In the early years of the twentieth century, Gottlob Frege and David Hilbert, two titans of mathematical logic, engaged in a controversy regarding the correct understanding of the role of axioms in mathematical theories, and the correct way to demonstrate consistency and independence results for such axioms. The controversy touches on a number of difficult questions in logic and the philosophy of logic, and marks an important turning-point in the development of modern logic. This entry gives an overview (...) of that controversy and of its philosophical underpinnings. (shrink)

Freges Werk eröffnete und leitete den Prozeß der Emanzipation der Logik von der ontologisch fundierten zur autarken, von allen nicht-logischen Voraussetzungen losgelösten Logik der Zeichen. Unmittelbaren Aufschluß über den Beginn dieser neuen Epoche gibt Freges Briefwechsel mit den führenden Theoretikern und Philosophen seiner Zeit. Kern des Bandes ist seine Korrespondenz mit Hilbert (über die Grundlagen der Geometrie), mit Husserl (über Sprachphilosophie) und mit Russell (über Logik).

This paper attempts to confine the preconceptions that prevented Frege from appreciating Hilbert?s Grundlagen der Geometrie to two: (i) Frege?s reliance on what, following Wilfrid Hodges, I call a Frege?Peano language, and (ii) Frege?s view that the sense of an expression wholly determines its reference.I argue that these two preconceptions prevented Frege from achieving the conceptual structure of model theory, whereas Hilbert, at least in his practice, was quite close to the model?theoretic point (...) of view.Moreover, the issues that divided Frege and Hilbert did not revolve around whether one or the other allowed metalogical notions.Frege, e.g., succeeded in formulating the notion of logical consequence, at least to the extent that Bolzano did; the point is rather that even though Frege had certain semantic concepts, he did not articulate them model?theoretically, whereas, in some limited sense, Hilbert did. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This paper reveals David Hilbert’s position in the philosophy of mathematics, circa 1900, to be a form of non-eliminative structuralism, predating his formalism. I argue that Hilbert withstands the pressing objections put to him by Frege in the course of the Frege-Hilbert controversy in virtue of this early structuralist approach. To demonstrate that this historical position deserves contemporary attention I show that Hilbertian structuralism avoids a recent wave of objections against non-eliminative structuralists to the (...) effect that they cannot distinguish between structurally identical but importantly distinct mathematical objects, such as the complex roots of $-1$. (shrink)

This paper aims to show that Frege’s and Hilbert’s mutual disagreement results from different notions of Anschauung and their relation to axioms. In the first section of the paper, evidence is provided to support that Frege and Hilbert were influenced by the same developments of 19th-century geometry, in particular the work of Gauss, Plücker, and von Staudt. The second section of the paper shows that Frege and Hilbert take different approaches to deal with the (...) problems that the developments in 19th-century geometry posed for the traditional Kantian philosophy of mathematics. Frege maintains that Anschauung is a source of knowledge by which we acknowledge geometrical axioms as true. For Hilbert, in contrast, axioms provide one of several correct “pictures” of reality. Hilbert’s position is thereby deeply influenced by epistemological ideas from Hertz and Helmholtz, and, in turn, influenced the neo-Kantian Cassirer. (shrink)

In a letter to Frege of 29 December 1899, Hilbert advances his formalist doctrine, according to which consistency of an arbitrary set of mathematical sentences is a sufficient condition for its truth and for the existence of the concepts described by it. This paper discusses Frege's analysis, as carried out in the context of the Frege-Hilbert correspondence, of the formalist approach in particular and the axiomatic method in general. We close with a speculation about (...) class='Hi'>Frege's influence on Hilbert's later work in foundations, which we consider to have been greater than previously assumed. This conjecture is based on a hitherto neglected revision of Hilbert's talk "Über den Zahlbegriff". (shrink)

There is a parallel between the debate between Gottlob Frege and David Hilbert at the turn of the twentieth century and at least some aspects of the current controversy over whether category theory provides the proper framework for structuralism in the philosophy of mathematics. The main issue, I think, concerns the place and interpretation of meta-mathematics in an algebraic or structuralist approach to mathematics. Can meta-mathematics itself be understood in algebraic or structural terms? Or is it an exception (...) to the slogan that mathematics is the science of structure? (shrink)

