The provided text extensively examines Bertrand Russell’s work on Principia Mathematica (PM), particularly focusing on revisions and manuscripts related to the second edition. It explores the changes made, Russell’s motivations, and criticisms from logicians like Gödel and Ramsey. The evolution of Russell’s logical system, including the theory of types and the axiom of reducibility, is scrutinized alongside influences from figures like Wittgenstein and Carnap. The analysis investigates modifications related to propositional logic, extensionality, and the handling of classes and relations. Ultimately, the text aims to clarify Russell’s intentions and the impact of these changes on the foundations of mathematics and logic.

Principia Mathematica, Second Edition: Study Guide

I. Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each.

1. What does the notation ‘Rν‘a’ represent in the context of multiples and submultiples of vectors?
2. Explain the meaning of “Prm” as defined in *302.
3. In *304, what condition defines when X is less than r Y (X <r Y) in the series of ratios?
4. How are X×s Y and X+s Y defined in terms of R and S in sections *305 and *306, respectively?
5. Explain what is meant by “FM sr” and “Semi Ded” in the context of multiples and submultiples of vectors.
6. What is the significance of the expression “(ιτ){(∃ ρ, σ ) . (ρ, σ ) Prmτ (μ, ν)}” in defining the highest common factor (hcf(μ, ν))?
7. In the context of inductive classes (Cls inductm), what property is being proved in *89.16?
8. Explain the meaning of the notation α̂{α(S∗|S)α} in the context of Section 4v.
9. According to 917, what properties can be derived for Cls induct3?
10. In the context of the summary and related properties, what can we prove directly about the relationship: {(∃x).φx}|{(x).ψx}?

II. Quiz Answer Key

1. ‘Rν‘a’ represents the result of applying the relation R, ν times to ‘a’, where ν is a natural number. It signifies a multiple of a vector ‘a’ with respect to the relation R.
2. “Prm” defines the concept of relative primes within the context of inductive natural numbers. Two numbers, ρ and σ, are considered relatively prime if their only common factor (τ) is 1.
3. X <r Y is defined by the existence of natural numbers μ, ν, ρ, and σ (excluding 0) such that μ×c σ < ρ×c ν, and X = μ/ν and Y = ρ/σ. This means that X is less than Y if the product of μ and σ is less than the product of ρ and ν.
4. X×s Y relates R and S based on the product of ratios μ/ν and ρ/σ, while X+s Y relates R and S based on the sum of ratios μ/ν and ρ/ν. Both definitions involve natural numbers μ, ν, ρ, and σ (where ν and σ are not 0) to connect the ratios X and Y to the relations R and S.
5. “FM sr” likely refers to a “vector-family”, while “Semi Ded” likely refers to a “Semi Dedekind” property. These terms describe specific characteristics of mathematical structures relevant to defining multiples and submultiples of vectors in the context of Principia Mathematica.
6. The expression “(ιτ){(∃ ρ, σ ) . (ρ, σ ) Prmτ (μ, ν)}” identifies the unique τ that is a common factor of μ and ν, where ρ and σ are relatively prime with respect to τ. This tau corresponds to the highest common factor.
7. In *89.16, the proof aims to show that if α is not a member of the third-order inductive class (Cls induct3) and γ is a member, then there exists a unique difference between α and γ (α − γ). It implies a certain distinctiveness or separability within the inductive class structure.
8. The notation α̂{α(S∗|S)α} defines the set of all α such that α is related to itself through the relative product of S∗ and S (S∗|S). In essence, it identifies elements that are in the reflexive domain of the relative product of S∗ with itself.
9. According to 917, Cls induct3 supports the property that if α is not a member of the third-order inductive class and γ is a member, then there exists a unique α − γ.
10. Directly we can prove: ∼ (∃x). φx .∨. ∼ (y). ψy ≡ : (x). ∼ φx .∨. (∃y). ∼ ψy

III. Essay Questions

Answer the following questions in essay format.

1. Discuss the significance of numerically defined powers of relations and relative primes in the broader context of Principia Mathematica’s development of number theory. How do these concepts contribute to the formalization of arithmetic?
2. Explain the role of the Axiom of Archimedes and the Axiom of Divisibility in the development of measurement within Principia Mathematica. How do these axioms ensure the consistency and applicability of measurement in the context of vector families?
3. Analyze the use of matrices and propositional logic in the proofs presented in the source material. How do these tools contribute to the rigor and generality of the arguments made?
4. Discuss the significance of inductive classes and their properties in the context of defining mathematical concepts in Principia Mathematica. Provide examples from the text to illustrate your points.
5. Critically evaluate the notational conventions used in the source material. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these conventions in terms of clarity and precision?

