Totuus, todistettavuus ja gödeliläiset argumentit : Tarskilaisen totuuden puolustus matematiikassa

Eräs tärkeimmistä kysymyksistä matematiikanfilosofiassa on totuuden ja formaalin todistettavuuden välinen suhde. Kantaa, jonka mukaan nämä kaksi käsitettä ovat yksi ja sama, kutsutaan deflationismiksi, ja vastakkaista näkökulmaa substantialismiksi. Ensimmäisessä epätäydellisyyslauseessaan Kurt Gödel todisti, että kaikki ristiriidattomat ja aritmetiikan sisältävät formaalit systeemit sisältävät lauseita, joita ei voida sen enempää todistaa kuin osoittaa epätosiksi kyseisen systeemin sisällä. Tällaiset Gödel-lauseet voidaan kuitenkin osoittaa tosiksi, jos laajennamme formaalia systeemiä Alfred Tarskin semanttisella totuusteorialla, kuten Stewart Shapiro ja Jeffrey Ketland ovat näyttäneet semanttisissa argumenteissaan substantialismin puolesta. Heidän mukaansa Gödel-lauseet ovat eksplisiittinen tapaus todesta lauseesta, jota ei voida todistaa, ja siten deflationismi on kumottu. Tätä vastaan Neil Tennant on näyttänyt, että tarskilaisen totuuden sijaan voimme laajentaa formaalia systeemiä ns. pätevyysperiaatteella, jonka mukaan kaikki todistettavat lauseet ovat ”väitettävissä”, ja josta seuraa myös Gödel-lauseiden väitettävyys. Relevantti kysymys ei siis ole se pystytäänkö Gödel-lauseiden totuus osoittamaan, vaan se onko tarskilainen totuus hyväksyttävämpi laajennus kuin pätevyysperiaate. Tässä työssä väitän, että tätä ongelmaa on paras lähestyä ajattelemalla matematiikkaa ilmiönä, joka on laajempi kuin pelkästään formaalit systeemit. Kun otamme huomioon esiformaalin matemaattisen ajattelun, huomaamme että tarskilainen totuus ei itse asiassa ole laajennus lainkaan. Väitän, että totuus on esiformaalissa matematiikassa sitä mitä todistettavuus on formaalissa, ja tarskilainen semanttinen totuuskäsitys kuvaa tätä suhdetta tarkasti. Deflationisti voi kuitenkin argumentoida, että vaikka esiformaali matematiikka on olemassa, voi se silti olla filosofisesti merkityksetöntä mikäli se ei viittaa mihinkään objektiiviseen. Tätä vastaan väitän, että kaikki todella deflationistiset teoriat johtavat matematiikan mielivaltaisuuteen. Kaikissa muissa matematiikanfilosofisissa teorioissa on tilaa objektiiviselle viittaukselle, ja laajennus tarskilaiseen totuuteen voidaan tehdä luonnollisesti. Väitän siis, että mikäli matematiikan mielivaltaisuus hylätään, täytyy hyväksyä totuuden substantiaalisuus. Muita tähän liittyviä aiheita, kuten uusfregeläisyyttä, käsitellään myös tässä työssä, eikä niiden todeta poistavan tarvetta tarskilaiselle totuudelle. Ainoa jäljelle jäävä mahdollisuus deflationistille on vaihtaa logiikkaa niin, että formaalit kielet voivat sisältää omat totuuspredikaattinsa. Tarski osoitti tämän mahdottomaksi klassisille ensimmäisen kertaluvun kielille, mutta muilla logiikoilla ei välttämättä olisi lainkaan tarvetta laajentaa formaaleja systeemejä, ja yllä esitetty argumentti ei pätisi. Vaihtoehtoisista tavoista keskityn tässä työssä eniten Jaakko Hintikan ja Gabriel Sandun ”riippumattomuusystävälliseen” IF-logiikkaan. Hintikka on väittänyt, että IF-kieli voi sisältää oman adekvaatin totuuspredikaattinsa. Väitän kuitenkin, että vaikka tämä onkin totta, tätä predikaattia ei voida tunnistaa totuuspredikaatiksi saman IF-kielen sisäisesti, ja siten tarve tarskilaiselle totuudelle säilyy. IF-logiikan lisäksi myös toisen kertaluvun klassinen logiikka ja Saul Kripken käyttämä Kleenen logiikka epäonnistuvat samalla tavalla

A Computable Economist’s Perspective on Computational Complexity

A computable economist's view of the world of computational complexity theory is described. This means the model of computation underpinning theories of computational complexity plays a central role. The emergence of computational complexity theories from diverse traditions is emphasised. The unifications that emerged in the modern era was codified by means of the notions of efficiency of computations, non-deterministic computations, completeness, reducibility and verifiability - all three of the latter concepts had their origins on what may be called 'Post's Program of Research for Higher Recursion Theory'. Approximations, computations and constructions are also emphasised. The recent real model of computation as a basis for studying computational complexity in the domain of the reals is also presented and discussed, albeit critically. A brief sceptical section on algorithmic complexity theory is included in an appendix

Topics in Programming Languages, a Philosophical Analysis through the case of Prolog

[EN]Programming languages seldom find proper anchorage in philosophy of logic, language and science. is more, philosophy of language seems to be restricted to natural languages and linguistics, and even philosophy of logic is rarely framed into programming languages topics. The logic programming paradigm and Prolog are, thus, the most adequate paradigm and programming language to work on this subject, combining natural language processing and linguistics, logic programming and constriction methodology on both algorithms and procedures, on an overall philosophizing declarative status. Not only this, but the dimension of the Fifth Generation Computer system related to strong Al wherein Prolog took a major role. and its historical frame in the very crucial dialectic between procedural and declarative paradigms, structuralist and empiricist biases, serves, in exemplar form, to treat straight ahead philosophy of logic, language and science in the contemporaneous age as well. In recounting Prolog's philosophical, mechanical and algorithmic harbingers, the opportunity is open to various routes. We herein shall exemplify some: - the mechanical-computational background explored by Pascal, Leibniz, Boole, Jacquard, Babbage, Konrad Zuse, until reaching to the ACE (Alan Turing) and EDVAC (von Neumann), offering the backbone in computer architecture, and the work of Turing, Church, Gödel, Kleene, von Neumann, Shannon, and others on computability, in parallel lines, throughly studied in detail, permit us to interpret ahead the evolving realm of programming languages. The proper line from lambda-calculus, to the Algol-family, the declarative and procedural split with the C language and Prolog, and the ensuing branching and programming languages explosion and further delimitation, are thereupon inspected as to relate them with the proper syntax, semantics and philosophical élan of logic programming and Prolog

Philosophical Method and Galileo's Paradox of Infinity

We consider an approach to some philosophical problems that I call the Method of Conceptual Articulation: to recognize that a question may lack any determinate answer, and to re-engineer concepts so that the question acquires a definite answer in such a way as to serve the epistemic motivations behind the question. As a case study we examine “Galileo’s Paradox”, that the perfect square numbers seem to be at once as numerous as the whole numbers, by one-to-one correspondence, and yet less numerous, being a proper subset. I argue that Cantor resolved this paradox by a method at least close to that proposed—not by discovering the true nature of cardinal number, but by articulating several useful and appealing extensions of number to the infinite. Galileo was right to suggest that the concept of relative size did not apply to the infinite, for the concept he possessed did not. Nor was Bolzano simply wrong to reject Hume’s Principle (that one-to-one correspondence implies equal number) in the infinitary case, in favor of Euclid’s Common Notion 5 (that the whole is greater than the part), for the concept of cardinal number (in the sense of “number of elements”) was not clearly defined for infinite collections. Order extension theorems now suggest that a theory of cardinality upholding Euclid’s principle instead of Hume’s is possible. Cantor’s refinements of number are not the only ones possible, and they appear to have been shaped by motivations and fruitfulness, for they evolved in discernible stages correlated with emerging applications and results. Galileo, Bolzano, and Cantor shared interests in the particulate analysis of the continuum and in physical applications. Cantor’s concepts proved fruitful for those pursuits. Finally, Gödel was mistaken to claim that Cantor’s concept of cardinality is forced on us; though Gödel gives an intuitively compelling argument, he ignores the fact that Euclid’s Common Notion is also intuitively compelling, and we are therefore forced to make a choice. The success of Cantor’s concept of cardinality lies not in its truth (for concepts are not true or false), nor its uniqueness (for it is not the only extension of number possible), but in its intuitive appeal, and most of all, its usefulness to the understanding

Philosophical Method and Galileo's Paradox of Infinity

We consider an approach to some philosophical problems that I call the Method of Conceptual Articulation: to recognize that a question may lack any determinate answer, and to re-engineer concepts so that the question acquires a definite answer in such a way as to serve the epistemic motivations behind the question. As a case study we examine “Galileo’s Paradox”, that the perfect square numbers seem to be at once as numerous as the whole numbers, by one-to-one correspondence, and yet less numerous, being a proper subset. I argue that Cantor resolved this paradox by a method at least close to that proposed—not by discovering the true nature of cardinal number, but by articulating several useful and appealing extensions of number to the infinite. Galileo was right to suggest that the concept of relative size did not apply to the infinite, for the concept he possessed did not. Nor was Bolzano simply wrong to reject Hume’s Principle (that one-to-one correspondence implies equal number) in the infinitary case, in favor of Euclid’s Common Notion 5 (that the whole is greater than the part), for the concept of cardinal number (in the sense of “number of elements”) was not clearly defined for infinite collections. Order extension theorems now suggest that a theory of cardinality upholding Euclid’s principle instead of Hume’s is possible. Cantor’s refinements of number are not the only ones possible, and they appear to have been shaped by motivations and fruitfulness, for they evolved in discernible stages correlated with emerging applications and results. Galileo, Bolzano, and Cantor shared interests in the particulate analysis of the continuum and in physical applications. Cantor’s concepts proved fruitful for those pursuits. Finally, Gödel was mistaken to claim that Cantor’s concept of cardinality is forced on us; though Gödel gives an intuitively compelling argument, he ignores the fact that Euclid’s Common Notion is also intuitively compelling, and we are therefore forced to make a choice. The success of Cantor’s concept of cardinality lies not in its truth (for concepts are not true or false), nor its uniqueness (for it is not the only extension of number possible), but in its intuitive appeal, and most of all, its usefulness to the understanding