I What is the ultimate foundation of mathematics and where does it all begin?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mathematics
Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44
This might be a naive question, but I were to ask you to briefly explain the ultimate foundation of mathematics in a formal manner to get to at least, say, the natural numbers, how would you do it? Where does it all begin? I would say that it begins with set theory, but in studying set theory it seems that a lot of mathematical logic presupposes it, such as model theory and first order logic.
Just a brief sketch of it all to wrap my head around would be nice.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Last edited:
.Scott said:
Check out Alfred North Whitehead's and Bertrand Russell's "Principia Mathematica".
They had the same question a century ago and wrote a book creating arithmetic from logic.

This links to a pdf - 582 pages:
https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/Rarebook_treasures/QA803A451846.PDF
That's the wrong "Principa Mathematica." The one you linked to was written by some guy called Newton.
 
  • Like
Likes Auto-Didact and Demystifier
Mr Davis 97 said:
That's the wrong "Principa Mathematica." The one you linked to was written by some guy called Newton.
Sorry. Here's a good link: https://ia800602.us.archive.org/35/items/PrincipiaMathematicaVolumeI/WhiteheadRussell-PrincipiaMathematicaVolumeI.pdf

Things get exciting starting on page 362 (pdf page 406) where in section 54.43, we finally prove that 1+1=2.
There are 719 pdf pages all together.

It's a real page turner. Or maybe not. But you can find their book in any library.
 
Last edited:
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top