Abstract
The struggle of the fundamental philosophical tendencies — materialism and idealism — in contemporary mathematics concentrates mostly on its foundations. And this is not fortuitous. Precisely in the domain of the foundations of mathematics appeared difficulties related to the most general and universal notions such as “infinity”, “set”, “function”, “object” and others. At the end of the nineteenth century it seemed to the mathematicians that the problem of the foundations of their science was completely solved. In 1900, H. Poincaré wrote: “Il n’y a plus aujourd’hui en Analyse que des nombres entiers ou des systèmes finis ou infinis de nombres entiers, reliés entre eux par un réseau de relations d’égalité ou d’inégalité. Les mathématiques, comme on l’a dit, se sont arithmétisées…. On peut dire qu‘aujourd’hui la rigueur absolue est atteinte.”2 But a bit later contradictions were discovered in the theory of sets. It became clear that the problem of the foundations of mathematics could not be considered as solved. Idealist thinkers on mathematics began to speak of the “crisis” of the foundations of their science (Weyl, Brouwer, etc.). But this was in fact not a “crisis” but the discovering of the deep dialectical nature of the most primitive notions of mathematics and logic.
The author expresses his great gratitude to Sofija Aleksandrov Janovskaja for the scientific guidance and help given in the preparation of this article.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
H. Poincaré: ‘Du rôle de l’intuition et de la logique en mathématique’. Comptes Rendus du Ilème Congrès Internationale des Mathématiciens, 1900, Paris, 1902, pp. 120–122.
In addition to this, Frege wrote the following articles: ‘Über Anwendungen der Begriffsschrift’ (1879), ‘Über die wissenschaftliche Berechtigung einer Begriffsschrift’ (1882), ‘Über den Zweck der Begriffsschrift’ (1882), ‘Über formalen Theorien der Arithmetik’ (1886), ‘Über die Begriffsschrift des Herrn Peano und meine eigene’ (1897), ‘Der Gedanke’ (1919), ‘Die Verneinung’ (1919), and others. Of great interest are the letters of Frege to the German mathematician Liebmann, on the foundations of geometry, the answer of Hilbert and another letter of Frege (1900).
Concerning Dedekind, Frege was wrong. See The Journal of Symbolic Logic 22 (1957) 145–158.
G. Frege: Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. Erster Band. Jena, 1893, S. XI (in following notes this will be designated Grundgesetze I with indication of pages).
See the collective work The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Chicago-London, 1944.
Having begun his philosophical evolution with objective idealism, Russell passed over to subjective idealism.
Grundgesetze I, pp. XIX-XX.
Ibid., p. XXII.
V. I. Lenin: Works, Vol. 14, p. 44 [. Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, p. 49, chapter 1, section 2].
Grundgesetze I, p. XXIII.
Grundgesetze I, p. XXIV (my italics, - B. B.).
G. Frege: The Foundations of Arithmetic. A logico-mathematical enquiry into the concept of number. Oxford, 1950, p. X (In the following notes this is designated:Frege 1950, plus page indication).
Ibid., p. VII.
Grundgesetze I, p. XIX.
Grundgesetze I, p. XXI.
G. Frege: ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’, Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100 (1892) 31 (In the following notes this is designated: Frege 1892, plus page indication).
Grundgesetze I, p. XVII.
Frege 1892, p. 32, note.
Grundgesetze I, p. XIII.
Frege 1950, pp. 107–108.
Grundgesetze I, pp. XIII-XIV.
G. Frege: ‘Kritische Beleuchtung einiger Punkte in E. Schroder’s Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik’, Archiv für Systematische Philosophie I (1895) 456 (In following notes this is designated: Frege 1895, with page indication).
Frege 1895, p. 449.
Unbekannte Briefe Freges über die Grundlagen der Geometrie und Antwortbrief Hilbert’s an Frege. Aus dem Nachlaß von Heinrich Liebmann herausgegeben von Max Steck. Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse. Jahrgang 1941, 2. Abhandlung. Heidelberg, 1941, p. 12 (In following notes this is designated: Briefe, plus page indication).
G. Frege: Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. Zweiter Band. Jena, 1903, p. 154. (In following notes this is designated: Grundgesetze II).
Ibidem.
Grundgesetze I, p. XIII.
Grundgesetze II, p. 101.
Ibidem.
Grundgesetze I, p. 2 (italics mine - B. B.)
Frege 1895, p. 452 (italics mine - B. B.)
An object, for Frege, “falls under a concept”, if, having asserted this concept about the object, we obtain truth. See below.
Frege 1895, p. 452.
Grundgesetze I, p. IX (italics mine - B. B.)
G. Frege: ‘Über Begriff und Gegenstand’, Vierteljahrschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 16 (1892) 201–202. (In the following notes this is designated: Frege 1892, plus indication of page)
Briefe, p. 9.
Frege 1892, p. 193.
G. Frege: Funktion und Begriff, Jena, 1891, p. 2 (In following notes this is designated: Frege 1891, with page indication).
It is interesting to note that Russell regressed from Frege and identified again the function with its analytical expression.
Frege 1891, p. 1. [This reference is wrong; not having found the corresponding original text, we directly translate what the author gives as quotation].
