In [10], we have shown that the statement that all ∑ 1 1 partitions are Ramsey is deducible over ATR 0 from the axiom of ∑ 1 1 monotone inductive definition,but the reversal needs П 1 1 - CA 0 rather than ATR 0 . By contrast, we show in this paper that the statement that all ∑ 0 2 games are determinate is also deducible over ATR 0 from the axiom of ∑ 1 1 monotone inductive definition, (...) but the reversal is provable even in ACA 0 . These results illuminate the substantial differences among lightface theorems which can not be observed in boldface. (shrink)

We propose an extension of Aczel's constructive set theory CZF by an axiom for inductive types and a choice principle, and show that this extension has the following properties: it is interpretable in Martin-Löf's type theory. In addition, it is strong enough to prove the Set Compactness theorem and the results in formal topology which make use of this theorem. Moreover, it is stable under the standard constructions from algebraic set theory, namely exact completion, realizability models, forcing as well (...) as more general sheaf extensions. As a result, methods from our earlier work can be applied to show that this extension satisfies various derived rules, such as a derived compactness rule for Cantor space and a derived continuity rule for Baire space. Finally, we show that this extension is robust in the sense that it is also reflected by the model constructions from algebraic set theory just mentioned. (shrink)

The text continues the translation series of William Whewell's (1794-1866) book «The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, founded upon their history» (Book III The Philosophy of the Mechanical Sciences, Chapter VI On the Establishment of the Principles of Statics). The chapter devoted to the establishment of such concepts of statics and dynamics, as equilibrium, measure of statical forces, gravity, oblique forces, and the parallelogram of forces. Whewell substantiates the fundamental principles of mechanics by analogy with the axioms of geometry, but (...) his justification of the necessity of mechanical laws is based on the idea of causality. Translated by A.L. Nikiforov, comments by I.T. Kasavin and T.D. Sokolova. (shrink)

This article develops an axiomatic theory of induction that speaks to the recent debate on Bayesian orgulity. It shows the exact principles associated with the belief that data can corroborate universal laws. We identify two types of disbelief about induction: skepticism that the existence of universal laws of nature can be determined empirically, and skepticism that the true law of nature, if it exists, can be successfully identified. We formalize and characterize these two dispositions toward induction by (...) introducing novel axioms for subjective probabilities. We also relate these dispositions to the axiom of σ-additivity. (shrink)

In their logical analysis of theorems about disjoint rays in graphs, Barnes, Shore, and the author (hereafter BGS) introduced a weak choice scheme in second-order arithmetic, called the $\Sigma ^1_1$ axiom of finite choice (hereafter finite choice). This is a special case of the $\Sigma ^1_1$ axiom of choice ( $\Sigma ^1_1\text {-}\mathsf {AC}_0$ ) introduced by Kreisel. BGS showed that $\Sigma ^1_1\text {-}\mathsf {AC}_0$ suffices for proving many of the aforementioned theorems in graph theory. While it is (...) not known if these implications reverse, BGS also showed that those theorems imply finite choice (in some cases, with additional induction assumptions). This motivated us to study the proof-theoretic strength of finite choice. Using a variant of Steel forcing with tagged trees, we show that finite choice is not provable from the $\Delta ^1_1$ -comprehension scheme (even over $\omega $ -models). We also show that finite choice is a consequence of the arithmetic Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem (introduced by Friedman and studied by Conidis), assuming $\Sigma ^1_1$ -induction. Our results were used by BGS to show that several theorems in graph theory cannot be proved using $\Delta ^1_1$ -comprehension. Our results also strengthen results of Conidis. (shrink)

