To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Discussing various versions of two medieval arguments for the impossibility of infinity, this Element sheds light on early stages of the evolution of the notion of INFINITIES OF DIFFERENT SIZES. The first argument is called 'the Equality Argument' and relies on the premise that all infinities are equal. The second argument is called 'the Mapping Argument' and relies on the assumption that if one thing is mapped/ superposed upon another thing and neither exceeds the other, the two things are equal to each other. Although these arguments were initially proposed in the context of discussions against the possibility of infinities, they have played pivotal roles in the historical evolution of the notion of INFINITIES OF DIFFERENT SIZES.
When properly arithmetized, Yablo’s paradox results in a set of formulas which (with local disquotation in the background) turns out to be consistent, but $\omega $-inconsistent. Adding either uniform disquotation or the $\omega $-rule results in inconsistency. Since the paradox involves an infinite sequence of sentences, one might think that it doesn’t arise in finitary contexts. We study whether it does. It turns out that the issue depends on how the finitistic approach is formalized. On one of them, proposed by M. Mostowski, all the paradoxical sentences simply fail to hold. This happens at a price: the underlying finitistic arithmetic itself is $\omega $-inconsistent. Finally, when studied in the context of a finitistic approach which preserves the truth of standard arithmetic (developed by one of the authors), the paradox strikes back—it does so with double force, for now the inconsistency can be obtained without the use of uniform disquotation or the $\omega $-rule.
Tait argues that Kant did not restrict the notion of number or the operations of arithmetic to the natural numbers, but rather, applies the notions of number and arithmetic to geometric magnitudes as well; this results, he says, in a notion that anticipates our modern conception of real numbers. Tait supports this amalgamated reading both historically and textually. Moreover, he takes this insight further, to a sweeping account of Kant’s view of mathematical epistemology, methodology, and metaphysics. In particular, he suggests that, the "pure intuitions," which are so crucial to Kant’s notion of construction, give us what we today may call "generic objects"; and he uses this to explain the a priori applicability of mathematics. Tait then concludes by relating this account of Kant to post-Kantian views of mathematics including his own analysis of the Hilbert–Bernays finitist program in the foundations of mathematics.
For as long as there have been theories of arbitrary objects, many of the paradigmatic examples of arbitrary objects have been drawn from number theory (arbitrary natural numbers, for instance) and geometry (arbitrary triangles, for instance). In this chapter, I take a closer look at some examples of arbitrary objects that are related to number theory. In particular, I investigate the properties of arbitrary natural numbers and the epistemological importance of arbitrary finite strings of strokes, which can play the role of natural numbers, as Hilbert taught us more than a century ago.
In 1936, Gerhard Gentzen published a proof of consistency for Peano Arithmetic using transfinite induction up to ε0, which was considered a finitistically acceptable procedure by both Gentzen and Paul Bernays. Gentzen’s method of arithmetising ordinals and thus avoiding the Platonistic metaphysics of set theory traces back to the 1920s, when Bernays and David Hilbert used the method for an attempted proof of the Continuum Hypothesis. The idea that recursion on higher types could be used to simulate the limit-building in transfinite recursion seems to originate from Bernays. The main difficulty, which was already discovered in Gabriel Sudan’s nearly forgotten paper of 1927, was that measuring transfinite ordinals requires stronger methods than representing them. This paper presents a historical account of the idea of nominalistic ordinals in the context of the Hilbert Programme as well as Gentzen and Bernays’ finitary interpretation of transfinite induction.
This paper presents a systematic study of the prehistory of the traditional subsystems of second-order arithmetic that feature prominently in the reverse mathematics program promoted by Friedman and Simpson. We look in particular at: (i) the long arc from Poincaré to Feferman as concerns arithmetic definability and provability, (ii) the interplay between finitism and the formalization of analysis in the lecture notes and publications of Hilbert and Bernays, (iii) the uncertainty as to the constructive status of principles equivalent to Weak König’s Lemma, and (iv) the large-scale intellectual backdrop to arithmetical transfinite recursion in descriptive set theory and its effectivization by Borel, Lusin, Addison, and others.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.