Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T05:25:21.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SELF-REFERENTIAL THEORIES

Part of:Proof theory and constructive mathematics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2020

SAMUEL A. ALEXANDER
SAMUEL A. ALEXANDER*
Affiliation:
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLUMBUS, OH 43210, USA E-mail: alexander@math.ohio-state.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

We study the structure of families of theories in the language of arithmetic extended to allow these families to refer to one another and to themselves. If a theory contains schemata expressing its own truth and expressing a specific Turing index for itself, and contains some other mild axioms, then that theory is untrue. We exhibit some families of true self-referential theories that barely avoid this forbidden pattern.

Keywords

quantified modal logicstrong mechanistic thesis

MSC classification

Primary:03F45: Provability logics and related algebras (e.g., diagonalizable algebras)

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 85 , Issue 4 , December 2020, pp. 1687 - 1716
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Association for Symbolic Logic 2020

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, S., The Theory of Several Knowing Machines. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 2013.Google Scholar
Alexander, S., A machine that knows its own code. Studia Logica, vol. 102 (2014), pp. 567–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benacerraf, P.. God, the devil, and Gödel. The Monist, vol. 51 (1967), pp. 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, T. J., Ordinal arithmetic and ${\varSigma}_1$-elementarity. Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 38 (1999), pp. 449–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, T. J., Knowledge, machines, and the consistency of Reinhardt’s strong mechanistic thesis. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 105 (2000), pp. 51–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, T. J., Elementary patterns of resemblance. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 108 (2001), pp. 19–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. A., Ungroundedness in Tarskian languages. The Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 48 (2019), pp. 603–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, J. R., Minds, machines, and Gödel. Philosophy, vol. 36 (1961), pp. 112–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penrose, R., The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H., After Gödel. Logic Journal of the IGPL, vol. 14 (2006), pp. 745–754.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, W., Absolute versions of incompleteness theorems. Nous, vol. 19 (1985), pp. 317–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S., Epistemic and Intuitionistic Arithmetic, Intensional Mathematics (Shapiro, S., editor), Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 113, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985, pp. 11–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar