The definability of the set of natural numbers in the 1925 principia mathematica

Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (6):597 - 615 (1996)

Authors
Gregory Landini
University of Iowa
Abstract
In his new introduction to the 1925 second edition of Principia Mathematica, Russell maintained that by adopting Wittgenstein's idea that a logically perfect language should be extensional mathematical induction could be rectified for finite cardinals without the axiom of reducibility. In an Appendix B, Russell set forth a proof. Godel caught a defect in the proof at *89.16, so that the matter of rectification remained open. Myhill later arrived at a negative result: Principia with extensionality principles and without reducibility cannot recover mathematical induction. The finite cardinals are indefinable in it. This paper shows that while Gödel and Myhill are correct, Russell was not wrong. The 1925 system employs a different grammar than the original Principia. A new proof for *89.16 is given and induction is recovered
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00265255
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 40,785
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Russell's 1925 Logic.A. P. Hazen & J. M. Davoren - 2000 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (4):534 – 556.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
62 ( #124,747 of 2,244,030 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #73,756 of 2,244,030 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature