We argue that (1) a purported example of an infinite inference we humans can actually perform admits a faithful, finitary description, and (2) infinite inference contravenes any view which does not grant our minds uncomputable powers. These arguments block the strategy, dating back to Carnap's Logical Syntax of Language, of using infinitary inference rules to secure the determinacy of arithmetical truth on conventionalist grounds.

Due to Gӧdel’s incompleteness results, the categoricity of a sufficiently rich mathematical theory and the semantic completeness of its underlying logic are two mutually exclusive ideals. For first- and second-order logics we obtain one of them with the cost of losing the other. In addition, in both these logics the rules of deduction for their quantifiers are non-categorical. In this paper I examine two recent arguments –Warren (2020), Murzi and Topey (2021)– for the idea that the natural deduction rules for (...) the first-order universal quantifier are categorical, i.e., they uniquely determine its semantic intended meaning. Both of them make use of McGee’s open-endedness requirement and the second one uses in addition Garson’s (2013) local models for defining the validity of these rules. I argue that the success of both these arguments is relative to their semantic or infinitary assumptions, which could be easily discharged if the introduction rule for the universal quantifier is taken to be an infinitary rule, i.e. non-compact. Consequently, I reconsider the use of the ω-rule and I show that the addition of the ω-rule to the standard formalizations of first-order logic is categorical. In addition, I argue that the open-endedness requirement does not make the first-order Peano Arithmetic categorical and I advance an argument for its categoricity based on the inferential conservativity requirement. (shrink)

Beall and Murzi :143–165, 2013) introduce an object-linguistic predicate for naïve validity, governed by intuitive principles that are inconsistent with the classical structural rules. As a consequence, they suggest that revisionary approaches to semantic paradox must be substructural. In response to Beall and Murzi, Field :1–19, 2017) has argued that naïve validity principles do not admit of a coherent reading and that, for this reason, a non-classical solution to the semantic paradoxes need not be substructural. The aim of this paper (...) is to respond to Field’s objections and to point to a coherent notion of validity which underwrites a coherent reading of Beall and Murzi’s principles: grounded validity. The notion, first introduced by Nicolai and Rossi, is a generalisation of Kripke’s notion of grounded truth, and yields an irreflexive logic. While we do not advocate the adoption of a substructural logic, we take the notion of naïve validity to be a legitimate semantic notion that points to genuine expressive limitations of fully structural revisionary approaches. (shrink)

The alleged proof of the non-mechanical, or non-computational, character of the human mind based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is revisited. Its history is reviewed. The proof, also known as the Lucas argument and the Penrose argument, is refuted. It is claimed, following Gödel himself and other leading logicians, that antimechanism is not implied by Gödel’s theorems alone. The present paper sets out this refutation in its strongest form, demonstrating general theorems implying the inconsistency of Lucas’s arithmetic and the semantic inadequacy (...) of Penrose’s arithmetic. On the other hand, the limitations to our capacity for mechanizing or programming the mind are also indicated, together with two other corollaries of Gödel’s theorems: that we cannot prove that we are consistent, and that we cannot fully describe our notion of a natural number. (shrink)

We analyse Kreisel’s notion of human-effective computability. Like Kreisel, we relate this notion to a concept of informal provability, but we disagree with Kreisel about the precise way in which this is best done. The resulting two different ways of analysing human-effective computability give rise to two different variants of Church’s thesis. These are both investigated by relating them to transfinite progressions of formal theories in the sense of Feferman.

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.

Shoenfield’s completeness theorem states that every true first order arithmetical sentence has a recursive \-proof encodable by using recursive applications of the \-rule. For a suitable encoding of Gentzen style \-proofs, we show that Shoenfield’s completeness theorem applies to cut free \-proofs encodable by using primitive recursive applications of the \-rule. We also show that the set of codes of \-proofs, whether it is based on recursive or primitive recursive applications of the \-rule, is \ complete. The same \ completeness (...) results apply to codes of cut free \-proofs. (shrink)

We discuss Kunen’s algorithmic implementation of a proof for the Paris–Harrington theorem, and the author’s and da Costa’s proposed “exotic” formulation for the P = NP hypothesis. Out of those two examples we ponder the relation between mathematics within an axiomatic framework, and intuitive or informal mathematics.

Gödel argued that the incompleteness theorems entail that the mind is not a machine, or that certain arithmetical propositions are absolutely undecidable. His view was that the mind is not a machine, and that no arithmetical propositions are absolutely undecidable. I argue that his position presupposes that the idealized mathematician has an ability which I call the recursive-ordinal recognition ability. I show that we have this ability if, and only if, there are no absolutely undecidable arithmetical propositions. I argue that (...) there are such propositions, but that no recognizable example of one can be identified, even in principle. (shrink)