Theory Of Natural Numbers Research Articles

Some formal relative consistency proofs

These systems are roughly natural number theory in, respectively, nth order function calculus, for all positive integers n. Each of these systems is expressed in the notation of the theory of types, having variables with type subscripts from 1 to n. Variables of type 1 stand for natural numbers, variables of type 2 stand for classes of natural numbers, etc. Primitive atomic wff's (well-formed formulas) of Tn are those of number theory in variables of type 1, and of the following kind for n > 1: xi ϵ yi+1. Other wff's are formed by truth functions and quantifiers in the usual manner. Quantification theory holds for all the variables of Tn. Tn has the axioms Z1 to Z9, which are, respectively, the nine axioms and axiom schemata for the system Z (natural number theory) on p. 371 of [1]. These axioms and axiom schemata contain only variables of type 1, except for the schemata Z2 and Z9, which are as follows:where ‘F(x1)’ can be any wff of Tn. Identity is primitive for variables of type 1; for variables of other types it is defined as follows:

Baruch Germansky. (A new set of axioms sufficient for the development of the theory of natural numbers). , (Riveon lematematika), vol. 3 (1949), pp. 65–67.

Baruch Germansky. <b /> (A new set of axioms sufficient for the development of the theory of natural numbers). <b />, (Riveon lematematika), vol. 3 (1949), pp. 65–67.

Completeness in the theory of types

The first order functional calculus was proved complete by Gödel in 1930. Roughly speaking, this proof demonstrates that each formula of the calculus is a formal theorem which becomes a true sentence under every one of a certain intended class of interpretations of the formal system.For the functional calculus of second order, in which predicate variables may be bound, a very different kind of result is known: no matter what (recursive) set of axioms are chosen, the system will contain a formula which is valid but not a formal theorem. This follows from results of Gödel concerning systems containing a theory of natural numbers, because a finite categorical set of axioms for the positive integers can be formulated within a second order calculus to which a functional constant has been added.By a valid formula of the second order calculus is meant one which expresses a true proposition whenever the individual variables are interpreted as ranging over an (arbitrary) domain of elements while the functional variables of degree n range over all sets of ordered n-tuples of individuals. Under this definition of validity, we must conclude from Gödel's results that the calculus is essentially incomplete.It happens, however, that there is a wider class of models which furnish an interpretation for the symbolism of the calculus consistent with the usual axioms and formal rules of inference. Roughly, these models consist of an arbitrary domain of individuals, as before, but now an arbitrary class of sets of ordered n-tuples of individuals as the range for functional variables of degree n. If we redefine the notion of valid formula to mean one which expresses a true proposition with respect to every one of these models, we can then prove that the usual axiom system for the second order calculus is complete: a formula is valid if and only if it is a formal theorem.

A note on nominalistic syntax

In this note two independent comments are offered concerning nominalistic syntax.If one has a nominalistic theory of natural numbers (or positive integers) at one's disposal, one can of course readily formulate a nominalistic syntax by the familiar method of arithmetization. A nominalistic theory of natural numbers is formulated in a previous paper by the author, and thus a basis for a nominalistic syntax is already provided. (The objection that this theory is infinitistic would appear without force, because it provides the only known nominalistic basis for the theory of general recursive functions. On a finitistic basis one merely throws out this vital domain of mathematical theory.)The second comment is concerned with nominalistic syntax as formulated by Goodman and Quine. The nominalistic construction of natural numbers alluded to above owes much of its power to a primitive device of ancestral quantification. This device is somewhat more powerful than the notions Goodman and Quine allow themselves. Now nominalistic syntax in their somewhat narrower sense can be formulated by utilizing a relation akin to the relation L of the theory of ordered individuals developed elsewhere by the author. ‘L’ here is to designate the relation between inscriptions of being wholly to the left of.The Goodman-Quine primitive ‘C’, designating a relation of concatenation, and their primitive ‘Part’ with its field confined to inscriptions, can be defined in terms of ‘L’. Thus:.(This definition is essentially that of ‘P’ in O.I.)

On natural numbers, integers, and rationals

A theory of natural numbers will be outlined in what follows. This theory will also be extended to give an account of positive and negative integers and positive and negative rational numbers. The system of logic used will be that of Whitehead and Russell's Principia mathematica with the simple theory of types. It will be assumed that the reader is familiar with the more elementary properties of relations and with such notions as the relative product of two relations, the square of a relation, the cube of a relation, and the various other whole-number powers of relations.The guiding principle of this theory is that the natural number zero is to be regarded as the relation of the zevoth power of a relation А to А itself, and the natural number 1 is to be regarded as the relation of the first power of a relation А to А itself, and the natural number 2 is to be regarded as the relation of the square of a relation А to А itself, and so on.