Induction, more or less

Abstract

The first main topic of this paper is a weak second-order theory that sits between firstorder Peano Arithmetic PA1 and axiomatized second-order Peano Arithmetic PA2 – namely, that much-investigated theory known in the trade as ACA0. What I’m going to argue is that ACA0, in its standard form, lacks a cogent conceptual motivation. Now, that claim – when the wraps are off – will turn out to be rather less exciting than it sounds. It isn’t that all the work that has been done on ACA0 has been hopelessly misplaced: that would be a quite absurd suggestion. The mistake, if that’s what it is, has been a relatively small one. Still, we really ought to try to put things into conceptual good order here. That’s part of what philosophers are for. Here’s the structure of my main claim. On the one hand, interesting work on ACA0 actually only uses part of the strength of the theory: or as we might put it, the interesting work is actually carried on in a cut-down theory I’ll call ACA!. This theory, I’ll be claiming, does have a good conceptual motivation – it is in fact the theory that the putative conceptual grounding for ACA0 actually underpins. On the other hand, I’ll be arguing that original-strength ACA0 inductively inflates. I mean, to put it more carefully, that anyone who accepts ACA0 as a cogent theory can have no reason not to accept a certain significantly stronger theory, with a stronger induction principle. This stronger theory is standardly known as plain ACA. So, my claim comes to this: you can either go for the cut-down theory ACA!; or you can go for the much richer theory ACA. What you can’t do is – I mean, what you can’t have a stable conceptual motivation for doing – is to rest content with the intermediate strength ACA0 in its standard presentation. Yet in much of the literature, in particular in Simpson’s encyclopedic book Subsystems of Second-Order Arithmetic (1991), neither ACA! nor full ACA gets so much as a mention, and the conceptually unstable theory ACA0 gets all the glory. Why is my claim at all interesting? For at least two reasons..

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-06-06

Downloads
41 (#369,691)

6 months
1 (#1,459,555)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Peter Eldridge-Smith
Australian National University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

An Introduction to Gödel's Theorems.Peter Smith - 2007 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
An Introduction to Gödel's Theorems.Peter Smith - 2009 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 15 (2):218-222.
Deflating the conservativeness argument.Hartry Field - 1999 - Journal of Philosophy 96 (10):533-540.
Semantic structure and logical form.Gareth Evans - 1976 - In Gareth Evans & John Henry McDowell (eds.), Truth and meaning: essays in semantics. Oxford [Eng.]: Clarendon Press. pp. 49--75.

Add more references