This book develops arithmetic without the induction principle, working in theories that are interpretable in Raphael Robinson's theory Q. Certain inductive formulas, the bounded ones, are interpretable in Q. A mathematically strong, but logically very weak, predicative arithmetic is constructed. Originally published in 1986. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books (...) while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. (shrink)

In arithmetic, if only because many of its methods and concepts originated in India, it has been the tradition to reason less strictly than in geometry, ...

... as 'logicism') that the content expressed by true propositions of arithmetic and analysis is not something of an irreducibly mathematical character, ...

Showing that the arithmetic mean number of offspring for a trait type often fails to be a predictive measure of fitness was a welcome correction to the philosophical literature on fitness. While the higher mathematical moments of a probability-weighted offspring distribution can influence fitness measurement in distinct ways, the geometric mean number of offspring is commonly singled out as the most appropriate measure. For it is well-suited to a compounding process and is sensitive to variance in offspring number. The (...) geometric mean thus proves to be a predictively efficacious measure of fitness in examples featuring discrete generations and within- or between-generation variance in offspring output. Unfortunately, this advance has subsequently led some to conclude that the arithmetic mean is never a good measure of fitness and that the geometric mean should accordingly be the default measure of fitness. We show not only that the arithmetic mean is a perfectly reasonable measure of fitness so long as one is clear about what it refers to, but also that it functions as a more general measure when properly interpreted. It must suffice as a measure of fitness in any case where the geometric mean has been effectively deployed as a measure. We conclude with a discussion about why the mathematical equivalence we highlight cannot be dismissed as merely of mathematical interest. (shrink)

The incompleteness of formal systems for arithmetic has been a recognized fact of mathematics. The term “incompleteness” suggests that the formal system in question fails to offer a deduction which it ought to. This chapter focuses on the status of a formal system, Peano Arithmetic, and explores a viewpoint on which Peano Arithmetic occupies an intrinsic, conceptually well-defined region of arithmetical truth. The idea is that it consists of those truths which can be perceived directly from the (...) purely arithmetical content of a categorical conceptual analysis of the notion of natural number. The chapter explores its conceptual stability in light of the apparently destabilizing effect, through extensibility, of the phenomenon of incompleteness. It also offers heuristic and conceptual support for the viewpoint that Peano Arithmetic is the strongest natural first-order system for arithmetic, and that there is a sense in which it is complete with respect to purely arithmetical truth. (shrink)

Philosophers of science since Nagel have been interested in the links between intertheoretic reduction and explanation, understanding and other forms of epistemic progress. Although intertheoretic reduction is widely agreed to occur in pure mathematics as well as empirical science, the relationship between reduction and explanation in the mathematical setting has rarely been investigated in a similarly serious way. This paper examines an important particular case: the reduction of arithmetic to set theory. I claim that the reduction is unexplanatory. In (...) defense of this claim, I offer evidence from mathematical practice, and I respond to contrary suggestions due to Steinhart, Maddy, Kitcher and Quine. I then show how, even if set-theoretic reductions are generally not explanatory, set theory can nevertheless serve as a legitimate foundation for mathematics. Finally, some implications of my thesis for philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science are discussed. In particular, I suggest that some reductions in mathematics are probably explanatory, and I propose that differing standards of theory acceptance might account for the apparent lack of unexplanatory reductions in the empirical sciences. (shrink)

Number theory abounds with conjectures asserting that every natural number has some arithmetic property. An example is Goldbach’s Conjecture, which states that every even number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes. Enumerative inductive evidence for such conjectures usually consists of small cases. In the absence of supporting reasons, mathematicians mistrust such evidence for arithmetical generalisations, more so than most other forms of non-deductive evidence. Some philosophers have also expressed scepticism about the value of enumerative inductive evidence (...) in arithmetic. But why? Perhaps the best argument is that known instances of an arithmetical conjecture are almost always small: they appear at the start of the natural number sequence. Evidence of this kind consequently suffers from size bias. My essay shows that this sort of scepticism comes in many different flavours, raises some challenges for them all, and explores their respective responses. (shrink)

We prove that for any recursively axiomatized consistent extension T of Peano Arithmetic, there exists a \ provability predicate of T whose provability logic is precisely the modal logic \. For this purpose, we introduce a new bimodal logic \, and prove the Kripke completeness theorem and the uniform arithmetical completeness theorem for \.

Symbolic arithmetic is fundamental to science, technology and economics, but its acquisition by children typically requires years of effort, instruction and drill1,2. When adults perform mental arithmetic, they activate nonsymbolic, approximate number representations3,4, and their performance suffers if this nonsymbolic system is impaired5. Nonsymbolic number representations also allow adults, children, and even infants to add or subtract pairs of dot arrays and to compare the resulting sum or difference to a third array, provided that only approximate accuracy is (...) required6–10. Here we report that young children, who have mastered verbal counting and are on the threshold of arithmetic instruction, can build on their nonsymbolic number system to perform symbolic addition and subtraction11–15. Children across a broad socio-economic spectrum solved symbolic problems involving approximate addition or subtraction of large numbers, both in a laboratory test and in a school setting. Aspects of symbolic arithmetic therefore lie within the reach of children who have learned no algorithms for manipulating numerical symbols. Our findings help to delimit the sources of children’s difficulties learning symbolic arithmetic, and they suggest ways to enhance children’s engagement with formal mathematics. We presented children with approximate symbolic arithmetic problems in a format that parallels previous tests of non-symbolic arithmetic in preschool children8,9. In the first experiment, five- to six-year-old children were given problems such as ‘‘If you had twenty-four stickers and I gave you twenty-seven more, would you have more or less than thirty-five stickers?’’. Children performed well above chance (65.0%, t1952.77, P 5 0.012) without resorting to guessing or comparison strategies that could serve as alternatives to arithmetic. Children who have been taught no symbolic arithmetic therefore have some ability to perform symbolic addition problems. The children’s performance nevertheless fell short of performance on non-symbolic arithmetic tasks using equivalent addition problems with numbers presented as arrays of dots and with the addition operation conveyed by successive motions of the dots into a box (71.3% correct, F1,345 4.26, P 5 0.047)8.. (shrink)

Is calculation possible without language? Or is the human ability for arithmetic dependent on the language faculty? To clarify the relation between language and arithmetic, we studied numerical cognition in speakers of Mundurukú, an Amazonian language with a very small lexicon of number words. Although the Mundurukú lack words for numbers beyond 5, they are able to compare and add large approximate numbers that are far beyond their naming range. However, they fail in exact arithmetic with numbers (...) larger than 4 or 5. Our results imply a distinction between a nonverbal system of number approximation and a language-based counting system for exact number and arithmetic. (shrink)

Arithmetic is one of the foundations of our educational systems, but what exactly is it? Numbers are everywhere in our modern societies, but what is our knowledge of numbers really about? This book provides a philosophical account of arithmetical knowledge that is based on the state-of-the-art empirical studies of numerical cognition. It explains how humans have developed arithmetic from humble origins to its modern status as an almost universally possessed knowledge and skill. Central to the account is the (...) realisation that, while arithmetic is a human creation, the development of arithmetic is constrained by our evolutionarily developed cognitive architecture. Arithmetic is a sophisticated cultural development, but it is ultimately based on abilities with numerosities that we already possess as infants and share with many non-human animals. Therefore, arithmetic is not purely conventional, an arbitrary game akin to chess. Instead, arithmetic is deeply connected to our basic cognitive capacities. (shrink)

SEMANTIC ARITHMETIC: A PREFACE John Corcoran Abstract Number theory, or pure arithmetic, concerns the natural numbers themselves, not the notation used, and in particular not the numerals. String theory, or pure syntax, concems the numerals as strings of «uninterpreted» characters without regard to the numbe~s they may be used to denote. Number theory is purely arithmetic; string theory is purely syntactical... in so far as the universe of discourse alone is considered. Semantic arithmetic is a broad (...) subject which begins when numerals are mentioned (not just used) and mentioned as names of numbers (not just as syntactic objects). Semantic arithmetic leads to many fascinating and surprising algorithms and decision procedures; it reveals in a vivid way the experiential import of mathematical propositions and the predictive power of mathematical knowledge; it provides an interesting perspective for philosophical, historical, and pedagogical studies of the growth of scientific knowledge and of the role metalinguistic discourse in scientific thought. (shrink)

The paper explores the idea that some singular judgements about the natural numbers are immune to error through misidentification by pursuing a comparison between arithmetic judgements and first-person judgements. By doing so, the first part of the paper offers a conciliatory resolution of the Coliva-Pryor dispute about so-called “de re” and “which-object” misidentification. The second part of the paper draws some lessons about what it takes to explain immunity to error through misidentification. The lessons are: First, the so-called Simple (...) Account of which-object immunity to error through misidentification to the effect that a judgement is immune to this kind of error just in case its grounds do not feature any identification component fails. Secondly, wh-immunity can be explained by a Reference-Fixing Account to the effect that a judgement is immune to this kind of error just in case its grounds are constituted by the facts whereby the reference of the concept of the object which the judgement concerns is fixed. Thirdly, a suitable revision of the Simple Account explains the de re immunity of those arithmetic judgements which are not wh-immune. These three lessons point towards the general conclusion that there is no unifying explanation of de re and wh-immunity. (shrink)

_The Foundations of Arithmetic_ is undoubtedly the best introduction to Frege's thought; it is here that Frege expounds the central notions of his philosophy, subjecting the views of his predecessors and contemporaries to devastating analysis. The book represents the first philosophically sound discussion of the concept of number in Western civilization. It profoundly influenced developments in the philosophy of mathematics and in general ontology.

The paper considers a generalization of Peano arithmetic, Hilbert arithmetic as the basis of the world in a Pythagorean manner. Hilbert arithmetic unifies the foundations of mathematics (Peano arithmetic and set theory), foundations of physics (quantum mechanics and information), and philosophical transcendentalism (Husserl’s phenomenology) into a formal theory and mathematical structure literally following Husserl’s tracе of “philosophy as a rigorous science”. In the pathway to that objective, Hilbert arithmetic identifies by itself information related to finite (...) sets and series and quantum information referring to infinite one as both appearing in three “hypostases”: correspondingly, mathematical, physical and ontological, each of which is able to generate a relevant science and area of cognition. Scientific transcendentalism is a falsifiable counterpart of philosophical transcendentalism. The underlying concept of the totality can be interpreted accordingly also mathematically, as consistent completeness, and physically, as the universe defined not empirically or experimentally, but as that ultimate wholeness containing its externality into itself. (shrink)

Frege's development of the theory of arithmetic in his Grundgesetze der Arithmetik has long been ignored, since the formal theory of the Grundgesetze is inconsistent. His derivations of the axioms of arithmetic from what is known as Hume's Principle do not, however, depend upon that axiom of the system--Axiom V--which is responsible for the inconsistency. On the contrary, Frege's proofs constitute a derivation of axioms for arithmetic from Hume's Principle, in (axiomatic) second-order logic. Moreover, though Frege does (...) prove each of the now standard Dedekind-Peano axioms, his proofs are devoted primarily to the derivation of his own axioms for arithmetic, which are somewhat different (though of course equivalent). These axioms, which may be yet more intuitive than the Dedekind-Peano axioms, may be taken to be "The Basic Laws of Cardinal Number", as Frege understood them. Though the axioms of arithmetic have been known to be derivable from Hume's Principle for about ten years now, it has not been widely recognized that Frege himself showed them so to be; nor has it been known that Frege made use of any axiomatization for arithmetic whatsoever. Grundgesetze is thus a work of much greater significance than has often been thought. First, Frege's use of the inconsistent Axiom V may invalidate certain of his claims regarding the philosophical significance of his work (viz., the establishment of Logicism), but it should not be allowed to obscure his mathematical accomplishments and his contribution to our understanding of arithmetic. Second, Frege's knowledge that arithmetic is derivable from Hume's Principle raises important sorts of questions about his philosophy of arithmetic. For example, "Why did Frege not simply abandon Axiom V and take Hume's Principle as an axiom?". (shrink)

A speculative investigation of how Frege's logical views change between Begriffsschrift and Grundgesetze and how this might have affected the formal development of logicism.

