Finitary: Difference between revisions
Joel Brennan (talk | contribs) m changed wording |
Al Silonov (talk | contribs) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Qualifies an operation with a finite number of arguments}} |
|||
{{refimprove|date=April 2012}} |
{{refimprove|date=April 2012}} |
||
In [[mathematics]] and [[logic]], an [[Operation (mathematics)|operation]] is '''finitary''' if it has [[Finite cardinality|finite]] [[arity]], i.e. if it has a finite number of input values. Similarly, an '''infinitary''' operation is one with an [[Infinite set|infinite number]] of input values. |
In [[mathematics]] and [[logic]], an [[Operation (mathematics)|operation]] is '''finitary''' if it has [[Finite cardinality|finite]] [[arity]], i.e. if it has a finite number of input values. Similarly, an '''infinitary'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> operation is one with an [[Infinite set|infinite number]] of input values. |
||
In standard mathematics, an operation is finitary by definition. Therefore these terms are usually only used in the context of [[infinitary logic]]. |
In standard mathematics, an operation is finitary by definition. Therefore, these terms are usually only used in the context of [[infinitary logic]]. |
||
==Finitary argument== |
== Finitary argument == |
||
A '''finitary argument''' is one which can be translated into a [[finite set]] of symbolic propositions starting from a finite<ref>The number of axioms ''referenced'' in the argument will necessarily be finite since the proof is finite, but the number of axioms from which these are ''chosen'' is infinite when the system has [[axiom scheme]]s, e.g. the axiom schemes of [[propositional calculus]].</ref> set of [[axiom]]s. In other words, it is a [[Mathematical proof|proof]] (including all assumptions) that can be written on a large enough sheet of paper. |
A '''finitary argument''' is one which can be translated into a [[finite set]] of symbolic propositions starting from a finite<ref>The number of axioms ''referenced'' in the argument will necessarily be finite since the proof is finite, but the number of axioms from which these are ''chosen'' is infinite when the system has [[axiom scheme]]s, e.g. the axiom schemes of [[propositional calculus]].</ref> set of [[axiom]]s. In other words, it is a [[Mathematical proof|proof]] (including all assumptions) that can be written on a large enough sheet of paper. |
||
By contrast, '''[[infinitary logic]]''' studies logics that allow infinitely long [[statement (logic)|statements]] and [[Mathematical proof|proofs]]. In such a logic, one can regard the [[existential quantifier]], for instance, as derived from an infinitary [[disjunction]]. |
By contrast, '''[[infinitary logic]]''' studies logics that allow infinitely long [[statement (logic)|statements]] and [[Mathematical proof|proofs]]. In such a logic, one can regard the [[existential quantifier]], for instance, as derived from an infinitary [[disjunction]]. |
||
==History== |
== History == |
||
[[Logic]]ians in the early 20th century aimed to solve the [[foundations of mathematics|problem of foundations]], such as, "What is the true base of mathematics?" The program was to be able to rewrite all mathematics using an entirely syntactical language ''without semantics''. In the words of [[David Hilbert]] (referring to [[geometry]]), "it does not matter if we call the things ''chairs'', ''tables'' and ''beer mugs'' or ''points'', ''lines'' and ''planes''." |
[[Logic]]ians in the early 20th century aimed to solve the [[foundations of mathematics|problem of foundations]], such as, "What is the true base of mathematics?" The program was to be able to rewrite all mathematics using an entirely syntactical language ''without semantics''. In the words of [[David Hilbert]] (referring to [[geometry]]), "it does not matter if we call the things ''chairs'', ''tables'' and ''beer mugs'' or ''points'', ''lines'' and ''planes''." |
||
The stress on finiteness came from the idea that human ''mathematical'' thought is based on a finite number of principles {{proveit|date=April 2013}} and all the reasonings follow essentially one rule: the ''[[modus ponens]]''. The project was to fix a finite number of symbols (essentially the [[Numerical digit|numerals]] 1, 2, 3, ... the letters of alphabet and some special symbols like "+", "⇒", "(", ")", etc.), give a finite number of propositions expressed in those symbols, which were to be taken as "foundations" (the axioms), and some [[rule of inference|rules of inference]] which would model the way humans make conclusions. From these, ''regardless of the semantic interpretation of the symbols'' the remaining theorems should follow ''formally'' using only the stated rules (which make mathematics look like a ''game with symbols'' more than a ''science'') without the need to rely on ingenuity. The hope was to prove that from these axioms and rules ''all'' the theorems of mathematics could be deduced. That aim is known as [[logicism]]. |
The stress on finiteness came from the idea that human ''mathematical'' thought is based on a finite number of principles {{proveit|date=April 2013}} and all the reasonings follow essentially one rule: the ''[[modus ponens]]''. The project was to fix a finite number of symbols (essentially the [[Numerical digit|numerals]] 1, 2, 3, ... the letters of alphabet and some special symbols like "+", "⇒", "(", ")", etc.), give a finite number of propositions expressed in those symbols, which were to be taken as "foundations" (the axioms), and some [[rule of inference|rules of inference]] which would model the way humans make conclusions. From these, ''regardless of the semantic interpretation of the symbols'' the remaining theorems should follow ''formally'' using only the stated rules (which make mathematics look like a ''game with symbols'' more than a ''science'') without the need to rely on ingenuity. The hope was to prove that from these axioms and rules ''all'' the theorems of mathematics could be deduced. That aim is known as [[logicism]]. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
[[Kurt Gödel]]'s [[Gödel's incompleteness theorem|incompleteness theorem]] is sometimes alleged to undermine logicism because it shows that no particular [[axiomatization]] of mathematics can decide all statements, although such theorem itself is based in logic. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
==External links== |
== External links == |
||
{{wiktionary|finitary}} |
|||
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-infinitary/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Infinitary Logic] |
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-infinitary/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Infinitary Logic] |
||
[[Category:Mathematical logic]] |
[[Category:Mathematical logic]] |
||
Latest revision as of 10:20, 24 May 2024
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2012) |
In mathematics and logic, an operation is finitary if it has finite arity, i.e. if it has a finite number of input values. Similarly, an infinitary operation is one with an infinite number of input values.
In standard mathematics, an operation is finitary by definition. Therefore, these terms are usually only used in the context of infinitary logic.
Finitary argument
[edit]A finitary argument is one which can be translated into a finite set of symbolic propositions starting from a finite[1] set of axioms. In other words, it is a proof (including all assumptions) that can be written on a large enough sheet of paper.
By contrast, infinitary logic studies logics that allow infinitely long statements and proofs. In such a logic, one can regard the existential quantifier, for instance, as derived from an infinitary disjunction.
History
[edit]Logicians in the early 20th century aimed to solve the problem of foundations, such as, "What is the true base of mathematics?" The program was to be able to rewrite all mathematics using an entirely syntactical language without semantics. In the words of David Hilbert (referring to geometry), "it does not matter if we call the things chairs, tables and beer mugs or points, lines and planes."
The stress on finiteness came from the idea that human mathematical thought is based on a finite number of principles [citation needed] and all the reasonings follow essentially one rule: the modus ponens. The project was to fix a finite number of symbols (essentially the numerals 1, 2, 3, ... the letters of alphabet and some special symbols like "+", "⇒", "(", ")", etc.), give a finite number of propositions expressed in those symbols, which were to be taken as "foundations" (the axioms), and some rules of inference which would model the way humans make conclusions. From these, regardless of the semantic interpretation of the symbols the remaining theorems should follow formally using only the stated rules (which make mathematics look like a game with symbols more than a science) without the need to rely on ingenuity. The hope was to prove that from these axioms and rules all the theorems of mathematics could be deduced. That aim is known as logicism.
Notes
[edit]- ^ The number of axioms referenced in the argument will necessarily be finite since the proof is finite, but the number of axioms from which these are chosen is infinite when the system has axiom schemes, e.g. the axiom schemes of propositional calculus.
External links
[edit]