IV. Glossary of Key Terms

• NC induct: Natural numbers, inductively defined. Represents the set of natural numbers constructed through inductive principles.
• RP: A numerically defined power of a relation R. It denotes the application of the relation R to a certain extent, defined numerically.
• num(R): A function representing the “number” associated with the relation R. The specifics depend on the relation’s properties.
• Prm: Relative Primes. A relation indicating that two numbers are relatively prime (i.e., their greatest common divisor is 1).
• hcf(μ, ν): Highest Common Factor (Greatest Common Divisor) of μ and ν.
• lcm(μ, ν): Least Common Multiple of μ and ν.
• Rat def: Defined ratios. Refers to the set of ratios constructed from natural numbers.
• FM sr: Vector-family. A collection of vectors with certain properties relevant to measurement.
• Semi Ded: Semi-Dedekind property. A property related to completeness and Dedekind cuts.
• Cls inductm: Inductive Class of order m. A class defined through induction up to a certain order.
• Potid’R: The potency of the relation R.
• R0: Identity relation restricted to the domain of R.
• D’R: The domain of the relation R.
• C’R: The counter-domain of the relation R.
• α̂(…): Class abstraction. Defines a class based on a condition.
• ṡ‘κ∂: The “dot-abstraction” notation, meaning the class of all terms ‘x’ such that ‘x’ belongs to κ.
• Comp: A class that contains the complements of all its members.
• R|S: Relative product of relations R and S.
• R∗: The ancestral relation (transitive closure) of R.
• ε: Is an element of. Denotes membership in a set or class.
• ⊃: Logical implication (“implies”).
• ≡: Logical equivalence (“is equivalent to”).
• ∃: Existential quantifier (“there exists”).
• ι‘x: The unit class of x (the set containing only x).
• ∪: Set union.
• ∩: Set intersection.
• ∼: Logical negation (“not”).
• →: Mapping or function.
• ∀: Universal quantifier (“for all”).
• ∂: Denotes the derivative of a class.
• α ~ε μ: Element α is not an element of μ
• p|q: p “not-ands” q: both not true.
• αM∗β: That α is in the ancestral relation of β under the relation M.
• α Rts β: Alpha is rooted in beta
• ṡ ‘Potid‘R: Class who’s members are subclasses of Potid’R.
• ←− R ∗‘x: A formula relating R and x to other values
• −→ R ∗‘x: A formula relating R and x to other values
• D* The ancestral of the domain D

Russell’s Principia Mathematica: Manuscript Analysis

Okay, here’s a detailed briefing document summarizing the main themes and important ideas from the provided excerpts of Bertrand Russell’s manuscripts and notes for the second edition of “Principia Mathematica.”

Briefing Document: Analysis of Excerpts from Russell’s Manuscripts for Principia Mathematica, Second Edition

Overall Theme: These manuscript excerpts provide a glimpse into Russell’s rigorous, formal, and highly symbolic approach to defining fundamental mathematical concepts. The document shows his work at the granular level, filled with definitions, theorems, and proofs relating to numbers, relations, and order. The notes are primarily concerned with building up from basic logical and set-theoretic notions to construct more complex mathematical entities. The overarching goal is the reduction of mathematical truths to logical truths.

Key Areas and Ideas:

1. Definitions of Numerical Concepts and Operations: Russell meticulously defines basic arithmetic concepts like numerically defined powers of relations, relative primes, highest common factors (hcf), least common multiples (lcm), and ratios.

• Example: “∗301. Numerically defined powers of relations. ·01 RP = (|R) ‖ (Ŭ1 t3‘R) Dft(∗301)” This defines a power of a relation R.
• Example: “∗302. Relative Primes. ·01 Prm = ρ̂ σ̂ {ρ, σ ε NC induct :ρ = ξ ×c τ . σ = η ×c τ. ⊃ξ,η,τ . τ = 1}Df” This defines what it means for two numbers to be relatively prime.
• Example: “∗304. The Series of Ratios. ·01 X <r Y . = . (∃μ, ν, ρ, σ ). μ, ν, ρ, σ ε NC induct − ι‘0 . σ = 0 . μ×c σ < μ×c ρ ,X = μ/ν . Y = ρ/σ } Df” This formally defines the “less than” relation (<r) for ratios. The document contains formal definitions of multiplication and addition as well. Note the frequent use of set builder notation to define numbers as the set of some objects satisfying certain conditions.

1. Vectors, Measurement, and the Axiom of Archimedes: The notes delve into the properties of vector families and their relation to ratios. The Axiom of Archimedes is invoked in the context of multiples and submultiples of vectors. An Axiom of Divisibility is also present.

• Example: “∗337. Multiples and Submultiples of vectors. ·13 : . κ ε FM sr . P̆ = ṡ‘κ∂ . P ε Semi Ded . R ε κ∂ . a ε C‘P . ⊃ : x ε C‘P . ⊃ . (∃ν) . ν ε NC induct − ι‘0 . xP (Rν‘a) [Axiom of Archimedes]” This states Archimedes’ axiom formally.
• Example: “If X is a ratio as previously defined, and κ a vector-family, X κ is the ratio X as applied to the family κ .” This explains how a ratio acts on a vector family. This section seems to be preparing the foundation for geometric reasoning.