이 글에서 나는 힐버트의 암묵적 정의 방법에 대한 프레게의 잘 알려진 비판들을 재검토한다. 이를 통해 나는 두 논제를 확립하려 한다. 첫째, 힐버트의 정의 방법은 과학이론의 원초용어의 의미를 설명하는 데 목적이 있는 것이 아니라, 그런 이론의 논리적 구조를 고정하려는 데 목적이 있다. 둘째, 논리적 구조들은 파생적인 논리적 관계에 지나지 않으므로, 힐버트의 정의 방법은 그런 구조들의 명시적인 정의를 얻기 위한 수단으로 간주되어야 한다.

I examine Frege’s explanation of how Hilbert ought to have presented his proofs of the independence of the axioms of geometry: in terms of mappings between (what we would call) fully interpreted statements. This helps make sense of Frege’s objections to the notion of different interpretations, which many have found puzzling. (The paper is the text of a talk presented in October 1994.).

The traditional view regarding the philosophy of mathematics in the twentieth century is the dogma of three schools: Logicism, Intuitionism and Formalism. The problem with this dogma is not, at least not first and foremost, that it is wrong, but that it is biased and essentially incomplete. 'Biased' because it was formulated by one of the involved parties, namely the logical empiricists - if I see it right - in order to make their own position look more agreeable with Intuitionism (...) and Formalism. 'Essentially incomplete' because there was - and still exists - beside Frege's Logicism, Brouwer's Intuitionism and Hilbert's Formalism at least one further position, namely Husserl's phenomenological approach to the foundations of arithmetic, which is also philosophically interesting. In what follows, I want to do two things: First, I will show that the standard dogma regarding the foundations of mathematics is not only incomplete, but also inaccurate, misleading and basically wrong with respect to the three schools themselves. In doing this I hope to make room for Husserl and his phenomenological approach as a viable alternative in the foundations of arithmetic. Second, I will show how Husserl's phenomenological point of view is a position that fits exactly in between Frege's "logicism", properlyunderstood, and Hilbert's mature proof theory, in which his so called "formalism" turns out to be only a means to an end and not a goal in itself. (shrink)

Hilbert's conference lectures during the year 1922, Neuebegründung der Mathematik. Erste Mitteilung and Die logischen Grundlagen der Mathematik (both are published in (Hilbert [1935] 1965) pp. 157-195), contain his first public presentation of an axiom system for propositional logic, or at least for a fragment of propositional logic, which is largely influenced by the study on logical woks of Frege and Russell during the previous years.The year 1922 is at the beginning of Hilbert's foundational program in (...) its definitive form. The final public presentation by Hilbert of an axiom system for propositional logic is contained in the 1934 book Grundlagen der Mathematik, I (Hilbert and Bernays [1934] 1968). Sequent .. (shrink)

In this paper, we explore Fregean metatheory, what Frege called the New Science. The New Science arises in the context of Frege’s debate with Hilbert over independence proofs in geometry and we begin by considering their dispute. We propose that Frege’s critique rests on his view that language is a set of propositions, each immutably equipped with a truth value (as determined by the thought it expresses), so to Frege it was inconceivable that axioms could (...) even be considered to be other than true. Because of his adherence to this view, Frege was precluded from the sort of metatheoretical considerations that were available to Hilbert; but from this, we shall argue, it does not follow that Frege was blocked from metatheory in toto. Indeed, Frege suggests in Die Grundlagen der Geometrie a metatheoretical method for establishing independence proofs in the context of the New Science. Frege had reservations about the method, however, primarily because of the apparent need to stipulate the logical terms, those terms that must be held invariant to obtain such proofs. We argue that Frege’s skepticism on this score is not warranted, by showing that within the New Science a characterization of logical truth and logical constant can be obtained by a suitable adaptation of the permutation argument Frege employs in indicating how to prove independence. This establishes a foundation for Frege’s metatheoretical method of which he himself was unsure, and allows us to obtain a clearer understanding of Frege’s conception of logic, especially in relation to contemporary conceptions. (shrink)

Le but de cet article est d’étudier la référence à l’espace et au temps dans le problème du fondement des mathématiques, au cours de la période 1880-1935. Après avoir évoqué la problématique kantienne, qui reste présente dans la controverse entre Brouwer et Hilbert, nous discutons de la référence au temps dans l’intuitionisme et dans le programme formaliste pour montrer comment, dans les deux cas mais de façon différente, la référence au temps introduit des restrictions sur ce qui peut être (...) considéré comme une démonstration mathématique. Nous évoquons ensuite trois tentatives, Frege, le Hilbert d’avant le programme formaliste et Gentzen, pour éliminer la référence au temps et ne fonder les mathématiques que sur l’intuition de l’espace. (shrink)

In a series of articles dating from 1903 to 1906, Frege criticizes Hilbert’s methodology of proving the independence and consistency of various fragments of Euclidean geometry in his Foundations of Geometry. In the final part of the last article, Frege makes his own proposal as to how the independence of genuine axioms should be proved. Frege contends that independence proofs require the development of a ‘new science’ with its own basic truths. This paper aims to provide (...) a reconstruction of this New Science that meets modern standards and to examine possible problems surrounding Frege’s original proposal. The paper is organized as follows: the first two sections summarize the main points of the Frege–Hilbert controversy and discuss some issues surrounding the problem of independence proofs. Section 3 contains an informal presentation of Frege’s proposal. In section 4 a more detailed reconstruction of Frege’s New Science is set out while section 5 examines what is left out. The concluding section is devoted to a discussion of Frege’s strategy and its significance from a broader perspective. (shrink)

Gottlob Frege famously rejects the methodology for consistency and independence proofs offered by David Hilbert in the latter's Foundations of Geometry. The present essay defends against recent criticism the view that this rejection turns on Frege's understanding of logical entailment, on which the entailment relation is sensitive to the contents of non-logical terminology. The goals are (a) to clarify further Frege's understanding of logic and of the role of conceptual analysis in logical investigation, and (b) to (...) point out the extent to which his understanding of logic differs importantly from that of the model-theoretic tradition that grows out of Hilbert's work. (shrink)

It is widely believed that some puzzling and provocative remarks that Frege makes in his late writings indicate he rejected independence arguments in geometry, particularly arguments for the independence of the parallels axiom. I show that this is mistaken: Frege distinguished two approaches to independence arguments and his puzzling remarks apply only to one of them. Not only did Frege not reject independence arguments across the board, but also he had an interesting positive proposal about the logical (...) structure of correct independence arguments, deriving from the geometrical principle of duality and the associated idea of substitution invariance. The discussion also serves as a useful focal point for independently interesting details of Frege's mathematical environment. This feeds into a currently active scholarly debate because Frege's supposed attitude to independence arguments has been taken to support a widely accepted thesis (proposed by Ricketts among others) concerning Frege's attitude toward metatheory in general. I show that this thesis gains no support from Frege's puzzling remarks about independence arguments. (shrink)

Hilbert's axiomatic approach was an optimistic take over on the side of the logical foundations. It was also a response to various restrictive views of mathematics supposedly bounded by the reaches of epistemic elements in mathematics. A complete axiomatization should be able to exclude epistemic or ontic elements from mathematical theorizing, according to Hilbert. This exclusion is not necessarily a logicism in similar form to Frege's or Dedekind's projects. That is, intuition can still have a role in (...) mathematical reasoning. Nevertheless, this role is to be given a structural orientation with the help of explications of the underlying logic of axiomatization. (shrink)

Summary. This article develops two principal points. First, the so-called rivals of logical foundations, associated with Zermelo, Hilbert, and Brouwer, are here regarded as variants; specifically: to simplify, refine, resp. extend Frege’s scheme. Each of the variations is seen as a special case of a familiar strategy in the pursuit of knowledge. In particular, the extension provided by Brouwer’s intuitionistic logic concerns the class of propositions considered: about incompletely defined objects such as choice sequences. In contrast, Frege (...) or, for that matter, Aristotle thought that only propositions about precisely defined terms lent themselves to anything like logical theory.. This view of intuitionistic logic is fairly consistent with the mature Brouwer’s own research practice, but not at all with his rhetoric. Secondly, the article explains the silent majority’s scepticism about all variants of logical foundations, and, in note 7, sketches a genuine alternative which is almost explicit in the manifesto [#3] of Bourbaki with the aim of exploring the architecture of mathematics and our intuitive resonances to it. The alternative sees the weakness of logical foundations not in any logical defects, such as lack of precision, but in its sterility: stress on the logical elements of mathematics and mathematical reasoning draws attention away from discoveries of more significant features; more significant even for validity and reliability, though these matters are less prominent here than in logical foundations. The weakness in question is relevant beyond the present topic of foundations because this kind of weakness affects the whole analytic tradition in philosophy. Finally, for reasons explained there, an Appendix goes into some relations between the present paper and [17]. (shrink)

This paper gives a survey of David Hilbert's (1862–1943) changing attitudes towards logic. The logical theory of the Göttingen mathematician is presented as intimately linked to his studies on the foundation of mathematics. Hilbert developed his logical theory in three stages: (1) in his early axiomatic programme until 1903 Hilbert proposed to use the traditional theory of logical inferences to prove the consistency of his set of axioms for arithmetic. (2) After the publication of the logical and (...) set-theoretical paradoxes by Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell it was due to Hilbert and his closest collaborator Ernst Zermelo that mathematical logic became one of the topics taught in courses for Göttingen mathematics students. The axiomatization of logic and set-theory became part of the axiomatic programme, and they tried to create their own consistent logical calculi as tools for proving consistency of axiomatic systems. (3) In his struggle with intuitionism, represented by L. E. J. Brouwer and his advocate Hermann Weyl, Hilbert, assisted by Paul Bemays, created the distinction between proper mathematics and meta-mathematics, the latter using only finite means. He considerably revised the logical calculus of thePrincipia Mathematica of Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell by introducing the ε-axiom which should serve for avoiding infinite operations in logic. (shrink)

: In this article we analyze the key concept of Hilbert's axiomatic method, namely that of axiom. We will find two different concepts: the first one from the period of Hilbert's foundation of geometry and the second one at the time of the development of his proof theory. Both conceptions are linked to two different notions of intuition and show how Hilbert's ideas are far from a purely formalist conception of mathematics. The principal thesis of this article (...) is that one of the main problems that Hilbert encountered in his foundational studies consisted in securing a link between formalization and intuition. We will also analyze a related problem, that we will call "Frege's Problem", form the time of the foundation of geometry and investigate the role of the Axiom of Completeness in its solution. (shrink)

Gegen die vielfach vertretene Auffassung, Frege habe die Hilbertsche Axiomatik nicht verstanden, wird nachzuweisen versucht, daß Frege die neue Methode nicht nur verstanden, sondem auch begrifflich präzise analysiert hat. Er definiert eine formale Theorie im Hilbertschen Sinn als eine Klasse von logisch beweisbaren Wenn-dann-Sätzen, die freie Variable enthalten und deren Wenn-Satz eine Konjunktion der Axiome im Hilbertschen Sinn ist. Er untersucht ferner das Verhältnis zwischen einer Hilbertschen Theorie und ihren Modellen (Anwendungen) und wendet seine allgemeinen Ergebnisse in erhellender (...) Weise auf Hilberts Grundlagen der Geometrie an. (shrink)

The theory that ``consistency implies existence'' was put forward by Hilbert on various occasions around the start of the last century, and it was strongly and explicitly emphasized in his correspondence with Frege. Since (Gödel's) completeness theorem, abstractly speaking, forms the basis of this theory, it has become common practice to assume that Hilbert took for granted the semantic completeness of second order logic. In this paper I maintain that this widely held view is untrue to the (...) facts, and that the clue to explain what Hilbert meant by linking together consistency and existence is to be found in the role played by the completeness axiom within both geometrical and arithmetical axiom systems. (shrink)