Erwin Schrödinger, a principal architect of quantum mechanics, extended his intellectual pursuits into the fundamental nature of life and consciousness. In his seminal works, he forwarded a provocative metaphysical thesis: consciousness is a singularity, experienced only in the singular and never in the plural. This paper reviews this ”One-Mind” hypothesis, tracing its origins from Schrödinger’s phenomenological reasoning to its deep resonance with the non-dual philosophy of Advaita Vedānta. We explore the central tenets of his argument—that the plurality of minds is (...) a mistaken inference drawn from the plurality of bodies—and contrast this view with its primary challenges from modern neuroscience and analytic philosophy, including split-brain research and reductionist theories of self. -/- We consider a synthesis of Schrödinger’s ideas with contemporary scientific frameworks. A speculative reconciliation is proposed between his top-down metaphysics and the bottom-up, mathematically rigorous Integrated Information Theory (IIT), framing IIT as a potential ”physics of Māyā” that describes the individuation of a universal consciousness. We then formalize Schrödinger’s concepts through computational and quantum-cognitive models, presenting a pseudocode simulation of his ”split-mind” thought experiment and proposing novel research hypotheses that bridge his density-matrix formalism with modern models of cognition. The paper offers a critique of the logical coherence of the One-Mind view, highlighting its philosophical value as a profound challenge to our most basic assumptions about selfhood, while acknowledging its limitations as a scientific theory. This synthesis charts the enduring legacy of Schrödinger’s inquiry, demonstrating its continued relevance in shaping the deepest questions at the intersection of physics, neuroscience, and philosophy. While new considerations test early perspectives, newer arguments demonstrate challenges and leave more to be explored. (shrink)

Arithmetical definability has been extensively studied over the natural numbers. In this paper, we take up the study of arithmetical definability over finite structures, motivated by the correspondence between uniform AC0 and FO. We prove finite analogs of three classic results in arithmetical definability, namely that < and TIMES can first-order define PLUS, that < and DIVIDES can first-order define TIMES, and that < and COPRIME can first-order define TIMES. The first result sharpens the equivalence FO =FO to FO = (...) FO, answering a question raised by Barrington et al. about the Crane Beach Conjecture. Together with previous results on the Crane Beach Conjecture, our results imply that FO is strictly less expressive than FO = FO = FO. In more colorful language, one could say that, for parallel computation, multiplication is harder than addition. (shrink)

In this paper we study the interpretations of a weak arithmetic, like Buss’s theory $\mathsf{S}^{1}_{2}$, in a given theory $U$. We call these interpretations the arithmetics of $U$. We develop the basics of the structure of the arithmetics of $U$. We study the provability logic of $U$ from the standpoint of the framework of the arithmetics of $U$. Finally, we provide a deeper study of the arithmetics of a finitely axiomatized sequential theory.

We establish by elementary proof-theoretic means the conservativeness of two subsystems of analysis over primitive recursive arithmetic. The one subsystem was introduced by Friedman [6], the other is a strengthened version of a theory of Minc [14]; each has been shown to be of considerable interest for both mathematical practice and metamathematical investigations. The foundational significance of such conservation results is clear: they provide a direct finitist justification of the part of mathematical practice formalizable in these subsystems. The results (...) are generalized to relate a hierarchy of subsystems, all contained in the theory of arithmetic properties, to a corresponding hierarchy of fragments of arithmetic. The proof theoretic tools employed there are used to re-establish in a uniform, elementary way relationships between various fragments of arithmetic due to Parsons, Paris and Kirby, and Friedman. (shrink)

In his monograph On Numbers and Games, J. H. Conway introduced a real-closed field containing the reals and the ordinals as well as a great many less familiar numbers including $-\omega, \,\omega/2, \,1/\omega, \sqrt{\omega}$ and $\omega-\pi$ to name only a few. Indeed, this particular real-closed field, which Conway calls No, is so remarkably inclusive that, subject to the proviso that numbers—construed here as members of ordered fields—be individually definable in terms of sets of NBG, it may be said to contain (...) “All Numbers Great and Small.” In this respect, No bears much the same relation to ordered fields that the system ℝ of real numbers bears to Archimedean ordered fields. In Part I of the present paper, we suggest that whereas $\mathbb{R}$should merely be regarded as constituting an arithmetic continuum, No may be regarded as a sort of absolute arithmetic continuum, and in Part II we draw attention to the unifying framework No provides not only for the reals and the ordinals but also for an array of non-Archimedean ordered number systems that have arisen in connection with the theories of non-Archimedean ordered algebraic and geometric systems, the theory of the rate of growth of real functions and nonstandard analysis. In addition to its inclusive structure as an ordered field, the system No of surreal numbers has a rich algebraico-tree-theoretic structure—a simplicity hierarchical structure—that emerges from the recursive clauses in terms of which it is defined. In the development of No outlined in the present paper, in which the surreals emerge vis-à-vis a generalization of the von Neumann ordinal construction, the simplicity hierarchical features of No are brought to the fore and play central roles in the aforementioned unification of systems of numbers great and small and in some of the more revealing characterizations of No as an absolute continuum. (shrink)

This book presents an up-to-date, unified treatment of research in bounded arithmetic and complexity of propositional logic, with emphasis on independence proofs and lower bound proofs. The author discusses the deep connections between logic and complexity theory and lists a number of intriguing open problems. An introduction to the basics of logic and complexity theory is followed by discussion of important results in propositional proof systems and systems of bounded arithmetic. More advanced topics are then treated, including polynomial (...) simulations and conservativity results, various witnessing theorems, the translation of bounded formulas (and their proofs) into propositional ones, the method of random partial restrictions and its applications, direct independence proofs, complete systems of partial relations, lower bounds to the size of constant-depth propositional proofs, the method of Boolean valuations, the issue of hard tautologies and optimal proof systems, combinatorics and complexity theory within bounded arithmetic, and relations to complexity issues of predicate calculus. Students and researchers in mathematical logic and complexity theory will find this comprehensive treatment an excellent guide to this expanding interdisciplinary area. (shrink)

In this article, the relationship between second-order comprehension and unrestricted mereological fusion (over atoms) is clarified. An extension PAF of Peano arithmetic with a new binary mereological notion of “fusion”, and a scheme of unrestricted fusion, is introduced. It is shown that PAF interprets full second-order arithmetic, Z_2.

All arithmetical identities involving 1, addition, multiplication and exponentiation will be true in a 2-element model of Tarski's system if a certain sequence of natural numbers is not bounded. That sequence can be bounded only if the set of Fermat's prime numbers is finite.

Orthodoxy holds that there is a determinate fact of the matter about every arithmetical claim. Little argument has been supplied in favour of orthodoxy, and work of Field, Warren and Waxman, and others suggests that the presumption in its favour is unjustified. This paper supports orthodoxy by establishing the determinacy of arithmetic in a well-motivated modal plural logic. Recasting this result in higher-order logic reveals that even the nominalist who thinks that there are only finitely many things should think (...) that there is some sense in which arithmetic is true and determinate. (shrink)

This article discusses the properties of a controllable, flexible, hybrid parallel computing architecture that potentially merges pattern recognition and arithmetic. Humans perform integer arithmetic in a fundamentally different way than logic-based computers. Even though the human approach to arithmetic is both slow and inaccurate it can have substantial advantages when useful approximations are more valuable than high precision. Such a computational strategy may be particularly useful when computers based on nanocomponents become feasible because it offers a way (...) to make use of the potential power of these massively parallel systems. Because the system architecture is inspired by neuroscience and is applied to cognitive problems, occasional mention is made of experimental data from both fields when appropriate. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to formulate first-order Peano arithmetic within the resources of relevant logic, and to demonstrate certain properties of the system thus formulated. Striking among these properties are the facts that it is trivial that relevant arithmetic is absolutely consistent, but classical first-order Peano arithmetic is straightforwardly contained in relevant arithmetic. Under, I shall show in particular that 0 = 1 is a non-theorem of relevant arithmetic; this, of course, is exactly (...) the formula whose unprovability was sought in the Hilbert program for proving arithmetic consistent. Under, I shall exhibit the requisite translation, drawing some Goedelian conclusions therefrom. Left open, however, is the critical problem whether Ackermann’s rule γ is admissible for theories of relevant arithmetic. The particular system of relevant Peano arithmetic featured in this paper shall be called R♯. Its logical base shall be the system R of relevant implication, taken in its first-order form RQ. Among other Peano arithmetics we shall consider here in particular the systems C♯, J♯, and RM3♯; these are based respectively on the classical logic C, the intuitionistic logic J, and the Sobocinski-Dunn semi-relevant logic RM3. And another feature of the paper will be the presentation of a system of natural deduction for R♯, along lines valid for first-order relevant theories in general. This formulation of R♯ makes it possible to construct relevantly valid arithmetical deductions in an easy and natural way; it is based on, but is in some respects more convenient than, the natural deduction formulations for relevant logics developed by Anderson and Belnap in Entailment. (shrink)

(Goodsell, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 51(1), 127-150 2022) establishes the noncontingency of sentences of first-order arithmetic, in a plausible higher-order modal logic. Here, the same result is derived using significantly weaker assumptions. Most notably, the assumption of rigid comprehension—that every property is coextensive with a modally rigid one—is weakened to the assumption that the Boolean algebra of properties under necessitation is countably complete. The results are generalized to extensions of the language of arithmetic, and are applied to answer (...) a question posed by Bacon and Dorr (2024). (shrink)

We characterize the collapse of Buss' bounded arithmetic in terms of the provable collapse of the polynomial time hierarchy. We include also some general model-theoretical investigations on fragments of bounded arithmetic.

This paper describes both an exegetical puzzle that lies at the heart of Frege’s writings—how to reconcile his logicism with his definitions and claims about his definitions—and two interpretations that try to resolve that puzzle, what I call the “explicative interpretation” and the “analysis interpretation.” This paper defends the explicative interpretation primarily by criticizing the most careful and sophisticated defenses of the analysis interpretation, those given my Michael Dummett and Patricia Blanchette. Specifically, I argue that Frege’s text either are inconsistent (...) with the analysis interpretation or do not support it. I also defend the explicative interpretation from the recent charge that it cannot make sense of Frege’s logicism. While I do not provide the explicative interpretation’s full solution to the puzzle, I show that its main competitor is seriously problematic. (shrink)

The famous theory of undecidable sentences created by Kurt Godel in 1931 is presented as clearly and as rigorously as possible. Introductory explanations beginning with the necessary facts of arithmetic of integers and progressing to the theory of representability of arithmetical functions and relations in the system (S) prepare the reader for the systematic exposition of the theory of Godel which is taken up in the final chapter and the appendix.

is a fragment of first-order aritlimetic so weak that it cannot prove the totality of an iterated exponential fimction. Surprisingly, however, the theory is remarkably robust. I will discuss formal results that show that many theorems of number theory and combinatorics are derivable in elementary arithmetic, and try to place these results in a broader philosophical context.

This article presents an axiom system for an arithmetic of the even and the odd, one that is stronger than those discussed in Pambuccian (2016) and Menn & Pambuccian (2016). It consists of universal sentences in a language extending the usual one with 0, 1, +, ·, <, – with the integer part of the half function$[{ \cdot \over 2}]$, and two unary operation symbols.

Based on the relevant logic R, the system R# was proposed as a relevant Peano arithmetic. R# has many nice properties: the most conspicuous theorems of classical Peano arithmetic PA are readily provable therein; it is readily and effectively shown to be nontrivial; it incorporates both intuitionist and classical proof methods. But it is shown here that R# is properly weaker than PA, in the sense that there is a strictly positive theorem QRF of PA which is unprovable (...) in R#. The reason is interesting: if PA is slightly weakened to a subtheory P+, it admits the complex ring C as a model; thus QRF is chosen to be a theorem of PA but false in C. Inasmuch as all strictly positive theorems of R# are already theorems of P+, this nonconservativity result shows that QRF is also a nontheorem of R#. As a consequence, Ackermann's rule γ is inadmissible in R#. Accordingly, an extension of R# which retains its good features is desired. The system R##, got by adding an omega-rule, is such an extension. Central question: is there an effectively axiomatizable system intermediate between R# and R##, which does formalize arithmetic on relevant principles, but also admits γ in a natural way? (shrink)