1. Logical Proofs and Manipulations of Symbolic Expressions: A significant portion of the manuscript is dedicated to logical proofs, often involving complex symbolic manipulations and the application of previously established theorems or axioms (referenced by numbers like “*8·261”). The proofs often involve quantifiers and logical connectives. Many of the proofs involve complex matrices.

• Example: The extended section around expression (642) and theorems *8·322, *8·333, *8·341, *8·342, and *8·343 demonstrate the meticulous logical deductions Russell employs. Key logical proof techniques involve defining and manipulating matrices of logical statements and systematically proving various cases.

1. Set Theory and Class Theory: Set-theoretic operations, notions of inductive classes, and the posterity of a term are prevalent throughout the notes. The notes make abundant use of set-builder notation (e.g., the use of hats or carats above letters as in “ρ̂ σ̂”) to formally specify the membership of a set based on specific conditions. The notes are trying to develop the theoretical basis for inductive proofs.

• Example: “We have Rm+1(x y) ⊂ R(x y) Cls inductm+1 ⊂ Cls inductm.” This relates inductive classes of relations to sets.
• Example: “R0 ⊂· R∗|R ⊂· R∗ where R0 = I ⇁ C‘R Df ∗89·02. R0 = I ⇁C‘R Df The proof is as follows: ∗89· 1. . R0 ⊂· R∗|R ⊂· R∗” Shows the use of definitions and set relations to construct a proof. The concept of “Cls inductm” which means a class that is inductively defined, appears frequently.

1. Relations, Domains, and Operations on Relations: The notes use relations extensively, defining operations such as relative product, powers of relations, converse of a relation, and domain/range restrictions.

• Example: Numerous definitions and manipulations of relations illustrate this. Relations are central to many of the theorems and definitions throughout.

1. Order and Predecessors: The document frequently considers the relationship between an object and its predecessors and successors with respect to a given relation “R”.

• Example: In section [17v], Russell is attempting to prove that “∼ R̆‘maxR‘γ ε α .∨. y ε α ∪ γ by induction, i.e.23 ∼p ∨ q . ⊃ . ∼r ∨ q ∨ s” and seems to be concerned about proving that some condition holds for all ancestors to some node y.

Notational Conventions:

• The manuscript relies heavily on symbolic notation, which would be familiar to readers of “Principia Mathematica.”
• Df is used to indicate “Definition.”
• Likely indicates the start of a theorem or proof.
• References to previous theorems and axioms (e.g., “*8·261”) are common.

Observations and Potential Insights:

• Foundation for Mathematical Reasoning: These notes are part of Russell’s broader project to provide a logical foundation for mathematics.
• Complexity of Reduction: The level of detail and symbolic manipulation highlights the immense complexity of reducing mathematical concepts to purely logical ones.
• Work in Progress: These are manuscripts, so they contain corrections, revisions, and unresolved issues.
• Emphasis on Formalism: The heavy use of symbolic notation underscores the emphasis on formalism and rigor in Russell’s approach.

In summary, the document offers a fascinating glimpse into the intense, formal, and foundational work that went into the creation of “Principia Mathematica.” It shows the level of abstraction and symbolic manipulation required to rigorously define fundamental mathematical notions within a logical framework.

Principia Mathematica, Second Edition: Manuscript Notes

FAQ on Principia Mathematica, Second Edition Manuscripts

Here are some questions and answers based on the provided excerpts from Bertrand Russell’s manuscripts and notes for the second edition of Principia Mathematica.

Question 1: What are numerically defined powers of relations, and how are they represented in the manuscript?

The manuscripts introduce numerically defined powers of relations. For a relation R, RP appears to represent a power of that relation, likely in terms of its repetition in the relation (Ŭ1 t3‘R). The function num(R) is defined which produces values that can then be applied to the power of the relation: Rσ = {ṡ‘num(R)}‘σ̇ Df. So, if R represents a relationship, R2 and R3 would then represent the relation applied twice and thrice respecitively.

Question 2: What are relative primes and how are they defined?

The manuscripts define relative primes within the context of inductive numbers. Prm is defined as ρ̂ σ̂ {ρ, σ ε NC induct :ρ = ξ ×c τ . σ = η ×c τ. ⊃ξ,η,τ . τ = 1}Df. Then (ρ, σ ) Prmτ (μ, ν) . = *. ρ Prm σ . τ ε NC induct − ι‘0 . μ = ρ ×c τ . ν = σ ×c τ Df

Essentially, two inductive numbers, rho and sigma, are relatively prime if their only common factor is 1.

