Hilbert's plan for understanding the concept of infinity required the elimination of non‐finitist machinery from proofs of finitist assertions. The failure of the original plan leads to a hierarchy of progressively less elementary, but still constructive methods instead of finitist ones . A mathematical proof of this failure requires a definition of « finitist ».—The paper sketches the three principal methods for the syntactic analysis of non‐constructive mathematics, the resulting consistency proofs and constructive interpretations, modelled on Herbrand's theorem, and their (...) mathematical and logical consequences. A characterization of finitist proofs is sketched. A remark on the completeness of the predicate calculus concludes the paper. Throughout open problems and alternative approaches are emphasized.ZusammenfassungHilbert sah das Verstehen des Begriffs des Unendlichen in der Eliminierung nichtfiniter Methoden aus Beweisen finiter Sätze. Das Versagen dieses Unternehmens führt zu einer Hierarchic progressiv weniger elementarer, aber noch konstruktiver Methoden, statt der finiten . Ein Unmöglichkeitsbeweis des ursprünglichen Planes setzt eine Definition von « finit » voraus.—Die drei wichtigsten Methoden der syntaktischen Analyse nichtkonstruktiver mathematischer Theorien, die daraus gewonnenen Widerspruchsfreiheitsbeweise and konstruktiven Interpretationen and deren mathematische and logische Anwendungen werden besprochen. Eine Prazisierung des Begriffs « finit » wird skizziert. Eine Bemerkung zur Vollstandigkeit des engeren Funktionenkalküls beschliesst die Abhandlung.—Oflene Fragen and komplementare Fragestellungen werden betont. (shrink)

Our ultimate purpose is to give an axiomatic treatment of recursion theory sufficient to develop the priority method. The direct or abstract approach is to keep in mind as clearly as possible the methods actually used in recursion theory, and then to formulate them explicitly. The indirect or experimental approach is to look first for other mathematical theories which seem similar to recursion theory, to formulate the analogies precisely, and then to search for an axiomatic treatment which covers not only (...) recursion theory but also the analogous theories as particular cases.The first approach is more general because it does not depend on the existence of analogues. A concrete mathematical theory, it seems, need have no such analogues and still be important, as e.g. classical number theory. In such a case, an axiomatic treatment may still be useful for exhibiting the mathematical structure of the theory considered and the assumptions on which it rests. However, it will lack one of the most heavily advertised advantages of the axiomatic method, namely, the “economy of thought” which results from an uniform theory for several different and interesting cases: we cannot hope for this if, by hypothesis, we know of only one particular case. In contrast, the second approach, if successful at all, is bound to achieve such “economy” because we start out with several interesting particular cases. Another possible virtue of the second approach is that of field work over insight: the abstract pattern that we are looking for and hoping to formalize in axioms, may not be evident in any one mathematical theory, but may spring to the eye if one happens to look simultaneously at several theories which happen to realize the pattern. (shrink)

IN Hilbert's theory of the foundations of any given branch of mathematics the main problem is to establish the consistency (of a suitable formalisation) of this branch. Since the (intuitionist) criticisms of classical logic, which Hilbert's theory was intended to meet, never even alluded to inconsistencies (in classical arithmetic), and since the investigations of Hilbert's school have always established much more than mere consistency, it is natural to formulate another general problem in the foundations of mathematics: to translate statements of (...) theorems and proofs in the branch considered into those of some preferred system, where the translation must satisfy certain appropriate conditions (interpretation). The problem is relative to the choice of preferred system, as is Hilbert's consistency problem since he required the consistency to be established by particular methods (finitist ones). A finitist interpretation of classical number theory, which has been published in full detail elsewhere, is here described by means of typical examples. Partial results on analysis (theory of arbitrary functions whose arguments and values are the non-negative integers) are here presented for the first time. One of these results is restricted to functions whose values are bounded; its interest derives from the fact that real numbers may be represented by such functions. It is hoped that diverse general observations and comments, which would bore the specialist, may be of help to the general reader. The specialist may find some points of interest in the last two sections of the main text and in the notes following it. (shrink)

The object lesson concerns the passage from the foundational aims for which various branches of modern logic were originally developed to the discovery of areas and problems for which logical methods are effective tools. The main point stressed here is that this passage did not consist of successive refinements, a gradual evolution by adaptation as it were, but required radical changes of direction, to be compared to evolution by migration. These conflicts are illustrated by reference to set theory, model theory, (...) recursion theory, and proof theory. At the end there is a brief autobiographical note, including the touchy point to what extent the original aims of logical foundations are adequate for the broad question of the heroic tradition in the philosophy of mathematics concerned with the nature of the latter or, in modern jargon, with the architecture of mathematics and our intuitive resonances to it. (shrink)