Proof-theoretic reflection principles are schemas which attempt to express the soundness of arithmetical theories within their own language, e.g., ${\mathtt{{Prov}_{\mathsf {PA}} \rightarrow \varphi }}$ can be understood to assert that any statement provable in Peano arithmetic is true. It has been repeatedly suggested that justification for such principles follows directly from acceptance of an arithmetical theory $\mathsf {T}$ or indirectly in virtue of their derivability in certain truth-theoretic extensions thereof. This paper challenges this consensus by exploring relationships between reflection (...) principles and principles of mathematical and transfinite induction as well as the status of the latter with respect to various foundational characterizations of number theory. (shrink)

This study focuses on certain combinations of rules or conditions involving a would-be ‘provability’ or ‘truth’ predicate that would render a system of arithmetic containing them either straightforwardly inconsistent (if those predicates were assumed to be definable) or logico-semantically paradoxical (if those predicates were taken as primitive and governed by the rules in question). These two negative properties are not to be conflated; we conjecture, however, that they are complementary. Logico-semantic paradoxicality, we contend, admits of proof-theoretic analysis: the ‘disproofs’ (...) involved do not reveal straightforward inconsistency. This is because, unlike the disproofs involved in establishing straightforward inconsistencies, these paradox-revealing ‘disproofs’ cannot be brought into normal form.The border between metamathematical proofs of certain (constructive) impossibility results and the non-normalizable (and always constructive) disproofs engendered by semantic paradoxicality is not fully understood. The respective strategies of reasoning on each side—genuine proofs of inconsistency versus whatever kind of ‘disproof’ uncovers semantic paradoxicality—seem somehow similar. They seem to involve the same ‘lines of reasoning’. But there is an important and principled difference between them.This difference will be emphasized throughout our discussion of certain arithmetical impossibility results, and closely related semantic paradoxes. The proof-theoretic criterion for paradoxicality is that in the case of paradoxes (as opposed to genuine inconsistencies) the apparent ‘disproofs’ that use the rules stipulated for the primitive predicates in question cannot be brought into normal form. In proof-theoretic terminology: their reduction sequences do not terminate. This means that cut fails for languages generating paradox. But cut holds for the language of arithmetic. It follows that the paradox-generating primitive predicates of a semantically closed language cannot be defined in arithmetical terms. For, if they could be, then they could be replaced by their definitions within the paradoxical disproofs, and the resulting disproofs would be normalizable. (shrink)

Following the strategy in [15] to develop inconsistent models for relevant arithmetics, we formulate a connexive variant of arithmetic by replacing the conditional of RM3 with the Belikov–Loginov conditional. We obtain thus the connexive logic cRM3 which serves as a base logic for arithmetics cRM3$^{i}$, cRM3$^{i\sharp }$, cRM$^{\sharp }$, cRMn$^{i}$, and cRM$^\omega $. We compare these with their counterparts RM3$^{i\sharp }$, RM$^{\sharp }$ and $\mathbf{RM}^\omega$ that extend relevant arithmetic $\mathbf{R}^\sharp$.

An arithmetic theory of oppositions is devised by comparing expressions, Boolean bitstrings, and integers. This leads to a set of correspondences between three domains of investigation, namely: logic, geometry, and arithmetic. The structural properties of each area are investigated in turn, before justifying the procedure as a whole. Io finish, I show how this helps to improve the logical calculus of oppositions, through the consideration of corresponding operations between integers.

We show that each of the five basic theories of second order arithmetic that play a central role in reverse mathematics has a natural counterpart in the language of nonstandard arithmetic. In the earlier paper [3] we introduced saturation principles in nonstandard arithmetic which are equivalent in strength to strong choice axioms in second order arithmetic. This paper studies principles which are equivalent in strength to weaker theories in second order arithmetic.

This is a republication of R.K. Meyer's "Relevant Arithmetic", which originally appeared in the Bulletin of the Section of Logic 5. It sets out the problems that Meyer was to work on for the next decade concerning his system, R#.

