Die Leitgedanken meiner Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mathematik, die ich - anknüpfend an frühere Ansätze - seit 1917 in Besprechungen mit P. BERNAYS wieder aufgenommen habe, sind von mir an verschiedenen Stellen eingehend dargelegt worden. Diesen Untersuchungen, an denen auch W. ACKERMANN beteiligt ist, haben sich seither noch verschiedene Mathematiker angeschlossen. Der hier in seinem ersten Teil vorliegende, von BERNAYS abgefaßte und noch fortzusetzende Lehrgang bezweckt eine Darstellung der Theorie nach ihren heutigen Ergebnissen. Dieser Ergebnisstand weist zugleich (...) die Richtung für die weitere Forschung in der Beweistheorie auf das Endziel hin, unsere üblichen Methoden der Mathematik samt und sonders als widerspruchsfrei zu erkennen. Im Hinblick auf dieses Ziel möchte ich hervorheben, daß die zeit weilig aufgekommene Meinung, aus gewissen neueren Ergebnissen von GÖDEL folge die Undurchführbarkeit meiner Beweistheorie, als irrtüm lich erwiesen ist. Jenes Ergebnis zeigt in der Tat auch nur, daß man für die weitergehenden Widerspruchsfreiheitsbeweise den finiten Stand punkt in einer schärferen Weise ausnutzen muß, als dieses bei der Be trachtung der elementaren Formallsmen erforderlich ist. Göttingen, im März 1934 HILBERT Vorwort zur ersten Auflage Eine Darstellung der Beweistheorie, welche aus dem HILBERTschen Ansatz zur Behandlung der mathematisch-logischen Grundlagenpro bleme erwachsen ist, wurde schon seit längerem von HILBERT ange kündigt. (shrink)

Dieser Buchtitel ist Teil des Digitalisierungsprojekts Springer Book Archives mit Publikationen, die seit den Anfängen des Verlags von 1842 erschienen sind. Der Verlag stellt mit diesem Archiv Quellen für die historische wie auch die disziplingeschichtliche Forschung zur Verfügung, die jeweils im historischen Kontext betrachtet werden müssen. Dieser Titel erschien in der Zeit vor 1945 und wird daher in seiner zeittypischen politisch-ideologischen Ausrichtung vom Verlag nicht beworben.

The material contained in the following translation was given in substance by Professor Hilbertas a course of lectures on euclidean geometry at the University of G]ottingen during the wintersemester of 1898-1899. The results of his investigation were re-arranged and put into the formin which they appear here as a memorial address published in connection with the celebration atthe unveiling of the Gauss-Weber monument at G]ottingen, in June, 1899. In the French edition, which appeared soon after, Professor Hilbert made some additions, (...) particularly in the concludingremarks, where he gave an account of the results of a recent investigation made by Dr. Dehn.These additions have been incorporated in the following translation.Geometry, like arithmetic, requires for its logical development only a small number ofsimple, fundamental principles. These fundamental principles are called the axioms ofgeometry. The choice of the axioms and the investigation of their relations to one anotheris a problem which, since the time of Euclid, has been discussed in numerous excellentmemoirs to be found in the mathematical literature.1 This problem is tantamount to thelogical analysis of our intuition of space. (shrink)

Introduction. The system of axioms for set theory to be exhibited in this paper is a modification of the axiom system due to von Neumann. In particular it adopts the principal idea of von Neumann, that the elimination of the undefined notion of a property (“definite Eigenschaft”), which occurs in the original axiom system of Zermelo, can be accomplished in such a way as to make the resulting axiom system elementary, in the sense of being formalizable in the logical calculus (...) of first order, which contains no other bound variables than individual variables and no accessory rule of inference (as, for instance, a scheme of complete induction).The purpose of modifying the von Neumann system is to remain nearer to the structure of the original Zermelo system and to utilize at the same time some of the set-theoretic concepts of the Schröder logic and of Principia mathematica which have become familiar to logicians. As will be seen, a considerable simplification results from this arrangement.The theory is not set up as a pure formalism, but rather in the usual manner of elementary axiom theory, where we have to deal with propositions which are understood to have a meaning, and where the reference to the domain of facts to be axiomatized is suggested by the names for the kinds of individuals and for the fundamental predicates.On the other hand, from the formulation of the axioms and the methods used in making inferences from them, it will be obvious that the theory can be formalized by means of the logical calculus of first order (“Prädikatenkalkul” or “engere Funktionenkalkül”) with the addition of the formalism of equality and the ι-symbol for “descriptions” (in the sense of Whitehead and Russell). (shrink)

The reader of Part VI will have noticed that among the set-theoretic models considered there some models were missing which were announced in Part II for certain proofs of independence. These models will be supplied now.Mainly two models have to be constructed: one with the property that there exists a set which is its own only element, and another in which the axioms I–III and VII, but not Va, are satisfied. In either case we need not satisfy the axiom of (...) infinity. Thereby it becomes possible to set up the models on the basis of only I–III, and either VII or Va, a basis from which number theory can be obtained as we saw in Part II.On both these bases the Π0-system of Part VI, which satisfies the axioms I–V and VII, but not VI, can be constructed, as we stated there. An isomorphic model can also be obtained on that basis, by first setting up number theory as in Part II, and then proceeding as Ackermann did.Let us recall the main points of this procedure.For the sake of clarity in the discussion of this and the subsequent models, it will be necessary to distinguish precisely between the concepts which are relative to the basic set-theoretic system, and those which are relative to the model to be defined. (shrink)