Intuitionistic Completeness of First-Order Logic

We establish completeness for intuitionistic first-order logic, iFOL, showing that is a formula is provable if and only if it is uniformly valid under the Brouwer Heyting Kolmogorov (BHK) semantics, the intended semantics of iFOL. Our proof is intuitionistic and provides an effective procedure Prf that converts uniform evidence into a formal first-order proof. We have implemented Prf . Uniform validity is defined using the intersection operator as a universal quantifier over the domain of discourse and atomic predicates. Formulas of iFOL that are uniformly valid are also intuitionistically valid, but not conversely. Our strongest result requires the Fan Theorem; it can also be proved classically by showing that Prf terminates using K¨onig’s Theorem. The fundamental idea behind our completeness theorem is that a single evidence term evd witnesses the uniform validity of a minimal logic formula F. Finding even one uniform realizer guarantees validity because Prf (F, evd) builds a first-order proof of F, establishing its uniform validity and providing a purely logical normalized realizer. We establish completeness for iFOL as follows. Friedman showed that iFOL can be embedded in minimal logic (mFOL). By his transformation, mapping formula A to F r(A). If A is uniformly valid, then so is F r(A), and by our Basic Completeness result, we can find a proof of F r(A) in minimal logic. Then we prove A from F r(A) in intuitionistic logic by a proof procedure fixed in advance. Our result resolves an open question posed by Beth in 1947

Should pluralists be pluralists about pluralism?

Funder: studienstiftung des deutschen volkes; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004350Funder: Prins Bernhard CultuurfondsAbstractHow many correct logics are there? Monists endorse that there is one, pluralists argue for many, and nihilists claim that there are none. Reasoning about these views requires a logic. That is the meta-logic. It turns out that there are some meta-logical challenges specifically for the pluralists. I will argue that these depend on an implicitly assumed absoluteness of correct logic. Pluralists can solve the challenges by giving up on this absoluteness and instead adopt contextualism about correct logic. This contextualism is naturalistically appealing.</jats:p

An analysis of the constructive content of Henkin's proof of G\"odel's completeness theorem

G{\"o}del's completeness theorem for classical first-order logic is one of the most basic theorems of logic. Central to any foundational course in logic, it connects the notion of valid formula to the notion of provable formula.We survey a few standard formulations and proofs of the completeness theorem before focusing on the formal description of a slight modification of Henkin's proof within intuitionistic second-order arithmetic.It is standard in the context of the completeness of intuitionistic logic with respect to various semantics such as Kripke or Beth semantics to follow the Curry-Howard correspondence and to interpret the proofs of completeness as programs which turn proofs of validity for these semantics into proofs of derivability.We apply this approach to Henkin's proof to phrase it as a program which transforms any proof of validity with respect to Tarski semantics into a proof of derivability.By doing so, we hope to shed an effective light on the relation between Tarski semantics and syntax: proofs of validity are syntactic objects with which we can compute.Comment: R{\'e}dig{\'e} en 4 {\'e}tapes: 2013, 2016, 2022, 202

Semantics without Toil? Brady and Rush Meet Halldén

The present discussion takes up an issue raised in Section 5 of Ross Brady and Penelope Rush’s paper ‘Four Basic Logical Issues’ concerning the (claimed) triviality – in the sense of automatic availability – of soundness and completeness results for a logic in a metalanguage employing at least as much logical vocabulary as the object logic, where the metalogical behaviour of the common logical vocabulary is as in the object logic. We shall see – in Propositions 4.5–4.7 – that this triviality claim faces difficulties in the face of Halldén incompleteness, for essentially the same reasons that Halldén thought this phenomenon raised seman- tic difficulties for the modal logics of C. I. Lewis exhibiting it. To counter any inclination to dismiss the phenomenon as providing at best a marginal range of counterexamples to the triviality claim, a Postscript assembles some reminders of the extent of – and the varied considerations favouring – Halldén incompleteness

Semantic and Mathematical Foundations for Intuitionism

Thesis (Ph.D.) - Indiana University, Philosophy, 2013My dissertation concerns the proper foundation for the intuitionistic mathematics whose development began with L.E.J. Brouwer's work in the first half of the 20th Century. It is taken for granted by most philosophers, logicians, and mathematicians interested in foundational questions that intuitionistic mathematics presupposes a special, proof-conditional theory of meaning for mathematical statements. I challenge this commonplace. Classical mathematics is very successful as a coherent body of theories and a tool for practical application. Given this success, a view like Dummett's that attributes a systematic unintelligibility to the statements of classical mathematicians fails to save the relevant phenomena. Furthermore, Dummett's program assumes that his proposed semantics for mathematical language validates all and only the logical truths of intuitionistic logic. In fact, it validates some intuitionistically invalid principles, and given the lack of intuitionistic completeness proofs, there is little reason to think that every intuitionistic logical truth is valid according to his semantics. In light of the failure of Dummett's foundation for intuitionism, I propose and carry out a reexamination of Brouwer's own writings. Brouwer is frequently interpreted as a proto-Dummettian about his own mathematics. This is due to excessive emphasis on some of his more polemical writings and idiosyncratic philosophical views at the expense of his distinctively mathematical work. These polemical writings do not concern mathematical language, and their principal targets are Russell and Hilbert's foundational programs, not the semantic principle of bivalence. The failures of these foundational programs has diminished the importance of Brouwer's philosophical writings, but his work on reconstructing mathematics itself from intuitionistic principles continues to be worth studying. When one studies this work relieved of its philosophical burden, it becomes clear that an intuitionistic mathematician can make sense of her mathematical work and activity without relying on special philosophical or linguistic doctrines. Core intuitionistic results, especially the invalidity of the logical principle tertium non datur, can be demonstrated from basic mathematical principles; these principles, in turn, can be defended in ways akin to the basic axioms of other mathematical theories. I discuss three such principles: Brouwer's Continuity Principle, the Principle of Uniformity, and Constructive Church's Thesis

Gödel mathematics versus Hilbert mathematics. I. The Gödel incompleteness (1931) statement: axiom or theorem?

