Brouwer–Hilbert controversy

329:(aleph-null). Hilbert's adoption of the notion wholesale was "thoughtless", Brouwer alleged. Brouwer in his (1927a) "Intuitionistic reflections on formalism" states: "SECOND INSIGHT The rejection of the thoughtless use of the logical principle of the excluded middle, as well as the recognition, first, of the fact that the investigation of the question why the principle mentioned is justified and to what extent it is valid constitutes an essential object of research in the foundations of mathematics, and, second, of the fact that in intuitive (contentual) mathematics this principle is valid only for finite systems. THIRD INSIGHT. The identification of the principle of excluded middle with the principle of the solvability of every mathematical problem." 768:

Robin Gandy (1980) to propose his "principles for mechanisms" that throw in the speed of light as a constraint. Secondly, Breger (2000) in his "Tacit Knowledge and Mathematical Progress" delves deeply into the matter of "semantics versus syntax" – in his paper Hilbert, Poincaré, Frege, and Weyl duly make their appearances. Breger asserts that axiomatic proofs assume an experienced, thinking mind. Specifically, he claims a mind must come to the argument equipped with prior knowledge of the symbols and their use (the semantics behind the mindless syntax): "Mathematics as a purely formal system of symbols without a human being possessing the know-how for dealing with the symbols is impossible " (brackets in the original, Breger 2000: 229).

350:

pure existence statement and by its very nature cannot be transformed into a statement involving constructibility. Purely by use of this existence theorem I avoided the lengthy and unclear argumentation of Weierstrass and the highly complicated calculations of Dedekind, and in addition, I believe, only my proof uncovers the inner reason for the validity of the assertions adumbrated by Gauss and formulated by Weierstrass and Dedekind." "The value of pure existence proofs consists precisely in that the individual construction is eliminated by them and that many different constructions are subsumed under one fundamental idea, so that only what is essential to the proof stands out clearly; brevity and economy of thought are the

442:

always another footstep after the last footstep, and (2) the formal version – e.g. Peano's version: a string of symbols. The gang of three – Poincaré, Weyl, and Brouwer – claimed that Hilbert tacitly, and unjustifiably, adopted as one of his premises formal induction (the Kleen symbol string). Poincaré (1905) asserted that, by doing this, Hilbert's reasoning became circular. Weyl's (1927) agreement and Brouwer's polemics ultimately forced Hilbert and his disciples Herbrand, Bernays, and Ackermann to reexamine their notion of "induction" – to eschew the assumption of a "totality of all the objects

999:

number of observations . . . the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish involves an extrapolation from a finite to an infinite set of data. How can we justify this jump? ... Unfortunately, most of the postulate systems that constitute the foundations of important branches of mathematics cannot be mirrored in finite models." Nagel and Newman go on to give the example of the successor function ' (Gödel used f, the old-English symbol for s) – given starting-point 0, thereafter 0', 0

1806: 520:

to this issue that he took great pains in his 1931 paper to point out that his Theorem VI (the so-called "First incompleteness theorem") "is constructive; that is, the following has been proved in an intuitionistically unobjectionable manner ... ." He then demonstrates what he believes to be the constructive nature of his "generalization formula" 17 Gen r. Footnote 45a reinforces his point.

1006:, etc creates the infinity of integers. (p. 21–22) In response to this, Hilbert attempted an absolute proof of consistency – it would not presume the consistency of another system outside the one of interest, but rather, the system would begin with a collection of strings of discrete symbols (the axioms) and formation rules to manipulate those symbols. (cf p. 26ff)" 756:(cf his (2) on page 602). His skeleton-proof of Theorem V, however, "use(s) induction on the degree of φ," and uses "the induction hypothesis." Without a full proof of this, we are left to assume that his use of the "induction hypothesis" is the intuitive version, not the symbolic axiom. His recursion simply steps up the degree of the functions, an intuitive act, 404:– first over all theorems (formulas, procedures, proofs) and secondly for a given theorem, for all assignment of its variables. This point, missed by Hilbert, was first pointed out to him by Poincaré and later by Weyl in his 1927 comments on Hilbert's lecture: "For after all Hilbert, too, is not merely concerned with, say 0' or 0' ', but with any 0' ', with an 290:. I am even more astonished that, as it seems, a whole community of mathematicians who do the same has so constituted itself. I am most astonished by the fact that even in mathematical circles, the power of suggestion of a single man, however full of temperament and inventiveness, is capable of having the most improbable and eccentric effects." 308:

property ("This truck is not yellow") but not both simultaneously (the Aristotelian Law of Non-Contradiction). The primitive form of the induction axiom is another example: if a predicate P(n) is true for n = 0 and if for all natural numbers n, if P(n) being true implies that P(n+1) is true, then P(n) is true for all natural numbers n.

506:

or predicate for 0 as argument) is given. Then, for any natural number y, φ(y') or P(y') (the next value after that for y) is expressed in terms of y and φ(y) or P(y) (the value of y). ... The two parts of the definition enable us, as we generate any natural number y, at the same time to determine the value φ(y) or P(y)." (p. 217)

519:

and Gödel. Ultimately Gödel would "numeralize" his formulae; Gödel then used primitive recursion (and its instantiation of the intuitive, constructive form of induction, i.e., counting and step-by-step evaluation) rather than a string of symbols that represent formal induction. Gödel was so sensitive

450:

after another, ad infinitum (van Heijenoort p. 481, footnote a). This is in fact the so-called "induction schema" used in the notion of "recursion" that was still in development at this time (van Heijenoort p. 493). This schema was acceptable to the intuitionists because it had been derived

349:

to produce elegant, radically abbreviated proofs in analysis (1896 and afterwards). In his own words of defense, Hilbert believed himself justified in what he had done (in the following he calls this type of proof an existence proof): "...I stated a general theorem (1896) on algebraic forms that is a

882:

This quote appears in numerous sources. A translation of the original can be found in van Heijenoort: Hilbert (1927) p. 476 and reads as follows: "Taking the principle of excluded middle from the mathematician would be the same, say, as proscribing the telescope to the astronomer or to the boxer the

767:

Despite the last-half-twentieth century's continued abstraction of mathematics, the issue has not entirely gone away. Here are two examples. First, the premises of an argument – even ones considered beyond questioning – are always fair game. A hard look at the premises of Turing's 1936–1937 work led

307:

Until Hilbert proposed his formalism, axioms of mathematics were chosen on an intuitive basis in an attempt to use mathematics to find truth. Aristotelian logic is one such example – it seems "logical" that an object either has a stated property (e.g. "This truck is yellow") or it does not have that

505:

Proof by induction ... corresponds immediately to this mode of generating the numbers. Definition by induction (not to be confused with 'inductive definition' ...) is the analogous method of defining a number-theoretic function φ(y) or predicate P(y). . First φ(0) or P(0) (the value of the function

441:

In van Heijenoort's commentary preceding Weyl's (1927) "Comments on Hilbert's second lecture on the foundations of mathematics" Poincaré points out to Hilbert (1905) that there are two types of "induction" (1) the intuitive animal-logic foot-following-foot version that gives us a sense that there's

1079:

Anglin says it this way: "In the twentieth century, there was a great deal of concrete, practical mathematics. ... On the other hand, much twentieth century mathematics was characterized by a degree of abstraction never seen before. It was not the Euclidean plane that was studied, but the vector

998:

Nagel and Newman note: "In the various attempts to solve the problem of consistency there is one persistent source of difficulty. It lies in the fact that the axioms are interpreted by models composed of an infinite number of elements. This makes it impossible to encompass the models in a finite

432:

If successful the quest would result in a remarkable outcome: Given such a generalized proof, all mathematics could be replaced by an automaton consisting of two parts: (i) a formula-generator to create formulas one after the other, followed by (ii) the generalized consistency proof, which would

293:

Brouwer responded to this, saying: "Formalism has received nothing but benefactions from intuitionism and may expect further benefactions. The formalistic school should therefore accord some recognition to intuitionism instead of polemicizing against it in sneering tones while not even observing

216:. Hilbert admired Brouwer and helped him receive a regular academic appointment in 1912 at the University of Amsterdam. After becoming established, Brouwer decided to return to intuitionism. In the later 1920s, Brouwer became involved in a public controversy with Hilbert over editorial policy at 751:

Note that there is some contention around this point. Gödel specifies this symbol string in his I.3., i.e., the formalized inductive axiom appears as shown above – yet even this string can be "numeralized" using Gödel's method. On the other hand, he doesn't appear to use this axiom. Rather, his

372:

Brouwer viewed this loss of constructibility as bad, but worse when applied to a generalized "proof of consistency" for all of mathematics. In his 1900 address Hilbert had specified, as the second of his 23 problems for the twentieth century, the quest for a generalized proof of (procedure for

311:

Hilbert's axiomatic system is different. At the outset it declares its axioms, and any (arbitrary, abstract) collection of axioms is free to be chosen. Weyl criticized Hilbert's formalization, saying it transformed mathematics "from a system of intuitive results into a game with formulas that

324:

Cantor (1897) extended the intuitive notion of "the infinite" – one foot placed after the other in a never-ending march toward the horizon – to the notion of "a completed infinite" – the arrival "all the way, way out there" in one fell swoop, and he symbolized this notion with a single sign

1329:(pbk.). The following papers and commentary are pertinent and offer a brief time-line of publication. (Important further addenda of Gödel's regarding his acceptance of Turing's machines as a formal logical system to replace his system (Peano Axioms + recursion) appear in Martin Davis, 423:

In his discussion preceding Weyl's 1927 comments van Heijenoort explains that Hilbert insisted that he had addressed the issue of "whether a formula, taken as an axiom, leads to a contradiction, the question is whether a proof that leads to a contradiction can be presented to me".

253:

Brouwer was not convinced and, in particular, objected to the use of the law of excluded middle over infinite sets. Hilbert responded: "Taking the Principle of the Excluded Middle from the mathematician... is the same as... prohibiting the boxer the use of his fists."

312:

proceeds according to fixed rules" and asking what might guide the choice of these rules. Weyl concluded "consistency is indeed a necessary but not sufficient condition" and stated "If Hilbert's view prevails over intuitionism, as appears to be the case,

433:

yield "Yes – valid (i.e. provable)" or "No – not valid (not provable)" for each formula submitted to it (and every possible assignment of numbers to its variables). In other words: mathematics would cease as a creative enterprise and become a machine.

336:

and Hilbert's ongoing attempt to axiomatize all of arithmetic, and with this system, to discover a "consistency proof" for all of mathematics – see more below. So into this fray (started by Poincaré) Brouwer plunged head-long, with Weyl as back-up.

743: 359:

What Hilbert had to give up was "constructibility." His proofs would not produce "objects" (except for the proofs themselves – i.e., symbol strings), but rather they would produce contradictions of the premises and have to proceed by

36: 502:, ..., or 0, 1, 2, 3, ... we described as the class of the objects generated from one primitive object 0 by means of one primitive operation ' or +1. This constitutes an inductive definition of the class of the natural numbers. 285:

Finally, Hilbert singled out Brouwer, by implication rather than name, as the cause of his present tribulation: "I am astonished that a mathematician should doubt that the principle of excluded middle is strictly valid as a

1289:, Garland Publishing Inc, . Hilbert's famous address wherein he presents and discusses in some depth his formalism axioms, with particular attention paid to double negation and the Law of Excluded Middle and his "e-axiom. 800:. Kleene takes the debate seriously, and throughout his book he actually builds the two "formal systems" (e.g., on page 119 he shows logical laws, such as double negation, which are disallowed in the intuitionist system). 340:

Their first complaint (Brouwer's Second Insight, above) arose from Hilbert's extension of Aristotle's "Law of Excluded Middle" (and "double negation") – hitherto restricted to finite domains of Aristotelian discourse – to

246:, a constructivist, had conceded, Hilbert would later respond to others' similar criticisms that "many different constructions are subsumed under one fundamental idea" – in other words (to quote Hilbert's biographer 1015:

Breger notes: "Poincaré was not the only one to compare mathematics to a machine without an operator ... Frege claimed that he could not find out by Hilbert's axioms whether his watch fob was a point or not." (p.

764:) while Gödel insisted that they are intuitionistically satisfactory. These are not incompatible truths, as long as the law of the excluded middle over the completed infinite isn't invoked anywhere in the proofs. 266:

admitted, stating, "After all, it is part of the task of science to liberate us from arbitrariness, sentiment and habit and to protect us from the subjectivism that... finds its culmination in intuitionism."

950:

This is a sly poke at the finitists: "Empiricist philosophers, such as Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, had convinced some mathematicians, such as Gauss, that there is no infinite in mathematics" (Anglin p. 213).

274:: "Intuitionism's sharpest and most passionate challenge is the one it flings at the validity of the principle of excluded middle..." Rejecting the law of the excluded middle, as extended over 212:

After completing his dissertation, Brouwer decided not to share his philosophy until he had established his career. By 1910, he had published a number of important papers, in particular the

57: 373:

determining) the consistency of the axioms of arithmetic. Hilbert, unlike Brouwer, believed that the formalized notion of mathematical induction could be applied in the search for the

400:(i.e. for any assignment of numerical values to T's variables). This is a perfect illustration of the use of the Law of Excluded Middle extended over the infinite, in fact extended 316:, which thus proves to be insufficient for the understanding of creative science even in the area of cognition that is most primal and most readily open to evidence – mathematics." 428:"But in a consistency proof the argument does not deal with one single specific formula; it has to be extended to all formulas. This is the point that Weyl has in mind ... ." 262:

In an address delivered in 1927, Hilbert attempted to defend his axiomatic system as having "important general philosophical significance." Hilbert views his system as having no

1357:

Gödel (1930a, 1931, 1931a). Some metamathematical results on completeness and consistency. On formally undecidable propositions of Principia mathematica and related systems I,

1531: 584: 1217:

pbk. Cf. Chapter Five: "Hilbert to the Rescue" wherein Davis discusses Brouwer and his relationship with Hilbert and Weyl with brief biographical information of Brouwer.

1080:

spaces and topological spaces which are abstractions of it. It was not particular groups that were studied so much as the whole 'category' of groups." (Anglin 1994: 217)

1449: 576: 482:"an intuitive theory about a certain class of number theoretic functions and predicates ... In this theory, as in metamathematics, we shall use only finitary methods. 380:

A consequence of this marvelous proof/procedure P would be the following: Given any arbitrary mathematical theorem T (formula, procedure, proof) put to P (thus P(T))

1681: 1142:, 1941 unpublished until 1965. "Absolutely Unsolvable Problems and Relatively Undecidable Propositions: Account of an Anticipation", with commentary, (pages 338ff) 1052:

Dawson notes that "Brouwer's role in stimulating Gödel's thought seems beyond doubt, how Gödel became aware of Brouwer's work remains uncertain" (Dawson 1997:55).

