In this paper I have considered various attempts to attribute significance to G2.25 Two of these attempts (Beth-Cohen and the position maintaining that G2 shows the failure of Hilbert's Program), I have argued, are literally false. Two others (BCR and Resnik's Interpretation), I have argued, are groundless.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- BethEvert W., The Foundations of Mathematics, 2nd ed. rev., North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1968.Google Scholar
- CohenPaul J., Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., Reading, Mass., 1966.Google Scholar
- CohenPaul J., ‘Comments on the Foundations of Set Theory’, In Axiomatic Set Theory, edited by DanaScott, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Vol. 13, pt. 1, The American Mathematical Society, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
- Detlefsen, Michael, ‘The Importance of Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem for the Foundations of Mathematics’. Doctoral Thesis, The Johns Hopkins University, 1976.Google Scholar
- GrzegorczykAndrzej, An Outline of Mathematical Logic, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Boston, 1974.Google Scholar
- NagelE. and NewmanJ. R., Gödel's Proof, New York University Press, New York, 1958.Google Scholar
- ResnikMichael D., ‘The Philosophical Significance of Consistency Proofs’. Journal of Philosophical Logic 3 (1974), 133–147.Google Scholar
- RosserJ. B., ‘Gödel Theorems for Non-Constructive Logics’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 2 (1937), 129–137.Google Scholar
- WangHao, Logic, Computers, and Sets, Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1970.Google Scholar
- WangHao, From Mathematics to Philosophy, Humanities Press, New York, 1974.Google Scholar