Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Thanks
- 1 What Gödel's Theorems say
- 2 Functions and enumerations
- 3 Effective computability
- 4 Effectively axiomatized theories
- 5 Capturing numerical properties
- 6 The truths of arithmetic
- 7 Sufficiently strong arithmetics
- 8 Interlude: Taking stock
- 9 Induction
- 10 Two formalized arithmetics
- 11 What Q can prove
- 12 IΔ0, an arithmetic with induction
- 13 First-order Peano Arithmetic
- 14 Primitive recursive functions
- 15 LA can express every p.r. function
- 16 Capturing functions
- 17 Q is p.r. adequate
- 18 Interlude: A very little about Principia
- 19 The arithmetization of syntax
- 20 Arithmetization in more detail
- 21 PA is incomplete
- 22 Gödel's First Theorem
- 23 Interlude: About the First Theorem
- 24 The Diagonalization Lemma
- 25 Rosser's proof
- 26 Broadening the scope
- 27 Tarski's Theorem
- 28 Speed-up
- 29 Second-order arithmetics
- 30 Interlude: Incompleteness and Isaacson's Thesis
- 31 Gödel's Second Theorem for PA
- 32 On the ‘unprovability of consistency’
- 33 Generalizing the Second Theorem
- 34 Löb's Theorem and other matters
- 35 Deriving the derivability conditions
- 36 ‘The best and most general version’
- 37 Interlude: The Second Theorem, Hilbert, minds and machines
- 38 μ-Recursive functions
- 39 Q is recursively adequate
- 40 Undecidability and incompleteness
- 41 Turing machines
- 42 Turing machines and recursiveness
- 43 Halting and incompleteness
- 44 The Church–Turing Thesis
- 45 Proving the Thesis?
- 46 Looking back
- Further reading
- Bibliography
- Index
4 - Effectively axiomatized theories
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Thanks
- 1 What Gödel's Theorems say
- 2 Functions and enumerations
- 3 Effective computability
- 4 Effectively axiomatized theories
- 5 Capturing numerical properties
- 6 The truths of arithmetic
- 7 Sufficiently strong arithmetics
- 8 Interlude: Taking stock
- 9 Induction
- 10 Two formalized arithmetics
- 11 What Q can prove
- 12 IΔ0, an arithmetic with induction
- 13 First-order Peano Arithmetic
- 14 Primitive recursive functions
- 15 LA can express every p.r. function
- 16 Capturing functions
- 17 Q is p.r. adequate
- 18 Interlude: A very little about Principia
- 19 The arithmetization of syntax
- 20 Arithmetization in more detail
- 21 PA is incomplete
- 22 Gödel's First Theorem
- 23 Interlude: About the First Theorem
- 24 The Diagonalization Lemma
- 25 Rosser's proof
- 26 Broadening the scope
- 27 Tarski's Theorem
- 28 Speed-up
- 29 Second-order arithmetics
- 30 Interlude: Incompleteness and Isaacson's Thesis
- 31 Gödel's Second Theorem for PA
- 32 On the ‘unprovability of consistency’
- 33 Generalizing the Second Theorem
- 34 Löb's Theorem and other matters
- 35 Deriving the derivability conditions
- 36 ‘The best and most general version’
- 37 Interlude: The Second Theorem, Hilbert, minds and machines
- 38 μ-Recursive functions
- 39 Q is recursively adequate
- 40 Undecidability and incompleteness
- 41 Turing machines
- 42 Turing machines and recursiveness
- 43 Halting and incompleteness
- 44 The Church–Turing Thesis
- 45 Proving the Thesis?
- 46 Looking back
- Further reading
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems tell us about the limits of theories of arithmetic. More precisely, they tell us about the limits of effectively axiomatized formal theories of arithmetic. But what exactly does that mean?
Formalization as an ideal
Rather than just dive into a series of definitions, it is well worth pausing to remind ourselves of why we might care about formalizing theories.
So let's get back to basics. In elementary logic classes, beginners are drilled in translating arguments into an appropriate formal language and then constructing formal deductions of the stated conclusions from given premisses.
Why bother with formal languages? Because everyday language is replete with redundancies and ambiguities, not to mention sentences which simply lack clear truth-conditions. So, in assessing complex arguments, it helps to regiment them into a suitable artificial language which is expressly designed to be free from obscurities, and where surface form reveals logical structure.
Why bother with formal deductions? Because everyday arguments often involve suppressed premisses and inferential fallacies. It is only too easy to cheat. Setting out arguments as formal deductions in one style or another enforces honesty: we have to keep a tally of the premisses we invoke, and of exactly what inferential moves we are using. And honesty is the best policy. For suppose things go well with a particular formal deduction. Suppose we get from the given premisses to some target conclusion by small inference steps each one of which is obviously valid (no suppressed premisses are smuggled in, and there are no suspect inferential moves).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- An Introduction to Gödel's Theorems , pp. 25 - 35Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2013