A Frege proof systemFis any standard system of prepositional calculus, e.g., a Hilbert style system based on finitely many axiom schemes and inference rules. An Extended Frege systemEFis obtained fromFas follows. AnEF-sequence is a sequence of formulas ψ1, …, ψκsuch that eachψiis either an axiom ofF, inferred from previous ψuand ψv by modus ponens or of the formq↔ φ, whereqis an atom occurring neither in φ nor in any of ψ1,…,ψi−1. Suchq↔ φ, is called an extension axiom (...) andqa new extension atom. AnEF-proof is anyEF-sequence whose last formula does not contain any extension atom. In [12], S. A. Cook and R. Reckhow proved that the pigeonhole principlePHPhas a simple polynomial sizeEF-proof and conjectured thatPHPdoes not admit polynomial sizeF-proof. In [5], S. R. Buss refuted this conjecture by furnishing polynomial sizeF-proof forPHP. Since then the important separation problem of polynomial sizeFand polynomial sizeEFhas not shown any progress.In [11], S. A. Cook introduced the systemPV, a free variable equational logic whose provable functional equalities are ‘polynomial time verifiable’ and showed that the metamathematics ofFandEFcan be developed inPVand the soundness ofEFproved inPV. In [3], S. R. Buss introduced the first order systemand showed thatis essentially a conservative extension ofPV. There he also introduced a second order system. (shrink)

Three clusters of philosophically significant issues arise from Frege’s discussions of definitions. First, Frege criticizes the definitions of mathematicians of his day, especially those of Weierstrass and Hilbert. Second, central to Frege’s philosophical discussion and technical execution of logicism is the so‐called Hume’s Principle, considered in The Foundations of Arithmetic . Some varieties of neo‐Fregean logicism are based on taking this principle as a contextual definition of the operator ‘the number of …’, and criticisms of such (...) neo‐Fregean programs sometimes appeal to Frege’s objections to contextual definitions in later writings. Finally, a critical question about the definitions on which Frege’s proofs of the laws of arithmetic depend is whether the logical structures of the definientia reflect our pre‐Fregean understanding of arithmetical terms. It seems that unless they do, it is unclear how Frege’s proofs demonstrate the analyticity of the arithmetic in use before logicism. Yet, especially in late writings, Frege characterizes the definitions as arbitrary stipulations of the senses or references of expressions unrelated to pre‐definitional understanding. One or more of these topics may be studied in a survey course in the philosophy of mathematics or a course on Frege’s philosophy. The latter two topics are obviously central in a seminar in the philosophy of mathematics in general or more specialized seminars on logicism, or on mathematical definitions and concept formation. (shrink)

It is a remarkable fact that Hilbert's programmatic papers from the 1920s still shape, almost exclusively, the standard contemporary perspective of his views concerning (the foundations of) mathematics; even his own, quite different work on the foundations of geometry and arithmetic from the late 1890s is often understood from that vantage point. My essay pursues one main goal, namely, to contrast Hilbert's formal axiomatic method from the early 1920s with his existential axiomatic approach from the 1890s. Such a (...) contrast illuminates the circuitous beginnings of the finitist consistency program and connects the complex emergence of existential axiomatics with transformations in mathematics and philosophy during the 19th century; the sheer complexity and methodological difficulties of the latter development are partially reflected in the well known, but not well understood correspondence between Frege and Hilbert. Taking seriously the goal of formalizing mathematics in an effective logical framework leads also to contemporary tasks, not just historical and systematic insights; those are briefly described as “one direction” for fascinating work. (shrink)

It is difficult to describe this book without praising it. Collected here in one volume are some thirty-six high quality translations into English of the most important foreign-language works in mathematical logic, as well as articles and letters by Whitehead, Russell, Norbert Weiner and Post. The contents of the volume are arranged in chronological order, beginning with Frege's Begriffsschrift—translated in its entirety—and concluding with Gödel's famous "On Formally Undecidable Propositions" and Herbrand's "On the Consistency of Arithmetic". The translation of (...) the Gödel article is a small masterpiece, and is especially welcome in view of some of the rather poor efforts which have been made to render this important work into English. But this is more than a paste-pot job of anthologizing. Van Heijenoort and others have written prefaces to each of the included selections, in which are provided background historical and bibliographical information, comments on the intellectual currents which led to the production of the article, and, in many cases, a digest of the important theorems and concepts in the article itself. Each selection is a classic in its own right. In reading through the selections in this volume, one is struck by the extent to which purely mathematical problems and issues have controlled recent logical inquiry and have determined the development of various philosophies of mathematics. In the early stages, Frege and Peano were concerned with the logical reconstruction of arithmetic, and this led to the work of Russell and the logicist philosophy. Already in the development of the new logic there were certain problems which were resolved with Russell's theory of types—a device which many mathematicians felt to be rather artificial. The use of set theory, beginning with Cantor and reaching its maturity in Zermelo's 1904 proof of the well-ordering theorem, gave rise to a new set of difficulties concerning the axioms of choice, the continuum problem, and infinite sets. The two traditions are brought together in a common nexus of foundational problems by Weiner in 1914 and by Skolem's form of the Löwenheim theorem, given in 1920. Hereafter, the way is open for the rise of mathematical inquiry into the foundations of number systems, set theory and logic by Post, Skolem, von Neumann, Hilbert, Bernays, Gödel and many others. The work was far from completed by 1931, but a new and important tradition in mathematical inquiry had been established, and had come into its own. This book is, in effect, the record of an important chapter in the history of thought. No serious student of logic or foundations of mathematics will want to be without it.—H. P. K. (shrink)

