Switch to: References
Citations of:
Add citations
You mustlogin to add citations.
| |
We give a survey of current research on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems from the following three aspects: classifications of different proofs of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, the limit of the applicability of Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem, and the limit of the applicability of Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem. | |
In his paper "Undecidability without arithmetization," Andrzej Grzegorczyk introduces a theory of concatenation $\mathsf{TC}$. We show that pairing is not definable in $\mathsf{TC}$. We determine a reasonable extension of $\mathsf{TC}$ that is sequential, that is, has a good sequence coding. | |
We prove that a variant of Robinson arithmetic $\mathsf{Q}$ with nontotal operations is interpretable in the theory of concatenation $\mathsf{TC}$ introduced by A. Grzegorczyk. Since $\mathsf{Q}$ is known to be interpretable in that nontotal variant, our result gives a positive answer to the problem whether $\mathsf{Q}$ is interpretable in $\mathsf{TC}$. An immediate consequence is essential undecidability of $\mathsf{TC}$. | |
In this paper, we examine the limit of applicability of Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem. We first define the notion “$\textsf {G1}$ holds for the theory $T$”. This paper is motivated by the following question: can we find a theory with a minimal degree of interpretation for which $\textsf {G1}$ holds. To approach this question, we first examine the following question: is there a theory T such that Robinson’s $\mathbf {R}$ interprets T but T does not interpret $\mathbf {R}$ and $\textsf (...) {G1}$ holds for T? In this paper, we show that there are many such theories based on Jeřábek’s work using some model theory. We prove that for each recursively inseparable pair $\langle A,B\rangle $, we can construct a r.e. theory $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$ such that $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$ is weaker than $\mathbf {R}$ w.r.t. interpretation and $\textsf {G1}$ holds for $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$. As a corollary, we answer a question from Albert Visser. Moreover, we prove that for any Turing degree $\mathbf {0}< \mathbf {d}<\mathbf {0}^{\prime }$, there is a theory T with Turing degree $\mathbf {d}$ such that $\textsf {G1}$ holds for T and T is weaker than $\mathbf {R}$ w.r.t. Turing reducibility. As a corollary, based on Shoenfield’s work using some recursion theory, we show that there is no theory with a minimal degree of Turing reducibility for which $\textsf {G1}$ holds. (shrink) | |
An elementary theory of concatenation,QT+, is introduced and used to establish mutual interpretability of Robinson arithmetic, Minimal Predicative Set Theory, quantifier-free part of Kirby’s finitary set theory, and Adjunctive Set Theory, with or without extensionality. The most basic arithmetic and simplest set theory thus turn out to be variants of string theory. | |
We consider weak theories of concatenation, that is, theories for strings or texts. We prove that the theory of concatenation WTC-ε\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathsf{WTC}^{-\varepsilon}}$$\end{document}, which is a weak subtheory of Grzegorczyk’s theory TC-ε\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathsf{TC}^{-\varepsilon}}$$\end{document}, is a minimal essentially undecidable theory, that is, the theory WTC-ε\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathsf{WTC}^{-\varepsilon}}$$\end{document} is essentially undecidable and if one omits an axiom scheme from WTC-ε\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} (...) \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathsf{WTC}^{-\varepsilon}}$$\end{document}, then the resulting theory is no longer essentially undecidable. Moreover, we give a positive answer to Grzegorczyk and Zdanowski’s conjecture that ‘The theory TC-ε\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathsf{TC}^{-\varepsilon}}$$\end{document} is a minimal essentially undecidable theory’. For the alternative theories WTC\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathsf{WTC}}$$\end{document} and TC\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathsf{TC}}$$\end{document} which have the empty string, we also prove that the each theory without the neutrality of ε\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\varepsilon}$$\end{document} is to be such a theory too. (shrink) | |
In the language \(\lbrace 0, 1, \circ, \preceq \rbrace \), where 0 and 1 are constant symbols, \(\circ \) is a binary function symbol and \(\preceq \) is a binary relation symbol, we formulate two theories, \( \textsf {WD} \) and \( {\textsf {D}}\), that are mutually interpretable with the theory of arithmetic \( {\textsf {R}} \) and Robinson arithmetic \({\textsf {Q}} \), respectively. The intended model of \( \textsf {WD} \) and \( {\textsf {D}}\) is the free semigroup generated (...) by \(\lbrace {\varvec{0}}, {\varvec{1}} \rbrace \) under string concatenation extended with the prefix relation. The theories \( \textsf {WD} \) and \( {\textsf {D}}\) are purely universally axiomatised, in contrast to \( {\textsf {Q}} \) which has the \(\varPi _2\) -axiom \(\forall x \; [ \ x = 0 \vee \exists y \; [ \ x = Sy \ ] \ ] \). (shrink) No categories | |
Sometimes structures or theories are formulated with different sets of primitives and yet are definitionally equivalent. In a sense, the transformations between such equivalent formulations are rather like basis transformations in linear algebra or co-ordinate transformations in geometry. Here an analogous idea is investigated. Let a relational signature \ be given. For a set \ of \-formulas, we introduce a corresponding set \ of new relation symbols and a set of explicit definitions of the \ in terms of the \. (...) This is called a definition system, denoted \. A definition system \ determines a translation function\. Any \-structure A can be uniquely definitionally expanded to a model \, called \. The reduct \ to the Q-symbols is called the definitional image\ of A. Likewise, a theory T in \ may be extended a definitional extension \; the restriction of this extension \ to \ is called the definitional image\ of T. If \ and \ are in disjoint signatures and \, we say that \ and \ are definitionally equivalent and \). Some results relating these notions are given, culminating in two characterization theorems for the definitional equivalence of structures and theories. (shrink) | |
Purity is known as an ideal of proof that restricts a proof to notions belonging to the ‘content’ of the theorem. In this paper, our main interest is to develop a conception of purity for formal (natural deduction) proofs. We develop two new notions of purity: one based on an ontological notion of the content of a theorem, and one based on the notions of surrogate ontological content and structural content. From there, we characterize which (classical) first-order natural deduction proofs (...) of a mathematical theorem are pure. Formal proofs that refer to the ontological content of a theorem will be called ‘fully ontologically pure’. Formal proofs that refer to a surrogate ontological content of a theorem will be called ‘secondarily ontologically pure’, because they preserve the structural content of a theorem. We will use interpretations between theories to develop a proof-theoretic criterion that guarantees secondary ontological purity for formal proofs. (shrink) | |
This paper argues against the view that the standard explanation of phase transitions in statistical mechanics may be considered a causal explanation, a distortion that can nevertheless successfully represent causal relations. | |
We define a new theory of concatenation WTC which is much weaker than Grzegorczyk's well-known theory TC. We prove that WTC is mutually interpretable with the weak theory of arithmetic R. The latter is, in a technical sense, much weaker than Robinson's arithmetic Q, but still essentially undecidable. Hence, as a corollary, WTC is also essentially undecidable. | |
We show that we can interpret concatenation theories in arithmetical theories without coding sequences by identifying binary strings with \(2\times 2\) matrices with determinant 1. No categories | |
Guided by questions of scope, this paper provides an overview of what is known about both the scope and, consequently, the limits of Gödel’s famous first incompleteness theorem. | |
It can be argued that only the equational theories of some sub-elementary function algebras are finitistic or intuitive according to a certain interpretation of Hilbert's conception of intuition. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relation of those restricted forms of equational reasoning to classical quantifier logic in arithmetic. The conclusion reached is that Edward Nelson's ‘predicative arithmetic’ program, which makes essential use of classical quantifier logic, cannot be justified finitistically and thus requires a different philosophical foundation, possibly (...) as a restricted form of logicism. (shrink) |
Home |New books and articles |Bibliographies |Philosophy journals |About PhilPapers |API |Contact us |Code of conduct
PhilPapers logo byAndrea Andrews andMeghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see ourterms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications).Use of this site is subject toterms & conditions.
All rights reserved byThe PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-5b9ff6f457-sbjvh uwo