The Ways of Hilbert’s Axiomatics: Structural and Formal

Hilbert’s programmatic papers from the 1920s still shape, almost exclusively, the standard contemporary perspective of his views concerning (the foundations of) mathematics; even his own, quite different work on the foundations of geometry and arithmetic from the late 1890s is often understood from that vantage point. My essay pursues one main goal, namely, to contrast Hilbert’s formal axiomatic method from the early 1920s with his structural axiomatic approach from the 1890s. Such a contrast illuminates the circuitous beginnings of the finitist consistency program and connects the complex emergence of structural axiomatics with transformations in mathematics and philosophy during the 19th century.

DE ZOLT’S POSTULATE: AN ABSTRACT APPROACH

A theory of magnitudes involves criteria for their equivalence, comparison and addition. In this article we examine these aspects from an abstract viewpoint, by focusing on the so-called De Zolt’s postulate in the theory of equivalence of plane polygons (“If a polygon is divided into polygonal parts in any given way, then the union of all but one of these parts is not equivalent to the given polygon”). We formulate an abstract version of this postulate and derive it from some selected principles for magnitudes. We also formulate and derive an abstract version of Euclid’s Common Notion 5 (“The whole is greater than the part”), and analyze its logical relation to the former proposition. These results prove to be relevant for the clarification of some key conceptual aspects of Hilbert’s proof of De Zolt’s postulate, in his classical Foundations of Geometry (1899). Furthermore, our abstract treatment of this central proposition provides interesting insights for the development of a well-behaved theory of compatible magnitudes.

The Mathematics of Continuous Multiplicities: The Role of Riemann in Deleuze's Reading of Bergson

A central claim of Deleuze's reading of Bergson is that Bergson's distinction between space as an extensive multiplicity and duration as an intensive multiplicity is inspired by the distinction between discrete and continuous manifolds found in Bernhard Riemann's 1854 thesis on the foundations of geometry. Yet there is no evidence from Bergson that Riemann influences his division, and the distinction between the discrete and continuous is hardly a Riemannian invention. Claiming Riemann's influence, however, allows Deleuze to argue that quantity, in the form of ‘virtual number’, still pertains to continuous multiplicities. This not only supports Deleuze's attempt to redeem Bergson's argument against Einstein in Duration and Simultaneity, but also allows Deleuze to position Bergson against Hegelian dialectics. The use of Riemann is thereby an important element of the incorporation of Bergson into Deleuze's larger early project of developing an anti-Hegelian philosophy of difference. This article first reviews the role of discrete and continuous multiplicities or manifolds in Riemann's Habilitationsschrift, and how Riemann uses them to establish the foundations of an intrinsic geometry. It then outlines how Deleuze reinterprets Riemann's thesis to make it a credible resource for Deleuze's Bergsonism. Finally, it explores the limits of this move, and how Deleuze's later move away from Bergson turns on the rejection of an assumption of Riemann's thesis, that of ‘flatness in smallest parts’, which Deleuze challenges with the idea, taken from Riemann's contemporary, Richard Dedekind, of the irrational cut.

Tarski, Alfred (1901–83)

Alfred Tarski was a Polish mathematician and logician. He worked in metamathematics and semantics, set theory, algebra and the foundations of geometry. Some of his logical works, in particular his definition of truth, were also significant contributions to philosophy. He was a successful teacher and a master of writing simply and with great clarity about complicated matters.

Hilbert’s sixth problem: between the foundations of geometry and the axiomatization of physics

The sixth of Hilbert’s famous 1900 list of 23 problems was a programmatic call for the axiomatization of the physical sciences. It was naturally and organically rooted at the core of Hilbert’s conception of what axiomatization is all about. In fact, the axiomatic method which he applied at the turn of the twentieth century in his famous work on the foundations of geometry originated in a preoccupation with foundational questions related with empirical science in general. Indeed, far from a purely formal conception, Hilbert counted geometry among the sciences with strong empirical content, closely related to other branches of physics and deserving a treatment similar to that reserved for the latter. In this treatment, the axiomatization project was meant to play, in his view, a crucial role. Curiously, and contrary to a once-prevalent view, from all the problems in the list, the sixth is the only one that continually engaged Hilbet’s efforts over a very long period of time, at least between 1894 and 1932. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Hilbert’s sixth problem’.

Compass-free Navigation of Mazes

If you find yourself in a corridor of a standard maze, a sure and easy way to escapeis to simply pick the left (or right) wall, and then follow it along its twists andturns and around the dead-ends till you eventually arrive at the exit. But whathappens when you cannot tell left from right? What if you cannot tell North fromSouth? What if you cannot judge distances, and have no idea what it means to followa wall in a given direction?The possibility of escape in these circumstances is suggested in the statement of anunproven theorem given in David Hilbert's celebrated /Foundations of Geometry/, inwhich he effectively claimed that a standard maze could be fully navigated usingaxioms and concepts based /solely/ on the relations of points lying on lines in aspecified order.We discuss our algorithm for this surprisingly challenging version of the mazenavigation problem, and our HOL Light verification of its correctness from Hilbert'saxioms.

HILBERT, DUALITY, AND THE GEOMETRICAL ROOTS OF MODEL THEORY

The article investigates one of the key contributions to modern structural mathematics, namely Hilbert’sFoundations of Geometry(1899) and its mathematical roots in nineteenth-century projective geometry. A central innovation of Hilbert’s book was to provide semantically minded independence proofs for various fragments of Euclidean geometry, thereby contributing to the development of the model-theoretic point of view in logical theory. Though it is generally acknowledged that the development of model theory is intimately bound up with innovations in 19th century geometry (in particular, the development of non-Euclidean geometries), so far, little has been said about how exactly model-theoretic concepts grew out of methodological investigations within projective geometry. This article is supposed to fill this lacuna and investigates this geometrical prehistory of modern model theory, eventually leading up to Hilbert’sFoundations.