arXiv subjects

Stephen Boyce

Publications and source records attributed to Stephen Boyce.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2011

On first-order arithmetic truth

The standard interpretation of first-order number theory (PA), according to the generally accepted view, associates well-defined set-theoretic entities with each and every well-formed formula of this system. But this implies that the class of PA theorems is semantically defined by a class sign of PA itself, (E x_2) Pf(x_2, x_1), in the following sense: with b' the PA numeral for the number b, (E x_2) Pf(x_2, b') is true under the standard interpretation if and only if b is the Godel number of a PA theorem. From this however it is easily established, by a modification of Godel's proof, that the class of PA theorems, and hence the standard interpretation of PA itself, is not well defined after all.

math.GM↗

arXiv2010

On the arithmetization of syntax

It is generally accepted that the incompleteness of first-order number theory (PA) is established by an application of Godel's proof. This paper shows that the arithmetization of the syntax of PA implies that the hypothesised class of PA theorems is not well defined. This is a consequence of the fact that the theoremhood (or non-theoremhood) of a PA formula is implied if the existence of a Godel number of a proof of the formula may be formally proved (or disproved respectively), using the systems own axioms and inference rules. Hence it is a PA theorem that the the negation of a Godel sentence for PA (Not G) implies G itself, i.e. ((Not G) => G) is a PA theorem; from which, both the theoremhood and non-theoremhood of G may be established. The conclusion is taken as evidence of a failure of the devices relied upon for the avoidance of paradox in metamathematical definitions of a proof, a formal theory etc. The main proposition is derived using only assumptions supported by proofs already accepted in the existing literature.

math.GM↗

arXiv2010

On Tarski's Undefinability Theorem

This paper shows that Tarski's revised Undefinability Theorem obscures a liar paradox affecting various systems in scope. Consider for example Tarski's general theory of classes (which contains only variables of finite order) as the object system (O), and a metatheory M which has a transfinite variable (Tr^{omega}) such that (under the intended interpretation): x in Tr^{omega} holds iff the O formula named by x is true. As there are only a denumerable number of true O formulae, it is provable within M, if we assume the axiom of choice, that there exists a class (X^{4}), named, under the intended interpretation, by a variable of finite order, that contains all, and only, the classes corresponding to the Godel numbers of the true O formulae. If the class assigned to Tr^{omega} is well defined we may conservatively extend M to M' such that: M' contains a new constant of finite type (Tr^{4}) and proper axioms assigning the class X^{4} to Tr^{4}. It is easily shown that M' exhibits a liar paradox. The proof holds, with appropriate changes, for ZFC and also implies that standard proofs that "arithmetic truth is not arithmetic" beg the question of whether the standard interpretation of first-order arithmetic is well defined.

math.LO↗

arXiv2009

On Chwistek's criticism of Principia

This paper examines Chwistek's claim that with Principia's definition of a class "Richard's paradox can be formulated". It is shown that the demonstration fails since it requires an incorrect elimination of a defined term and use of a faulty substitution rule, neither of which form part of the system of Principia.

math.LO↗