Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T18:24:40.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The axiomatization of arithmetic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Hao Wang*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford

Extract

I once asked myself the question: How were the famous axiom systems, such as Euclid's for geometry, Zermelo's for set theory, Peano's for arithmetic, originally obtained? This was to me more than merely a historical question, as I wished to know how the basic concepts and axioms were to be singled out, and, once they were singled out, how one could establish their adequacy. One possible approach which suggests itself is to take typical theorems, proofs, definitions, and examine case by case what assumptions and concepts are involved. The obstacle in such an empirical study is, apart from the obvious demand of excessive time and energy, the lack of conclusiveness in both result and justification.

The attempt to find an answer to this question led me to some interesting fragments of history. For example, in 1899 Cantor distinguished consistent collections (the “sets”) from inconsistent collections ([1], p. 443), anticipating partly the distinction between the two kinds of classes stressed by von Neumann and Quine. Cantor had already proposed a form of the axiom of substitution ([1], p. 444, line 3), although Fraenkel and Skolem, more than twenty years later, had to adjoin it to Zermelo's list of axioms as a supplement. In another direction, the history of the development of axioms of geometry makes clear how natural it was for Hilbert to raise in 1900 the consistency question of analysis ([2], p. 299) quite independently of the emphasis on set-theoretical paradoxes.

By far the best piece of good fortune I had in these historical researches was, however, my findings with regard to Peano's axioms for arithmetic. It is rather well-known, through Peano's own acknowledgement ([3], p. 273), that Peano borrowed his axioms from Dedekind and made extensive use of Grassmann's work in his development of the axioms.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Cantor, Georg, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Berlin, 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Hilbert, David, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, vol. 3, Berlin, 1935.Google Scholar
[3]Jourdain, Philip E. B., The development of the theories of mathematical logic and the principles of mathematics, Quarterly journal of mathematics, vol. 43 (1912), pp. 219314.Google Scholar
[4]Dedekind, Richard, Gesammelte Werke, vol. 3, Berlin, 1932.Google Scholar
[5]Grassmann, Hermann, Lehrbuch der Arithmetik, 1861 (reprinted in part in his collected works, vol. 2, part I, 1904, pp. 295349).Google Scholar
[6]Birkhoff, G. and MacLane, S., A survey of modern algebra, 1941.Google Scholar
[7]Hilbert, D. and Bernays, P., Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 1, 1934.Google Scholar
[8]Frege, G., Grundlagen der Arithmetik, 1884 (English translation by J. L. Austin, 1950).Google Scholar
[9]Geach, P. and Black, M., Translations from the philosophical writings of G. Frege, 1952.Google Scholar
[10]Russell, Bertrand, Principles of mathematics, 1903.Google Scholar