Nominalistic ordinals, recursion on higher types, and finitism

Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 25 (1):101-124 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In 1936, Gerhard Gentzen published a proof of consistency for Peano Arithmetic using transfinite induction up to ε0, which was considered a finitistically acceptable procedure by both Gentzen and Paul Bernays. Gentzen’s method of arithmetising ordinals and thus avoiding the Platonistic metaphysics of set theory traces back to the 1920s, when Bernays and David Hilbert used the method for an attempted proof of the Continuum Hypothesis. The idea that recursion on higher types could be used to simulate the limit-building in transfinite recursion seems to originate from Bernays. The main difficulty, which was already discovered in Gabriel Sudan’s nearly forgotten paper of 1927, was that measuring transfinite ordinals requires stronger methods than representing them. This paper presents a historical account of the idea of nominalistic ordinals in the context of the Hilbert Programme as well as Gentzen and Bernays’ finitary interpretation of transfinite induction.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,343

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

On the restricted ordinal theorem.R. L. Goodstein - 1944 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 9 (2):33-41.
Finite notations for infinite terms.Helmut Schwichtenberg - 1998 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 94 (1-3):201-222.
Ordinal analyses for monotone and cofinal transfinite inductions.Kentaro Sato - 2020 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 59 (3-4):277-291.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-02-08

Downloads
38 (#622,493)

6 months
7 (#469,699)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Maria Hämeen-Anttila
University of Helsinki

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations