Godel did not destroy the Hilbert Frege Russell programme

xmad

Registered Member
Godel did not destroy the Hilbert Frege Russell programme to create a unitary deductive system in which all mathematical truths can be deduced from a handful of axioms

htt ://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf

Godel is said to have shattered this programme in his paper called "On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems" but this paper it turns out had nothing to do with “Principia Mathematica” and related systems" but instead with a completely artificial system called P

Godel uses axioms which where abandoned rejected dropped in 2nd ed PM. Godel used a text in PM that based on Russells revised version of PM in 2nd ed PM Russell had rejected abandoned dropped as stated in the introduction. Godel used a text with the axiom of reducibility in it but Russell had abandoned rejected dropped this axiom as stated in the introduction.

Godel used a rejected text as it used the rejected axiom of reducibility. Thus his proof/theorem cannot apply to PM thus he cannot have destroyed the Hilbert Frege Russell programme and also his system P is artificial and applies to no system anyways


IT MUST BE NOTED THAT GODEL IS USING 2ND ED PM BUT RUSSELL ABANDONED REJECTED GAVE UP DROPPED THE AXIOM OF REDUCIBILITY IN THAT EDITION – which Godel must have known. Godel used a text in PM that based on Russells revised version of PM in 2nd ed PM Russell had rejected abandoned dropped as stated in the introduction. Godel used a text with the axiom of reducibility in it but Russell had abandoned rejected dropped this axiom as stated in the introduction. Godel used a rejected text as it used the rejected axiom of reducibility.

The Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1870-1945- page 154


Quote



“In the Introduction to the second edition of Principia, Russell repudiated Reducibility as 'clearly not the sort of axiom with which we can rest content'…Russells own system with out reducibility was rendered incapable of achieving its own purpose”




quote page 14


“Russell gave up the Axiom of Reducibility in the second edition of
Principia (1925)”


Phenomenology and Logic: The Boston College Lectures on Mathematical Logic and Existentialism (Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan) page 43

“In the second edition Whitehead and Russell took the step of using the simplified theory of types dropping the axiom of reducibility and not worrying to much about the semantical difficulties”


In Godels collected works vol 11 page 133


it says AR is dropped
quote

In the second edition of Principia (at least in the introduction) ...the axiom of reducibility is dropped



Godels paper is called

ON FORMALLY UNDECIDABLE PROPOSITIONS

OF PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA AND RELATED

SYSTEMS

but he uses an axiom that was abandoned rejected given up in PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA thus his proof/theorem has nothing to do with PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA AND RELATED SYSTEMS at all

Godels proof is about his artificial system P -which is invalid as it uses the ad hoc invalid axiom of reducibility


Godel constructs an artificial system P made up of Peano axioms and axioms including the axiom of reducibility- which is ABANDONED REJECTED GAVE UP DROPPED in the edition of PM he says he is is using. This system is invalid as it uses the invalid axiom of reducibility. Godels theorem has no value out side of his system P and system P is invalid as it uses the invalid axiom of reducibility

Russell following Wittgenstein took it out of the 2nd ed due to it being invalid. Godel would have known that. Russell Ramsey and Wittgenstein new Godel used it but said nothing .Ramsey points out AR is invalid before Godel did his proof. Godel would have known Ramsey’s arguments Ramsey would have known Godel used AR but said nothing. Every one knew AR was invalid and was dropped from 2nd ed PM they all knew godel used it but nooooooooooooo one said -or has said anything for 76 years.
 
Im no expert on logic and have never read the principia or godel's proof, but I would suggest, after reading your last paragraph, that since Wittgenstein, Ramsey et al apparently knew Godels proof was somehow "bogus" and said nothing, and published nothing, perhaps you are not giving us the entire story, or you have misunderstood what actually happened.

Also, I do know that it has been suggested that Russell never fully understood Godel's paper, which could explain why he never bothered to point out that his major work wasnt rendered futile (as you suggest) afterall.


I think if its a choice between the idea of a 76 year old conspiracy of silence by the world's logicians and philosophers , or a single person who hasnt fully understood what the relationship is between Godels proof and Russells Principia, Id have to go for the latter.
 
I think if its a choice between the idea of a 76 year old conspiracy of silence by the world's logicians and philosophers , or a single person who hasnt fully understood what the relationship is between Godels proof and Russells Principia, Id have to go for the latter.

it is very clear that Godel used a rejected text as the text he used had the rejected axiom of reducibility

godel tells us he considers axiom of reducibility to be part of PM

“A. Whitehead and B. Russell, Principia Mathematica, 2nd edition, Cambridge 1925. In particular, we also reckon among the axioms of PM the axiom of infinity (in the form: there exist denumerably many individuals), and the axioms of reducibility and of choice (for all types)” ((K Godel , On formally undecidable propositions of principia mathematica and related systems in The undecidable , M, Davis, Raven Press, 1965, p.5). NOTE HE SAYS HE IS USING 2ND ED PM- WHICH RUSSELL ABANDONED REJECTED GAVE UP DROPPED THE AXIOM OF REDUCIBILITY.
but as the
The Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1870-1945- page 154

says

Quote



“In the Introduction to the second edition of Principia, Russell repudiated Reducibility as 'clearly not the sort of axiom with which we can rest content'…Russells own system with out reducibility was rendered incapable of achieving its own purpose”





and



In Godels collected works vol 11 page 133

says



In the second edition of Principia (at least in the introduction) ...the axiom of reducibility is dropped
 
Back
Top