Logical universalism, a label that has been pinned on to Frege, involves the conflation of two features commonly ascribed to logic: universality and radicality. Logical universality consists in logic being about absolutely everything. Logical radicality, on the other hand, corresponds to there being the one and the same logic that any reasoning must comply with. The first part of this paper quickly remarks that Frege’s conception of logic makes logical universality prevail and does not preclude the admission of (...) different contexts of discourse. The paper then aims to make it clear how Frege’s universalism can make sense of contextuality. Drawing on a suggestion made by Frege in his discussion of Hilbert, it shows that a properly Fregean notion of model can be devised. Taking up a suggestion from Wilfrid Hodges and William Demopoulos that the non-logical constants of a formal language can be compared to indexicals, this paper shows,paceHodges and Demopoulos, that such an understanding of non-logical constants is not beyond Frege’s horizon. A formal framework, based on the modern tool of fibrations, is set out to explain and justify this point. This framework allows one to compare Frege and Tarski, by formalizing Frege’s suggestion and by presenting Tarski’s semantics in a generalized setting. (shrink)

Internal logic is the logic of content. The content is here arithmetic and the emphasis is on a constructive logic of arithmetic (arithmetical logic). Kronecker's general arithmetic of forms (polynomials) together with Fermat's infinite descent is put to use in an internal consistency proof. The view is developed in the context of a radical arithmetization of mathematics and logic and covers the many-faceted heritage of Kronecker's work, which includes not only Hilbert, but also Frege, Cantor, Dedekind, Husserl and (...) Brouwer. The book will be of primary interest to logicians, philosophers and mathematicians interested in the foundations of mathematics and the philosophical implications of constructivist mathematics. It may also be of interest to historians, since it covers a fifty-year period, from 1880 to 1930, which has been crucial in the foundational debates and their repercussions on the contemporary scene. (shrink)

