William W. Tait

“Finitism” (Tait 1981) presents an argument that finitist number theory is primitive recursive arithmetic (PRA). The argument is based on taking seriously the “finite” in “finitism”. But the question remained: what did Hilbert (and Bernays) mean in the early 1920’s through the early 1930’s by “finitism” and in particular, did they restrict finitist number theory to PRA. In his dissertation (Zach 2003), Richard Zach pointed out that Hilbert endorsed results as finitist that require more than PRA for their proofs. Tait 2002 and tait2005 argue that it is not clear that Hilbertwas aware that these results go beyond PRA. But that view is challenged in more recent times in Sieg/Ravaglia 2005 and by the editors of (the invaluable!) David Hilbert’s Lectures on the Foundations of Arithmetic and Logic 1917-1933 (Hilbert 2013). I will survey the old ground and then discuss the new challenge, which claims that, from the early 1920’s on, Hilbert accepted as finitist an enumeration function of the primitive recursive functions (which of course is not primitive recursive). The grounds for this are a reading of a passage in §7 of Grundlagen der Mathematik I and an argument for the consistency of PRA which goes back to 1922-1923 and is elaborated again in §7 of Grundlagen der Mathematik I. I will argue that their reading of the passage in question is a misreading and that the argument for the consistency of PRA uses, not an enumeration function for the primitive recursive functions, but rather mathematical induction on a Π02 predicate (i.e. of the form ∀x∃yϕ(x, y)), which was explicitly rejected by Hilbert as finitist - e.g. notably in Hilbert 1926.

The reduction of the lambda calculus to the theory of combinators in [Sch¨ onfinkel, 1924] applies to positive implicational logic, i.e. to the typed lambda calculus, where the types are built up from atomic types by means of the operation A −→ B, to show that the lambda operator can be eliminated in favor of combinators K and S of each type A −→ (B −→ A) and (A −→ (B −→ C)) −→ ((A −→ B) −→ (A −→ C)), respectively.1 I will extend that result to the case in which the types are built up by means of the general function type ∀x : A.B(x) as well as the disjoint union type ∃x : A.B(x)– essentially to the theory of [Howard, 1980]. To extend the treatment of −→ to ∀ we shall need a generalized form of the combinators K and S, and to deal with ∃ we will need to introduce a new form of the combinator S..

This paper contains a defense against anti-realism in mathematics in the light both of incompleteness and of the fact that mathematics is a ‘cultural artifact.’. Anti-realism (here) is the view that theorems, say, of aritltmetic cannot be taken at face value to express true propositions about the system of numbers but must be reconstrued to be about somctliiiig else or about nothing at all. A ‘bite-the-bullet’ aspect of the defease is that, adopting new axioms, liitherto independent, is not. a matter of recognizing trutlis wliich had previoasly been unrecognized, but of extending the domain of what is true.

There are some puzzles about G¨ odel’s published and unpublished remarks concerning finitism that have led some commentators to believe that his conception of it was unstable, that he oscillated back and forth between different accounts of it. I want to discuss these puzzles and argue that, on the contrary, G¨ odel’s writings represent a smooth evolution, with just one rather small double-reversal, of his view of finitism. He used the term “finit” (in German) or “finitary” or “finitistic” primarily to refer to Hilbert’s conception of finitary mathematics. On two occasions (only, as far as I know), the lecture notes for his lecture at Zilsel’s [G¨ odel, 1938a] and the lecture notes for a lecture at Yale [G¨ odel, *1941], he used it in a way that he knew—in the second case, explicitly—went beyond what Hilbert meant. Early in his career, he believed that finitism (in Hilbert’s sense) is openended, in the sense that no correct formal system can be known to formalize all finitist proofs and, in particular, all possible finitist proofs of consistency of first-order number theory, P A; but starting in the Dialectica paper..