515:

Brouwer's insistence on "constructibility" in the search for a "consistency proof for arithmetic" resulted in sensitivity to the issue as reflected by the work of

1516: 883:

use of his fists. To prohibit existence statements and the principle of excluded middle is tantamount to relinquishing the science of mathematics altogether."

408:

numeral. One may here stress the "concretely given"; on the other hand, it is just as essential that the contentual arguments in proof theory be carried out

1275:. Hawking's commentary on, and an excerpt from Cantor's "Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite Numbers" appears on pp. 971ff. 1722: 1025:

Russell 1912's chapter VI: Induction, p. 60–69, where he discusses animal logic and the problem of knowing a truth and formulating natural laws.

1748: 892:

Hilbert's writing is clean and accessible: for a list of his axioms and his "construction" see the first pages of van Heijenoort: Hilbert (1927).

250:): "Through a proof of existence, Hilbert had been able to obtain a construction"; "the proof" (i.e. the symbols on the page) was "the object". 1626: 1339:

Brouwer (1923, 1954, 1954a). On the significance of the principle of excluded middle in mathematics, especially in function theory, p. 334

523:

Gödel's 1931 paper does include the formalist's symbol-version of the Peano Induction Axiom; it looks like this, where "." is the logical AND,

1835: 1272: 1442: 1043:"Recursion" had been around at least since Peano provided his definition of the addition of numbers (van Heijenoort p. 95, Definition 18). 1743: 1504: 1391: 1676: 1641: 1840: 1421: 1399: 1326: 1304: 1232: 1214: 1117: 1102: 1784: 345:

domains of discourse". In the late 1890s Hilbert axiomatized geometry. Then he went on to use the Cantorian-inspired notion of the

145:, observed that "partisans of three principal philosophical positions took part in the debate" – these three being the logicists ( 1772: 1653: 1606: 1830: 1809: 1548: 1435: 1599: 1587: 1157: 1753: 1189:

between Hilbert and Brouwer, stemming in part from their foundational differences. The title of this work is a reference to

1582: 1521: 1265:

God Created the Integers: The Mathematical Breakthroughs that Changed History: edited, with commentary, by Stephen Hawking

1702: 1202: 1123: 475: 96: 1108:

Herbert Breger, 2000. "Tacit Knowledge and Mathematical Progress", appearing in E. Groshoz and H. Breger (eds.) 2000,

213: 761: 420:

numeral. ... It seems to me that Hilbert's proof theory shows Poincaré to have been completely right on this point."

333: 202: 76: 1614: 760:. But Nagel and Newman note that Gödel's proofs are infinitary in nature, not finitary as Hilbert requested (see 121:

and Brouwer as a member of its editorial board. In 1920 Hilbert had Brouwer removed from the editorial board of

1543: 198: 1282: 1577: 1565: 1536: 1462: 182: 108: 474:(recursive definition of "number-theoretic functions or predicates). With regards to (3), Kleene considers 226:. He became relatively isolated; the development of intuitionism at its source was taken up by his student 1779: 1697: 1631: 1492: 1458: 271: 206: 1845: 1791: 1646: 1621: 1553: 1499: 1185: 1128:

The Undecidable: Basic Papers on Undecidable Propositions, Unsolvable Problems, and Computable Functions

941:

Brouwer itemizes the other places where he thinks Hilbert has gone wrong, see van Heijenoort p. 491–492.

239: 218: 113: 1671: 1570: 361: 738:{\displaystyle x_{2}(0).x_{1}\Pi (x_{2}(x_{1})\supset x_{2}(fx_{1}))\supset x_{1}\Pi (x_{2}(x_{1}))} 1712: 1560: 1511: 1482: 1314: 455: 134: 70: 446:

of an infinite collection" and (intuitionistically) assume that the general argument proceeds one

1717: 1477: 1220: 1174: 352: 346: 279: 142: 1348:

Weyl (1927). Comments on Hilbert's second lecture on the foundations of mathematics p. 480.

1707: 1417: 1395: 1322: 1300: 1268: 1228: 1210: 1191: 1113: 1098: 561: 287: 243: 190: 158: 1594: 1409: 1166: 263: 194: 150: 92: 17: 1351:

Bernays (1927). Appendix to Hilbert's lecture "The foundations of mathematics" p. 485

1260: 223: 118: 61: 388:– i.e. derivable from its premises, the axioms of arithmetic. Thus for all T, T would be 367: 314:

then I see in this a decisive defeat of the philosophical attitude of pure phenomenology

1383: 1345:

Hilbert (1927). The foundations of mathematics p. 464. (Hilbert's famous address).

1292: 1148: 780:, particularly in Chapter III: A critique of mathematical reasoning. He discusses §11. 247: 166: 1380:, New York University Press, no ISBN, Library of Congress card catalog number 58-5610. 1824: 1278: 1246: 1178: 384:(thus P(P)), P would determine conclusively whether or not the theorem T (and P) was 282:, implied rejecting Hilbert's axiomatic system, in particular his "logical ε-axiom." 227: 154: 146: 138: 104: 41: 1427: 1373: 516: 275: 186: 178: 162: 100: 1136:, 1936. "Finite Combinatory Process. Formulation I", with commentary (pages 288ff) 368:

Hilbert's quest for a generalized proof of consistency of the axioms of arithmetic

75:'foundational debate') was a debate in twentieth-century mathematics over 1242: 1238: 165:); within this constructivist school was the radical self-named "intuitionist" 1139: 1133: 84: 1283:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/hilbert.htm

1250: 1336:

Hilbert (1904). On the foundations of logic and arithmetic, p. 129

1170: 1342:

Brouwer (1927) . On the domains of definition of functions p. 446

1241:, 1980. "Church's Thesis and Principles for Mechanisms", appearing in 776:

A serious study of this controversy can be found in Stephen Kleene's

88: 1354:

Brouwer (1927a). Intuitionistic reflections on formalism p. 490

1319:

From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931

1287:

The Emergence of Logical Empiricism: From 1900 to the Vienna Circle

111:. Much of the controversy took place while both were involved with 35: 919:

See the lead paragraphs of van Heijenoort: Brouwer (1923b) p. 335.

437:

Objections related to the law of the excluded middle and induction

80: 1412:, originally published 1912, with commentary by John Perry 1997. 1151:(1990). "The war of the frogs and the mice, or the crisis of the 117:, the leading mathematical journal of the time, with Hilbert as 1431: 466:(Peano's axiom, see the next section for an example); (2) the 270:

Later in the address, Hilbert deals with the rejection of the

928:

Breger states that "Modern mathematics starts with Hilbert's

748:

But he does not appear to use this in the formalist's sense.

1299:, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam Netherlands, 27:

Foundational controversy in twentieth-century mathematics

470:(examples: counting, "proof by induction"); and (3) the 1285:

and apparently derived from Sohotra Sarkar (ed.) 1996,

1321:, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1281:(1927), "The foundations of mathematics" appearing at 752:

recursion steps through integers assigned to variable

1112:, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Netherlands, 587: 564: 1762: 1731: 1690: 1664: 1470: 1183:On the battle for editorial control of the journal 320:

The law of excluded middle extended to the infinite

1257:, North-Holland Publishing Company, pages 123–148. 737: 570: 1309:Chapter III: A Critique of Mathematical Reasoning 1295:, 1952 with corrections 1971, 10th reprint 1991, 1225:Logical Dilemmas: The Life and Work of Kurt Gödel 1130:, Raven Press, New York, no ISBN. This includes: 462:types of mathematical induction: (1) the formal 1416:, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, 1364:Brouwer (1954, 1954a). Addenda and corrigenda, 819: 817: 815: 813: 480: 177:Brouwer founded the mathematical philosophy of 157:and his colleagues), and the constructivists ( 1443: 1368:Further addenda and corrigenda, p. 334ff 1095:Mathematics: A Concise History and Philosophy 8: 1034:van Heijenoort's commentary on Weyl (1927). 1450: 1436: 1428: 485:The series of the natural numbers 0, 0', 0 1361:on compleness and consistency p. 592 1311:, §13 "Intuitionism" and §14 "Formalism". 861: 723: 710: 694: 675: 659: 643: 630: 614: 592: 586: 563: 549:Π designates "for all values of variable 1317:, 1976 (2nd printing with corrections), 809: 137:in the late 1890s. In his biography of 258:Validity of the law of excluded middle 242:from 1888 was controversial. Although 201:, intuitionism is a philosophy of the 985: 983: 845: 843: 841: 238:The nature of Hilbert's proof of the 185:of David Hilbert and his colleagues, 7: 1110:The Growth of Mathematical Knowledge 857: 855: 831: 829: 135:Hilbert's axiomatization of geometry 786:First inferences from the paradoxes 454:To carry this distinction further, 332:This Third Insight is referring to 700: 620: 25: 181:as a challenge to the prevailing 1805: 1804: 989:Weyl 1927, van Heijenoort p. 481 977:Weyl 1927, van Heijenoort p. 483 458:1952/1977 distinguishes between 34: 1297:Introduction to Metamathematics 1267:, Running Press, Philadelphia, 1227:, A. K. Peters, Wellesley, MA, 778:Introduction to Metamathematics 294:proper mention of authorship." 1158:The Mathematical Intelligencer 1070:cf Nagel and Newman p. 98 732: 729: 716: 703: 684: 681: 665: 649: 636: 623: 604: 598: 298:Deeper philosophic differences 197:, and others. As a variety of 1: 1097:, Springer–Verlag, New York. 1061:p. 600 in van Heijenoort 835:Kleene (1952), pp. 46–59 476:primitive recursive functions 133:The controversy started with 1836:Constructivism (mathematics) 1195:, a classical parody of the 406:arbitrarily concretely given 364:extended over the infinite. 209:in mathematical reasoning. 53:Brouwer–Hilbert controversy 18:Brouwer-Hilbert controversy 1862: 1414:The Problems of Philosophy 901:van Heijenoort p. 483 410:in hypothetical generality 203:foundations of mathematics 1800: 798:Formalization of a theory 772:Kleene on Brouwer–Hilbert 511:Echoes of the controversy 222:, at that time a leading 79:about the consistency of 1841:Scientific controversies 1376:and James Newmann 1958, 1209:, W. W. Norton, London, 930:Grundlagen der Geometrie 762:Hilbert's second problem 571:{\displaystyle \supset } 334:Hilbert's second problem 199:constructive mathematics 527:is the successor-sign, 472:definition by induction 234:Origins of disagreement 173:History of Intuitionism 1831:History of mathematics 1723:Medieval Islamic world 1459:History of mathematics 910:van Heijenoort, p. 491 739: 572: 508: 451:from "the intuition." 356:of existence proofs." 272:law of excluded middle 207:law of excluded middle 65: 1792:Future of mathematics 1769:Women in mathematics 1406:biography in English. 1186:Mathematische Annalen 1153:Mathematische annalen 740: 578:denotes implication: 573: 240:Hilbert basis theorem 219:Mathematische Annalen 123:Mathematische Annalen 114:Mathematische Annalen 95:, a proponent of the 77:fundamental questions 1744:Over Cantor's theory 1307:. Cf. in particular 1255:The Kleene Symposium 1207:The Engines of Logic 585: 562: 468:inductive definition 398:under all conditions 362:reductio ad absurdum 1780:Approximations of π 1691:By ancient cultures 1315:Jean van Heijenoort 377:consistency proof. 214:fixed-point theorem 153:), the formalists ( 1583:Information theory 1221:John W. Dawson, Jr 1171:10.1007/BF03024028 1093:W.S. Anglin 1994, 735: 568: 382:including P itself 347:completed infinity 280:completed infinite 205:which rejects the 143:John W. Dawson, Jr 1818: 1817: 1654:Separation axioms 1273:978-0-7624-1922-7 1192:Batrachomyomachia 849:Davis, p. 96 288:mode of inference 264:tacit assumptions 244:Leopold Kronecker 191:Wilhelm Ackermann 107:, a proponent of 74: 16:(Redirected from 1853: 1808: 1807: 1528:Category theory 1452: 1445: 1438: 1429: 1410:Bertrand Russell 1182: 1120:, pages 221–230. 1081: 1077: 1071: 1068: 1062: 1059: 1053: 1050: 1044: 1041: 1035: 1032: 1026: 1023: 1017: 1013: 1007: 1005: 1002: 996: 990: 987: 978: 975: 969: 966: 960: 957: 951: 948: 942: 939: 933: 926: 920: 917: 911: 908: 902: 899: 893: 890: 884: 880: 874: 873:Reid 1996, p. 37 871: 865: 862:van Dalen (1990) 859: 850: 847: 836: 833: 824: 821: 755: 744: 742: 741: 736: 728: 727: 715: 714: 699: 698: 680: 679: 664: 663: 648: 647: 635: 634: 619: 618: 597: 596: 577: 575: 574: 569: 557: 545:is a variable, x 544: 535: 526: 501: 498: 495: 491: 488: 195:John von Neumann 167:L. E. J. Brouwer 151:Bertrand Russell 93:L. E. J. Brouwer 91:in mathematics. 