Results 1  10
of
21
Is Complexity a Source of Incompleteness?
 IS COMPLEXITY A SOURCE OF INCOMPLETENESS
, 2004
"... ..."
On reflection principles
 Ann. Pure Appl. Logic
, 2009
"... Gödel initiated the program of finding and justifying axioms that effect a significant reduction in incompleteness and he drew a fundamental distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic justifications. Reflection principles are the most promising candidates for new axioms that are intrinsically justi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Gödel initiated the program of finding and justifying axioms that effect a significant reduction in incompleteness and he drew a fundamental distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic justifications. Reflection principles are the most promising candidates for new axioms that are intrinsically justified. Taking as our starting point Tait’s work on general reflection principles, we prove a series of limitative results concerning this approach. These results collectively show that general reflection principles are either weak (in that they are consistent relative to the Erdös cardinal κ(ω)) or inconsistent. The philosophical significance of these results is discussed.
Why philosophers should care about computational complexity
 In Computability: Gödel, Turing, Church, and beyond (eds
, 2012
"... One might think that, once we know something is computable, how efficiently it can be computed is a practical question with little further philosophical importance. In this essay, I offer a detailed casethat onewouldbe wrong. In particular, I arguethat computational complexity theory—the field that ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
One might think that, once we know something is computable, how efficiently it can be computed is a practical question with little further philosophical importance. In this essay, I offer a detailed casethat onewouldbe wrong. In particular, I arguethat computational complexity theory—the field that studies the resources (such as time, space, and randomness) needed to solve computational problems—leads to new perspectives on the nature of mathematical knowledge, the strong AI debate, computationalism, the problem of logical omniscience, Hume’s problem of induction, Goodman’s grue riddle, the foundations of quantum mechanics, economic rationality, closed timelike curves, and several other topics of philosophical interest. I end by discussing
What does it mean to say that logic is formal
, 2000
"... Much philosophy of logic is shaped, explicitly or implicitly, by the thought that logic is distinctively formal and abstracts from material content. The distinction between formal and material does not appear to coincide with the more familiar contrasts between a priori and empirical, necessary and ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Much philosophy of logic is shaped, explicitly or implicitly, by the thought that logic is distinctively formal and abstracts from material content. The distinction between formal and material does not appear to coincide with the more familiar contrasts between a priori and empirical, necessary and contingent, analytic and synthetic—indeed, it is often invoked to explain these. Nor, it turns out, can it be explained by appeal to schematic inference patterns, syntactic rules, or grammar. What does it mean, then, to say that logic is distinctively formal? Three things: logic is said to be formal (or “topicneutral”) (1) in the sense that it provides constitutive norms for thought as such, (2) in the sense that it is indifferent to the particular identities of objects, and (3) in the sense that it abstracts entirely from the semantic content of thought. Though these three notions of formality are by no means equivalent, they are frequently run together. The reason, I argue, is that modern talk of the formality of logic has its source in Kant, and these three notions come together in the context of Kant’s transcendental philosophy. Outside of this context (e.g., in Frege), they can come apart. Attending to this
GÖDEL AND SET THEORY
"... Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) with his work on the constructible universe L established the relative consistency of the Axiom of Choice (AC) and the Continuum Hypothesis (CH). More broadly, he ensured the ascendancy of firstorder logic as the framework and a matter of method for set theory and secured the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) with his work on the constructible universe L established the relative consistency of the Axiom of Choice (AC) and the Continuum Hypothesis (CH). More broadly, he ensured the ascendancy of firstorder logic as the framework and a matter of method for set theory and secured the cumulative hierarchy view of the universe of sets. Gödel thereby transformed set theory and launched it with structured subject matter and specific methods of proof. In later years Gödel worked on a variety of settheoretic constructions and speculated about how problems might be settled with new axioms. We here chronicle this development from the point of view of the evolution of set theory as a field of mathematics. Much has been written, of course, about Gödel’s work in set theory, from textbook expositions to the introductory notes to his collected papers. The present account presents an integrated view of the historical and mathematical development as supported by his recently published lectures and correspondence. Beyond the surface of things we delve deeper into the mathematics. What emerges
Global Reflection Principles
, 2012
"... Reflection Principles are commonly thought to produce only strong axioms of infinity consistent with V = L. It would be desirable to have some notion of strong reflection to remedy this, and we have proposed Global Reflection Principles based on a somewhat Cantorian view of the universe. Such princi ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Reflection Principles are commonly thought to produce only strong axioms of infinity consistent with V = L. It would be desirable to have some notion of strong reflection to remedy this, and we have proposed Global Reflection Principles based on a somewhat Cantorian view of the universe. Such principles justify the kind of cardinals needed for, inter alia, Woodin’s ΩLogic. 1 To say that the universe of all sets is an unfinished totality does not mean objective undeterminateness, but merely a subjective inability to finish it. Gödel, in Wang, [17] 1 Reflection Principles in Set Theory Historically reflection principles are associated with attempts to say that no one notion, idea, or statement can capture our whole view of the universe of sets V = ⋃ α∈On Vα where On is the class of all ordinals. That no one idea can pin down the universe of all sets has firm historical roots (see the quotation from Cantor later or the following): The Universe of sets cannot be uniquely characterized (i.e. distinguished from all its initial segments) by any internal structural property of the membership relation in it, which is expressible in any logic of finite or transfinite type, including infinitary logics of any cardinal number. Gödel: Wang ibid. Indeed once set theory was formalized by the (first order version of) the axioms and schemata of Zermelo with the additions of Skolem and Fraenkel, it was seen that reflection of first order formulae ϕ(v0, , vn) in the language of set theory L∈ ˙ could actually be proven:
Conceptualism: sets and classes
, 2012
"... We outline an extension of Martin’s view of a conceptual realism, to a Cantorian realm of absolute infinities. We then formulate a strong reflection principle within this framework to obtain extraconstructible large cardinals. 1 ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
We outline an extension of Martin’s view of a conceptual realism, to a Cantorian realm of absolute infinities. We then formulate a strong reflection principle within this framework to obtain extraconstructible large cardinals. 1
Absolute Infinity ∗
, 2012
"... This article is concerned with reflection principles in the context of Cantor’s conception of the set theoretic universe. We argue that within a Cantorian conception of the set theoretic universe reflection principles can be formulated that confer intrinsic plausibility to strong axioms of infinity. ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
This article is concerned with reflection principles in the context of Cantor’s conception of the set theoretic universe. We argue that within a Cantorian conception of the set theoretic universe reflection principles can be formulated that confer intrinsic plausibility to strong axioms of infinity. How can I talk to you, I have no words... Virgin Prunes, I am God 1
Theoretical Computer Science Is Complexity a Source of Incompleteness?
, 2004
"... In this paper we prove Chaitin’s “heuristic principle”, the theorems of a finitelyspecified theory cannot be significantly more complex than the theory itself, for an appropriate measure of complexity. We show that the measure is invariant under the change of the Gödel numbering. For this measure, t ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we prove Chaitin’s “heuristic principle”, the theorems of a finitelyspecified theory cannot be significantly more complex than the theory itself, for an appropriate measure of complexity. We show that the measure is invariant under the change of the Gödel numbering. For this measure, the theorems of a finitelyspecified, sound, consistent theory strong enough to formalize arithmetic which is arithmetically sound (like ZermeloFraenkel set theory with choice or Peano Arithmetic) have bounded complexity, hence every sentence of the theory which is significantly more complex than the theory is unprovable. Previous results showing that incompleteness is not accidental, but ubiquitous are here reinforced in probabilistic terms: the probability that a true sentence of length n is provable in the theory tends to zero when n tends to infinity, while the probability that a sentence of length n is true is strictly positive. 1