A Mathematical Review by John Corcoran, SUNY/Buffalo -/- Macbeth, Danielle Diagrammatic reasoning in Frege's Begriffsschrift. Synthese 186 (2012), no. 1, 289–314. ABSTRACT This review begins with two quotations from the paper: its abstract and the first paragraph of the conclusion. The point of the quotations is to make clear by the “give-them-enough-rope” strategy how murky, incompetent, and badly written the paper is. I know I am asking a lot, but I have to ask you to read the quoted passages—aloud (...) if possible. Don’t miss the silly attempt to recycle Kant’s quip “Concepts without intuitions are empty; intuitions without concepts are blind”. What the paper was aiming at includes the absurdity: “Proofs without definitions are empty; definitions without proofs are, if not blind, then dumb.” But the author even bollixed this. The editor didn’t even notice. The copy-editor missed it. And the author’s proof-reading did not catch it. In order not to torment you I will quote the sentence as it appears: “In a slogan: proofs without definitions are empty, merely the aimless manipulation of signs according to rules; and definitions without proofs are, if no blind, then dumb.”[sic] The rest of my review discusses the paper’s astounding misattribution to contemporary logicians of the information-theoretic approach. This approach was cruelly trashed by Quine in his 1970 Philosophy of Logic, and thereafter ignored by every text I know of. The paper under review attributes generally to modern philosophers and logicians views that were never espoused by any of the prominent logicians—such as Hilbert, Gödel, Tarski, Church, and Quine—apparently in an attempt to distance them from Frege: the focus of the article. On page 310 we find the following paragraph. “In our logics it is assumed that inference potential is given by truth-conditions. Hence, we think, deduction can be nothing more than a matter of making explicit information that is already contained in one’s premises. If the deduction is valid then the information contained in the conclusion must be contained already in the premises; if that information is not contained already in the premises […], then the argument cannot be valid.” Although the paper is meticulous in citing supporting literature for less questionable points, no references are given for this. In fact, the view that deduction is the making explicit of information that is only implicit in premises has not been espoused by any standard symbolic logic books. It has only recently been articulated by a small number of philosophical logicians from a younger generation, for example, in the prize-winning essay by J. Sagüillo, Methodological practice and complementary concepts of logical consequence: Tarski’s model-theoretic consequence and Corcoran’s information-theoretic consequence, History and Philosophy of Logic, 30 (2009), pp. 21–48. The paper omits definitions of key terms including ‘ampliative’, ‘explicatory’, ‘inference potential’, ‘truth-condition’, and ‘information’. The definition of prime number on page 292 is as follows: “To say that a number is prime is to say that it is not divisible without remainder by another number”. This would make one be the only prime number. The paper being reviewed had the benefit of two anonymous referees who contributed “very helpful comments on an earlier draft”. Could these anonymous referees have read the paper? -/- J. Corcoran, U of Buffalo, SUNY -/- PS By the way, if anyone has a paper that has been turned down by other journals, any journal that would publish something like this might be worth trying. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.2 (2001) 311-312 [Access article in PDF] Hill, Claire Ortiz and Guillermo E. Rosado Haddock. Husserl or Frege? Meaning, Objectivity, and Mathematics. Chicago: Open Court, 2000. Pp. xiv + 315. Cloth, $39.95. Analytic philosophy is rooted in Frege; phenomenology, in Husserl: or so goes the old, old story. Most philosophers now recognize that Husserl has a role to play in analysis' (...) roots, and Frege in phenomenology's. Hill and Haddock try to show that Husserl's role in analysis' roots is larger than is now recognized, and to show that Husserl has much of relevance to say about matters currently central in analysis.Hill and Haddock tag-team the topic. Chapters are written now by one, now by the other. A common theme is: "Look, Husserl's bested Frege here!" One chapter is entitled "To be a Fregean or To be a Husserlian?" and the book pushes vigorously in the Husserlian direction. There are several chapters devoted to sense and reference, Fregean and Husserlian. There are chapters on logical abstraction and on the philosophy (primarily Husserlian) of mathematics. Other figures, such as Cantor and Hilbert, also put in appearances.The book's primary merit is in revealing how much of interest Husserl has to say about matters currently central in analysis—particularly in the philosophy of logic/language and in the philosophy of mathematics. There are also interesting extensions of Husserl's views, carefully kept Husserlian, that are worthy of attention: extensions of his views on the philosophy of mathematics and his Platonism. The book's primary demerit is in the often flat-footed readings of Frege that are offered. (In this respect, the book returns the disfavor of the flat-footed readings of Husserl offered by more analytically-minded philosophers.) Nowhere are the names of Warren Goldfarb, Thomas Ricketts or Cora Diamond mentioned—the philosophers who have provided a reading of Frege that makes him a much more interesting foil for Husserl. On the reading I have in mind, Frege is not a Platonist, and he does not have a truth-conditional semantics. Further, on this reading, Frege's ontological categories supervene on logical ones, and his ontology does not ground or explain objectivity. Instead of offering a sematic theory, on this reading Frege is denying that there is any coign of vantage for the offering of such. But this Frege, or this reading of Frege, makes no appearance in the book. Another noteworthy omission—related, I think, to the omission of the alternative reading of Frege—is any extended discussion of a crucial difference in the ways that Frege and Husserl thought of language: Frege thought of language as the universal medium, Husserl of language as a calculus. (Jaakko Hintikka both popularized this distinction and suggested that Husserl had the [End Page 311] calculus conception.) Conceived as the universal language, language is inescapable. Husserl's conception leads him to think that he can escape language, step behind it and survey it. If this crucial difference is not kept in mind, it is difficult, I think, to see the various disagreements between Frege and Husserl at their proper depth.For example, neglecting this difference makes it hard to see the parallel difference between Frege and Husserl over the appropriate conception of logic. Since Frege thinks of logic as universal (first and foremost), he would reject Husserl project of providing a geneology for logic as deeply confused. For Frege, there can be no grounding of logic, no justifying of logic from behind. Logical investigation is, for Frege, investigating the mind. There is no other type of investigation—no matter how transcendentally phenomenological—that can subordinate logical investigation to it, or can usurp the title of the investigation of the mind. There is no experience—no matter how pre-predicative (what would Frege make of 'pre-predicative'?)—from which logic springs. Wittgenstein's Tractarian comment is thoroughly Fregean: "Logic precedes every experience—that something is so." (5.552)Still and all, I recommend this book to anyone interested in the issues it discusses, since... (shrink)