83:and the role of 69: 66:Grundlagenstreit 60: 38: 21: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1814: 1796: 1758: 1739:Brouwer–Hilbert 1727: 1686: 1665:Numeral systems 1660: 1522:Grandi's series 1466: 1456: 1331:The Undecidable 1261:Stephen Hawking 1149:van Dalen, Dirk 1147: 1090: 1085: 1084: 1078: 1074: 1069: 1065: 1060: 1056: 1051: 1047: 1042: 1038: 1033: 1029: 1024: 1020: 1014: 1010: 1003: 1000: 997: 993: 988: 981: 976: 972: 967: 963: 958: 954: 949: 945: 940: 936: 927: 923: 918: 914: 909: 905: 900: 896: 891: 887: 881: 877: 872: 868: 860: 853: 848: 839: 834: 827: 822: 811: 806: 774: 753: 719: 706: 690: 671: 655: 639: 626: 610: 588: 583: 582: 560: 559: 556: 550: 548: 543: 537: 536:is a function, 534: 528: 524: 513: 499: 496: 493: 489: 486: 439: 370: 328: 322: 305: 303:Truth of axioms 300: 260: 236: 224:learned journal 175: 131: 119:editor-in-chief 56: 49: 48: 47: 46: 45: 39: 28: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 1859: 1857: 1849: 1848: 1843: 1838: 1833: 1823: 1822: 1816: 1815: 1813: 1812: 1801: 1798: 1797: 1795: 1794: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1766: 1764: 1760: 1759: 1757: 1756: 1751: 1749:Leibniz–Newton 1746: 1741: 1735: 1733: 1729: 1728: 1726: 1725: 1720: 1715: 1710: 1708:Ancient Greece 1705: 1700: 1694: 1692: 1688: 1687: 1685: 1684: 1679: 1674: 1668: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1629: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1611:Number theory 1609: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1580: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1568: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1546: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1534: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1519: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1474: 1472: 1468: 1467: 1457: 1455: 1454: 1447: 1440: 1432: 1426: 1425: 1407: 1384:Constance Reid 1381: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1362: 1355: 1352: 1349: 1346: 1343: 1340: 1337: 1312: 1293:Stephen Kleene 1290: 1276: 1258: 1253:, eds., 1980, 1236: 1218: 1200: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1137: 1121: 1106: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1082: 1072: 1063: 1054: 1045: 1036: 1027: 1018: 1008: 991: 979: 970: 968:Anglin, p. 475 961: 959:Anglin, p. 474 952: 943: 934: 921: 912: 903: 894: 885: 875: 866: 851: 837: 825: 823:Dawson 1997:48 808: 807: 805: 802: 773: 770: 746: 745: 734: 731: 726: 722: 718: 713: 709: 705: 702: 697: 693: 689: 686: 683: 678: 674: 670: 667: 662: 658: 654: 651: 646: 642: 638: 633: 629: 625: 622: 617: 613: 609: 606: 603: 600: 595: 591: 567: 554: 546: 541: 532: 512: 509: 464:induction rule 438: 435: 430: 429: 369: 366: 326: 321: 318: 304: 301: 299: 296: 259: 256: 248:Constance Reid 235: 232: 174: 171: 159:Henri Poincaré 130: 127: 97:constructivist 40: 33: 32: 31: 30: 29: 26: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1858: 1847: 1844: 1842: 1839: 1837: 1834: 1832: 1829: 1828: 1826: 1811: 1803: 1802: 1799: 1793: 1790: 1786: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1778: 1774: 1771: 1770: 1768: 1767: 1765: 1761: 1755: 1754:Hobbes–Wallis 1752: 1750: 1747: 1745: 1742: 1740: 1737: 1736: 1734: 1732:Controversies 1730: 1724: 1721: 1719: 1716: 1714: 1711: 1709: 1706: 1704: 1703:Ancient Egypt 1701: 1699: 1696: 1695: 1693: 1689: 1683: 1680: 1678: 1675: 1673: 1670: 1669: 1667: 1663: 1655: 1652: 1648: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1640: 1639: 1637: 1633: 1630: 1628: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1620: 1616: 1613: 1612: 1610: 1608: 1607:Math notation 1605: 1601: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1593: 1589: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1581: 1579: 1576: 1572: 1569: 1567: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1559: 1555: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1547: 1545: 1544:Combinatorics 1542: 1538: 1535: 1533: 1530: 1529: 1527: 1523: 1520: 1518: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1510: 1506: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1498: 1494: 1491: 1490: 1488: 1484: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1476: 1475: 1473: 1469: 1464: 1460: 1453: 1448: 1446: 1441: 1439: 1434: 1433: 1430: 1423: 1422:0-19-511552-X 1419: 1415: 1411: 1408: 1405: 1401: 1400:0-387-94674-8 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1382: 1379: 1378:Gödel's Proof 1375: 1372: 1367: 1363: 1360: 1356: 1353: 1350: 1347: 1344: 1341: 1338: 1335: 1334: 1332: 1328: 1327:0-674-32449-8 1324: 1320: 1316: 1313: 1310: 1306: 1305:0-7204-2103-9 1302: 1298: 1294: 