G. Frege: ‘Was ist eine Funktion?’ In: Festschrift Ludwig Boltzman gewidmet zum 60. Geburtstage, 20. Februar 1904, Leipzig, 1904, p. 658 (In following notes this is designated:Frege 1904 plus page indication).
Frege 1904, p. 665.
Grundgesetze I, p. 7.
For the explanation of this see below.
G. Frege: Funktion und Begriff, Jena, 1891.
In another place [iGrundgesetze I, § 9, p. 10] Frege observes that the Leibnizian-Boolean calculus was, as a whole, based on this law.
Grundgesetze I, p. 7.
Grundgesetze I, p. 8. Frege is speaking about a function with one argument.
Frege 1891, p. 16.
The assumption of the universality of the objective domain is only a sufficient (not necessary) condition of such an interpretation. See below.
This does not mean that Frege was aware of the true philosophical solution of the question about the universal and particular. About this, we shall speak later.
For the sake of simplicity, we limit ourselves to the consideration of whole numbers.
If classes are considered in different objective domains, then the Fregean “extension of the concept” does not coincide with the informal or contentful (soderzateVnoe) notion of class. Thus if we take the concept ξ > 2 in the domain of natural numbers and in the domain of integers, then the extension of this concept, considered in one domain, is not the same, according to Frege’s definition, as the extension of the same concept considered in the other domain; but, if the extension of a conceptis understood as a class of objects, then the extension of the given concept happens to be the same in both domains.
Briefe, p. 9.
Frege 1892, p. 204.
Before Dirichlet, Lobacevskij had such a conception of the function.
Grundgesetze 7, p. 16.
This program must not necessarily be strictly constructivistic. Given the function, it is possible to suppose some problems solved, i.e. to use not absolute algorithms but the so-called algorithm of reducibility.
A. Church: Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Princeton, 1956. § 04, note 66.
E. Kol’man:Predmet i metod sovremennoj matematiki [Object and Method of Contemporary Mathematics], Moscow, 1936, p. 40.
Frege 1895, p. 455.
Ibidem, p. 441.
Frege 1895, p. 455.
That, for Frege, properties were precisely properties of objects, is clear, for example, from his views on the ways of proving the consistency of mathematical statements. In the letter to Hilbert Frege says: “what means do we have to prove that certain properties or conditions (or whatever one calls it) are not in contradiction with one another? The only one I know is this: to indicate an object which possesses all these properties; to give a case where these conditions are completely fulfilled. Non-contradictoriness does not seem to be provable in another way/”
G. Frege: Kritische Beleuchtung einiger Punkte in E. Schroder’s Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik. In: Archiv für systematische Philosophie 1 (1895), p. 451. From Frege’s point of view we assert in a sentence some property (designated by the grammatical predicate: the concept-word) about an object (designated by the grammatical subject).
V. I. Lenin: FilosofsMe Tetradi [Philosophical Notebooks], 1947, p. 329.
Frege, Grundgesetze II, p. 86.
Frege 1892, p. 35.
Grundgesetze I, p. XV.
Frege 1950, p. VII.
Grundgesetze I, p. XVII.
Ibidem.
About the antinomy of Russell, see below.
Frege 1891, p. 20.
Ibidem.
We are not considering here the other assumptions required for obtaining the Russellian antinomy. To them belong, e.g. the authorization to write definitions (the principle of reduction). We leave this aside, because in our problem does not enter either the consideration of all the conditions of obtaining this antinomy or a resumé of the different solutions of it.
Grundgesetze II, p. 253.
Ibidem.
D. Hilbert: Die Grundlagen der Geometrie [References are given to the Moscow-Leningrad edition of 1948, pp. 323–324].
Grundgesetze I, p. 1.
Frege 1950, p. V.
Frege 1950, p. X.
Even if Frege’s attempt had been successful, this would not have meant that he would have succeeded in providing, by means of his system, for the whole of contentful arithmetic. In the year 1931, K. Gödel showed the impossibility of formalizing all contentful arithmetic of whole positive numbers in such systems as Frege’s and Russell’s. Frege, surely, did not know this. He thought that he had succeeded in formalizing all of contentful arithmetic.
R. Carnap: ‘Mathematik als Zweig der Logik’ Blätter für deutsche Philosophie 4 (1930) 299.
On the question of the relations of mathematics and logic, see the article of A. D. Getmanova in the collective work Logiceskie Issledovanija [Logical Investigations], USSR Academy of Sciences, 1959.
Grundgesetze I, p. 1.
Th. Ziehen: Lehrbuch der Logik auf positivistischer Grundlage mit Berücksichtigung der Geschichte der Logik, Bonn, 1920, pp. 182, 232.
H. Scholz: Geschichte der Logik, Berlin 1931, p. 57. On page 4 of this work, Scholz says that Bolzano and Frege were the two greatest logicians of the nineteenth century.
Translations from the Philosophical Writings of G. Frege. Edited by P. Geach and M. Black, Oxford, 1952.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1964 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Birjukov, B.V. (1964). On Frege’s Works on Philosophical Problems of Mathematics. In: Two Soviet Studies on Frege. Sovietica, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3611-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3611-5_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-3613-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-3611-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive