Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:31:45.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WHAT CAN A CATEGORICITY THEOREM TELL US?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2013

TOBY MEADOWS
TOBY MEADOWS*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, University of Bristol
*
*SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS, UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstractf

The purpose of this paper is to investigate categoricity arguments conducted in second order logic and the philosophical conclusions that can be drawn from them. We provide a way of seeing this result, so to speak, through a first order lens divested of its second order garb. Our purpose is to draw into sharper relief exactly what is involved in this kind of categoricity proof and to highlight the fact that we should be reserved before drawing powerful philosophical conclusions from it.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 524 - 544
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chang, C. C., & Keisler, H. J. (1973). Model Theory. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Church, A. (1940). A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5 (2), 55–68.Google Scholar
Dedekind, R. (1963). Essays on the Theory of Numbers. New York, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1964). Systems of predicative analysis. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 29 (1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. (1999). Does mathematics need new axioms? American Mathematical Monthly, 6, 401–446.Google Scholar
Gitman, V., & Hamkins, J. D. (2010). A natural model of the multiverse axioms. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 51 (4), 475–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbach, V., & Horsten, L. (2005). Computational structuralism. Philosophia Mathematica, 13, 174–186.Google Scholar
Hamkins, J. (2007). The modal logic of forcing. Transactions of the Americal Mathematical Society, 360 (4), 1793–1817.Google Scholar
Hamkins, J. (2009). Some second order set theory. In Ramanujan, R., and Sarukkai, S., editors, Logic and Its Applications: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5378. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, pp. 36–50.Google Scholar
Hamkins, J. (2012). The set-theoretic multiverse. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 5, 416–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, R. (1991). Models of Peano Arithmetic. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1969). Informal rigour and completeness proofs. In Hintikka, J., editor. The Philosophy of Mathematics. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marker, D. (2002). Model Theory and Introduction. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Martin, D. A. (2001). Multiple universes of sets and indeterminate truth values. Topoi, 20 (1), 5–16.Google Scholar
Mayberry, J. P. (2000). Review of J. L. Bell: A primer of infinitesimal analysis. British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, 51, 339–445.Google Scholar
McGee, V. (1997). How we learn mathematical language. The Philosophical Review, 106 (1), 35–68.Google Scholar
Mostowski, A. (1967). Recent results in set theory. In Lakatos, I., editor. Problems in the Philosophy of Mathematics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Read, S. (1997). Completeness and categoricity: Frege, Gödel and model theory. History and Philosophy of Logic, 18 (2), 79–93.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1985). Second-order languages and mathematical practices. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 714–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1990). Second-order logic foundations and rules. The Journal of Philosophy, 87 (5), 234–261.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1991). Foundations without Foundationalism: A Case for Second Order Logic. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1997). Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shepherdson, J. C. (1952). Inner models for set theory—Part II. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 17 (4), 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, S. G. (1999). Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic. Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Simpson, S., & Yokoyama, K. (2012). On the reverse mathematics of Peano categoricity. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Väänänen, J. (2012). Second order logic or set theory? Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 18, 91–121.Google Scholar
Weston, T. (1976). Kreisel, the continuum hypothesis and second order set theory. The Journal of Philosophical Logic, 5, 281–298.Google Scholar