Ah! Apparently *this* is “the Bible” of Reverse Mathematics. Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic (Perspectives in Logic)

Ah! Apparently *this* is “the Bible” of Reverse Mathematics.

Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic (Perspectives in Logic) 2nd Editio

 
===
  Ok. Looks like Reverse Mathematics is the study of proving axioms of _countable_ mathematics and not uncountable mathematics. So anything related to set theory will be that which is countable.450+ pages. Let’s see if I can get through it.
====
Ok, this seems doable. I’ll use this as an opportunity to *finally* learn a little propositional calculus.
—-
 The terms and formulas of the language of second order arithmetic are as follows. Numerical terms are number variables, the constant symbols 0 and 1, and t 1 + t 2 and t 1 · t 2 whenever t 1 and t 2 are numerical terms.
Here + and · are binary operation symbols intended to denote addition and multiplication of natural numbers. (Numerical terms are intended to denote natural numbers.) Atomic formulas are t 1 = t 2 , t 1 < t 2 , and t 1 ∈ X where t 1 and t 2 are numerical terms and X is any set variable. (The intended meanings of these respective atomic formulas are that t 1 equals t 2 , t 1 is less than t 2 , and t 1 is an element of X .) Formulas are built up from atomic formulas by means of propositional connectives ∧ , ∨ , ¬ , → , ↔ (and, or, not, implies, if and only if), number quantifiers ∀ n, ∃ n (for all n, there exists n), and set quantifiers ∀ X , ∃ X (for all X , there exists X ).
A sentence is a formula with no free variables.
====
 “As is customary in mathematical logic textbooks”? Ok Id better read a basics of mathematical logic first….In writing terms and formulas of L 2 , we shall use parentheses and brack-
ets to indicate grouping, as is customary in mathematical logic textbooks.
We shall also use some obvious abbreviations. For instance, 2 + 2 = 4
stands for (1 + 1) + (1 + 1) = ((1 + 1) + 1) + 1,
===
k i’d better read this first:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logicism
oh god i have to learn boolean algebra? crud.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra
==
‘Any given “thing” is identical with what it is not. ‘
-Kaufmann
 
“Laws of Form-An Exploration in Mathematics and Foundations”
 
F=~F
 
Ugh here we go again. It always ends up here along with a few references to Buddhist logic, which I agree with and have as long as I can recall, and I know the solution to the paradox and it’s not that hard once you “see it” but yeah, always ends up back here.
====
Sorry 2nd order.
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


seven × = 21

Leave a Reply