Abstract.
Remarkably, despite the tremendous success of axiomatic set-theory in mathematics, logic and meta-mathematics, e.g., model-theory, two philosophical worries about axiomatic set-theory as the adequate catch of the set-concept keep haunting it. Having dealt with one worry in a previous paper in this journal, we now fulfil a promise made there, namely to deal with the second worry. The second worry is the Skolem Paradox and its ensuing ‘Skolemite skepticism’. We present a comparatively novel and simple analysis of the argument of the Skolemite skeptic, which will reveal a general assumption concerning the meaning of the set-concept (we call it ‘Connexion M’). We argue that the Skolemite skeptic’s argument is a petitio principii and that consequently we find ourselves in a dialectical situation of stalemate.
Few (if any) working set-theoreticians feel a tension – let alone see a paradox – between, on the one hand, what the Löwenheim–Skolem theorems and related results seem to be telling us about the set-concept, and, on the other hand, their uncompromising and successful use of the set-concept and their continuing enthusiasm about it, in other words: their lack of skepticism about the set-concept. Further, most (if not all) working settheoreticians have a relaxed attitude towards the ubiquitous undecidability phenomenon in set-theory, rather than a worrying one. We argue these are genuine philosophical problems about the practice of set-theory. We propound solutions, which crucially involve a renunciation of Connexion M. This breaks the dialectical situation of stalemate against the Skolemite skeptic.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
P. Benacerraf (1985) ArticleTitle‘Skolem and the Skeptic’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Supplementary Volume 59 85–115
N. Bourbaki (1968) The Theory of Sets Hermann Paris
D. van Dalen H.-D. Ebbinghaus (2000) ArticleTitle‘Zermelo and the Skolem Paradox’ Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 6 145–161
K. J. Devlin (1984) Constructible Sets Springer-Verlag Berlin
H. Field (1994) ArticleTitle‘Are Our Logical and Mathematical Concepts Highly Indeterminate?’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy XIX 391–429
Fraenkel, A. A., Bar-Hillel, Y., Lévy, A., and van Dalen, D.: 1973, Foundations of Set-Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
G. Frege (1980) NoChapterTitle G. Gabriel (Eds) Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence Basil Blackwell Oxford
A. George (1984) ArticleTitle‘Skolem and the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem: A Case Study of the Philosophical Significance of Mathematical Results’ History and Philosophy of Logic 6 75–89
M. Hallett (1994) ‘Putnam and the Skolem Paradox’ P. A. Clark B. Hale (Eds) Reading Putnam. Basil Blackwell Oxford 66–97
W. Hodges (1993) Model Theory Cambridge University Press Cambridge
P. Horwich (1998) Meaning Clarendon Press Oxford
L. Jané (2001) ArticleTitle‘Reflections on Skolem’s Relativity of Set-Theoretical Concepts’ Philosophia Mathematicae 9 129–153
A. Kanamori (2003) The Higher Infinite. Large Cardinals in Set-Theory from Their Beginnings, 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag Berlin
Kunen, K.: 1980, Set Theory. An Introduction to Independence Proofs, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
C. McIntosh (1979) ArticleTitle‘Skolem’s Criticisms of Set-Theory’ Noûs 13 313–334
Moschovakis, Y. N.: 1980,Descriptive Set Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
F. A. Muller (2001) ArticleTitle‘Sets, Classes and Categories’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 539–573 Occurrence Handle10.1093/bjps/52.3.539
Muller, F. A.: 2004, ‘The Implicit Definition of the Set-Concept’, Synthese 136.
J. Neumann (1925) ArticleTitle‘Eine Axiomatisierung der Mengenlehre’ Journal für die Mathematik 154 219–240
A. Paseau (2003) ArticleTitle‘The Open-Endedness of the Set-Concept and the Semantics of Set-Theory’ Synthese 135 379–399
H. Putnam (1980) ArticleTitle‘Models and Reality’ Journal of Symbolic Logic 45 464–482
Shelah, S.: 1985, Classification Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Shelah, S.: 2002a, ‘The Future of Set-Theory’, Los Alamos arXiv: math.LO/02.11.397
Shelah, S.: 2002b, ‘Logical Dreams’, Lecture held at the conference Mathematical Challenges of the 21th Century, Los Alamos arXiv: math.LO/02.11.398.
Skolem, T.: 1920, ‘Logisch-kombinatorische Untersuchungen über die Erfüllbarkeit oder Beweisbarkeit mathematischer Sratze nebst einem Theoreme uber dichte Mengen’, Videnskapsselskapets Skrifter, I. Matematisc-naturvidenskabelig klasse, no. 3.
Skolem, T.: 1922, ‘Einige Bemerkungen zur axiomatischen Begrundung der Mengenlehre’, Matematikerkongressen i Helsingfors den 4–7 Juli 1922, Den femte skandinaviska matematikercongressen, Redogörelse, Akademiska Bokhandeln, Helsinki, 1923: 217–237 [Skolem 1929] T., ‘Über einige Grundlagenfrage der Mathematik’, Skrifter Vitenskapsakademiet i Oslo I, 4, 1–49.
Skolem, T.: 1941, ‘Sur la Portée du Théorème de Lowenheim–Skolem’, Les Entretiens de Zurich, 25–52.
T. Skolem (1959) ‘Une relativisation des notions mathématiques fondamentales’ Colloques Internationaux des Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique Paris 13–18
Skolem, T.: 1962, ‘Interpretation of Mathematical Theories in the First-Order Predicate Calculus’, in Y. Bar-Hillel (ed.), Essays on the Foundations of Mathematics. Dedicated to A. A. Fraenkel on his Seventieth Anniversary, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 218–225.
J. R. Steel (2000) ArticleTitle‘Mathematics Needs New Axioms’ Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 6 422–433
A. Tarski R. L. Vaught (1957) ArticleTitle‘Arithmetical Extensions of Relational Systems’ Compositio Mathematica 13 81–102
H. Wang (1996) A Logical Journey. From Gödel to Philosophy The MIT Press Cambridge, MA
L. Wittgenstein (1953) Philosophical Investigations (translated by G. E. M. Anscombe) Basil Blackwell Oxford
L. Wittgenstein (1979) NoChapterTitle A. Ambrose (Eds) Cambridge Lectures 1932–1935 Basil Blackwell Oxford
C. Wright (1985) ArticleTitle‘Skolem and the Skeptic’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Supplementary Volume. 59 117–137
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Muller, F.A. Deflating skolem. Synthese 143, 223–253 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-0800-0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-0800-0