The last section of “Lecture at Zilsel’s” [9, §4] contains an interesting but quite condensed discussion of Gentzen’s first version of his consistency proof for P A [8], reformulating it as what has come to be called the no-counterexample interpretation. I will describe Gentzen’s result (in game-theoretic terms), fill in the details (with some corrections) of Godel's reformulation, and discuss the relation between the two proofs.

AT PHAEDO 96A-C Plato portrays Socrates as describing his past study of "the kind of wisdom known as περὶ φυσέως ἱστορία." At 96c-97b, Socrates says that this study led him to realize that he had an inadequate understanding of certain basic concepts which it involved. In consequence, he says at 97b, he abandoned this method and turned to a method of his own. But at this point in the dialogue, instead of proceeding immediately to describe his method, Plato has him (...) interjecting a complaint concerning Anaxagoras and his view that everything should be explained in terms of Mind. His complaint is that Mind would order things in the best possible way and that, therefore, an account of things in terms of Mind would amount to showing that they are ordered in the best possible way. But Anaxagoras did not show this and, instead, offered other kinds of explanations of the various phenomena. Socrates is not just criticizing Anaxagoras here for not doing what he set out to do; he makes it clear, for example at 99b-c, that he believes that the best kind of explanation of the phenomena would be to show that they are ordered in the best possible way. But he was unable to discover an explanation of this kind, either for himself or from others, and so turned to a method which he calls "second best". The actual description of this method is contained in two passages, 99e5-100a7 and 101d5-e1. Between these passages, Socrates invokes the doctrine of Forms and, in particular, the formula. (shrink)

There are some puzzles about G¨ odel’s published and unpublished remarks concerning finitism that have led some commentators to believe that his conception of it was unstable, that he oscillated back and forth between different accounts of it. I want to discuss these puzzles and argue that, on the contrary, G¨ odel’s writings represent a smooth evolution, with just one rather small double-reversal, of his view of finitism. He used the term “finit” (in German) or “finitary” or “finitistic” primarily to (...) refer to Hilbert’s conception of finitary mathematics. On two occasions (only, as far as I know), the lecture notes for his lecture at Zilsel’s [G¨ odel, 1938a] and the lecture notes for a lecture at Yale [G¨ odel, *1941], he used it in a way that he knew—in the second case, explicitly—went beyond what Hilbert meant. Early in his career, he believed that finitism (in Hilbert’s sense) is openended, in the sense that no correct formal system can be known to formalize all finitist proofs and, in particular, all possible finitist proofs of consistency of first-order number theory, P A; but starting in the Dialectica paper.. (shrink)

An observation and a thesis: The observation is that, whatever the connection between Kant’s philosophy and Hilbert’s conception of finitism, Kant’s account of geometric reasoning shares an essential idea with the account of finitist number theory in “Finitism”, namely the idea of constructions f from ‘arbitrary’ or ‘generic’ objects of various types. The thesis is that, contrary to a substantial part of contemporary literature on the subject, when Kant referred to number and arithmetic, he was not referring to the natural (...) or whole numbers and their arithmetic, but rather to the real numbers and their arithmetic. (shrink)

Restricted to first-order formulas, the rules of inference in the Curry-Howard type theory are equivalent to those of first-order predicate logic as formalized by Heyting, with one exception: ∃-elimination in the Curry-Howard theory, where ∃x : A.F (x) is understood as disjoint union, are the projections, and these do not preserve firstorderedness. This note shows, however, that the Curry-Howard theory is conservative over Heyting’s system.

History and Philosophy of Logic, Volume 32, Issue 2, Page 177-183, May 2011.

The preface by Parsons begins: “This book contains the most substantial philosophical papers I wrote for publication up to 1977, with one new essay added. … The collection is unified by a common point of view underlying the essays and by certain problems that are approached from different angles in different essays. Most are directly concerned with the philosophy of mathematics, and even in those that are not … the connection between the issues discussed and mathematics is never far from (...) the surface … in the Introduction I articulate some elements of my general point of view and point out some connections between the essays.“ The nine previously published papers are unrevised except in some cases for added postscripts and footnotes. Of the essays written for publication before 1977, essay 7, “Quine on the Philosophy of Mathematics,” has not been, in fact, previously published. The eleventh, “Sets and modality,“ is the new essay. A general point of view does indeed show itself in these essays, but it is rigorously subordinated to careful and balanced analyses of the problems discussed. That is why, without sharing all elements of the point of view, I have profited so much from these essays and, seeing them collected together, am so impressed by them. (shrink)