Question 3: How are ratios defined in this context, and what is the series of ratios?

Ratios are defined in terms of inductive numbers. μ/ν (where μ and ν are inductive numbers and ν is not zero) represent a ratio. The series of ratios is established by defining an ordering relation <r and two classes “Rat def” and “Rat def ∪ ι‘0q”, meaning rational def, and rational def with 0 included, respectively. The relationship H represents X̂ Ŷ {X, Y ε Rat def . X <r Y } Df, meaning H is the relationship of numbers where X and Y are rational numbers and X is less than Y. H ′ is the same, but includes 0.

Question 4: What are multiples and submultiples of vectors, and how are they related to the Archimedean axiom and divisibility?

Multiples and submultiples of vectors relate to how ratios can be applied to vector families. If X is a ratio and κ is a vector family, then X κ is the ratio X applied to the family κ. The Archimedean axiom is invoked, stating that for any element ‘a’ in a semi-Dedekind family, any vector R, and any x, there is a multiple of that vector (ν ε NC induct − ι‘0) such that xP (Rν‘a).

There is also an axiom of divisibility that states : . κ ε FM sr .Cnv‘ṡ‘κ∂ ε comp ∩ Semi Ded . ⊃ : S ε κ . ν ε NC ind − ι‘0 . ⊃ . (∃L) . L ε κ . S = Lν.

Question 5: What role do matrices and prefixes play in the logical proofs presented in the manuscript?

Matrices in this context seem to represent complex logical propositions or conditions, and prefixes define the variables and quantifiers involved. The matrix itself describes the relationships between these variables. The manuscript uses matrices to express logical dependencies and implications concisely. For example, the truth or falsehood of a proposition encapsulated in the matrix depends on the truth or falsehood of other propositions (φa, φb, q, etc.). The prefixes indicate which variables are bound by existential or universal quantifiers. The text uses these matrices to build and demonstrate more complex logical arguments, simplifying the representation of intricate logical structures.

Question 6: What is Cls inductm and how is it used?

Cls inductm refers to inductive classes, with m likely representing the order of induction. So “γ ε Cls inductm” means gamma is a class of the “m” order for inductive classes. The document explains that given Rm+1(x y) ⊂ R(x y) then Cls inductm+1 ⊂ Cls inductm, meaning the inductive classes are related by order.

Question 7: How are relationships between classes and operations on classes (such as intersection, union, and removal) explored in the manuscript?

The manuscript extensively explores relationships between classes using operations like union (∪), intersection (∩), set difference (−), and the application of relations (R̆“μ). Theorems and proofs often revolve around demonstrating how these operations transform classes and how membership in one class affects membership in another after such operations.

For example, ∗89·16 : α ∼ε Cls induct3 . γ ε Cls induct3 . ⊃ . ∃! α − γ, where given alpha is not in Cls induct3 and gamma is, then there exists an “alpha minus gamma”.

Question 8: What is the meaning and significance of R∗ in the document, and how does it relate to R0?

R* typically represents the ancestral or transitive closure of the relation R. That is, if xRy and yRz, then xR*z. R0 is the identity relation within the field of R. The relationship between them is shown by R0 ⊂· R∗|R ⊂· R∗, where R0 is a subset of the transitive closure of R applied to R, which is a subset of the transitive closure of R.

Principia Mathematica: History, Impact, and Significance

Principia Mathematica, originally published between 1910 and 1913, is a monumental work in symbolic logic that aimed to deduce much of elementary arithmetic, set theory, and the theory of real numbers from a series of definitions and formal proofs. Written by Alfred N. Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, it became a model for modern analytic philosophy and an important work in the development of mathematical logic and computer science.

Overview of Principia Mathematica

• Scope and Content The three volumes of Principia Mathematica lay out a cumulative series of definitions and formal proofs to rigorously deduce much of elementary arithmetic, set theory, and the theory of real numbers.
• Impact on Logic Principia Mathematica is arguably the most important work in symbolic logic from the early twentieth century. Logic conducted in the style of Principia Mathematica soon became a branch of mathematics called “mathematical logic”.
• Influence on Computing Principia Mathematica led to the development of mathematical logic and computers and thus to information sciences.

Revisions and Additions in the Second Edition The second edition of Principia Mathematica, published between 1925 and 1927, included a new Introduction and three Appendices (A, B, and C) written by Russell, along with a List of Definitions. These additions, though comprising only 66 pages, proposed radical changes to the system of Principia Mathematica, necessitating a fundamental rethinking of logic.

Key changes proposed in the second edition:

• Sheffer Stroke Russell proposed replacing the logical connectives “or” and “not” with the single “Sheffer stroke” (“not-both”). This change was technically straightforward and didn’t require rewriting the original text.
• Extensionality The second major change was the adoption of “extensionality,” requiring that all propositional connectives be truth-functional and that co-extensive propositional functions (those true of the same arguments) be identified. According to Russell, functions of propositions are always truth-functions, and a function can only occur in a proposition through its values.
• Axiom of Reducibility Russell proposed abandoning the axiom of reducibility, a move that faced criticism from logicians. In Appendix B, Russell attempted to prove the principle of induction without relying on this axiom. However, Kurt Gödel later criticized this proof, and it was eventually shown that deriving the principle of induction in certain systems of extensional ramified theory of types without the axiom of reducibility was impossible.

Impact and Reception

• Initial Reactions The second edition was seen as Russell’s attempt to keep up with a subject that had surpassed him. However, a closer study reveals deep issues regarding the shift from the intensional logic of propositional functions in the “ramified theory of types” of the first edition to the altered theory of types in an extensional logic.
• Evolution of Logic The second edition of Principia Mathematica marks the end of logicism as the leading program in the foundations of mathematics, and the rise of the mathematical logic of Gödel and Tarski as its replacement.
• Obsolescence and Philosophical Significance As a work in mathematics, Principia Mathematica soon became obsolete. However, its study remains significant in the philosophy of logic. The intensional nature of its logic and the potential distinction between co-extensive functions were seen as alien to the extensional account of logic that supplanted it.
• Influence on Analytic Philosophy Principia Mathematica became a starting point in analytic philosophy, from which progress was made by correcting its errors. It is often viewed as a wrong turn in the progression from Frege’s Grundgesetze der Arithmetik through Wittgenstein’s Tractatus to the logic of Carnap, Gödel, and Tarski.

Key Concepts and Technical Aspects

• Type Theory The notion of type theory, extensionality, truth-functionality, the definability of identity, and the primitive notions of set theory all evolved between the two editions. The history of Principia Mathematica reveals important knowledge about the history and philosophy of logic in the early twentieth century.
• Notation Principia Mathematica employs a system of notation that, while precise, can be challenging for contemporary readers due to its use of patterns of dots for punctuation rather than parentheses and brackets.
• Axiom of Reducibility The axiom of reducibility states that for any function, there is an equivalent predicative function (one true of all the same arguments).
• Theory of Descriptions Principia Mathematica introduces a method for indicating the scope of definite descriptions, with the fundamental definition being a “contextual” one.
• Relations Principia Mathematica presents the “General theory of relations” in extension. In this theory relations are treated as counterparts of classes.
• Mathematical Induction Appendix B discusses the principle of mathematical induction, which, along with the definition of numbers as classes of equinumerous classes, is central to the logicist account of arithmetic.

Criticisms and Challenges

• Technical Crudities Despite its importance, Principia Mathematica has been criticized for its technical crudities and lack of formal precision in its foundations. Gödel noted that its presentation of mathematical logic was a step backward compared to Frege.
• Intensionality The intensional nature of the logic in Principia Mathematica was seen as a result of confusing use and mention.
• Axiom of Reducibility Quine argued that the axiom of reducibility cancels out the ramification of types, undermining the distinctive feature of the logic.
• Notational Excess Quine criticized the “notational excess” in Principia Mathematica, suggesting that its numerous theorems merely link up different ways of writing things. He views this as a stylistic defect, but others argue that the multiple definitions reflect the intensional nature of propositional functions.

In summary, Principia Mathematica is a complex and influential work that represents a significant stage in the development of modern logic. The second edition, with its proposed revisions and additions, highlights the evolving nature of logical thought and the challenges of establishing a solid foundation for mathematics.

Principia Mathematica: The Axiom of Reducibility

The axiom of reducibility is a central concept in Principia Mathematica (PM), and its treatment was a major point of revision in the second edition. The axiom and its revisions have been the subject of considerable discussion and debate.

Definition and Purpose

• The axiom of reducibility states that for any function there is an equivalent function (i.e., one true of all the same arguments) which is predicative.
• A predicative function is of the lowest order applicable to its arguments. In modern notation, these functions are of the first level, with types of the form (…)/1.
• Whitehead and Russell express doubts about the axiom of reducibility in the first edition of PM, and one of the major “improvements” proposed for the second edition is to do away with the axiom.

Role in Principia Mathematica

• The mathematics developed in PM, including elements of analysis, requires frequent use of impredicative definitions of classes.
• The axiom is needed to define notions that would otherwise violate the theory of types by referring to “all” types, creating an illegitimate totality.

Identity

• The definition of identity in PM relies on the axiom of reducibility:
• x = y .=: (φ) : φ!x . ⊃ . φ!y Df
• This means x is identical with y if and only if y has every predicative function φ possessed by x.
• Without the axiom of reducibility, this definition is problematic because it is not possible to state that identity is the sharing of all properties, since there is no “totality” of all properties to be the subject of a quantifier.

The Second Edition and Abandoning the Axiom

• One of the major changes proposed for the second edition is to avoid use of the axiom of reducibility whenever possible.
• Russell was trying to work out the consequences of “abolishing” the axiom of reducibility, to see more clearly what exactly depends on it.
• In the second edition, the definition of identity remains untouched, even though the axiom of reducibility is abandoned.
• Russell states that if the axiom of reducibility is dropped and extensionality is added, the theory of inductive cardinals and ordinals survives, but the theory of infinite Dedekindian and well-ordered series largely collapses, so that irrationals and real numbers generally can no longer be adequately dealt with.

Challenges and Criticisms

• Circumventing the Axiom Even without the axiom of reducibility, it is possible to prove mathematical induction.
• Quine’s View Quine argued that the axiom of reducibility cancels out the ramification of types, undermining the distinctive feature of the logic.
• Wittgenstein’s Challenge Wittgenstein challenges the axiom of reducibility as certainly not a principle of logic.

Responses to the Abandonment

• Chwistek Leon Chwistek took the “heroic course” of dispensing with the axiom without adopting any substitute.
• Ramsey Ramsey agrees with rejecting the axiom of reducibility, on the ground that it is not a logical truth, and because it can be circumvented in practice.

In conclusion, the axiom of reducibility was a contentious point in Principia Mathematica. Its abandonment in the second edition, while intended as an improvement, raised significant challenges and led to substantial revisions and alternative approaches in the foundations of mathematics and logic.

Principia Mathematica: Theory of Types

The theory of types is a pivotal concept within Principia Mathematica (PM), significantly influencing its structure and revisions across editions. It addresses logical paradoxes and imposes a hierarchy on functions and propositions to avoid self-reference and ensure logical consistency.

Core Principles and Development

• Vicious Circle Principle: The theory of types is rooted in the “vicious circle principle,” stating that “whatever involves all of a collection must not be one of the collection”. This principle aims to prevent logical paradoxes arising from self-reference.
• Hierarchy of Functions and Propositions: To adhere to the vicious circle principle, the theory introduces a hierarchy of functions and propositions, categorized into different “types”. This hierarchy ensures that a function cannot apply to itself or to any entity that presupposes it, thereby avoiding logical contradictions.
• Orders of Functions: Functions are further distinguished by “order,” reflecting the complexity of their definitions in terms of quantification over other functions. A function defined by quantifying over a collection of functions must be of a higher order than the functions within that collection.

Simple vs. Ramified Theory of Types

• Ramified Theory: The original theory in the first edition of PM is a “ramified” theory of types, which accounts for both the types of arguments that functions can take and the quantifiers used in the definitions of those functions.
• Simple Theory: Later, a move toward a “simple” theory of types emerged, particularly with Ramsey’s proposals, where the focus is primarily on the types of arguments, simplifying the hierarchy.
• Extensionality: The move towards the simple theory of types is connected with the concept of extensionality. With extensionality, functions that are true for the same arguments are identified.

Technical Aspects and Notation

• Type Symbols: Various notations have been proposed to symbolize types, with Alonzo Church’s “r-types” being the most fine-grained, capturing distinctions of order and level.
• ι represents the r-type for an individual.
• (τ1, . . . , τm)/n denotes the r-type of a propositional function of level n, with arguments of types τ1, . . . , τm.
• ()/n represents the r-type of a proposition of level n.
• Variables and Quantification: In PM, statements of theorems use real (free) variables, and bound variables are interpreted within specific logical types to adhere to the vicious circle principle.

Axiom of Reducibility and Type Theory

• Axiom of Reducibility Defined: The axiom of reducibility guarantees that for every function, there exists a co-extensive predicative function of the same type, which simplifies the system by allowing higher-order functions to be reduced to first-order ones.
• Role in PM: The axiom ensures that for any complex function, there is a predicative function that is true for all the same arguments.
• Criticisms and Abandonment: The axiom has been criticized for various reasons, including by Wittgenstein as not being a principle of logic. The second edition of PM considers abolishing the axiom.

Classes and Type Theory

• Classes as Functions: PM identifies classes with propositional functions. The expression x̂ψx denotes the class of things x such that ψx, mirroring modern notation {x : ψx}.
• No-Classes Theory: The “no-classes” theory aims to eliminate talk of classes in favor of propositional functions, reducing all talk of classes to the theory of propositional functions.

Challenges and Interpretations

• Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem: Gödel’s incompleteness theorem and related concepts challenge the completeness and consistency of formal systems, including those based on type theory.
• BMT (Appendix B Modified Theory of Types): Gödel identified a new theory of types in Appendix B, known as BMT, which allows any propositional function to take arguments of appropriate type, regardless of the quantifiers used in defining the function.
• Ramsey’s Modification: Ramsey proposed rs-types, combining simple types with orders for predicates, offering an alternative revision to the ramified theory of types.

Revisions and Alternative Approaches

• Chwistek’s Constructive Types: Chwistek advocated for a “theory of constructive types” without the axiom of reducibility, emphasizing that all functions should be definable or constructible.
• Weyl’s Predicative Analysis: Weyl presented a version of predicative analysis, developing real numbers without invoking vicious circle fallacies, thereby constructing a “predicative” analysis.

In summary, the theory of types in Principia Mathematica is a complex framework designed to resolve logical paradoxes by imposing a hierarchical structure on functions and propositions. The evolution of this theory, from the ramified approach to simpler, extensional versions, reflects ongoing efforts to refine the foundations of logic and mathematics. The debates surrounding the axiom of reducibility and alternative type systems highlight the intricate challenges in constructing a consistent and comprehensive logical framework.

Principia Mathematica: Propositional Functions

Propositional functions are a crucial element in Principia Mathematica (PM), serving as a foundation for both logic and mathematics. They play a significant role in the development of the theory of types and the resolution of logical paradoxes.

Definition and Nature

• A propositional function is an expression containing a free variable such that when the variable is replaced by an allowable value, the expression becomes a proposition. For example, ‘x is hurt’ is a propositional function.
• Expressions for propositional functions, such as ‘x̂ is a natural number’, are distinct from mathematical functions like ‘sin x’. The latter are referred to as “descriptive functions”.
• Expressions using the circumflex notation, such as φx̂, appear mainly in the introductory material of PM and not in the technical sections, except in sections on class theory.

Role and Significance

• Building Blocks of Propositions: Propositional functions serve as a basis for constructing propositions by assigning allowable values to the free variable. The propositions resulting from the formula by assigning allowable values to the free variable ‘x’ are said to be the various “ambiguous values” of the function.
• Foundation for Classes and Relations: Propositional functions are closely linked to the theory of classes. The expression x̂ψx represents the class of things x such that ψx. In PM’s type theory, the class x̂φx has the same logical type as the function φx̂.
• Distinguishing Universals from Propositional Functions: Universals are constituents of judgments, while propositional functions are not ultimate constituents of propositions.

Technical Aspects and Notation

• Variables:p, q, r, etc., are propositional variables.
• a, b, c, etc., are individual constants denoting individuals of the lowest type, mainly in the introductions to PM.
• R, S, T, etc., represent relations.
• Circumflex (^): When placed over a variable in an open formula (e.g., φx̂), it results in a term for a propositional function.
• Exclamation Mark (!): Indicates that the function is predicative, meaning it is of the lowest order compatible with its argument. A predicative function φ!x is one which is of the lowest order compatible with its having that argument.

Type Theory and Propositional Functions

• Simple Types: Simple types classify propositional functions based on the types of their arguments.
• If ‘Socrates’ is of type ι, the function ‘x̂ is mortal’ is of type (ι).
• A relation like ‘x̂ is father of ŷ’ would be of simple type (ι, ι).
• Ramified Theory: The ramified theory of types in PM tracks both the arguments of functions and the quantifiers used in their definitions.
• Levels: Functions have levels, and a function defined in terms of quantification over functions of a given level must be of a higher level. For example, if ‘x̂ is brave’ is of type (ι)/1, then ‘x̂ has all the qualities that make a great general’ might be of type (ι)/2 because it involves quantification over functions like ‘x̂ is brave’.

Axiom of Reducibility and Predicative Functions

• Predicative Functions: The exclamation mark ‘!’ indicates that the function is predicative, i.e., of the lowest order that can apply to its arguments.
• Axiom of Reducibility: The axiom asserts that for any function, there exists a co-extensive predicative function. This axiom was debated and ultimately abandoned in later editions of PM.
• Impact of Abandonment: The abandonment of the axiom of reducibility and the emphasis on extensionality led to revisions in how propositional functions were treated, particularly concerning identity and higher-order functions.

Extensionality and Truth-Functionality

• Extensionality: PM’s second edition emphasizes that functions of propositions are always truth-functions and that a function can only occur in a proposition through its values.
• Truth-Functionality: The argument for extensionality suggests that if a function occurs in a proposition only through its values and these values are truth-functional, then co-extensive functions will be identical.

Classes and Propositional Functions

• Contextual Definition: The use of contextual definitions allows for the elimination of class terms in favor of propositional functions. For instance, the expression x ε ẑ(ψz) can be interpreted by eliminating the class term using contextual definitions, yielding x ε ẑ(ψz) . ≡ . ψx.
• Relations in Extension: From section ∗21 onward, italic capital letters (e.g., R, S, T) are reserved for relations in extension, where xRy denotes that the relation R holds between x and y.

In summary, propositional functions are fundamental to the logical structure of Principia Mathematica. They are used to construct propositions, define classes and relations, and address logical paradoxes through the theory of types. The treatment of propositional functions, particularly in relation to the axiom of reducibility and the principle of extensionality, reflects the evolving nature of logical and mathematical foundations explored in PM.