1291: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1279:David Hilbert 1277: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1259: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1247:H. J. Keisler 1244: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1233:1-56881-256-6 1230: 1226: 1222: 1219: 1216: 1215:0-393-32229-7 1212: 1208: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1194: 1193: 1188: 1187: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1159: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1141: 1138: 1135: 1132: 1131: 1129: 1125: 1122: 1119: 1118:0-7923-6151-2 1115: 1111: 1107: 1104: 1103:0-387-94280-7 1100: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1087: 1076: 1073: 1067: 1064: 1058: 1055: 1049: 1046: 1040: 1037: 1031: 1028: 1022: 1019: 1012: 1009: 995: 992: 986: 984: 980: 974: 971: 965: 962: 956: 953: 947: 944: 938: 935: 931: 925: 922: 916: 913: 907: 904: 898: 895: 889: 886: 879: 876: 870: 867: 863: 858: 856: 852: 846: 844: 842: 838: 832: 830: 826: 820: 818: 816: 814: 810: 803: 801: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 782:The paradoxes 779: 771: 769: 765: 763: 759: 749: 724: 720: 711: 707: 695: 691: 687: 676: 672: 668: 660: 656: 652: 644: 640: 631: 627: 615: 611: 607: 601: 593: 589: 581: 580: 579: 565: 553: 540: 531: 521: 518: 510: 507: 503: 483: 479: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 452: 449: 445: 436: 434: 427: 426: 425: 421: 419: 415: 411: 407: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 378: 376: 365: 363: 357: 355: 354: 353:raison d'être 348: 344: 338: 335: 330: 319: 317: 315: 309: 302: 297: 295: 291: 289: 283: 281: 277: 273: 268: 265: 257: 255: 251: 249: 245: 241: 233: 231: 229: 228:Arend Heyting 225: 221: 220: 215: 210: 208: 204: 200: 196: 192: 188: 184: 180: 172: 170: 168: 164: 160: 156: 155:David Hilbert 152: 148: 147:Gottlob Frege 144: 140: 136: 128: 126: 124: 120: 116: 115: 110: 106: 105:David Hilbert 102: 98: 94: 90: 86: 82: 78: 72: 67: 63: 59: 54: 43: 42:David Hilbert 37: 19: 1846:Intuitionism 1738: 1682:Hindu-Arabic 1578:Group theory 1566:Trigonometry 1537:Topos theory 1413: 1403: 1387: 1377: 1374:Ernest Nagel 1365: 1358: 1330: 1318: 1308: 1296: 1286: 1264: 1254: 1224: 1206: 1203:Martin Davis 1196: 1190: 1184: 1165:(4): 17–31. 1162: 1156: 1152: 1127: 1124:Martin Davis 1109: 1094: 1088:Bibliography 1075: 1066: 1057: 1048: 1039: 1030: 1021: 1011: 994: 973: 964: 955: 946: 937: 929: 924: 915: 906: 897: 888: 878: 869: 797: 793: 790:Intuitionism 789: 785: 781: 777: 775: 766: 758:ad infinitum 757: 750: 747: 551: 538: 529: 522: 514: 504: 484: 481: 471: 467: 463: 459: 453: 447: 443: 440: 431: 422: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 392:by P or not 389: 385: 381: 379: 374: 371: 358: 351: 342: 339: 331: 323: 313: 310: 306: 292: 284: 269: 261: 252: 237: 217: 211: 187:Paul Bernays 179:intuitionism 176: 163:Hermann Weyl 132: 122: 112: 101:intuitionism 52: 50: 1698:Mesopotamia 1672:Prehistoric 1632:Probability 1489:Algorithms 1239:Robin Gandy 932:" (p. 226). 375:generalized 44:(1862–1943) 1825:Categories 1622:Statistics 1554:Logarithms 1500:Arithmetic 1243:J. Barwise 416:proof, on 139:Kurt Gödel 129:Background 103:, opposed 99:school of 1642:Manifolds 1638:Topology 1549:Functions 1179:123400249 1140:Emil Post 1134:Emil Post 794:Formalism 701:Π 688:⊃ 653:⊃ 621:Π 566:⊃ 396:by P and 183:formalism 109:formalism 85:semantics 58:‹See Tfd› 1810:Category 1785:timeline 1773:timeline 1647:timeline 1627:timeline 1615:timeline 1600:timeline 1588:timeline 1571:timeline 1561:Geometry 1532:timeline 1517:timeline 1512:Calculus 1505:timeline 1493:timeline 1483:timeline 1471:By topic 1463:timeline 1392:Springer 1263:, 2005. 1251:K. Kunen 1223:, 1997. 1205:, 2000. 1126:, 1965. 394:provable 390:provable 386:provable 343:infinite 1677:Ancient 1478:Algebra 1388:Hilbert 796:, §15. 792:, §14. 788:, §13. 784:, §12. 517:Finsler 73: 1420: 1398: 1386:1996. 1325: 1303: 1271: 1231: 1213: 1177: 1116: 1101: 558:" and 456:Kleene 276:Cantor 89:syntax 81:axioms 62:German 1763:Other 1718:India 1713:China 1595:Logic 1197:Iliad 1175:S2CID 1004:' 1001:' 804:Notes 500:' 497:' 494:' 490:' 487:' 460:three 412:, on 402:twice 1418:ISBN 1396:ISBN 1323:ISBN 1301:ISBN 1269:ISBN 1249:and 1229:ISBN 1211:ISBN 1114:ISBN 1099:ISBN 1016:227) 161:and 149:and 87:and 71:lit. 51:The 1404:The 1366:and 1359:and 1333:): 1167:doi 1155:". 492:, 0 418:any 414:any 278:'s 1827:: 1402:. 1394:, 1390:, 1245:, 1173:. 1163:12 1161:. 982:^ 854:^ 840:^ 828:^ 812:^ 478:: 230:. 193:, 189:, 169:. 141:, 125:. 68:, 64:: 1465:) 1461:( 1451:e 1444:t 1437:v 1424:. 1235:. 1199:. 1181:. 1169:: 1105:. 864:. 754:k 733:) 730:) 725:1 721:x 717:( 712:2 708:x 704:( 696:1 692:x 685:) 682:) 677:1 673:x 669:f 666:( 661:2 657:x 650:) 645:1 641:x 637:( 632:2 628:x 624:( 616:1 612:x 608:. 605:) 602:0 599:( 594:2 590:x 555:1 552:x 547:1 542:1 539:x 533:2 530:x 525:f 448:x 444:x 327:0 325:ℵ 55:( 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index