Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T11:35:41.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Logic in the 1930s: Type Theory and Model Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2014

Georg Schiemer  and
Erich H. Reck
Georg Schiemer
Affiliation:
Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy (MCMP), Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München, D-80539 München, Germany, E-mail: georg.schiemer@univie.ac.at
Erich H. Reck
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521, USA, E-mail: erich.reck@ucr.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In historical discussions of twentieth-century logic, it is typically assumed that model theory emerged within the tradition that adopted first-order logic as the standard framework. Work within the type-theoretic tradition, in the style of Principia Mathematica, tends to be downplayed or ignored in this connection. Indeed, the shift from type theory to first-order logic is sometimes seen as involving a radical break that first made possible the rise of modern model theory. While comparing several early attempts to develop the semantics of axiomatic theories in the 1930s, by two proponents of the type-theoretic tradition (Carnap and Tarski) and two proponents of the first-order tradition (Gödel and Hilbert), we argue that, instead, the move from type theory to first-order logic is better understood as a gradual transformation, and further, that the contributions to semantics made in the type-theoretic tradition should be seen as central to the evolution of model theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , September 2013 , pp. 433 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andrews, P. B. [2002], An introduction to mathematical logic and type theory: To truth through proof, Kluwer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awodey, S. and Carus, A. [2001], Carnap, completeness, and categoricity: The Gabelbarkeitssatz of 1928, Erkenntnis, vol. 54, pp. 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awodey, S. and Carus, A. [2007], Carnap's dream: Gödel, Wittgenstein and the Logical Syntax, Synthese, vol. 159, pp. 23–45.Google Scholar
Awodey, S. and Carus, A. [2009], From Wittgenstein's prison to the boundless ocean: Carnap's dream of logical syntax, Carnap's logical syntax of language (Wagner, P., editor), Palgrave, London, pp. 79–108.Google Scholar
Awodey, S. and Reck, E. [2002], Completeness and categoricity, part 1: Nineteenth-century axiomatics to twentieth-century metalogic, History and Philosophy of Logic, vol. 23, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Badesa, C. [2004], The birth of model theory. Löwenheim's theorem in the frame of the theory of relatives, Princeton University Press, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bays, T. [2001], On Tarski on models, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 66, pp. 1701–1726.Google Scholar
Bonk, T. and Mosterin, J. [2000], Editor's introduction, Carnap, R., Untersuchungen zur Allgemeinen Axiomatik, Carnap [2000], pp. 1–54.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. [1929], Abriss der Logistik, Springer, Wien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. [1930], Bericht über Untersuchungen zur allgemeinen Axiomatik, Erkenntnis, vol. 1, pp. 303–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. [1934], Logische Syntax der Sprache, Springer, Wien, English translation: Carnap [1937].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. [1935], Ein Gültigkeitskriterium für die Sätze der klassischen Mathematik, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, vol. 42, pp. 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. [1937], The logical syntax of language, Open Court, La Salle, republished in 2012.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. [2000], Untersuchungen zur Allgemeinen Axiomatik, (Bonk, T. and Mosterin, J., editors), Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. and Bachmann, F. [1936], Über Extremalaxiome, Erkenntnis, vol. 6, pp. 166–188, English translation: On extremal axioms, History and Philosophy of Logic , vol. 2 (1981), pp. 67–85.Google Scholar
Church, A. [1976], Comparison of Russell's resolution of the semantical antinomies with that of Tarski, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 41, pp. 747–760.Google Scholar
Coffa, A. [1991], The semantic tradition from Kant to Carnap: To the Vienna Station, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Creath, R. [1990], The unimportance of semantics, Proceedings of the 1990 biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (Fine, A., Forbes, M., and Wessels, L., editors), vol. 2, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 405–416.Google Scholar
Demopoulos, W. [1994], Frege, Hilbert, and the conceptual structure of model theory, History and Philosophy of Logic, vol. 15, pp. 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. [2008], Tarski's conceptual analysis of semantical notions, New essays on Tarski and philosophy (Patterson, D., editor), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 72–93.Google Scholar
Ferreirós, J. [2001], The road to modern logic—an interpretation, this Bulletin, vol. 7, pp. 441–484.Google Scholar
Ferreirós, J. [2007], Labyrinth of thought: A history of set theory and its role in modern mathematics, 2nd (revised) ed., Birkhäuser, Basel.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. [1999], Reconsidering logical positivism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gödel, K. [1929], Über die Vollständigkeit des Logikkalküls, Ph.D. thesis, University of Vienna, English translation: Gödel [1986, 60–101].Google Scholar
Gödel, K. [1930], Die Vollständigkeit der Axiome des logischen Funktionenkalküls, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, English translation: Gödel [1986, 102–123].Google Scholar
Gödel, K. [1931], Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Prinicpia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I, Monatshelfte für Mathematik und Physik, English translation: Gödel [1986, 144–195].Google Scholar
Gödel, K. [1986], Collected Works, Volume I: Publications 1929–1936, (Feferman, S. et al., editors), Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. [2003], Collected Works, Volume IV: Selected Correspondence, A–G, (Feferman, S. et al., editors), Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Goldfarb, W. [1979], Logic in the twenties: The nature of the quantifier, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 44, pp. 351–368.Google Scholar
Goldfarb, W. [2005], On Gödel's way in: The influence of Rudolf Carnap, this Bulletin, vol. 11, pp. 185–193.Google Scholar
Goméz-Torrente, M. [1996], Tarski on logical consequence, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 37, pp. 125–151.Google Scholar
Goméz-Torrente, M. [2004], The indefinability of truth in the “Wahrheitsbegriff”, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 126, pp. 27–37.Google Scholar
Goméz-Torrente, M. [2009], Rereading Tarski on logical consequence, Review of Symbolic Logic, vol. 2, pp. 249–297.Google Scholar
Hájek, P. and Pudlák, P. [1993], Metamathematics of first-order arithmetic, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. and Ackermann, W. [1928], Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik, Springer, Berlin, 2nd ed., 1938.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. and Bernays, B. [1934], Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 1, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. and Bernays, B. [1939], Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 2, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. [1988], On the development of the model-theoretic viewpoint in logical theory, Synthese, vol. 77, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. [1992], Carnap's work in the foundations of logic and mathematics in a historical perspective, Synthese, vol. 93, pp. 167–189.Google Scholar
Hodges, W. [1986], Truth in a structure, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 86, pp. 135–151.Google Scholar
Hodges, W. [2009], Set theory, model theory, and computability theory, The development of modern logic (Haaparanta, L., editor), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 471–498.Google Scholar
Jané, I. [2006], What is Tarski's common concept of consequence?, this Bulletin, vol. 12, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Jech, T. [2006], Set theory, 3rd ed., Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kanamori, A. [2007], Gödel and set theory, this Bulletin, vol. 13, pp. 153–188.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J. [1956a], A new approach to semantics. Part 1, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 22, pp. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemeny, J. [1956b], A new approach to semantics. Part 2, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 22, pp. 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linnebo, O. and Rayo, A. [2012], Hierarchies ontological and ideological, Mind, vol. 121, pp. 269–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mancosu, P. [2006], Tarski on models and logical consequence, The architecture of modern mathematics: Essays in history and philosophy (Ferreirós, J. and Gray, J., editors), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 209–237.Google Scholar
Mancosu, P. [2010a], Fixed- versus variable-domain interpretations of Tarski's account of logical consequence, Philosophy Compass, vol. 5, pp. 745–759.Google Scholar
Mancosu, P. [2010b], The adventure of reason: Interplay between philosophy of mathematics and mathematical logic, 1900–1940, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Mancosu, P., Zach, R., and Badesa, C. [2009], The development of mathematical logic from Russell to Tarski, The development of modern logic (Haaparanta, L., editor), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 318–470.Google Scholar
Murawski, R. [1999], Recursive functions and metamathematics, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. [1986], Philosophy of logic, 2nd ed., Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ray, G. [2005], On the matter of essential richness, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 34, pp. 433–457.Google Scholar
Reck, E. [2004], From Frege and Russell to Carnap: Logic and logicismin the 1920s, Carnap brought home: The view from Jena (Awodey, S. and Klein, C., editors), Open Court, La Salle, pp. 151–180.Google Scholar
Reck, E. [2007], Carnap andmodern logic, The Cambridge companion to Carnap (Friedman, M. and Creath, R., editors), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 176–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reck, E. [2013], Developments in logic: Carnap, Gödel, and Tarski, The Oxford handbook of the history of analytic philosophy (Beaney, M., editor), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 546–571.Google Scholar
Schiemer, G. [2012a], Carnap on extremal axioms, “completeness of the models,” and categoricity, The Review of Symbolic Logic, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 613–641.Google Scholar
Schiemer, G. [2012b], Carnap's Untersuchungen: logicism, formal axiomatics, and metatheory, Rudolf Carnap and the legacy of logical empiricism (Creath, R., editor), Springer, Berlin, pp. 13–35.Google Scholar
Schiemer, G. [2013], Carnap's early semantics, Erkenntnis, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 487–522.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. [1991], Foundations without foundationalism: A case for second-order logic, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Shoenfield, J. [1967], Mathematical logic, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. Google Scholar
Tarski, A. [1931], Sur les ensembles définissables de nombres réels, I, Fundamenta Mathematica, vol. 7, pp. 219–239, English translation: Tarski [1983, 110–142].Google Scholar
Tarski, A. [1935], Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen, Studia Philosophica, vol. 1, pp. 261–405, English translation: Tarski [1983, 152–267].Google Scholar
Tarski, A. [1936], Über den Begriff der logischen Folgerung, Actes du Congrés International de Philosophie Scientifique, vol. 7, pp. 1–11, English translation: Tarski [1983, 409–420].Google Scholar
Tarski, A. [1937], Einführung in die mathematische Logik und die Methodologie der Mathematik, Springer, Vienna.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. [1954], Contributions to the theory of models I, Indagationes Mathematicae, vol. 16, pp. 572–581.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. [1983], Logic, semantics, metamathematics, 2nd ed., Hackett, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. and Vaught, R. L. [1957], Arithmetical extensions of relational systems, Compositio Mathematica, vol. 13, pp. 81–102.Google Scholar