display all the ideas for this combination of texts
12 ideas
| 8764 | Categories are the best foundation for mathematics [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: There is a dedicated contingent who hold that the category of 'categories' is the proper foundation for mathematics. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.3 n7) | |
| A reaction: He cites Lawvere (1966) and McLarty (1993), the latter presenting the view as a form of structuralism. I would say that the concept of a category will need further explication, and probably reduce to either sets or relations or properties. |
| 3198 | Gödel showed that arithmetic is either incomplete or inconsistent [Gödel, by Rey] |
| Full Idea: Gödel's theorem states that either arithmetic is incomplete, or it is inconsistent. | |
| From: report of Kurt Gödel (On Formally Undecidable Propositions [1931]) by Georges Rey - Contemporary Philosophy of Mind 8.7 |
| 10072 | First Incompleteness: arithmetic must always be incomplete [Gödel, by Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: First Incompleteness Theorem: any properly axiomatised and consistent theory of basic arithmetic must remain incomplete, whatever our efforts to complete it by throwing further axioms into the mix. | |
| From: report of Kurt Gödel (On Formally Undecidable Propositions [1931]) by Peter Smith - Intro to Gödel's Theorems 1.2 | |
| A reaction: This is because it is always possible to formulate a well-formed sentence which is not provable within the theory. |
| 9590 | Arithmetical truth cannot be fully and formally derived from axioms and inference rules [Gödel, by Nagel/Newman] |
| Full Idea: The vast continent of arithmetical truth cannot be brought into systematic order by laying down a fixed set of axioms and rules of inference from which every true mathematical statement can be formally derived. For some this was a shocking revelation. | |
| From: report of Kurt Gödel (On Formally Undecidable Propositions [1931]) by E Nagel / JR Newman - Gödel's Proof VII.C | |
| A reaction: Good news for philosophy, I'd say. The truth cannot be worked out by mechanical procedures, so it needs the subtle and intuitive intelligence of your proper philosopher (Parmenides is the role model) to actually understand reality. |
| 11069 | Gödel's Second says that semantic consequence outruns provability [Gödel, by Hanna] |
| Full Idea: Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem says that true unprovable sentences are clearly semantic consequences of the axioms in the sense that they are necessarily true if the axioms are true. So semantic consequence outruns provability. | |
| From: report of Kurt Gödel (On Formally Undecidable Propositions [1931]) by Robert Hanna - Rationality and Logic 5.3 |
| 10118 | First Incompleteness: a decent consistent system is syntactically incomplete [Gödel, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: First Incompleteness Theorem: If S is a sufficiently powerful formal system, then if S is consistent then S is syntactically incomplete. | |
| From: report of Kurt Gödel (On Formally Undecidable Propositions [1931]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.6 | |
| A reaction: Gödel found a single sentence, effectively saying 'I am unprovable in S', which is neither provable nor refutable in S. |
| 10122 | Second Incompleteness: a decent consistent system can't prove its own consistency [Gödel, by George/Velleman] |
| Full Idea: Second Incompleteness Theorem: If S is a sufficiently powerful formal system, then if S is consistent then S cannot prove its own consistency | |
| From: report of Kurt Gödel (On Formally Undecidable Propositions [1931]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.6 | |
| A reaction: This seems much less surprising than the First Theorem (though it derives from it). It was always kind of obvious that you couldn't use reason to prove that reason works (see, for example, the Cartesian Circle). |
| 10611 | There is a sentence which a theory can show is true iff it is unprovable [Gödel, by Smith,P] |
| Full Idea: The original Gödel construction gives us a sentence that a theory shows is true if and only if it satisfies the condition of being unprovable-in-that-theory. | |
| From: report of Kurt Gödel (On Formally Undecidable Propositions [1931]) by Peter Smith - Intro to Gödel's Theorems 20.5 |
| 10867 | 'This system can't prove this statement' makes it unprovable either way [Gödel, by Clegg] |
| Full Idea: An approximation of Gödel's Theorem imagines a statement 'This system of mathematics can't prove this statement true'. If the system proves the statement, then it can't prove it. If the statement can't prove the statement, clearly it still can't prove it. | |
| From: report of Kurt Gödel (On Formally Undecidable Propositions [1931]) by Brian Clegg - Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable Ch.15 | |
| A reaction: Gödel's contribution to this simple idea seems to be a demonstration that formal arithmetic is capable of expressing such a statement. |
| 8762 | Two definitions of 3 in terms of sets disagree over whether 1 is a member of 3 [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Zermelo said that for each number n, its successor is the singleton of n, so 3 is {{{null}}}, and 1 is not a member of 3. Von Neumann said each number n is the set of numbers less than n, so 3 is {null,{null},{null,{null}}}, and 1 is a member of 3. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.2) | |
| A reaction: See Idea 645 - Zermelo could save Plato from the criticisms of Aristotle! These two accounts are cited by opponents of the set-theoretical account of numbers, because it seems impossible to arbitrate between them. |
| 8760 | Numbers do not exist independently; the essence of a number is its relations to other numbers [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: The structuralist vigorously rejects any sort of ontological independence among the natural numbers; the essence of a natural number is its relations to other natural numbers. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.1) | |
| A reaction: This seems to place the emphasis on ordinals (what order?) rather than on cardinality (how many?). I am strongly inclined to think that this is the correct view, though you can't really have relations if there is nothing to relate. |
| 8761 | A 'system' is related objects; a 'pattern' or 'structure' abstracts the pure relations from them [Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: A 'system' is a collection of objects with certain relations among them; a 'pattern' or 'structure' is the abstract form of a system, highlighting the interrelationships and ignoring any features they do not affect how they relate to other objects. | |
| From: Stewart Shapiro (Thinking About Mathematics [2000], 10.1) | |
| A reaction: Note that 'ignoring' features is a psychological account of abstraction, which (thanks to Frege and Geach) is supposed to be taboo - but which I suspect is actually indispensable in any proper account of thought and concepts. |