Skip to main content

The Limitations of Mathematical Logic

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 1388 Accesses

Part of the book series: Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning ((LARI,volume 1))

Abstract

Despite the limitations of Frege’s and Gentzen’s analysis of deduction, throughout the twentieth century mathematical logic has been extolled, and the importance of Aristotle’s logic downplayed. For example, Russell states that mathematical logic gives thought “wings. It has, in my opinion, introduced the same kind of advance into philosophy as Galileo introduced into physics.” On the contrary, Aristotle’s “logic put thought in fetters.” Thus “any person in the present day who wishes to learn logic will be wasting his time if he reads Aristotle.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Russell (1999, 68–69).

  2. 2.

    Ibid., 68.

  3. 3.

    Russell (2004, 194).

  4. 4.

    Hilbert (2004b, 563).

  5. 5.

    Hilbert (1996a, 1093).

  6. 6.

    Hilbert (2004b, 563).

  7. 7.

    Barnes (2003, 21).

  8. 8.

    Frege (1979, 12).

  9. 9.

    See, for example, Cellucci (2007, 188–191).

  10. 10.

    Frege (1984, 242).

  11. 11.

    Hilbert (1967, 465).

  12. 12.

    Gentzen (1969, 74).

  13. 13.

    ‘Interpretation’ here means ‘full interpretation’, namely, interpretation where the domain of n-ary relations is set of all n-ary relations on the domain of individuals.

  14. 14.

    For details, see, for example, Cellucci (2007, 202–208).

  15. 15.

    Hilbert (1983, 195).

  16. 16.

    Hilbert (1967, 477).

  17. 17.

    For further details on Hilbert’s conservation programme see, for example, Cellucci (2007, 43–47).

  18. 18.

    Hilbert and Bernays (1968–1970, I, 44).

  19. 19.

    See, for example, Cellucci (2007, 185–187). For Gödel’s original formulation, see Gödel (1986–2002, II, 305).

  20. 20.

    Hilbert (1967, 472).

  21. 21.

    For further details on Hilbert’s consistency programme see, for example, Cellucci (2007, 47–48). On the equivalence between Hilbert’s conservation programme and consistency programme, see ibid., 48–49.

  22. 22.

    Hilbert (1967, 471).

  23. 23.

    Hilbert (1980, 39–40).

  24. 24.

    Spinoza (2002, 19).

  25. 25.

    Ibid., 20.

  26. 26.

    Hilbert (1996b, 1113).

  27. 27.

    Graham et al. (1994, 56).

  28. 28.

    For details see, for example, Cellucci (2007, 192).

  29. 29.

    Hintikka (2000, 44).

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    Hintikka (1996, 95).

  33. 33.

    ‘Logical truth’ here means ‘statement true in all full interpretations’. For this version of the strong incompleteness theorem for second-order logic, see Robbin (2006, 163).

  34. 34.

    Boghossian (2003, 248).

References

  • Barnes, Jonathan. 2003. Argument in ancient philosophy. In The Cambridge companion to Greek and Roman philosophy, ed. David Sedley, 20–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boghossian, Paul A. 2003. Blind reasoning. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 77: 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cellucci, Carlo. 2007. La filosofia della matematica del Novecento. Rome: Laterza.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, Gottlob. 1979. Posthumous writings, ed. Hans Hermes, Friedrich Kambartel, and Friedrich Kaulbach. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, Gottlob. 1984. Collected papers on mathematics, logic, and philosophy, ed. Brian McGuinness. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentzen, Gerhard. 1969. Collected papers, ed. Manfred E. Szabo. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gödel, Kurt. 1986–2002. Collected works, ed. Solomon Feferman et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, Ronald L., Donald E. Knuth, and Oren Patashnik. 1994. Concrete mathematics. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbert, David. 1967. The foundations of mathematics. In From Frege to Gödel. A source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931, ed. Jean van Heijenoort, 464–479. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbert, David. 1980. Letter to Frege 29.12.1899. In Gottlob Frege, Philosophical and mathematical correspondence, ed. Gottfried Gabriel, Hans Hermes, Friedrich Kambartel, Christian Thiel, and Albert Veraart, 38–41. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbert, David. 1983. On the infinite. In Philosophy of mathematics. Selected readings, ed. Paul Benacerraf and Hilary Putnam, 183–201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbert, David. 1996a. On the concept of number. In From Kant to Hilbert: A source book in the foundations of mathematics, vol. 2, ed. William Bragg Ewald, 1092–1095. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbert, David. 1996b. Axiomatic thought. In From Kant to Hilbert: A source book in the foundations of mathemtics, vol. 2, ed. William Bragg Ewald, 1107–1115. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbert, David. 2004b. Grundlagen der Geometrie. In David Hilbert’s lectures on the foundations of geometry (1891–1902), ed. Michael Hallett and Ulrich Majer, 540–606. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbert, David, and Paul Bernays. 1968–1970. Grundlagen der Mathematik. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, Jaakko. 1996. The principles of mathematics revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, Jaakko. 2000. On Gödel. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbin, Joel W. 2006. Mathematical logic. A first course. Mineola: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Bertrand. 1999. Our knowledge of the external world. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Bertrand. 2004. History of Western philosophy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinoza, Benedictus. 2002. Complete works, ed. Michael L. Morgan. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cellucci, C. (2013). The Limitations of Mathematical Logic. In: Rethinking Logic: Logic in Relation to Mathematics, Evolution, and Method. Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6091-2_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics