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

Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (6):597 - 615 (1996)
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
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 27,658
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

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

44 ( #118,110 of 2,169,706 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #345,460 of 2,169,706 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums