There is a well-known gap between metamathematical theorems and their philosophical interpretations. Take Tarski’s Theorem. According to its prevalent interpretation, the collection of all arithmetical truths is not arithmetically definable. However, the underlying metamathematical theorem merely establishes the arithmetical undefinability of a set of specific Gödel codes of certain artefactual entities, such as infix strings, which are true in the standard model. That is, as opposed to its philosophical reading, the metamathematical theorem is formulated (and proved) relative to a specific (...) choice of the Gödel numbering and the notation system. A similar observation applies to Gödel’s and Church’s theorems, which are commonly taken to impose severe limitations on what can be proved and computed using the resources of certain formalisms. The philosophical force of these limitative results heavily relies on the belief that these theorems do not depend on contingencies regarding the underlying formalisation choices. The main aim of this paper is to provide metamathematical facts which support this belief. While employing a fixed notation system, I showed in previous work (_Review of Symbolic Logic_, 2021, 14(1):51–84) how to abstract away from the choice of the Gödel numbering. In the present paper, I extend this work by establishing versions of Tarski’s, Gödel’s and Church’s theorems which are invariant regarding _both_ the notation system and the numbering. This paper thus provides a further step towards absolute versions of metamathematical results which do not rely on contingent formalisation choices. (shrink)

ABSTRACT We use Gödel’s incompleteness theorems as a case study for investigating mathematical depth. We examine the philosophical question of what the depth of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems consists in. We focus on the methodological study of the depth of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, and propose three criteria to account for the depth of the incompleteness theorems: influence, fruitfulness, and unity. Finally, we give some explanations for our account of the depth of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.

This is a paper for a special issue of Semiotic Studies devoted to Stanislaw Krajewski’s paper. This paper gives some supplementary notes to Krajewski’s on the Anti-Mechanist Arguments based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. In Section 3, we give some additional explanations to Section 4–6 in Krajewski’s and classify some misunderstandings of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem related to AntiMechanist Arguments. In Section 4 and 5, we give a more detailed discussion of Gödel’s Disjunctive Thesis, Gödel’s Undemonstrability of Consistency Thesis and the definability (...) of natural numbers as in Section 7–8 in Krajewski’s, describing how recent advances bear on these issues. (shrink)