Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T06:28:46.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The classical and the ω-complete arithmetic1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

A. Grzegorczyk,
A. Mostowski and
C. Ryll-Nardzewski
A. Grzegorczyk
Affiliation:
Warsaw
A. Mostowski
Affiliation:
Warsaw
C. Ryll-Nardzewski
Affiliation:
Warsaw
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We consider two formal systems for the theory of (natural) numbers, both of which are applied second-order functional calculi with equality and the description operator. The two systems have the same primitive symbols, rules of formation, and axioms, differing only in the rules of inference.

The primitive logical symbols of the systems are the improper symbols (,), the prepositional connectives ∨, &, ⊃, ≡, ~, the quantifiers ( ), (E), the equality symbol =, the description operator ι,-infinitely many distinct individual (or number) variables, and for each positive integer k infinitely many distinct k-place function variables. Our systems have in addition the following four primitive nonlogical (or arithmetical) constants:0, 1, +, ×.

The classes of “number formulas” (nfs) and “propositional formulas” (pfs) are defined inductively as the least classes of formal expressions (i.e. of concatenations of primitive symbols) satisfying the following conditions:

(1) 0, 1, and the number variables are nfs.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 1958, pp. 188 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1958

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

1

The present paper is an outgrowth of joint work of the authors carried out in the Seminar on the Foundations of Mathematics in the Mathematical Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences in the academic year 1955–1956.

The work started with some observations of Mostowski concerning the so-called models absolute for the natural numbers (see [15]). Ryll-Nardzewski then established the connection between the validity of formulas in these models and their provability in formal systems containing the rule ω (his work was done independently of the work of Orey [16], which has meanwhile appeared in print). We then became interested (chiefly on the suggestion of Ryll-Nardzewski) in the problem of carrying over the metamathematical theorems about the system of arithmetic with finitary rules of inference to the system in which the rule ω is also assumed. The way of attacking this problem was suggested by Grzegorczyk and the details were afterwards elaborated and discussed by the three authors jointly.

For the sake of comparison of the finitary system and the system with the rule ω, we thought it useful to present here once again some results concerning the finitary system. In this section our work is for the most part not original and we have suppressed almost all proofs. Also in the final section, in which we are dealing with the system containing the rule ω, we have repeated a number of results due to other authors which we quote in appropriate places.

It will be seen from our paper that the parallelism between the two systems discussed below goes indeed very far. However we leave open the question of the deeper sources of these analogies.

We are much indebted to Dr. J. W. Addison for his helpful suggestions which have enabled us to improve considerably our previous text.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1]Ackermann, W., Solvable cases of the decision problem, Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics, Amsterdam (North Holland) 1954, viii + 144 pp.Google Scholar
[2]Addison, J. W., Some consequences of the axiom of constructibility, to appear in Fundamenta mathematicae, vol. 46.Google Scholar
[3]Craig, W., On axiomatizability within a system, this Journal, vol. 18 (1953), pp. 30–32.Google Scholar
[4]Davis, M., Arithmetical problems and recursively enumerable predicates, this Journal, vol. 18 (1953), pp. 33–42.Google Scholar
[5]Gödel, K., Die Vollständigkeil der Axiome des logischen Funktionenkalküls, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, vol. 37 (1930), pp. 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Gödel, K., Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathemalica und verwandter Systeme I, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, vol. 38 (1931), pp. 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Grzegorczyk, A., Some proofs of undecidability of arithmetic, Fundamenta mathematicae, vol. 43 (1956), pp. 166–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Henkin, L., Completeness in the theory of types, this Journal, vol. 15 (1950), pp. 81–91.Google Scholar
[9]Kleene, S. C., Introduction to metamathematics, Amsterdam (North Holland), Groningen (Noordhoff), New York and Toronto (Van Nostrand) 1952, x + 550 pp.Google Scholar
[10]Kleene, S. C., On the forms of the predicates in the theory of constructive ordinals (second paper), American journal of mathematics, vol. 77 (1955), pp. 405–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Kleene, S. C., Arithmetical predicates and function quantifiers, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 79 (1955), pp. 312–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Kleene, S. C., Hierarchies of number-theoretic predicates, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 61 (1955), pp. 193–213.Google Scholar
[13]Leśniewski, S., Über die Grundlagen der Ontologie, Comptes Rendus de la Société des Sciences et des Lettres de Varsovie, Classe III, vol. 23 (1930), pp. 111–132.Google Scholar
[14]Mostowski, A., On definable sets of positive integers, Fundamenta mathematicae, vol. 34 (1947), pp. 81–112.Google Scholar
[15]Mostowski, A., On models of axiomatic set-theory, Bulletin de l'Académie Polonaise des Sciences, Classe III, vol. 4 (1956), pp. 663–668.Google Scholar
[16]Orey, S., On ω-consistency and related properties, this JOURNAL, vol. 21 (1956), pp. 246–252.Google Scholar
[17]Rasiowa, H. and Sikorski, R., A proof of the completeness theorem of Gödel, Fundamenta mathematicae, vol. 37 (1950), pp. 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Rosser, J. B., Extensions of some theorems of Gödel and Church, this Journal, vol. 1 (1936), pp. 87–91.Google Scholar
[19]Rosser, J. B., Gödel theorems for non-constructive logics, this Journal, vol. 2 (1937), pp. 129–137.Google Scholar
[20]Tarski, A., Fundamentale Begriffe der Methodologie der deduktiven Wissenschaften I, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, vol. 37 (1930), pp. 361–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Tarski, A., Mostowski, A. and Robinson, R. M., Undecidable theories, Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics, Amsterdam (North Holland) 1953, XI + 98 pp.Google Scholar