Takeuti’s Well-Ordering Proof: Finitistically Fine?
If one of Gentzen’s consistency proofs for pure number theory could be shown to be finitistically acceptable, an important part of Hilbert’s program would be vindicated. This paper focuses on whether the transfinite induction on ordinal notations needed for Gentzen’s second proof can be finitistically justified. In particular, the focus is on Takeuti’s purportedly finitistically acceptable proof of the well ordering of ordinal notations in Cantor normal form.
The paper begins with a historically informed discussion of finitism and its limits, before introducing Gentzen and Takeuti’s respective proofs. The rest of the paper is dedicated to investigating the finitistic acceptability of Takeuti’s proof, including a small but important fix to that proof. That discussion strongly suggests that there is a philosophically interesting finitist standpoint that Takeuti’s proof, and therefore Gentzen’s proof, conforms to.
Special thanks to Richard Zach who inspired our interest in this topic, and has provided invaluable comments on earlier drafts. Thanks as well to audiences in Philadelphia and Toronto.
- Benacerraf, P. & Putnam, H., Eds. (1983). Philosophy of Mathematics, Selected Readings. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
- Cantor, G. (1897). Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre. Mathematische Annalen, 49, 207–246. Part II.Google Scholar
- Gentzen, G. (1936). The Consistency of Elementary Number Theory. In Gentzen (1969), (pp. 132–200). M.E. Szabo (Ed., Trans.).Google Scholar
- Gentzen, G. (1938). New Version of the Consistency proof for Elementary Number Theory. In Gentzen (1969). M.E. Szabo (Ed., Trans.).Google Scholar
- Gentzen, G. (1943). Provability and Nonprovability of Restricted Transfinite Induction in Elementary Number Theory. In Gentzen (1969). M.E. Szabo (Ed., Trans.).Google Scholar
- Gentzen, G. (1969). The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen. Amsterdam: North-Holland. M.E. Szabo (Ed., Trans.).Google Scholar
- Lindström, S., Palmgren, E., Segerberg, K., & Stoltenberg-Hansen, V., Eds. (2009). Logicism, Intuitionism, and Formalism: What has Become of Them?, volume 341 of Synthese Library. Springer.Google Scholar
- Sieg, W. (2009). Beyond Hilbert’s Reach? In Lindström et al. (2009), (pp. 449–483).Google Scholar
- Stenlund, S. (2009). Hilbert and the Problem of Clarifying the Infinite. In Lindström et al. (2009), (pp. 485–503).Google Scholar
- Tait, W. W. (2002). Remarks on Finitism. In W. Sieg, R. Sommer, & C. Talcott (Eds.), Reflections of the Foundations of Mathematics: Essays in Honor of Solomon Feferman, volume 15 of Lecture Notes in Logic (pp. 410–419). Ubana: Association for Symbolic Logic.Google Scholar
- Takeuti, G. (1987). Proof Theory and Ordinal Analysis, volume 81 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. New York, N.Y.: Elsevier, 2nd edition. First published in 1975.Google Scholar