Principia Mathematica: Mathematical Induction and its Logical Foundations

Mathematical induction is a central topic in Principia Mathematica (PM), particularly concerning its logical foundations and its treatment within the theory of types. The discussion of mathematical induction involves its relation to logicist accounts of arithmetic, the challenges posed by the axiom of reducibility, and the attempts to provide a rigorous basis for inductive proofs.

Importance and Logicist Foundations

• Distinctive Method of Proof: Mathematical induction has historically been recognized as a distinctive method of proof in arithmetic.
• Logicist Achievement: A key achievement of logicism, particularly by Frege, was to demonstrate that induction could be derived from logical truths and definitions alone.
• Central to Arithmetic: Induction, along with the definition of numbers as classes of equinumerous classes, is fundamental to the logicist account of arithmetic.
• By 1919, Russell presented induction as central to deriving mathematics from logic. All traditional pure mathematics, including analytic geometry, can be regarded as propositions about natural numbers.

Principle of Mathematical Induction

• Two-Part Proof: Proofs by induction involve two main parts:
• Basis Step: Proving that the property holds for 0.
• Induction Step: Assuming the property holds for an arbitrary number n (the inductive hypothesis) and then proving it holds for n+1.
• General Form: The principle of induction appears in a general form for use with an arbitrary ancestral relation:
• If x bears the ancestral of the relation R to y, and x possesses any R-hereditary property φ, then so does y.
• Recipe for Proof: To prove that y has a property, show that x does, that x bears the ancestral of the R relation to y, and that the property is R-hereditary.

Development in Principia Mathematica

• Part II Focus: Part II of Principia Mathematica, titled “Prolegomena to cardinal arithmetic”, begins with identity and diversity relations.
• Inductive Cardinals: Inductive cardinals (NC induct) are derived by starting with 0 and repeatedly adding 1.
• Inductive Class: The inductive class (Cls induct) is one way of thinking about finite classes. Defined this way, inductive cardinals are equinumerous classes of individuals produced by adding one thing at a time to the empty class. The sum or union of all those cardinals will contain all the finite classes.
• Peano Axioms: With 0 defined as a class, “natural number” defined as NξC induct, and the successor relation as +c1, Whitehead and Russell define and prove the Peano axioms as theorems of their system.
• Peano’s Axioms and Induction: The principle of induction for natural numbers follows as a special case of induction on arbitrary ancestrals.

Appendix B and Challenges to Reducibility

• Limited Induction: Appendix B aimed to demonstrate that a limited form of mathematical induction could be derived even without the axiom of reducibility.
• Technical Flaw: Gödel identified a technical flaw in the proof within Appendix B. Myhill later proved that the project of Appendix B is impossible in principle.
• Generality: Appendix B seeks the general result that if y inherits all the level 5 R-hereditary properties of x, then it inherits any R-hereditary properties of x of whatever level. *The most important case of Appendix B shows that any induction on the natural numbers can be carried out with respect to properties of a fixed order, though this is tucked away in the middle of a series of theorems.

Formalization and Theorems

• Theorem ∗89·12: A key theorem in Appendix B states that every inductive or finite class of order 3 is identical with some class of order 2. The three-line proof suggests that this holds because of the level of the operation of adding one individual y to a class η, yielding η ∪ ι‘y.
• Intervals: Intervals are also defined using descendants and ancestors, where the interval from x to y is defined in terms of the descendants of x and the ancestors of y.

Myhill’s Challenge

• Undefinability: Myhill argued that the proofs in Appendix B could not have succeeded, citing a generalization of a key result applying to one-many relations as well as many-one relations.
• Non-Standard Models: Myhill’s argument uses model-theoretic arguments and “non-standard models” of arithmetic, which introduce non-standard numbers.
• Limitations: Myhill proves that there are instances of induction of a level higher than any given level k which does not follow for properties of levels less than k.

Gödel’s Critique

• Mistake Identified: Gödel pointed out a mistake in the proof of ∗89·16, related to applying induction to a property of β involving α.
• Unsolved Question: Gödel stated that the question of whether the theory of integers can be obtained on the basis of the ramified hierarchy must be considered as unsolved.

Revised Approaches and Interpretations

• Davoren and Hazen (1991): This study hints at a liberalization of RTT, allowing propositional functions to hold arguments of appropriate (simple) type but arbitrary order while still maintaining restrictions on the orders of quantified variables in the definition of a propositional function.
• Wang’s Suggestion: Wang suggests that higher-order induction could prove the consistency of the system with lower-order induction and eliminate more non-standard numbers.
• Royse’s Development: Royse showed how a truth predicate could be defined for a system of predicative arithmetic of a lower order within a system of higher order, following the model of Tarski.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!