This book is an expanded version of Joan Weiner's introduction to Frege's work in the Oxford University Press ‘Past Masters’ series published in 1999. The earlier book had chapters on Frege's life and character, his basic project, his new logic, his definitions of the numbers, his 1891 essay ‘Function and concept’, his 1892 essays ‘On Sinn and Bedeutung’ and ‘On concept and object’, the Grundgesetze der Arithmetik and the havoc wreaked by Russell's paradox, and a final brief chapter (...) on Frege's influence. To this, Weiner has added two further chapters on Frege's dispute with Hilbert on the foundations of geometry and on the three late essays of his ‘Logical investigations’. There is little change to the content of the earlier chapters, but they have been divided into sections, each with its own heading, which makes it easier to find one's way around.With the two additional chapters, the book provides an excellent introduction to Frege's work from his earliest Begriffsschrift , which gives the first presentation of his new logic, to his three late essays , which expound his views on logic, truth, and thought. As in the earlier version, the focus is on the logicist project that dominated Frege's career: the attempt to demonstrate that arithmetic is reducible to logic. In all her writings on Frege, Weiner has been particularly sensitive to the philosophical …. (shrink)

The scope and method of logic as we know it today eminently reflect the ground-breaking developments of set theory and the logical foundations of mathematics at the turn of the 20th century. Unfortunately, little effort has been made to understand the idiosyncrasies of the philosophical context that led to these tremendous innovations in the 19thcentury beyond what is found in the works of mathematicians such as Frege, Hilbert, and Russell. This constitutes a monumental gap in our understanding of (...) the central influences that shaped 19th-century thought, from Kant to Russell, and that helped to create the conditions in which analytic philosophy could emerge. -/- The aim of Logic from Kant to Russell is to document the development of logic in the works of 19th-century philosophers. It contains thirteen original essays written by authors from a broad range of backgrounds—intellectual historians, historians of idealism, philosophers of science, and historians of logic and analytic philosophy. These essays question the standard narratives of analytic philosophy’s past and address concerns that are relevant to the contemporary philosophical study of language, mind, and cognition. The book covers a broad range of influential thinkers in 19th-century philosophy and analytic philosophy, including Kant, Bolzano, Hegel, Herbart, Lotze, the British Algebraists and Idealists, Moore, Russell, the Neo-Kantians, and Frege. (shrink)

In this paper, we discuss the prevailing view amongst philosophers and many mathematicians concerning mathematical proof. Following Cellucci, we call the prevailing view the “axiomatic conception” of proof. The conception includes the ideas that: a proof is finite, it proceeds from axioms and it is the final word on the matter of the conclusion. This received view can be traced back to Frege, Hilbert and Gentzen, amongst others, and is prevalent in both mathematical text books and logic text (...) books. (shrink)

M. Resnik (2019) suggests a new version of structuralism which he calls non-ontological structuralism. In the present short article I discuss this view-point in the context of the Frege-Hilbert controversy about meaning of primitive notions in deductive theory, with special regard to the original views of K. Ajdukiewicz, Hilbert’s student. Following the proposed differentiations, I introduce a new type of structuralism which I call hypothetical structuralism, close to Resnik’s non-ontological structuralism.