Gödel mathematics versus Hilbert mathematics. I. The Gödel incompleteness (1931) statement: axiom or theorem?

Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics eJournal (Elsevier: SSRN) 14 (9):1-56 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The present first part about the eventual completeness of mathematics (called “Hilbert mathematics”) is concentrated on the Gödel incompleteness (1931) statement: if it is an axiom rather than a theorem inferable from the axioms of (Peano) arithmetic, (ZFC) set theory, and propositional logic, this would pioneer the pathway to Hilbert mathematics. One of the main arguments that it is an axiom consists in the direct contradiction of the axiom of induction in arithmetic and the axiom of infinity in set theory. Thus, the pair of arithmetic and set are to be similar to Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries distinguishably only by the Fifth postulate now, i.e. after replacing it and its negation correspondingly by the axiom of finiteness (induction) versus that of finiteness being idempotent negations to each other. Indeed, the axiom of choice, as far as it is equivalent to the well-ordering “theorem”, transforms any set in a well-ordering either necessarily finite according to the axiom of induction or also optionally infinite according to the axiom of infinity. So, the Gödel incompleteness statement relies on the logical contradiction of the axiom of induction and the axiom of infinity in the final analysis. Nonetheless, both can be considered as two idempotent versions of the same axiom (analogically to the Fifth postulate) and then unified after logicism and its inherent intensionality since the opposition of finiteness and infinity can be only extensional (i.e., relevant to the elements of any set rather than to the set by itself or its characteristic property being a proposition). So, the pathway for interpreting the Gödel incompleteness statement as an axiom and the originating from that assumption for “Hilbert mathematics” accepting its negation is pioneered. A much wider context relevant to realizing the Gödel incompleteness statement as a metamathematical axiom is consistently built step by step. The horizon of Hilbert mathematics is the proper subject in the third part of the paper, and a reinterpretation of Gödel’s papers (1930; 1931) as an apology of logicism as the only consistent foundations of mathematics is the topic of the next second part.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Gödel's incompleteness theorems.Raymond M. Smullyan - 1992 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by Lou Goble.
Kurt Gödel, paper on the incompleteness theorems (1931).Richard Zach - 2004 - In Ivor Grattan-Guinness (ed.), Landmark Writings in Mathematics. North-Holland. pp. 917-925.
Mathematical instrumentalism, Gödel’s theorem, and inductive evidence.Alexander Paseau - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (1):140-149.
On Gödel Sentences and What They Say.Peter Milne - 2007 - Philosophia Mathematica 15 (2):193-226.
The gödel paradox and Wittgenstein's reasons.Francesco Berto - 2009 - Philosophia Mathematica 17 (2):208-219.
From closed to open systems.Carlo Cellucci - 1993 - In J. Czermak (ed.), Philosophy of Mathematics, pp. 206-220. Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.
Is Mathematics Problem Solving or Theorem Proving?Carlo Cellucci - 2017 - Foundations of Science 22 (1):183-199.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-10-13

Downloads
311 (#62,773)

6 months
147 (#21,243)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Vasil Penchev
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Non-standard Analysis.Gert Heinz Müller - 2016 - Princeton University Press.
The Consistency of the Continuum Hypothesis.Kurt Godel - 1940 - Princeton University Press.
Singular terms and arithmetical logicism.Ian Rumfitt - 2003 - Philosophical Books 44 (3):193--219.
Two (or three) notions of finitism.Mihai Ganea - 2010 - Review of Symbolic Logic 3 (1):119-144.

View all 7 references / Add more references