This recent addition to the well-known "Studies in Logic" series is sure to be of first importance to serious students of inductive logic, confirmation theory, and related issues. The book is an anthology of fourteen papers, which are classified under five different headings: "Extensions of Inductive Logic," "Induction and Information," "Prospects of Confirmation Theory," "The Paradoxes of Confirmation," and "Probability and Foundational Problems." Needless to say, all of the papers are of uniformly high quality. Especially worthy of mention are (...) two papers by Hintikka and Hilpinen which deal with an interesting generalization of Carnap's continuum of inductive methods, and which lead to a somewhat more plausible treatment of non-logically-true closed sentences. Suppes contributes two papers dealing with the recently revived Bayesian methods and their significance for concept formation in psychology and confirmation theory in the philosophy of science. Also under the heading of confirmation theory, one might mention Max Black's paper, "Notes on the Paradoxes of Confirmation," a lucid and rather novel approach to this problem. There is also an important paper by Dana Scott and Peter Krauss entitled "Assigning Probabilities to Logical Formulas." This piece of work presents a set-theoretical method for bridging the gap between the standard treatment of probability by means of axioms defining a real measure over a Boolean algebra and the usual logical inquiries into "degree of confirmation" and the like. The reference value of the book is enhanced by a subject index of terms and concepts dealt with in the various papers.—H. P. K. (shrink)

We introduce a new axiom called inductive dichotomy, a weak variant of the axiom of inductive definition, and analyze the relationships with other variants of inductive definition and with related axioms, in the general second order framework, including second order arithmetic, second order set theory and higher order arithmetic. By applying these results to the investigations on the determinacy axioms, we show the following. (i) Clopen determinacy is consistency-wise strictly weaker than open determinacy in these frameworks, except second (...) order arithmetic; this is an enhancement of Schweber–Hachtman separation of open and clopen determinacy into the consistency-wise separation. (ii) Hausdorff–Kuratowski hierarchy of differences of opens is faithfully reflected by the hierarchy of consistency strengths of corresponding parameter-free determinacies in the aforementioned frameworks; this result is valid also in second order arithmetic only except clopen determinacy. (shrink)

This book seeks to offer original answers to all the major open questions in epistemology—as indicated by the book’s title. These questions and answers arise organically in the course of a validation of the entire corpus of human knowledge. The book explains how we know what we know, and how well we know it. The author presents a positive theory, motivated and directed at every step not by a need to reply to skeptics or subjectivists, but by the need of (...) a rational individual to know the world. -/- The author draws heavily from Ayn Rand’s theory of concepts as presented in her book, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, but departs from her epistemology—especially as explicated by leading exponents of her philosophy—in important ways. Areas of departure include the perception of entities and the role of probability theory in epistemology. -/- A main idea in the book is to begin the validation of the law of causality by identifying that existence causes our consciousness of it. Another key idea is this: The very fact that we perceive entities is the most basic and most extensive evidence that causal forces and causal interactions are regular. -/- Applying Ayn Rand’s principle that characteristics are ranges of measurement, the book offers a philosophical validation of “nonparametric predictive inference,” in turn providing an objective basis for prior probabilities in Bayesian analysis. -/- This book is primarily for a specialized readership—familiar with epistemological ideas and with Ayn Rand’s theory of concepts in particular. The last third of the book uses probability theory and mathematics somewhat beyond basic calculus, but less mathematical explanations are also included to make the general ideas accessible to lay readers. (shrink)

It is proved that in a suitable intuitionistic, locally classical, version of the theory ZFC deprived of the axiom of infinity, the requirement that every set be finite is equivalent to the assertion that every ordinal is a natural number. Moreover, the theory obtained with the addition of these finiteness assumptions is equivalent to a theory of hereditarily finite sets, developed by Previale in "Induction and foundation in the theory of hereditarily finite sets." This solves some problems stated (...) there. The analysis is undertaken using for each of these results a limited fragment of the relevant theory. (shrink)

In his previous work, the author has introduced the axiom schema of inductive dichotomy, a weak variant of the axiom schema of inductive definition, and used this schema for elementary ) positive operators to separate open and clopen determinacies for those games in which two players make choices from infinitely many alternatives in various circumstances. Among the studies on variants of inductive definitions for bounded ) positive operators, the present article investigates inductive dichotomy for these operators, and applies (...) it to constructive investigations of variants of determinacy statements for those games in which the players make choices from only finitely many alternatives. As a result, three formulations of open determinacy, that are all classically equivalent with each other, are equivalent to three different semi-classical principles, namely Markov’s Principle, Lesser Limited Principle of Omniscience and Limited Principle of Omniscience, over a suitable constructive base theory that proves clopen determinacy. Open and clopen determinacies for these games are thus separated. Some basic results on variants of inductive definitions for \ positive operators will also be given. (shrink)

The paper contains an axiomatic treatment of the intuitionistic theory of hereditarily finite sets, based on an induction axiom-schema and a finite set of single axioms. The main feature of the principle of induction used (due to Givant and Tarski) is that it incorporates Foundation. On the analogy of what is done in Arithmetic, in the axiomatic system selected the transitive closure of the membership relation is taken as a primitive notion, so as to permit an immediate (...) adaptation of the theory to cases of restricted induction (in particular primitive recursive induction). At the end of the paper several different forms of induction, which play an important role in the development of the theory, are compared. An alternative axiomatization of the theory, which is of intrinsic interest, is also discussed. (shrink)

Handbook of Mathematical Induction: Theory and Applications shows how to find and write proofs via mathematical induction. This comprehensive book covers the theory, the structure of the written proof, all standard exercises, and hundreds of application examples from nearly every area of mathematics. In the first part of the book, the author discusses different inductive techniques, including well-ordered sets, basic mathematical induction, strong induction, double induction, infinite descent, downward induction, and several variants. He then (...) introduces ordinals and cardinals, transfinite induction, the axiom of choice, Zorn’s lemma, empirical induction, and fallacies and induction. He also explains how to write inductive proofs. The next part contains more than 750 exercises that highlight the levels of difficulty of an inductive proof, the variety of inductive techniques available, and the scope of results provable by mathematical induction. Each self-contained chapter in this section includes the necessary definitions, theory, and notation and covers a range of theorems and problems, from fundamental to very specialized. The final part presents either solutions or hints to the exercises. Slightly longer than what is found in most texts, these solutions provide complete details for every step of the problem-solving process. (shrink)

Gambles which induce the decision-maker to experience ambiguity about the relative likelihood of events often give rise to ambiguity-seeking and ambiguity-avoidance, which imply violation of additivity and Savage's axioms. The inability of the subjective Bayesian theory to account for these empirical regularities has determined a dichotomy between normative and descriptive views of subjective probability. This paper proposes a framework within which the two perspectives can be reconciled. First, a formal definition of ambiguity is given over a continuum ranging from ignorance (...) to risk, and including ambiguous contexts as subsets. Second, it is shown that the systems of inductive logic account for the effects of ambiguity. Then, Carnap's X-system is applied as a psychological model and compared to Einhorn and Hogarth's non-normative psychological model. Finally, the implications of this research to the modeling of subjective probability judgements are discussed. (shrink)

A principle, according to which any scientific theory can be mathematized, is investigated. Social science, liberal arts, history, and philosophy are meant first of all. That kind of theory is presupposed to be a consistent text, which can be exhaustedly represented by a certain mathematical structure constructively. In thus used, the term “theory” includes all hypotheses as yet unconfirmed as already rejected. The investigation of the sketch of a possible proof of the principle demonstrates that it should be accepted rather (...) a metamathematical axiom about the relation of mathematics and reality. The main statement is formulated as follows: Any scientific theory admits isomorphism to some mathematical structure in a way constructive. Its investigation needs philosophical means. Husserl’s phenomenology is what is used, and then the conception of “bracketing reality” is modelled to generalize Peano arithmetic in its relation to set theory in the foundation of mathematics. The obtained model is equivalent to the generalization of Peano arithmetic by means of replacing the axiom of induction with that of transfinite induction. The sketch of the proof is organized in five steps: a generalization of epoché; involving transfinite induction in the transition between Peano arithmetic and set theory; discussing the finiteness of Peano arithmetic; applying transfinite induction to Peano arithmetic; discussing an arithmetical model of reality. Accepting or rejecting the principle, two kinds of mathematics appear differing from each other by its relation to reality. Accepting the principle, mathematics has to include reality within itself in a kind of Pythagoreanism. These two kinds are called in paper correspondingly Hilbert mathematics and Gödel mathematics. The sketch of the proof of the principle demonstrates that the generalization of Peano arithmetic as above can be interpreted as a model of Hilbert mathematics into Gödel mathematics therefore showing that the former is not less consistent than the latter, and the principle is an independent axiom. The present paper follows a pathway grounded on Husserl’s phenomenology and “bracketing reality” to achieve the generalized arithmetic necessary for the principle to be founded in alternative ontology, in which there is no reality external to mathematics: reality is included within mathematics. That latter mathematics is able to self-found itself and can be called Hilbert mathematics in honour of Hilbert’s program for self-founding mathematics on the base of arithmetic. The principle of universal mathematizability is consistent to Hilbert mathematics, but not to Gödel mathematics. Consequently, its validity or rejection would resolve the problem which mathematics refers to our being; and vice versa: the choice between them for different reasons would confirm or refuse the principle as to the being. An information interpretation of Hilbert mathematics is involved. It is a kind of ontology of information. The Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics is involved to illustrate that ontology. Thus the problem which of the two mathematics is more relevant to our being is discussed again in a new way A few directions for future work can be: a rigorous formal proof of the principle as an independent axiom; the further development of information ontology consistent to both kinds of mathematics, but much more natural for Hilbert mathematics; the development of the information interpretation of quantum mechanics as a mathematical one for information ontology and thus Hilbert mathematics; the description of consciousness in terms of information ontology. (shrink)

A principle, according to which any scientific theory can be mathematized, is investigated. That theory is presupposed to be a consistent text, which can be exhaustedly represented by a certain mathematical structure constructively. In thus used, the term “theory” includes all hypotheses as yet unconfirmed as already rejected. The investigation of the sketch of a possible proof of the principle demonstrates that it should be accepted rather a metamathematical axiom about the relation of mathematics and reality. Its investigation needs (...) philosophical means. Husserl’s phenomenology is what is used, and then the conception of “bracketing reality” is modelled to generalize Peano arithmetic in its relation to set theory in the foundation of mathematics. The obtained model is equivalent to the generalization of Peano arithmetic by means of replacing the axiom of induction with that of transfinite induction. A comparison to Mach’s doctrine is used to be revealed the fundamental and philosophical reductionism of Husserl’s phenomenology leading to a kind of Pythagoreanism in the final analysis. Accepting or rejecting the principle, two kinds of mathematics appear differing from each other by its relation to reality. Accepting the principle, mathematics has to include reality within itself in a kind of Pythagoreanism. These two kinds are called in paper correspondingly Hilbert mathematics and Gödel mathematics. The sketch of the proof of the principle demonstrates that the generalization of Peano arithmetic as above can be interpreted as a model of Hilbert mathematics into Gödel mathematics therefore showing that the former is not less consistent than the latter, and the principle is an independent axiom. An information interpretation of Hilbert mathematics is involved. It is a kind of ontology of information. Thus the problem which of the two mathematics is more relevant to our being is discussed. An information interpretation of the Schrödinger equation is involved to illustrate the above problem. (shrink)

In this thesis, we study the least fixed point principle in a constructive setting. A constructive theory of functions and sets has been developed by Feferman. This theory deals both with sets and with functions over sets as independent notions. In the language of Feferman's theory, we are able to formulate the least fixed point principle for monotone inductive definitions as: every operation on classes to classes which satisfies the monotonicity condition has a least fixed point. This is called the (...) principle of monotone inductive definition. Furthermore, we may formulate this principle in a uniform way as: there is an operation which maps a monotone operation to its least fixed point. This is called the principle of uniform monotone inductive definition. Feferman raised the question of the strength of the principle of monotone inductive definition when adjoined to his theory . This question is our primary concern in this thesis. ;Our main results are the consistency of both the principle of monotone inductive definition and the principle of uniform monotone inductive definition adjoined to his theory, and the proof theoretical equivalence between the principle of monotone inductive definition with Feferman's system without the inductive generation axiom and the system of the Pi-one-one Comprehension Axiom. Determination of the proof-theoretical strength of the principle of monotone inductive definition adjoined to Feferman's theory still remains open. ;The consistency of both the principle of monotone inductive definition and the principle of uniform monotone inductive definition with Feferman's theory will be achieved by constructing their models in set theoretical sense. The proof theoretical equivalence between the principle of monotone inductive definition with Feferman's system without the inductive generation axiom and the system of the Pi-one-one Comprehension Axiom can be obtained by a careful examination of the model construction for the principle of monotone inductive definition with Feferman's system without the inductive generation axiom, which is parallel to the model construction for the principle of monotone inductive definition with his theory. (shrink)

Models of normal open induction are those normal discretely ordered rings whose nonnegative part satisfy Peano's axioms for open formulas in the language of ordered semirings. (Where normal means integrally closed in its fraction field.) In 1964 Shepherdson gave a recursive nonstandard model of open induction. His model is not normal and does not have any infinite prime elements. In this paper we present a recursive nonstandard model of normal open induction with an unbounded set of infinite (...) prime elements. (shrink)

An agent who violates independence can avoid dynamic inconsistency in sequential choice if he is sophisticated enough to make use of backward induction in planning. However, Seidenfeld has demonstrated that such a sophisticated agent with dependent preferences is bound to violate the principle of dynamic substitution, according to which admissibility of a plan is preserved under substitution of indifferent options at various choice nodes in the decision tree. Since Seidenfeld considers dynamic substitution to be a coherence condition on dynamic (...) choice, he concludes that sophistication cannot save a violator of independence from incoherence. In response to McClennen’s objection that relying on dynamic substitution when independence is at stake must be question-begging, Seidenfeld undertakes to prove that dynamic substitution follows from the principle of backward induction alone, provided we assume that the agent’s admissible choices from different sets of feasible plans are all based on a fixed underlying preference ordering of plans. This paper shows that Seidenfeld's proof fails: depending on the interpretation, it is either invalid or based on an unacceptable assumption. (shrink)

We define a class of higher inductive types that can be constructed in the category of sets under the assumptions of Zermelo‐Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of choice or the existence of uncountable regular cardinals. This class includes the example of unordered trees of any arity.

In this paper we discuss extensions of Feferman's theory T 0 for explicit mathematics by the so-called limit and Mahlo axioms and present a novel approach to constructing natural recursion-theoretic models for systems of explicit mathematics which is based on nonmonotone inductive definitions.

