G. B. Keene. First-order functional calculus. Monographs in modern logic. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London, and Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1964, vi + 82 pp.

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-168
Author(s):  
William E. Gould
1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 761-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen C. Kleene

I first heard the name of Kurt Gödel when, as a graduate student at Princeton in the fall of 1931, I attended a colloquium at which John von Neumann was the speaker, von Neumann could have spoken on work of his own; but instead he gave an exposition of Gödel's results of formally undecidable propositions [1931].Today I shall begin with Gödel's paper [1930] on The completeness of the axioms of the functional calculus of logic, or of what we now often call “the first-order predicate calculus”, using “predicate” as synonymous with “propositional function”.Alonzo Church wrote ([1944, p. 62] and [1956, pp. 288–289]), “the first explicit formulation of the functional calculus of first order as an independent logistic system is perhaps in the first edition of Hilbert and Ackermann's Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik (1928).” Clearly, this formalism is not complete in the sense that each closed formula or its negation is provable. (A closed formula, or sentence, is a formula without free occurrences of variables.) But Hilbert and Ackermann observe, “Whether the system of axioms is complete at least in the sense that all the logical formulas which are correct for each domain of individuals can actually be derived from them is still an unsolved question.” [1928, p. 68].This question Gödel answered in the affirmative in his Ph.D. thesis (Vienna, 1930), of which the paper under discussion is a rewritten version.I shall not describe Gödel's proof. Perhaps no theorem in modern logic has been proved more often than Gödel's completeness theorem for the first-order predicate calculus. It stands at the focus of a complex of fundamental theorems, which different scholars have approached from various directions (e.g. Kleene [1967, Chapter VI]).


2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Ferreirós

AbstractThis paper aims to outline an analysis and interpretation of the process that led to First-Order Logic and its consolidation as a core system of modern logic. We begin with an historical overview of landmarks along the road to modern logic, and proceed to a philosophical discussion casting doubt on the possibility of a purely rational justification of the actual delimitation of First-Order Logic. On this basis, we advance the thesis that a certain historical tradition was essential to the emergence of modern logic; this traditional context is analyzed as consisting in some guiding principles and, particularly, a set of exemplars (i.e., paradigmatic instances). Then, we proceed to interpret the historical course of development reviewed in section 1, which can broadly be described as a two-phased movement of expansion and then restriction of the scope of logical theory. We shall try to pinpoint ambivalencies in the process, and the main motives for subsequent changes. Among the latter, one may emphasize the spirit of modern axiomatics, the situation of foundational insecurity in the 1920s, the resulting desire to find systems well-behaved from a proof-theoretical point of view, and the metatheoretical results of the 1930s. Not surprisingly, the mathematical and, more specifically, the foundational context in which First-Order Logic matured will be seen to have played a primary role in its shaping.Mathematical logic is what logic, through twenty-five centuries and a few transformations, has become today. (Jean van Heijenoort)


1962 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Smiley

Anyone who reads Aristotle, knowing something about modern logic and nothing about its history, must ask himself why the syllogistic cannot be translated as it stands into the logic of quantification. It is now more than twenty years since the invention of the requisite framework, the logic of many-sorted quantification.In the familiar first-order predicate logic generality is expressed by means of variables and quantifiers, and each interpretation of the system is based upon the choice of some class over which the variables may range, the only restriction placed on this ‘domain of individuals’ being that it should not be empty.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1950 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 504-504

The meeting was called to order by Dr. Warren R. Sisson on Sunday, Nov. 13, 1949, at 1:45 p.m. Dr. Edward B. Shaw, President-Elect, presided during the rest of the session. The first order of business was the discussion of the report of the Committee on Reorganization. After a preliminary statement by Dr. Borden S. Veeder, explaining many of the details, the report was presented by Dr. James M. Baty. After considerable discussion of various points, the Chairmen voted to concur in the action taken by the Executive Board in approving this report, the report to be submitted to the members for mail vote. The next order of business was the question of State Chairmen. The following proposed amendment to the By-Laws was presented as coming from the Executive Board: "That each state be represented by one State Chairman; that State Chairman may designate as many Alternate State Chairmen to assist him as he finds desirable but only one would act as the representative for each state." The group from New York objected to this change and, after discussion, the matter was remanded to the Executive Board meeting in June for decision. Dr. Edgar E. Martmer read a letter from Dr. William Black and a proposition from Dr. John K. Glen. The State Chairmen voted that they were not in favor of Dr. Black's letter, but that they would approve of Dr. Glen's suggestion that the Committee on Legislation, where possible, communicate with the membership before taking final action on any national legislation.


1961 ◽  
Vol 7 (11-14) ◽  
pp. 175-184
Author(s):  
Juliusz Reichbach

2019 ◽  
pp. 14-37
Author(s):  
Palle Yourgrau

Kant famously declared that existence is not a (real) predicate. This famous dictum has been seen as echoed in the doctrine of the founders of modern logic, Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, that existence isn’t a first-order property possessed by individuals, but rather a second-order property expressed by the existential quantifier. Russell in 1905 combined this doctrine with his new theory of descriptions and declared the paradox of nonexistence to be resolved without resorting to his earlier distinction between existence and being. In recent years, however, logicians and philosophers like Saul Kripke, David Kaplan, and Nathan Salmon have argued that there is no defensible reason to deny that existence is a property of individuals. Kant’s dictum has also been re-evaluated, the result being that the paradox of nonexistence has not, after all, disappeared. Yet it’s not clear how exactly Kripke et al. propose to resolve the paradox.


1952 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 192-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Myhill

Martin has shown that the notions of ancestral and class-inclusion are sufficient to develop the theory of natural numbers in a system containing variables of only one type.The purpose of the present paper is to show that an analogous construction is possible in a system containing, beyond the quantificational level, only the ancestral and the ordered pair.The formulae of our system comprise quantificational schemata and anything which can be obtained therefrom by writing pairs (e.g. (x; y), ((x; y); (x; (y; y))) etc.) for free variables, or by writing ancestral abstracts (e.g. (*xyFxy) etc.) for schematic letters, or both.The ancestral abstract (*xyFxy) means what is usually meant by ; and the formula (*xyFxy)zw answers to Martin's (zw; xy)(Fxy).The system presupposes a non-simple applied functional calculus of the first order, with a rule of substitution for predicate letters; over and above this it has three axioms for the ancestral and two for the ordered pair.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document