in some systematic way. Russell made use of typical ambiguity in the theory of types in order to combine the assurance of its (apparent) consistency (“having (...) the cake”) with the freedom of the informal untyped theory of classes and relations (“eating it too”). The paper begins with a brief tour of Russell’s uses of typical ambiguity, including his treatment of the statement Cls ∈ Cls. This is generalized to a treatment in simple type theory of statements of the form A ∈ B where A and B are class expressions for which A is prima facie of the same or higher type than B. In order to treat mathematically more interesting statements of self membership we then formulate a version of typical ambiguity for such statements in an extension of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. Specific attention is given to how the“naive” theory of categories can thereby be accounted for. (shrink)
Tarski is famous for his widely accepted conceptual analysis (or, in his terms, “explication”) of the notion of truth for formal languages and the allied notions of satisfaction, definability, and logical consequence. From an historical point of view, two questions are of interest. First, what motivated Tarski to make these analyses, and second, what led to their particular form? The latter question is easy to answer at one level: Tarski was heavily influenced by the visible success of conceptual analysis in (...) set-theoretic topology as practiced by the leading mathematicians at the University of Warsaw in the 1920s, and so formulated his analyses of semantical concepts in general set-theoretical terms. But the actual forms which his definitions took are puzzling in a number of respects. The question of motivation is also difficult because there was no prima facie compelling reason for dealing in precise terms with the semantical notions. These had been used quite confidently, without any such explication, by a number of Tarski’s contemporaries, including Skolem and Gödel. The aim of this paper is to throw greater light on both the “why” and “how” questions concerning Tarski’s conceptual analysis of semantical notions, especially that of truth. (shrink)
In its widest scope, Tarski thought the aims of logic should be the creation of “a unified conceptual apparatus which would supply a common basis for the whole of human knowledge.” Those were his very words in the Preface to the first English edition of the Introduction to Logic (1940). Toward that grand end, in the post-war years when the institutional and financial resources became available, with extraordinary persistence and determination Tarski campaigned vigorously on behalf of logic on several fronts (...) from his increasingly powerful base at the University of California in Berkeley. The first order of business was to build up a school in logic bridging the university’s Mathematics and Philosophy Departments, and the opening wedge in that was the hiring of Leon Henkin as Professor of Mathematics in 1953. From then on, Henkin was Tarski’s right-hand man in the logic campaigns, locally, nationally and internationally, but he had other allies, both in Mathematics and in Philosophy. The first goal was to increase the proportion of logicians on the mathematics faculty to 10% of the whole; that took a number of years, eventually achieved with the appointment of Addison, Vaught, Solovay, Scott, Silver, Harrington and McKenzie. Through his influence in Philosophy, he succeeded in recruiting Myhill, Craig, Chihara and Sluga. Hans Sluga tells a story which gives a vivid picture of how Tarski operated: they met in 1966 when Tarski was in London to give the Shearman Lectures at Bedford College. Sluga, then a young faculty member interested in the philosophy of logic, was delegated to show him around. Personally impressed, at the end of his stay Tarski asked Sluga if he would like to come to Berkeley. Sluga said, “You mean permanently?” Tarski replied, “Yes.” Sluga said, “You mean you can invite me just like that?” and Tarski said, “If I tell them to take you, they will take you.”. (shrink)
The most prominent “schools” or programs for the foundations of mathematics that took shape in the first third of the 20th century emerged directly from, or in response to, developments in mathematics and logic in the latter part of the 19th century. The first of these programs, so-called logicism, had as its aim the reduction of mathematics to purely logical principles. In order to understand properly its achievements and resulting problems, it is necessary to review the background from that previous (...) period. (shrink)
In addition to this being the centenary of Kurt Gödel’s birth, January marked 75 years since the publication (1931) of his stunning incompleteness theorems. Though widely known in one form or another by practicing mathematicians, and generally thought to say something fundamental about the limits and potentialities of mathematical knowledge, the actual importance of these results for mathematics is little understood. Nor is this an isolated example among famous results. For example, not long ago, Philip Davis wrote me about what (...) he calls The Paradox of Irrelevance: “There are many math problems that have achieved the cachet of tremendous significance, e.g. Fermat, 4 color, Kepler’s packing, Gödel, etc. Of Fermat, I have read: ‘the most famous math problem of all time.’ Of Gödel, I have read: ‘the most mathematically significant achievement of the 20th century.’ … Yet, these problems have engaged the attention of relatively few research mathematicians—even in pure math.” What accounts for this disconnect between fame and relevance? Before going into the question for Gödel’s theorems, it should be distinguished in one respect from the other examples mentioned, which in any case form quite a mixed bag. Namely, each of the Fermat, 4 color, and Kepler’s packing problems posed a stand-out challenge following extended efforts to settle them; meeting the challenge in each case required new ideas or approaches and intense work, obviously of different degrees. By contrast, Gödel’s theorems were simply unexpected, and their proofs, though requiring novel techniques, were not difficult on the scale of things. Setting that aside, my view of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that their relevance to mathematical logic (and its offspring in the theory of computation) is paramount; further, their philosophical relevance is significant, but in just what way is far from settled; and finally, their mathematical relevance outside of logic is very much unsubstantiated but is the object of ongoing, tantalizing efforts.. (shrink)
What Gödel accomplished in the decade of the 1930s before joining the Institute changed the face of mathematical logic and continues to influence its development. As you gather from my title, I’ll be talking about the most famous of his results in that period, but first I want to indulge in some personal reminiscences. In many ways this is a sentimental journey for me. I was a member of the Institute in 1959-60, a couple of years after receiving my PhD (...) at the University of California in Berkeley, where I had worked with Alfred Tarski, another great logician. The subject of my dissertation was directly concerned with the method of arithmetization that Gödel had used to prove his theorems, and my main concern after that was to study systematic ways of overcoming incompleteness. Mathematical logic was going through a period of prodigious development in the 1950s and 1960s, and Berkeley and Princeton were two meccas for researchers in that field. For me, the prospect of meeting with Gödel and drawing on him for guidance and inspiration was particularly exciting. I didn’t know at the time what it took to get invited. Hassler Whitney commented for an obituary notice in 1978 that “it was hard to appoint a new member in logic at the Institute because Gödel could not prove to himself that a number of candidates shouldn’t be members, with the evidence at hand.” That makes it sound like the problem for Gödel was deciding who not to invite. Anyhow, I ended up being one of the lucky few. (shrink)
1. Pohlers and The Problem. I first met Wolfram Pohlers at a workshop on proof theory organized by Walter Felscher that was held in Tübingen in early April, 1973. Among others at that workshop relevant to the work surveyed here were Kurt Schütte, Wolfram’s teacher in Munich, and Wolfram’s fellow student Wilfried Buchholz. This is not meant to slight in the least the many other fine logicians who participated there.2 In Tübingen I gave a couple of survey lectures on (...) results and problems in proof theory that had been occupying much of my attention during the previous decade. The following was the central problem that I emphasized there: The need for an ordinally informative, conceptually clear, proof-theoretic reduction of classical theories of iterated arithmetical inductive definitions to corresponding constructive systems. As will be explained below, meeting that need would be significant for the then ongoing efforts at establishing the constructive foundation for and proof-theoretic ordinal analysis of certain impredicative subsystems of classical analysis. I also spoke in Tübingen about.. (shrink)
Whenever a subject is organized systematically for expository or foundational purposes (or both), one must deal with the question: What rests on what? The way in which this is answered in the case of mathematics depends on whether one is considering it informally or formally, i.e. from the point of view of the mathematician or the logician, respectively. The latter usually deals with the question in terms of what specifically follows from what in a given logical/axiomatic setup. Proof theory provides (...) technical notions and results which– when successful–serve to give a more global kind of answer to this question, in terms of reduction of one such system to another; moreover, these results provide a technical bridge from mathematics to philosophy. The purpose of this paper is to give a picture of what is accomplished in these various respects by reductive proof theory. My own approach to that subject is outlined in §1, along with a brief comparison with a more standard account. This is then followed in §2 by a description of some technical results that illustrate the general approach. The paper concludes in §3 with a discussion of how reductive proof theory mediates. (shrink)
This paper presents examples of infinite diagrams (as well as infinite limits of finite diagrams) whose use is more or less essential for understanding and accepting various proofs in higher mathematics. The significance of these is discussed with respect to the thesis that every proof can be formalized, and a “pre” form of this thesis that every proof can be presented in everyday statements-only form.
This is a survey of work on set-theoretical invariance criteria for logicality. It begins with a review of the Tarski-Sher thesis in terms, first, of permutation invariance over a given domain and then of isomorphism invariance across domains, both characterized by McGee in terms of definability in the language L∞,∞. It continues with a review of critiques of the Tarski-Sher thesis, and a proposal in response to one of those critiques via homomorphism invariance. That has quite divergent characterization results depending (...) on its formulation, one in terms of FOL, the other by Bonnay in terms of L∞,∞, both without equality. From that we move on to a survey of Bonnay’s work on similarity relations between structures and his results that single out invariance with respect to potential isomorphism among all such. Turning to the critique that calls for sameness of meaning of a logical operation across domains, the paper continues with a result showing that the isomorphism invariant operations that are absolutely definable with respect to KPU−Inf are exactly those definable in full FOL; this makes use of an old theorem of Manders. The concluding section is devoted to a critical discussion of the arguments for set-theoretical criteria for logicality. (shrink)
Machine generated contents note: Part I. General: 1. The Gödel editorial project: a synopsis Solomon Feferman; 2. Future tasks for Gödel scholars John W. Dawson, Jr., and Cheryl A. Dawson; Part II. Proof Theory: 3. Kurt Gödel and the metamathematical tradition Jeremy Avigad; 4. Only two letters: the correspondence between Herbrand and Gödel Wilfried Sieg; 5. Gödel's reformulation of Gentzen's first consistency proof for arithmetic: the no-counter-example interpretation W. W. Tait; 6. Gödel on intuition and on Hilbert's finitism W. W. (...) Tait; 7. The Gödel hierarchy and reverse mathematics Stephen G. Simpson; 8. On the outside looking in: a caution about conservativeness John P. Burgess; Part III. Set Theory: 9. Gödel and set theory Akihiro Kanamori; 10. Generalizations of Gödel's universe of constructible sets Sy-David Friedman; 11. On the question of absolute undecidability Peter Koellner; Part IV. Philosophy of Mathematics: 12. What did Gödel believe and when did he believe it? Martin Davis; 13. On Gödel's way in: the influence of Rudolf Carnap Warren Goldfarb; 14. Gödel and Carnap Steve Awodey and A. W. Carus; 15. On the philosophical development of Kurt Gödel Mark van Atten and Juliette Kennedy; 16. Platonism and mathematical intuition in Kurt Gödel's thought Charles Parsons; 17. Gödel's conceptual realism Donald A. Martin. (shrink)
elaboration of the last part of my Tarski Lecture, “Truth unbound”, UC Berkeley, 3 April 2006, and of the lecture, “A nicer formal theory of non-hierarchical truth”, Workshop on Mathematical Methods in Philosophy, Banff , 18-23 Feb. 2007.
Though deceptively simple and plausible on the face of it, Craig's interpolation theorem (published 50 years ago) has proved to be a central logical property that has been used to reveal a deep harmony between the syntax and semantics of first order logic. Craig's theorem was generalized soon after by Lyndon, with application to the characterization of first order properties preserved under homomorphism. After retracing the early history, this article is mainly devoted to a survey of subsequent generalizations and applications, (...) especially of many-sorted interpolation theorems. Attention is also paid to methodological considerations, since the Craig theorem and its generalizations were initially obtained by proof-theoretic arguments while most of the applications are model-theoretic in nature. The article concludes with the role of the interpolation property in the quest for "reasonable" logics extending first-order logic within the framework of abstract model theory. (shrink)
This is a survey of Gödel's perennial preoccupations with the limits of finitism, its relations to constructivity, and the significance of his incompleteness theorems for Hilbert's program, using his published and unpublished articles and lectures as well as the correspondence between Bernays and Gödel on these matters. There is also an important subtext, namely the shadow of Hilbert that loomed over Gödel from the beginning to the end.
I had the pleasure of renewing my acquaintance with Per Lindström at the meeting of the Seventh Scandinavian Logic Symposium, held in Uppsala in August 1996. There at lunch one day, Per said he had long been curious about the development of some of the ideas in my paper [1960] on the arithmetization of metamathematics. In particular, I had used the construction of a non-standard definition !* of the set of axioms of P (Peano Arithmetic) to show that P + (...) {¬ Con!} is interpretable in P, where ! is a standard definition of the axioms of P and Con! expresses the consistency of P via that presentation. Per pointed out that there is a simple “two-line” proof of this interpretability result which does not require the use of such formulas as !*, and he wondered whether I had been aware of that. In fact, his proof had never occurred to me, and if it had at the time, it is possible I would never have been led to the use of non-natural definitions. Per regarded this as a happy accident, since subsequent work by him and others on interpretability made essential use of such definitions. In our conversation, I enlarged a bit on the background to my work on arithmetization, and when I was invited to contribute to this special issue of Theoria dedicated to Lindström, it seemed a natural choice to use the occasion to fill out the story. One caveat, though: the following is drawn largely from memory, not always reliable, supplemented by consultation of the 1960 paper and the 1957 dissertation from which it was drawn. (shrink)
This is a critical analysis of the first part of Go¨del’s 1951 Gibbs lecture on certain philosophical consequences of the incompleteness theorems. Go¨del’s discussion is framed in terms of a distinction between objective mathematics and subjective mathematics, according to which the former consists of the truths of mathematics in an absolute sense, and the latter consists of all humanly demonstrable truths. The question is whether these coincide; if they do, no formal axiomatic system (or Turing machine) can comprehend the mathematizing (...) potentialities of human thought, and, if not, there are absolutely unsolvable mathematical problems of diophantine form. (shrink)
The final two volumes, numbers IV and V, of the Oxford University Press edition of the Collected Works of Kurt Gödel [3]-[7] appeared in 2003, thus completing a project that started over twenty years earlier. What I mainly want to do here is trace, from the vantage point of my personal involvement, the at some times halting and at other times intense development of the Gödel editorial project from the first initiatives following Gödel’s death in 1978 to its completion last (...) year. It may be useful to scholars mounting similar editorial projects for other significant figures in our field to learn how and why various decisions were made and how the work was carried out, though of course much is particular to who and what we were dealing with. My hope here is also to give the reader who is not already familiar with the Gödel Works a sense of what has been gained in the process, and to encourage dipping in according to interest. Given the absolute importance of Gödel for mathematical logic, students should also be pointed to these important source materials to experience first hand the exercise of his genius and the varied ways of his thought and to see how scholarly and critical studies help to expand their significance. Though indeed much has been gained in our work there is still much that can and should be done; besides some indications below, for that the reader is referred to [2]. (shrink)
The goals of reduction andreductionism in the natural sciences are mainly explanatoryin character, while those inmathematics are primarily foundational.In contrast to global reductionistprograms which aim to reduce all ofmathematics to one supposedly ``universal'' system or foundational scheme, reductive proof theory pursues local reductions of one formal system to another which is more justified in some sense. In this direction, two specific rationales have been proposed as aims for reductive proof theory, the constructive consistency-proof rationale and the foundational reduction rationale. However, (...) recent advances in proof theory force one to consider the viability of these rationales. Despite the genuine problems of foundational significance raised by that work, the paper concludes with a defense of reductive proof theory at a minimum as one of the principal means to lay out what rests on what in mathematics. In an extensive appendix to the paper,various reduction relations betweensystems are explained and compared, and arguments against proof-theoretic reduction as a ``good'' reducibilityrelation are taken up and rebutted. (shrink)
Geometrical and physical intuition, both untutored andcultivated, is ubiquitous in the research, teaching,and development of mathematics. A number ofmathematical ``monsters'', or pathological objects, havebeen produced which – according to somemathematicians – seriously challenge the reliability ofintuition. We examine several famous geometrical,topological and set-theoretical examples of suchmonsters in order to see to what extent, if at all,intuition is undermined in its everyday roles.
