On what Hilbert aimed at in the foundations

Hilbert's axiomatic approach was an optimistic take over on the side of the logical foundations. It was also a response to various restrictive views of mathematics supposedly bounded by the reaches of epistemic elements in mathematics. A complete axiomatization should be able to exclude epistemic or ontic elements from mathematical theorizing, according to Hilbert. This exclusion is not necessarily a logicism in similar form to Frege's or Dedekind's projects. That is, intuition can still have a role in mathematical reasoning. Nevertheless, this role is to be given a structural orientation with the help of explications of the underlying logic of axiomatizatio

A sharing-based approach to supporting adaptation in service compositions

Data-related properties of the activities involved in a service composition can be used to facilitate several design-time and run-time adaptation tasks, such as service evolution, distributed enactment, and instance-level adaptation. A number of these properties can be expressed using a notion of sharing. We present an approach for automated inference of data properties based on sharing analysis, which is able to handle service compositions with complex control structures, involving loops and sub-workflows. The properties inferred can include data dependencies, information content, domain-defined attributes, privacy or confidentiality levels, among others. The analysis produces characterizations of the data and the activities in the composition in terms of minimal and maximal sharing, which can then be used to verify compliance of potential adaptation actions, or as supporting information in their generation. This sharing analysis approach can be used both at design time and at run time. In the latter case, the results of analysis can be refined using the composition traces (execution logs) at the point of execution, in order to support run-time adaptation

Hilbert's Metamathematical Problems and Their Solutions

This dissertation examines several of the problems that Hilbert discovered in the foundations of mathematics, from a metalogical perspective. The problems manifest themselves in four different aspects of Hilbert’s views: (i) Hilbert’s axiomatic approach to the foundations of mathematics; (ii) His response to criticisms of set theory; (iii) His response to intuitionist criticisms of classical mathematics; (iv) Hilbert’s contribution to the specification of the role of logical inference in mathematical reasoning. This dissertation argues that Hilbert’s axiomatic approach was guided primarily by model theoretical concerns. Accordingly, the ultimate aim of his consistency program was to prove the model-theoretical consistency of mathematical theories. It turns out that for the purpose of carrying out such consistency proofs, a suitable modification of the ordinary first-order logic is needed. To effect this modification, independence-friendly logic is needed as the appropriate conceptual framework. It is then shown how the model theoretical consistency of arithmetic can be proved by using IF logic as its basic logic. Hilbert’s other problems, manifesting themselves as aspects (ii), (iii), and (iv)—most notably the problem of the status of the axiom of choice, the problem of the role of the law of excluded middle, and the problem of giving an elementary account of quantification—can likewise be approached by using the resources of IF logic. It is shown that by means of IF logic one can carry out Hilbertian solutions to all these problems. The two major results concerning aspects (ii), (iii) and (iv) are the following: (a) The axiom of choice is a logical principle; (b) The law of excluded middle divides metamathematical methods into elementary and non-elementary ones. It is argued that these results show that IF logic helps to vindicate Hilbert’s nominalist philosophy of mathematics. On the basis of an elementary approach to logic, which enriches the expressive resources of ordinary first-order logic, this dissertation shows how the different problems that Hilbert discovered in the foundations of mathematics can be solved

Empiricism and Philosophy

Though Quine's argument against the analytic-synthetic distinction is widely disputed, one of the major effects of his argument has been to popularise the belief that there is no sharp distinction between science and philosophy. This thesis begins by distinguishing reductive from holistic empiricism, showing why reductive empiricism is false, refuting the major objections to holistic empiricism and stating the limits on human knowledge it implies. Quine's arguments (and some arguments that have been mistakenly attributed to him) from holism against the analytic-synthetic are considered, and while many of them are found wanting one good argument is presented. Holism does not, however, imply that there is no sharp distinction between science and philosophy, and indeed implies that the distinction between scientific and philosophical disputes is perfectly sharp. The grounds upon which philosophical disputes may be resolved are then sought for and deliniated

Empiricism and Philosophy

Though Quine's argument against the analytic-synthetic distinction is widely disputed, one of the major effects of his argument has been to popularise the belief that there is no sharp distinction between science and philosophy. This thesis begins by distinguishing reductive from holistic empiricism, showing why reductive empiricism is false, refuting the major objections to holistic empiricism and stating the limits on human knowledge it implies. Quine's arguments (and some arguments that have been mistakenly attributed to him) from holism against the analytic-synthetic are considered, and while many of them are found wanting one good argument is presented. Holism does not, however, imply that there is no sharp distinction between science and philosophy, and indeed implies that the distinction between scientific and philosophical disputes is perfectly sharp. The grounds upon which philosophical disputes may be resolved are then sought for and deliniated

The Liar Paradox: A Consistent and Semantically Closed Solution

This thesis develops a new approach to the formal de nition of a truth predicate that allows a consistent, semantically closed defiition within classical logic. The approach is built on an analysis of structural properties of languages that make Liar Sentences and the paradoxical argument possible. By focusing on these conditions, standard formal dfinitions of semantics are shown to impose systematic limitations on the definition of formal truth predicates. The alternative approach to the formal definition of truth is developed by analysing our intuitive procedure for evaluating the truth value of sentences like "P is true". It is observed that the standard procedure breaks down in the case of the Liar Paradox as a side effect of the patterns of naming or reference necessary to the definition of Truth as a predicate. This means there are two ways in which a sentence like "P is true" can be not true, which requires that the T-Schema be modified for such sentences. By modifying the T-Schema, and taking seriously the effects of the patterns of naming/ reference on truth values, the new approach to the definition of truth is developed. Formal truth definitions within classical logic are constructed that provide an explicit and adequate truth definition for their own language, every sentence within the languages has a truth value, and there is no Strengthened Liar Paradox. This approach to solving the Liar Paradox can be easily applied to a very wide range of languages, including natural languages