I set up two axiomatic theories of inductive support within the framework of Kolmogorovian probability theory. I call these theories ‘Popperian theories of inductive support’ because I think that their specific axioms express the core meaning of the word ‘inductive support’ as used by Popper (and, presumably, by many others, including some inductivists). As is to be expected from Popperian theories of inductive support, the main theorem of each of them is an anti-induction theorem, the stronger one of them (...) saying, in fact, that the relation of inductive support is identical with the empty relation. It seems to me that an axiomatic treatment of the idea(s) of inductive support within orthodox probability theory could be worthwhile for at least three reasons. Firstly, an axiomatic treatment demands from the builder of a theory of inductive support to state clearly in the form of specific axioms what he means by ‘inductive support’. Perhaps the discussion of the new anti-induction proofs of Karl Popper and David Miller would have been more fruitful if they had given an explicit definition of what inductive support is or should be. Secondly, an axiomatic treatment of the idea(s) of inductive support within Kolmogorovian probability theory might be accommodating to those philosophers who do not completely trust Popperian probability theory for having theorems which orthodox Kolmogorovian probability theory lacks; a transparent derivation of anti-induction theorems within a Kolmogorovian frame might bring additional persuasive power to the original anti-induction proofs of Popper and Miller, developed within the framework of Popperian probability theory. Thirdly, one of the main advantages of the axiomatic method is that it facilitates criticism of its products: the axiomatic theories. On the one hand, it is much easier than usual to check whether those statements which have been distinguished as theorems really are theorems of the theory under examination. On the other hand, after we have convinced ourselves that these statements are indeed theorems, we can take a critical look at the axioms—especially if we have a negative attitude towards one of the theorems. Since anti-induction theorems are not popular at all, the adequacy of some of the axioms they are derived from will certainly be doubted. If doubt should lead to a search for alternative axioms, sheer negative attitudes might develop into constructive criticism and even lead to new discoveries. -/- I proceed as follows. In section 1, I start with a small but sufficiently strong axiomatic theory of deductive dependence, closely following Popper and Miller (1987). In section 2, I extend that starting theory to an elementary Kolmogorovian theory of unconditional probability, which I extend, in section 3, to an elementary Kolmogorovian theory of conditional probability, which in its turn gets extended, in section 4, to a standard theory of probabilistic dependence, which also gets extended, in section 5, to a standard theory of probabilistic support, the main theorem of which will be a theorem about the incompatibility of probabilistic support and deductive independence. In section 6, I extend the theory of probabilistic support to a weak Popperian theory of inductive support, which I extend, in section 7, to a strong Popperian theory of inductive support. In section 8, I reconsider Popper's anti-inductivist theses in the light of the anti-induction theorems. I conclude the paper with a short discussion of possible objections to our anti-induction theorems, paying special attention to the topic of deductive relevance, which has so far been neglected in the discussion of the anti-induction proofs of Popper and Miller. (shrink)

Probability ratio and likelihood ratio measures of inductive support and related notions have appeared as theoretical tools for probabilistic approaches in the philosophy of science, the psychology of reasoning, and artificial intelligence. In an effort of conceptual clarification, several authors have pursued axiomatic foundations for these two families of measures. Such results have been criticized, however, as relying on unduly demanding or poorly motivated mathematical assumptions. We provide two novel theorems showing that probability ratio and likelihood ratio measures can be (...) axiomatized in a way that overcomes these difficulties. (shrink)

According to the Bayesian view, scientific hypotheses must be appraised in terms of their posterior probabilities relative to the available experimental data. Such posterior probabilities are derived from the prior probabilities of the hypotheses by applying Bayes'theorem. One of the most important problems arising within the Bayesian approach to scientific methodology is the choice of prior probabilities. Here this problem is considered in detail w.r.t. two applications of the Bayesian approach: (1) the theory of inductive probabilities (TIP) developed by Rudolf (...) Carnap and other epistomologists and (2) the analysis of the multinational inferences provided by Bayesian statstics (BS). ... Zie: Summary. (shrink)

The theory , axiomatized by the induction scheme for sharply bounded formulae in Buss’ original language of bounded arithmetic , has recently been unconditionally separated from full bounded arithmetic S2. The method used to prove the separation is reminiscent of those known from the study of open induction.We make the connection to open induction explicit, showing that models of can be built using a “nonstandard variant” of Wilkie’s well-known technique for building models of IOpen. This makes it (...) possible to transfer many results and methods from open to sharply bounded induction with relative ease.We provide two applications: the Shepherdson model of IOpen can be embedded into a model of , which immediately implies some independence results for ; extended by an axiom which roughly states that every number has a least 1 bit in its binary notation, while significantly stronger than plain , does not prove the infinity of primes. (shrink)

We characterize the proof-theoretic strength of systems of explicit mathematics with a general principle asserting the existence of least fixed points for monotone inductive definitions, in terms of certain systems of analysis and set theory. In the case of analysis, these are systems which contain the Σ12-axiom of choice and Π12-comprehension for formulas without set parameters. In the case of set theory, these are systems containing the Kripke-Platek axioms for a recursively inaccessible universe together with the existence of a (...) stable ordinal. In all cases, the exact strength depends on what forms of induction are admitted in the respective systems. (shrink)

We examine what happens if we replace ZFC with a localistic/relativistic system, LZFC, whose central new axiom, denoted by Loc(ZFC), says that every set belongs to a transitive model of ZFC. LZFC consists of Loc(ZFC) plus some elementary axioms forming Basic Set Theory (BST). Some theoretical reasons for this shift of view are given. All ${\Pi_2}$ consequences of ZFC are provable in LZFC. LZFC strongly extends Kripke-Platek (KP) set theory minus Δ0-Collection and minus ${\in}$ -induction scheme. ZFC+ “there (...) is an inaccessible cardinal” proves the consistency of LZFC. In LZFC we focus on models rather than cardinals, a transitive model being considered as the analogue of an inaccessible cardinal. Pushing this analogy further we define α-Mahlo models and ${\Pi_1^1}$ -indescribable models, the latter being the analogues of weakly compact cardinals. Also localization axioms of the form ${Loc({\rm ZFC}+\phi)}$ are considered and their global consequences are examined. Finally we introduce the concept of standard compact cardinal (in ZFC) and some standard compactness results are proved. (shrink)

By a well-known result of Kotlarski et al., first-order Peano arithmetic \ can be conservatively extended to the theory \ of a truth predicate satisfying compositional axioms, i.e., axioms stating that the truth predicate is correct on atomic formulae and commutes with all the propositional connectives and quantifiers. This result motivates the general question of determining natural axioms concerning the truth predicate that can be added to \ while maintaining conservativity over \. Our main result shows that conservativity fails even (...) for the extension of \ obtained by the seemingly weak axiom of disjunctive correctness \ that asserts that the truth predicate commutes with disjunctions of arbitrary finite size. In particular, \ implies \\). Our main result states that the theory \ coincides with the theory \ obtained by adding \-induction in the language with the truth predicate. This result strengthens earlier work by Kotlarski and Cieśliński. For our proof we develop a new general form of Visser’s theorem on non-existence of infinite descending chains of truth definitions and prove it by reduction to Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, rather than by using the Visser–Yablo paradox, as in Visser’s original proof. (shrink)

A proof of Fermat’s last theorem is demonstrated. It is very brief, simple, elementary, and absolutely arithmetical. The necessary premises for the proof are only: the three definitive properties of the relation of equality (identity, symmetry, and transitivity), modus tollens, axiom of induction, the proof of Fermat’s last theorem in the case of n = 3 as well as the premises necessary for the formulation of the theorem itself. It involves a modification of Fermat’s approach of infinite descent. (...) The infinite descent is linked to induction starting from n = 3 by modus tollens. An inductive series of modus tollens is constructed. The proof of the series by induction is equivalent to Fermat’s last theorem. As far as Fermat had been proved the theorem for n = 4, one can suggest that the proof for n ≥ 4 was accessible to him. An idea for an elementary arithmetical proof of Fermat’s last theorem (FLT) by induction is suggested. It would be accessible to Fermat unlike Wiles’s proof (1995). (shrink)

Mr. E. J. Nelson, in “The Inductive Argument for an External World,” treats of fundamental topics with erudition and urbanity, but his essay remains inconclusive, I believe, with respect to its purpose of discrediting the argument. He agrees with Mr. Savery, Mr. Pratt, and me, as against the positivists, that the question of the existence of an external world is meaningful and indeed of paramount importance for both metaphysics and logic. But he argues against us that it cannot be inductively (...) established by its supposed power of “saving the appearances.” He is not sure that any induction is valid; but even if other inductions are valid, he thinks this one can not be, for the following reasons. By the multiplicative axiom of probability-theory, evidence for a hypothesis can only multiply its antecedent probability, and can increase the probability only when the latter is finite, while the hypothesis of an external world has and can have no finite antecedent probability. By the same axiom, even granted an antecedent probability for the hypothesis itself, no experience can act as evidence to increase the probability of a hypothesis except in so far as the hypothesis implies, makes probable, or “explains” the evidence, and this the hypothesis of an external world cannot do. (shrink)