People have always been interested in numbers, in particular the natural numbers. Of course, we all have an intuitive notion of what these numbers are. In the late 19th century mathematicians, such as Grassmann, Frege and Dedekind, gave definitions for these familiar objects. Since then the development of axiomatic schemes for arithmetic have played a fundamental role in a logical understanding of mathematics. There has been a need for some time for a monograph on the metamathematics of first-order arithmetic. The (...) aim of the book by Hajek and Pudlak is to cover some of the most important results in the study of a first order theory of the natural numbers, called Peano arithmetic and its fragments (subtheories). The field is quite active, but only a small part of the results has been covered in monographs. This book is divided into three parts. In Part A, the authors develop parts of mathematics and logic in various fragments. Part B is devoted to incompleteness. Part C studies systems that have the induction schema restricted to bounded formulas (Bounded Arithmetic). One highlight of this section is the relation of provability to computational complexity. The study of formal systems for arithmetic is a prerequisite for understanding results such as Gödel's theorems. This book is intended for those who want to learn more about such systems and who want to follow current research in the field. The book contains a bibliography of approximately 1000 items. (shrink)

This book, written by one of the most distinguished of contemporary philosophers of mathematics, is a fully rewritten and updated successor to the author's earlier The Unprovability of Consistency. Its subject is the relation between provability and modal logic, a branch of logic invented by Aristotle but much disparaged by philosophers and virtually ignored by mathematicians. Here it receives its first scientific application since its invention. Modal logic is concerned with the notions of necessity and possibility. What George Boolos does (...) is to show how the concepts, techniques, and methods of modal logic shed brilliant light on the most important logical discovery of the twentieth century: the incompleteness theorems of Kurt Godel and the 'self-referential' sentences constructed in their proof. The book explores the effects of reinterpreting the notions of necessity and possibility to mean provability and consistency. (shrink)

This book is well known for its proof that many mathematical systems - including lattice theory and closure algebras - are undecidable. It consists of three treatises from one of the greatest logicians of all time: "A General Method in Proofs of Undecidability," "Undecidability and Essential Undecidability in Mathematics," and "Undecidability of the Elementary Theory of Groups.".

We investigate the bimodal logics sound and complete under the interpretation of modal operators as the provability predicates in certain natural pairs of arithmetical theories . Carlson characterized the provability logic for essentially reflexive extensions of theories, i.e. for pairs similar to . Here we study pairs of theories such that the gap between and is not so wide. In view of some general results concerning the problem of classification of the bimodal provability logics we are particularly interested in such (...) pairs that is axiomatized over by ∏1-sentences only, and, for each n 1, proves the n-times iterated consistency of . A complete axiomatization, along with the appropriate Kripke semantics and decision procedures, is found for the two principal cases: finitely axiomatizable extensions of this sort, like e.g. ), ), etc., and reflexive extensions, like ¦n 1\s}), etc. We show that the first logic, ICP, is the minimal and the second one, RP, is the maximal within the class of the provability logics for such pairs of theories. We also show that there are some provability logics lying strictly between these two. As an application of the results of this paper, in the last section the polymodal provability logics for natural recursive progressions of theories based on iteration of consistency are characterized. We construct a system of ordinal notation , which gives exactly one notation to each constructive ordinal, such that the logic corresponding to any progression along coincides with that along natural Kalmar elementary well-orderings. (shrink)

Hilbert developed his famous finitist point of view in several essays in the 1920s. In this paper, we discuss various extensions of it, with particular emphasis on those suggested by Hilbert and Bernays in Grundlagen der Mathematik (vol. I 1934, vol. II 1939). The paper is in three sections. The first deals with Hilbert's introduction of a restricted ? -rule in his 1931 paper ?Die Grundlegung der elementaren Zahlenlehre?. The main question we discuss here is whether the finitist (meta-)mathematician would (...) be entitled to accept this rule as a finitary rule of inference. In the second section, we assess the strength of finitist metamathematics in Hilbert and Bernays 1934. The third and final section is devoted to the second volume of Grundlagen der Mathematik. For preparatory reasons, we first discuss Gentzen's proposal of expanding the range of what can be admitted as finitary in his esssay ?Die Widerspruchsfreiheit der reinen Zahlentheorie? (1936). As to Hilbert and Bernays 1939, we end on a ?critical? note: however considerable the impact of this work may have been on subsequent developments in metamathematics, there can be no doubt that in it the ideals of Hilbert's original finitism have fallen victim to sheer proof-theoretic pragmatism. (shrink)

We have seen that despite Feferman's results Gödel's second theorem vitiates the use of Hilbert-type epistemological programs and consistency proofs as a response to mathematical skepticism. Thus consistency proofs fail to have the philosophical significance often attributed to them.This does not mean that consistency proofs are of no interest to philosophers. We know that a ‘non-pathological’ consistency proof for a system S will use methods which are not available in S. When S is as strong a system as we are (...) willing to entertain seriously then a consistency proof for it will yield no epistemological gain. But in other cases philosophers might argue that the proof uses methods which are merely different rather than stronger than those available in the system in question. This claim has been made, for example, in the case of the constructive consistency proofs for elementary number theory. Similar philosophical investigations can be made on relative consistency proofs, since these differ from each other in the principles they employ. For example, most relative consistency proofs can be carried out within elementary number theory, but without using the theory of real numbers, no one has been able to prove the consistency of Quine's ML relative to that of his NF.What about the consistency of all mathematics or of some strong system for set theory? How do we answer the skeptic? Since here a convincing proof is not possible, we have established that the skeptic demands too much. We cannot be certain that our axioms are free from contradiction and must treat them as hypotheses which may be abandoned or modified in the face of further mathematical experience. This attitude is taken by many foundational workers who also go on to voice opinions about thelikelihood that various systems are consistent. Since these opinions are variously supported by appeals to the clarity of the mathematical concept formalized, the existence or non-existence of ‘weird’ models for the system and actual empirical experience with the system, this is surely a fruitful area for philosophical research. (shrink)