To analyze the task of mental arithmetic with external representations in different number systems we model algorithms for addition and multiplication with Arabic and Roman numerals. This demonstrates that Roman numerals are not only informationally equivalent to Arabic ones but also computationally similar—a claim that is widely disputed. An analysis of our models' elementary processing steps reveals intricate tradeoffs between problem representation, algorithm, and interactive resources. Our simulations allow for a more nuanced view of the received wisdom on Roman (...) numerals. While symbolic computation with Roman numerals requires fewer internal resources than with Arabic ones, the large number of needed symbols inflates the number of external processing steps. (shrink)

Scottish Neologicism aims to found arithmetic on full second-order logic and Hume’s Principle, stating that the number of the Fs is identical with the number of the Gs if, and only if, there are as many Fs as Gs. However, Neologicism faces the problem of the logical ontology, according to which the underlying second-order logic involves ontological commitments. This paper addresses this issue by substituting second-order logic by Boolos’s plural logic, augmented by the Plural Frege Quantifier F modelled on (...) Antonelli’s Frege Quantifier. The resulting theory (PHP) interprets second-order Peano arithmetic. Its ontological innocence is assessed: PHP offers an alternative that solves the problem of the logical ontology pervading Neologicism. (shrink)

We show how second order logic incompleteness follows from incompleteness of arithmetic, as proved by Gödel.

In nonstandard mathematics, the predicate ‘x is standard’ is fundamental. Recently, ‘relative’ or ‘stratified’ nonstandard theories have been developed in which this predicate is replaced with ‘x is y -standard’. Thus, objects are not standard in an absolute sense, but standard relative to other objects and there is a whole stratified universe of ‘levels’ or ‘degrees’ of standardness. Here, we study stratified nonstandard arithmetic and the related transfer principle. Using the latter, we obtain the ‘reduction theorem’ which states that (...) arithmetical formulas can be reduced to equivalent bounded formulas. Surprisingly, the reduction theorem is also equivalent to the transfer principle. As applications, we obtain a truth definition for arithmetical sentences and we formalize Nelson's notion of impredicativity. (shrink)

Arithmetical pluralism is the view that there is not one true arithmetic but rather many apparently conflicting arithmetical theories, each true in its own language. While pluralism has recently attracted considerable interest, it has also faced significant criticism. One powerful objection, which can be extracted from Parsons (2008), appeals to a categoricity result to argue against the possibility of seemingly conflicting true arithmetics. Another salient objection raised by Putnam (1994) and Koellner (2009) draws upon the arithmetization of syntax to (...) argue that arithmetical pluralism is inconsistent with the objectivity of syntax. First, we review these arguments and explain why they ultimately fail. We then offer a novel, more sophisticated argument that avoids the pitfalls of both. Our argument combines strategies from both objections to show that pluralism about arithmetic entails pluralism about syntax. Finally, we explore the viability of pluralism in light of our argument and conclude that a stable pluralist position is coherent. This position allows for the possibility of rival packages of arithmetic and syntax theories, provided that they systematically co‐vary with one another. (shrink)

This paper presents a defense of Epistemic Arithmetic as used for a formalization of intuitionistic arithmetic and of certain informal mathematical principles. First, objections by Allen Hazen and Craig Smorynski against Epistemic Arithmetic are discussed and found wanting. Second, positive support is given for the research program by showing that Epistemic Arithmetic can give interesting formulations of Church's Thesis.

Many philosophers believe that a deflationist theory of truth must conservatively extend any base theory to which it is added. But when applied to arithmetic, it's argued, the imposition of a conservativeness requirement leads to a serious objection to deflationism: for the Gödel sentence for Peano Arithmetic is not a theorem of PA, but becomes one when PA is extended by adding plausible principles governing truth. This paper argues that no such objection succeeds. The issue turns on how (...) we understand the notion of logical consequence implicit in any conservativeness requirement, and whether we possess a categorical conception of the natural numbers. I offer a disjunctive response: if we possess a categorical conception of arithmetic, then deflationists have principled reason to accept a rich notion of logical consequence according to which the Gödel sentence follows from PA. But if we do not, then the reasons for requiring the derivation of the Gödel sentence lapse, and deflationists are free to accept a conservativeness requirement stated proof-theoretically. Either way, deflationism is in the clear. (shrink)