Abstract
If the collection of models for the axioms \({\mathfrak{A}}\) of elementary number theory (Peano arithmetic) is enlarged to include not just the “natural numbers” or their non-standard infinitistic extensions but also what are here called “primitive recursive notations”, questions arise about the reliability of first-order derivations from \({\mathfrak{A}}\). In this enlarged set of “models” some derivations usually accepted as “reliable” may be problematic. This paper criticizes two of these derivations which claim, respectively, to establish the totality of exponentiation and to prove Euclid’s theorem about the infinity of primes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barendregt, H., The type free lambda calculus, in J. Barwise (ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Logic, North–Holland, 1977.
Dedekind, R., ‘Was Sind und Was Sollen die Zahlen’, translated as ‘The Nature and Meaning of Numbers’ in Essays on the Theory of Numbers, Dover, 1963.
Epstein, R., Classical Mathematical Logic, Princeton University Press, 2006.
Isles D.: ‘What evidence is there that (2 ∧ 65536) is a natural number?’. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 33, 465–480 (1992)
Isles D.: A Finite Analog to the Loewenheim–Skolem Theorem’. Studia Logica 53, 503–532 (1994)
Kleene, S., Introduction to Metamathematics, North–Holland, Amsterdam, 1971.
Yessenin-Volpin, A., ‘The ultraintuitionistic Criticism and the Antitraditional Program for Foundations of Mathematics’, in Kino, Myhill, and Vesley (eds.), Intuitionism and Proof Theory, North–Holland, Amsterdam, 1970, pp. 3–45.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Isles, D. First-Order Reasoning and Primitive Recursive Natural Number Notations. Stud Logica 96, 49–64 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-010-9272-4
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-010-9272-4