Relevant Arithmetic and Mathematical Pluralism

In The Consistency of Arithmetic and elsewhere, Meyer claims to “repeal” Goedel’s second incompleteness theorem. In this paper, I review his argument, and then consider two ways of understanding it: from the perspective of mathematical pluralism and monism, respectively. Is relevant arithmetic just another legitimate practice among many, or is it a rival of its classical counterpart—a corrective to Goedel, setting us back on the path to the (One) True Arithmetic? To help answer, I sketch a few worked examples from relevant mathematics, to see what a non-classical (re)formulation of mathematics might look like in practice. I conclude that, while it is unlikely that relevant arithmetic describes past and present mathematical practice, and so might be most acceptable as a pluralist enterprise, it may yet prescribe a more monistic future venture.

Inconsistent Models for Relevant Arithmetics

This paper develops in certain directions the work of Meyer in [3], [4], [5] and [6] (see also Routley [10] and Asenjo [11]). In those works, Peano’s axioms for arithmetic were formulated with a logical base of the relevant logic R, and it was proved finitistically that the resulting arithmetic, called R♯, was absolutely consistent. It was pointed out that such a result escapes incau- tious formulations of Goedel’s second incompleteness theorem, and provides a basis for a revived Hilbert programme. The absolute consistency result used as a model arithmetic modulo two. Modulo arithmetics are not or- dinarily thought of as an extension of Peano arithmetic, since some of the propositions of the latter, such as that zero is the successor of no number, fail in the former. Consequently a logical base which, unlike classical logic, tolerates contradictory theories was used for the model. The logical base for the model was the three-valued logic RM3 (see e.g. [1] or [8]), which has the advantage that while it is an extension of R, it is finite valued and so easier to handle. The resulting model-theoretic structure (called in this paper RM32) is interesting in its own right in that the set of sentences true therein consti- tutes a negation inconsistent but absolutely consistent arithmetic which is an extension of R♯. In fact, in the light of the result of [6], it is an extension of Peano arithmetic with a base of a classical logic, P♯. A generalisation of the structure is to modulo arithmetics with the same logical base RM3, but with varying moduli (called RM3i here). We first study the properties of these arithmetics in this paper. The study is then generalised by vary- ing the logical base, to give the arithmetics RMni, of logical base RMn and modulus i. Not all of these exist, however, as arithmetical properties and logical properties interact, as we will show. The arithmetics RMni give rise, on intersection, to an inconsistent arithmetic RMω which is not of modulo i for any i. We also study its properties, and, among other results, we show by finitistic means that the more natural relevant arithmetics R♯ and R♯♯ are incomplete (whether or not consistent and recursively enumerable). In the rest of the paper we apply these techniques to several topics, particularly relevant quantum arithmetic in which we are able to show (unlike classical quantum arithmetic) that the law of distribution remains unprovable. Aside from its intrinsic interest, we regard the present exercise as a demonstration that inconsistent theories and models are of mathematical worth and interest.

Once Again on Misinterpretations of Gödel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem

A response is given to the paper by A. M. Izmailova (Izmailova A. M. O kritike teoremy K. Gedelya o nepolnote A. V. Bessonovym [On A. V. Bessonov’s criticism of K. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem]. Studencheskii nauchnyi zhurnal “Grani nauki” [Student Scientific Journal "Facets of Science"], 2018, no. 1, p. 7-9. (in Russ.)) allegedly indicating a «serious error» in my analysis of K. Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem. It is shown that her criticism is based on gross logical errors, as well as on a misunderstanding of both the second incompleteness theorem and my results. Such a widespread misinterpretation is based on the inadmissible confusion of the proof of the consistency of formal arithmetic with the proof in it of a formula expressing its consistency. It is argued that Gödel's second theorem is not directly related to the proof of the consistency of formal arithmetic. It is proved that this theorem cannot be used in argumentation against feasibility of D. Hilbert’s finitistic program.

What he could have said (but did not say) about Gödel’s second theorem: A note on Floyd-Putnam’s Wittgenstein

In several publications, Juliet Floyd and Hilary Putnam have argued that the so-called ‘notorious paragraph’ of the Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics contains a valuable philosophical insight about Gödel’s informal proof of the first incompleteness theorem – in a nutshell, the idea they attribute to Wittgenstein is that if the Gödel sentence of a system is refutable, then, because of the resulting ω-inconsistency of the system, we should give up the translation of Gödel’s sentence by the English sentence “I am unprovable”. I will argue against Floyd and Putnam’s use of the idea, and I will indirectly question its attribution to Wittgenstein. First, I will point out that the idea is inefficient in the context of the first incompleteness theorem because there is an explicit assumption of soundness in Gödel’s informal discussion of that theorem. Secondly, I will argue that of he who makes the observation that Floyd and Putnam think Wittgenstein has made about the first theorem, one will expect to see an analogous observation (concerning the ‘consistency’ statement of systems) about Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem – yet we see nothing to that effect in Wittgenstein’s remarks. Incidentally, that never-made remark on the import of the second theorem is of genuine logical significance. ‏ ‎This short paper is a by-product of the lecture I gave, as an invited speaker, at the Fourth Annual Conference of the Iranian Association for Logic, 2016. I am grateful to Saeed Salehi for an ongoing and productive discussion on different aspects of Gödel’s 1931 paper, and to Ali Masoudi and Mousa Mohammadian for all the friendly and brotherly support. I’d like to dedicate this paper to the memory of my teacher, John V. Canfield (1934 – 2017).

About the characterization of a fine line that separates generalizations and boundary-case exceptions for the Second Incompleteness Theorem under semantic tableau deduction

Our previous research showed that the semantic tableau deductive methodology of Fitting and Smullyan permits boundary-case exceptions to the second incompleteness theorem, if multiplication is viewed as a 3-way relation (rather than as a total function). It is known that tableau methodologies prove a schema of theorems verifying all instances of the law of the excluded middle. But if one promotes this schema of theorems into formalized logical axioms, then the meaning of the pronoun of ‘I’, used by our self-referencing engine, changes quite sharply. Our partial evasions of the second incompleteness theorem shall then come to a complete halt.