The present first part about the eventual completeness of mathematics (called “Hilbert mathematics”) is concentrated on the Gödel incompleteness (1931) statement: if it is an axiom rather than a theorem inferable from the axioms of (Peano) arithmetic, (ZFC) set theory, and propositional logic, this would pioneer the pathway to Hilbert mathematics. One of the main arguments that it is an axiom consists in the direct contradiction of the axiom of induction in arithmetic and the axiom of infinity in set theory. Thus, the pair of arithmetic and set are to be similar to Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries distinguishably only by the Fifth postulate now, i.e. after replacing it and its negation correspondingly by the axiom of finiteness (induction) versus that of finiteness being idempotent negations to each other. Indeed, the axiom of choice, as far as it is equivalent to the well-ordering “theorem”, transforms any set in a well-ordering either necessarily finite according to the axiom of induction or also optionally infinite according to the axiom of infinity. So, the Gödel incompleteness statement relies on the logical contradiction of the axiom of induction and the axiom of infinity in the final analysis. Nonetheless, both can be considered as two idempotent versions of the same axiom (analogically to the Fifth postulate) and then unified after logicism and its inherent intensionality since the opposition of finiteness and infinity can be only extensional (i.e., relevant to the elements of any set rather than to the set by itself or its characteristic property being a proposition). So, the pathway for interpreting the Gödel incompleteness statement as an axiom and the originating from that assumption for “Hilbert mathematics” accepting its negation is pioneered. A much wider context relevant to realizing the Gödel incompleteness statement as a metamathematical axiom is consistently built step by step. The horizon of Hilbert mathematics is the proper subject in the third part of the paper, and a reinterpretation of Gödel’s papers (1930; 1931) as an apology of logicism as the only consistent foundations of mathematics is the topic of the next second part

Mechanised metamathematics : an investigation of first-order logic and set theory in constructive type theory

In this thesis, we investigate several key results in the canon of metamathematics, applying the contemporary perspective of formalisation in constructive type theory and mechanisation in the Coq proof assistant. Concretely, we consider the central completeness, undecidability, and incompleteness theorems of first-order logic as well as properties of the axiom of choice and the continuum hypothesis in axiomatic set theory. Due to their fundamental role in the foundations of mathematics and their technical intricacies, these results have a long tradition in the codification as standard literature and, in more recent investigations, increasingly serve as a benchmark for computer mechanisation. With the present thesis, we continue this tradition by uniformly analysing the aforementioned cornerstones of metamathematics in the formal framework of constructive type theory. This programme offers novel insights into the constructive content of completeness, a synthetic approach to undecidability and incompleteness that largely eliminates the notorious tedium obscuring the essence of their proofs, as well as natural representations of set theory in the form of a second-order axiomatisation and of a fully type-theoretic account. The mechanisation concerning first-order logic is organised as a comprehensive Coq library open to usage and contribution by external users.In dieser Doktorarbeit werden einige Schlüsselergebnisse aus dem Kanon der Metamathematik untersucht, unter Verwendung der zeitgenössischen Perspektive von Formalisierung in konstruktiver Typtheorie und Mechanisierung mit Hilfe des Beweisassistenten Coq. Konkret werden die zentralen Vollständigkeits-, Unentscheidbarkeits- und Unvollständigkeitsergebnisse der Logik erster Ordnung sowie Eigenschaften des Auswahlaxioms und der Kontinuumshypothese in axiomatischer Mengenlehre betrachtet. Aufgrund ihrer fundamentalen Rolle in der Fundierung der Mathematik und ihrer technischen Schwierigkeiten, besitzen diese Ergebnisse eine lange Tradition der Kodifizierung als Standardliteratur und, besonders in jüngeren Untersuchungen, eine zunehmende Bedeutung als Maßstab für Mechanisierung mit Computern. Mit der vorliegenden Doktorarbeit wird diese Tradition fortgeführt, indem die zuvorgenannten Grundpfeiler der Methamatematik uniform im formalen Rahmen der konstruktiven Typtheorie analysiert werden. Dieses Programm ermöglicht neue Einsichten in den konstruktiven Gehalt von Vollständigkeit, einen synthetischen Ansatz für Unentscheidbarkeit und Unvollständigkeit, der großteils den berüchtigten, die Essenz der Beweise verdeckenden, technischen Aufwand eliminiert, sowie natürliche Repräsentationen von Mengentheorie in Form einer Axiomatisierung zweiter Ordnung und einer vollkommen typtheoretischen Darstellung. Die Mechanisierung zur Logik erster Ordnung ist als eine umfassende Coq-Bibliothek organisiert, die offen für Nutzung und Beiträge externer Anwender ist