Leon Horsten

According to structuralism in philosophy of mathematics, arithmetic is about a single structure. First-order theories are satisfied by models that do not instantiate this structure. Proponents of structuralism have put forward various accounts of how we succeed in fixing one single structure as the intended interpretation of our arithmetical language. We shall look at a proposal that involves Tennenbaum's theorem, which says that any model with addition and multiplication as recursive operations is isomorphic to the standard model of arithmetic. On this account, the intended models of arithmetic are the notation systems with recursive operations on them satisfying the Peano axioms. [A]m Anfang […] ist das Zeichen.

Given any finite graph, which transitive graphs approximate it most closely and how fast can we find them? The answer to this question depends on the concept of “closest approximation” involved. In [8,9] a qualitative concept of best approximation is formulated. Roughly, a qualitatively best transitive approximation of a graph is a transitive graph which cannot be “improved” without also going against the original graph. A quantitative concept of best approximation goes back at least to [10]. A quantitatively best transitive approximation is a transitive graph that makes the minimal number of mistakes against the original graph. In other words, the sum of the edges that are removed from and are added to the original graph is minimal.

The logician Kurt Godel in 1951 established a disjunctive thesis about the scope and limits of mathematical knowledge: either the mathematical mind is equivalent to a Turing machine (i.e., a computer), or there are absolutely undecidable mathematical problems. In the second half of the twentieth century, attempts have been made to arrive at a stronger conclusion. In particular, arguments have been produced by the philosopher J.R. Lucas and by the physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose that intend to show that the mathematical mind is more powerful than any computer. These arguments, and counterarguments to them, have not convinced the logical and philosophical community. The reason for this is an insufficiency if rigour in the debate. The contributions in this volume move the debate forward by formulating rigorous frameworks and formally spelling out and evaluating arguments that bear on Godel's disjunction in these frameworks. The contributions in this volume have been written by world leading experts in the field.

Williamson has forcefully argued that Fitch's argument shows that the domain of the unknowable is non-empty. And he exhorts us to make more inroads into the land of the unknowable. Concluding his discussion of Fitch's argument, he writes: " Once we acknowledge that [the domain of the unknowable] is non-empty, we can explore more effectively its extent. … We are only beginning to understand the deeper limits of our knowledge. " I shall formulate and evaluate a new argument concerning the domain of the unknowable. It is an argument about knowability. More specifically, it is an argument about what we can know about the natural numbers. Since the domain of discourse will be the natural numbers structure, the notion of knowability can for the purposes of the argument be identified with a priori knowability or – which amounts to the same thing – absolute provability .Suppose, for a reductio, that there exists a property θ of natural numbers such that it is provable that for some natural number n, θ is true but unprovable. …