AT PHAEDO 96A-C Plato portrays Socrates as describing his past study of "the kind of wisdom known as περὶ φυσέως ἱστορία." At 96c-97b, Socrates says that this study led him to realize that he had an inadequate understanding of certain basic concepts which it involved. In consequence, he says at 97b, he abandoned this method and turned to a method of his own. But at this point in the dialogue, instead of proceeding immediately to describe his method, Plato has him interjecting a complaint concerning Anaxagoras and his view that everything should be explained in terms of Mind. His complaint is that Mind would order things in the best possible way and that, therefore, an account of things in terms of Mind would amount to showing that they are ordered in the best possible way. But Anaxagoras did not show this and, instead, offered other kinds of explanations of the various phenomena. Socrates is not just criticizing Anaxagoras here for not doing what he set out to do; he makes it clear, for example at 99b-c, that he believes that the best kind of explanation of the phenomena would be to show that they are ordered in the best possible way. But he was unable to discover an explanation of this kind, either for himself or from others, and so turned to a method which he calls "second best". The actual description of this method is contained in two passages, 99e5-100a7 and 101d5-e1. Between these passages, Socrates invokes the doctrine of Forms and, in particular, the formula.

An observation and a thesis: The observation is that, whatever the connection between Kant’s philosophy and Hilbert’s conception of finitism, Kant’s account of geometric reasoning shares an essential idea with the account of finitist number theory in “Finitism”, namely the idea of constructions f from ‘arbitrary’ or ‘generic’ objects of various types. The thesis is that, contrary to a substantial part of contemporary literature on the subject, when Kant referred to number and arithmetic, he was not referring to the natural or whole numbers and their arithmetic, but rather to the real numbers and their arithmetic.

There can be no doubt about the value of Frege's contributions to the philosophy of mathematics. First, he invented quantification theory and this was the first step toward making precise the notion of a purely logical deduction. Secondly, he was the first to publish a logical analysis of the ancestral R* of a relation R, which yields a definition of R* in second-order logic.1 Only a narrow and arid conception of philosophy would exclude these two achievements. Thirdly and very importantly, the discussion in §§58-60 of the G r u n d l a g e n defends a conception of mathematical existence, to be found in Cantor (1883) and later in the writings of Dedekind and Hilbert, by basing it upon considerations about meaning which have general application, outside mathematics.2..

1. A Road to Philosophy of Mathematics l became interested in philosophy and mathematics at more or less the same time, rather late in high school; and my interest in the former certainly influenced my attitude towards the latter, leading me to ask what mathematics is really about at a fairly early stage. I don ’t really remember how it was that I got interested in either subject. A very good math teacher came to my school when I was in 9th grade and I got caught up in his course on solid geometry; but he soon left and math then lost its luster again in the hands of teachers who neither liked nor understood it. Calculus wasn’t taught in high school in those days, or at least not in mine: besides geometry we learned some algebra and trigonometry. I doubt that even the word “ philosophy ” passed the lips of any of my teachers. My mother, who worked for a publishing house, brought home for me copies of, among other works, the Jowett translations of Plato’s Dialogues, Will Durant’s Story of Philosophy and Courant and Robbins’ What Is Mathematics?; but I can’t remember why she did that: She wasn’t at all intellectual and, as far as I recall, my interests at the time were mostly confined to sports and girls—in some order. Maybe she just thought it was time for me to develop new interests. After high school, I went in 1948 to Lehigh University, then at least primarily an engineering school, on an athletic scholarship. There I had the good fortune in my first year to have an introduction to philosophy course with Lewis White Beck. He had just moved there from the University of Delaware and shortly thereafter moved on to the University of Rochester, where he became one of the leading lights of American Kant studies. My good luck was compounded when, in my second year, Adolph Gr¨ unbaum arrived at Lehigh, fresh from graduate school at Yale, and stayed at least long enough for me to graduate, before moving to the University of Pittsburgh as Andrew Mellon Professor of Philosophy of Science..