Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T12:51:16.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Completeness has to be restricted: Gödel's interpretation of the parameter t

from Part II - Contributed Papers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2017

Giora Hon
Affiliation:
University of Haifa
Petr Hájek
Affiliation:
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague
Get access

Summary

… even such successful theories as relativity and quantum mechanics have proven to be vulnerable, for, implicit in each is a latent completeness postulate. Once one realizes that a physical theory should remain open and therefore incomplete, the role of the associated mathematics becomes a crucial issue.

W. Yourgrau

In 1949 Gödel presented Einstein with a new solution of the field equations of the general theory of relativity: an exact solution which allows for the bizarre possibility of time-travel. This discovery of a universe with a strange time-structure which is consistent with the general theory of relativity did not however surprise Einstein, or so at least he leads the reader to believe. In his reply to Gödel's contribution, Einstein intimated that the strange feature of a possible closed time-like lines in which the distinction “earlier-later” should be abandoned, “disturbed… (him) already at the time of the building up of the general theory of relativity, without … [him) having succeeded in clarifying it.” The weird result of Gödel constituted in Einstein's view “an important contribution to the general theory of relativity, especially to the analysis of the concept of time.”

Unlike the general theory, the special theory of relativity has been accepted by the mid-century as an undisputed part of theoretical physics. It has been commonly presented as the invariance theory of the Maxwell equations under the Lorentz group of transformations. However, Einstein seems to have conceived of the special theory as the theory of a special type of gravitational field: the uniform one. This recognition motivated him to go further and require generalization by the inclusion of gravitational phenomena. In this move one wishes that the “causal” structure of space-time in general relativity should manifest locally the same qualities as the flat space-time of special relativity, though globally significant differences are expected to emerge.

Type
Chapter
Information
Gödel '96
Logical Foundations of Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics - Kurt Gödel's Legacy
, pp. 214 - 223
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackermann, W.. Zur Widerspruchsfreiheit der reinen Zahlentheorie. Mathematische Annalen 117, 1940.Google Scholar
Arai, T.. A slow growing analogue to Buchholz’ proof. Annals of Pure und Applied Logic 54 (1991), 101–120.Google Scholar
Arai, T.. Proof theory for theories of ordinals. Preprint, Hiroshima, 1995.
Blankertz, B. and Weiermann, A.. A uniform characterization of the provably total functions of KPM and some of its subsystems. Preprint, Münster (1995). To appear in: Proceedings of the Logic Colloquium 1994.
Buchholz, W.. Three contributions to the conference on “Recent advances in Proof Theory”. Oxford, April, 10–16, 1980, (mimeographed).
Buchholz, W.. An independence result for (Π1 1 – CA) + BI . Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 33 (1987), 131–155.Google Scholar
Buchholz, W.. A simplified version of local predicativity. Proof Theory: A Selection of Papers from the Leeds Proof Theory Meeting 1990, Aczel, P., Simmons, H., Wainer, S.S., editors. Cambridge University Press (1992), 115–148.
Buchholz, W.. Notation systems for infinitary derivations. Archive for Mathematical Logic 30 5/6 (1991), 277–296.Google Scholar
Buchholz, W. und Wainer, S.S.. Provably computable functions and the fast growing hierarchy. Logic and Combinatorics. Contemporary Mathematics 65, American Mathematical Society (1987), 179–198.
Buchholz, W., Cichon, A. and Weiermann, A.. A uniform approach to fundamental sequences and hierarchies. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 40 (1994), 273–286.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. and Sheard, M.. Elementary descent recursion and proof theory. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 71 (1995), 1–45.Google Scholar
Gödel, K.. Über eine bisher noch nicht benützte Erweiterung des finiten Standpunkts. Dialectica 12 (1958), 280–287.Google Scholar
Hájek, P. and Pudlák, P.. Metamathematics of First-Order Arithmetic, Springer (1993).
Kreisel, G.. On the interpretation of non-finitist proofs II. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 17 (1952), 43–58.Google Scholar
Pohlers, W.. Proof Theory. An Introduction. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1407 (1989). Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Pohlers, W.. Proof theory and ordinal analysis. Archive for Mathematical logic 30 5/6 (1991), 311–376.Google Scholar
Pohlers, W.. A short course in ordinal analysis. Proof Theory: A Selection of Papers from the Leeds Proof Theory Meeting 1990, Aczel, P., Simmons, H., Wainer, S.S., editors. Cambridge University Press (1992), 27–78.
Rathjen, M.. Proof-theoretic analysis of KPM. Archive for Mathematical Logic 30 (1991), 377–403.Google Scholar
Rathjen, M.. Proof theory of reflection. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic (1994), 181–224.Google Scholar
Rathjen, M.. Ordinal analysis of Π2 1 — (CA) and related systems. Preprint, Stanford, 1995.
Rose, H. E.. Subrecursion: Functions and Hierarchies. Oxford University Press 1984.
Schütte, K.. Proof Theory. Springer, Berlin 1977.
Schwichtenberg, H.. Eine Klassifikation der ∊ 0-rekursiven Funktionen. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik (1971), 61–74.Google Scholar
Schwichtenberg, H.. Proof theory: Some applications of cut-elimination. Handbook of Mathematical Logic, Barwise, J. (ed.), North-Holland (1977), 867–895.
Tait, W.W.. Infinitely long terms of transfinite type. Formal Systems and Recursive Functions, Crossley, Dummet (eds.), North-Holland (1965), 176–185.
Takeuti, G.. Proof Theory, 2nd edition. North-Holland, Amsterdam 1987.
Wainer, S.S.. A classification of the ordinal recursive functions. Archiv für Mathematische Logik 13 (1970), 136–153.Google Scholar
Weiermann, A.. How to characterize provably total functions by local predicativity. Preprint, Münster 1993. To appear in: The Journal of Symbolic Logic.
Weiermann, A.. A strongly uniform termination proof for Gödel's T by methods from local predicativity. Preprint, Münster 1995, submitted.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×