Iris Loeb

The paper [Tarski: Les fondements de la géométrie des corps, Annales de la Société Polonaise de Mathématiques, pp. 29—34, 1929] is in many ways remarkable. We address three historico-philosophical issues that force themselves upon the reader. First we argue that in this paper Tarski did not live up to his own methodological ideals, but displayed instead a much more pragmatic approach. Second we show that Leśniewski's philosophy and systems do not play the significant role that one may be tempted to assign to them at first glance. Especially the role of background logic must be at least partially allocated to Russell's systems of Principia mathematica. This analysis leads us, third, to a threefold distinction of the technical ways in which the domain of discourse comes to be embodied in a theory. Having all of this in place, we discuss why we have to reject the argument in [Gruszczyński and Pietruszczak: Full development of Tarski's Geometry of Solids, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 481—540] according to which Tarski has made a certain mistake.

It is often argued that by assuming the existence of a universal language, one prohibits oneself from conducting semantical investigations. It could thus be thought that Tarski’s stance towards a universal language in his fruitful Wahrheitsbegriff differs essentially from Carnap’s in the latter’s less successful Untersuchungen zur allgemeinen Axiomatik. Yet this is not the case. Rather, these two works differ in whether or not the studied fragments of the universal language are languages themselves, i.e., whether or not they are closed under derivation rules. In Carnap’s case, axiom systems are not closed under derivation rules, which enables him to adopt a substitutional concept of models. His approach is directly rooted in the tradition of formal axiomatics, we argue, and in this contrary to Tarski’s. In comparing these works by Carnap and Tarski, our aim will be to qualify the connection between Tarski’s approach and the tradition of formal axiomatics, which has been overemphasized in the literature.

In his famous paper Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen (Polish edition: Nakładem/Prace Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego, wydzial, III, 1933), Alfred Tarski constructs a materially adequate and formally correct definition of the term “true sentence” for certain kinds of formalised languages. In the case of other formalised languages, he shows that such a construction is impossible but that the term “true sentence” can nevertheless be consistently postulated. In the Postscript that Tarski added to a later version of this paper (Studia Philosophica, 1, 1935), he does not explicitly include limits for the kinds of language for which such a construction is possible. This absence of such limits has been interpreted as an implied claim that such a definition of the term “true sentence” can be constructed for every language. This has far-reaching consequences, not least for the widely held belief that Tarski changed from an universalistic to an anti-universalistic standpoint. We will claim that the consequence of anti-universalism is unwarranted, given that it can be argued that the Postscript is not in conflict with the existence of limits outside of which a definition of “true sentence” cannot be constructed. Moreover, by a discussion of transfinite type theory, we will also be able to accommodate other of the changes made in Tarski’s Postscript within a type-theoretical framework. The awareness of transfinite type theory afforded by this discussion will lead, in turn, to an account of Tarski’s Postscript that shows a gradual change in his logical work, rather than any of the more radical transitions which the Postscript has been claimed to reflect

We shift attention from the development of model theory for demarcated languages to the development of this theory for fragments of a language. Although it is often assumed that model theory for demarcated languages is not compatible with a universalist conception of logic, no one has denied that model theory for fragments of a language can be compatible with that conception. It thus seems unwarranted to ignore the universalist tradition in the search for the origins and development of model theory. This point is illustrated by Carnap’s early semantics and model theory, which he developed within a type theoretical framework and which stand out both for their universalistic treatment and for certain idiosyncratic technicalities by which the construction is supported. One special property is that individuals are context relative in Carnap’s system. This leads to a model theory in which the model domains are more flexible than has been suggested in the literature

This article presents a weak system of intuitionistic second-order arithmetic, WKV, a subsystem of the one in S.C. Kleene, R.E. Vesley [The Foundations of Intuitionistic Mathematics: Especially in Relation to Recursive Functions, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1965]. It is then shown that some statements of real analysis, like a version of the Heine–Borel Theorem, and some statements of logic, e.g. compactness of classical proposition calculus, are equivalent to the Fan Theorem in this system

Context: It is often suggested that the methodology of the programme of Constructive Reverse Mathematics (CRM) can be sufficiently clarified by a thorough understanding of Brouwer’s intuitionism, Bishop’s constructive mathematics, and classical Reverse Mathematics. In this paper, the correctness of this suggestion is questioned. Method: We consider the notion of a mathematical programme in order to compare these schools of mathematics in respect of their methodologies. Results: Brouwer’s intuitionism, Bishop’s constructive mathematics, and classical Reverse Mathematics are historical influences upon the origin and development of CRM, but do not give a full “methodological explanation” for it. Implications: Discussion on the methodological issues concerning CRM is needed. Constructivist content: It is shown that the characterisation and comparison of varieties of constructive mathematics should include methodological aspects (as understood from their practices)

G. Schiemer has recently ascribed to Carnap the so-called domains-as-fields conception of models, which he subsequently used to defend Carnap’s treatment of extremal axioms against J. Hintikka’s criticism that the number of tuples in a relation, and not the domain of discourse, is optimised in Carnap’s treatment. We will argue by a careful textual analysis, however, that this domains-as-fields conception cannot be applied to Carnap’s early semantics, because it includes a notion of submodel and subrelation that is not only absent from Carnap’s work at that time, but even contradicts it. As a consequence, Schiemer’s defense of Carnap’s extremal axioms against Hintikka’s criticism fails. We will reconcile Carnap’s treatment of extremal axioms and Hintikka’s observation by taking into account the practice of axiomatics in the early twentieth century. If one realises that, in Carnap’s time, a predicate for the domain of discourse was often introduced in the formal theory, and that Carnap defined such predicates from the basic relations of an axiom system, the apparent disagreement between optimising relations and optimising domains disappears

In the 18th and 19th centuries two transitions took place in the development of mathematical analysis: a shift from the geometric approach to the formula-centered approach, followed by a shift from the formula-centered approach to the concept-centered approach. We identify, on the basis of Bolzano's Purely Analytic Proof [Bolzano 1817], the ways in which Bolzano's approach can be said to be concept-centered. Moreover, we conclude that Bolzano's attitude towards the geometric approach on the one hand and the formula-centered approach on the other were of a different nature; the for­mer being one of rejection, the latter of non-participation. Bolzano supports his concept-centered methodology by philosophical views, which were partially shared by mathematicians with a formula-centered approach to analysis.