Stewart Shapiro

A number of authors have recently weighed in on the issue of whether it is coherent to have bound variables that range over absolutely everything. Prima facie, it is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to coherently state the “relativist” position without violating it. For example, the relativist might say, or try to say, that for any quantifier used in a proposition of English, there is something outside of its range. What is the range of this quantifier? Or suppose we ask the relativist if there are some things that cannot appear in the range of any bound variable. The likely response would be along these lines: “No. For each object o, it possible to include o in the range of quantifiers, but one cannot quantify over everything at once.” This sentence contains unrestricted quantifiers, or so it seems, pending some clever move from a relativist. On the other hand, in the context of set theory, the reasoning behind the Burali-Forti paradox strongly suggests that there are well-orderings strictly longer than the collection of all ordinals. And set theorists regularly do transfinite recursions and transfinite reductions along such well-orderings. The relativist simply points out that one can always define new ordinals, and thus expand the range of one’s bound variables. The purpose of this paper is to explore the iterative framework, proposed in Zermelo’s 1930 paper, “Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche” (“On boundary numbers and domains of sets”), in order to shed light on these issues, and see what is involved in resolving them.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the prospects for a neo‐logicist development of set theory based on a restriction of Frege's Basic Law V, which we call (RV): ∀P∀Q[Ext(P) = Ext(Q) ≡ [(BAD(P) & BAD(Q)) ∨ ∀x(Px ≡ Qx)]] BAD is taken as a primitive property of properties. We explore the features it must have for (RV) to sanction the various strong axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory. The primary interpretation is where ‘BAD’ is Dummett's ‘indefinitely extensible’.1 Background: what and why?2 Framework3 GOOD candidates, indefinite extensibility4 The framework of (RV) alone, or almost alone5 The axioms6 Brief closing.

Graham Priest's In Contradiction (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987, chapter 3) contains an argument concerning the intuitive, or ‘naïve’ notion of (arithmetic) proof, or provability. He argues that the intuitively provable arithmetic sentences constitute a recursively enumerable set, which has a Gödel sentence which is itself intuitively provable. The incompleteness theorem does not apply, since the set of provable arithmetic sentences is not consistent. The purpose of this article is to sharpen Priest's argument, avoiding reference to informal notions, consensus, or Church's thesis. We add Priest's dialetheic semantics to ordinary Peano arithmetic PA, to produce a recursively axiomatized formal system PA★ that contains its own truth predicate. Whether one is a dialetheist or not, PA★ is a legitimate, rigorously defined formal system, and one can explore its proof‐theoretic properties. The system is inconsistent (but presumably non‐trivial), and it proves its own Gödel sentence as well as its own soundness. Although this much is perhaps welcome to the dialetheist, it has some untoward consequences. There are purely arithmetic (indeed, Π0) sentences that are both provable and refutable in PA★. So if the dialetheist maintains that PA★ is sound, then he must hold that there are true contradictions in the most elementary language of arithmetic. Moreover, the thorough dialetheist must hold that there is a number g which both is and is not the code of a derivation of the indicated Gödel sentence of PA★. For the thorough dialetheist, it follows ordinary PA and even Robinson arithmetic are themselves inconsistent theories. I argue that this is a bitter pill for the dialetheist to swallow