Part of the ambiguity lies in the various points of view from which this question might be considered. The crudest di erence lies between the point of view of the working mathematician and that of the logician concerned with the foundations of mathematics. Now some of my fellow mathematical logicians might protest this distinction, since they consider themselves to be just more of those \working mathematicians". Certainly, modern logic has established itself as a very respectable branch of mathematics, and there (...) are quite a few highly technical journals in logic, such as The Journal of Sym-. (shrink)
Solomon Feferman is one of the leading figures in the philosophy of mathematics. This volume brings together a selection of his most important recent writings, covering the relation between logic and mathematics, proof theory, objectivity and intentionality in mathematics, and key issues in the work of Gödel, Hilbert, and Turing. A number of the papers appeared originally in obscure places and are not well-known, and others are published here for the first time. All of the material has been revised and (...) annotated to bring it up to date. (shrink)
The paper starts with an examination and critique of Tarski’s wellknown proposed explication of the notion of logical operation in the type structure over a given domain of individuals as one which is invariant with respect to arbitrary permutations of the domain. The class of such operations has been characterized by McGee as exactly those definable in the language L∞,∞. Also characterized similarly is a natural generalization of Tarski’s thesis, due to Sher, in terms of bijections between domains. My main (...) objections are that on the one hand, the Tarski-Sher thesis thus assimilates logic to mathematics, and on the other hand fails to explain the notion of same logical operation across domains of different sizes. A new notion of homomorphism invariant operation over functional type structures (with domains M0 of individuals and {T, F} at their base) is introduced to accomplish the latter. The main result is that an operation is definable from.. (shrink)
In his book Shadows of the Mind: A search for the missing science of con- sciousness [SM below], Roger Penrose has turned in another bravura perfor- mance, the kind we have come to expect ever since The Emperor’s New Mind [ENM ] appeared. In the service of advancing his deep convictions and daring conjectures about the nature of human thought and consciousness, Penrose has once more drawn a wide swath through such topics as logic, computa- tion, artificial intelligence, quantum physics (...) and the neuro-physiology of the brain, and has produced along the way many gems of exposition of difficult mathematical and scientific ideas, without condescension, yet which should be broadly appealing.1 While the aims and a number of the topics in SM are the same as in ENM , the focus now is much more on the two axes that Pen- rose grinds in earnest. Namely, in the first part of SM he argues anew and at great length against computational models of the mind and more specifi- cally against any account of mathematical thought in computational terms. Then in the second part, he argues that there must be a scientific account of consciousness but that will require a (still to be found) non-computational extension or modification of present-day quantum physics. (shrink)
Questions of definedness are ubiquitous in mathematics. Informally, these involve reasoning about expressions which may or may not have a value. This paper surveys work on logics in which such reasoning can be carried out directly, especially in computational contexts. It begins with a general logic of partial terms, continues with partial combinatory and lambda calculi, and concludes with an expressively rich theory of partial functions and polymorphic types, where termination of functional programs can be established in a natural way.
Predicative mathematics in the sense originating with Poincar´ e and Weyl begins by taking the natural number system for granted, proceeding immediately to real analysis and related fields. On the other hand, from a logicist or set-theoretic standpoint, this appears problematic, for, as the story is usually told, impredicative principles seem to play an essential role in the foundations of arithmetic itself.1 It is the main purpose of this paper to show that this appearance is illusory: as will emerge, a (...) predicatively acceptable axiomatization of the natural number system can be formulated, and both the existence of structures of the relevant type and the categoricity of the relevant axioms can be proved in a predicatively acceptable way. (shrink)
Does science justify any part of mathematics and, if so, what part? These questions are related to the so-called indispensability arguments propounded, among others, by Quine and Putnam; moreover, both were led to accept significant portions of set theory on that basis. However, set theory rests on a strong form of Platonic realism which has been variously criticized as a foundation of mathematics and is at odds with scientific realism. Recent logical results show that it is possible to directly formalize (...) almost all, if not all, scientifically applicable mathematics in a formal system that is justified simply by Peano Arithmetic (via a proof-theoretical reduction). It is argued that this substantially vitiates the indispensability arguments. (shrink)
