TWO-SORTED FREGE ARITHMETIC IS NOT CONSERVATIVE

被引:1
作者
Mackereth, Stephen [1 ]
Avigad, Jeremy [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Philosophy, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
[2] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Dept Philosophy, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
关键词
Frege; logicism; Hume's Principle; neo-Fregeanism; neologicism; abstractionism; conservative extension; field-conservativeness; second-order arithmetic; second-order logic; stipulative definition;
D O I
10.1017/S1755020322000156
中图分类号
O29 [应用数学];
学科分类号
070104 ;
摘要
Neo-Fregean logicists claim that Hume's Principle (HP) may be taken as an implicit definition of cardinal number, true simply by fiat. A long-standing problem for neo-Fregean logicism is that HP is not deductively conservative over pure axiomatic second-order logic. This seems to preclude HP from being true by fiat. In this paper, we study Richard Kimberly Heck's Two-Sorted Frege Arithmetic (2FA), a variation on HP which has been thought to be deductively conservative over second-order logic. We show that it isn't. In fact, 2FA is not conservative over n-th order logic, for all n >= 2. It follows that in the usual one-sorted setting, HP is not deductively Field-conservative over second- or higher-order logic.
引用
收藏
页码:1199 / 1232
页数:34
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1991, Models of Peano Arithmetic
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1987, HIST PHILOS LOGIC
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1950, Foundations of Arithmetic: A Logico-Mathematical Enquiry into the Concept of Number
[4]  
Asser G., 1981, EINF HRUNG MATHEMATI
[5]  
Boolos G., 1998, PHILOS MATH TODAY, P407
[6]  
Burgess J., 2005, Fixing Frege
[7]  
Cieslinski C, 2017, The Epistemic Lightness of Truth: Deflationism and Its Logic
[8]   Cardinality and Acceptable Abstraction [J].
Cook, Roy T. ;
Linnebo, Oystein .
NOTRE DAME JOURNAL OF FORMAL LOGIC, 2018, 59 (01) :61-74
[9]   Conservativeness, Stability, and Abstraction [J].
Cook, Roy T. .
BRITISH JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 2012, 63 (03) :673-696
[10]   DEDUCTIVE CARDINALITY RESULTS AND NUISANCE-LIKE PRINCIPLES [J].
Ebels-Duggan, Sean C. .
REVIEW OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC, 2021, 14 (03) :592-623