Gödel mathematics versus Hilbert mathematics. I The Gödel incompleteness (1931) statement: axiom or theorem?

 The present first part about the eventual completeness of mathematics (called “Hilbert mathematics”) is concentrated on the Gödel incompleteness (1931) statement: if it is an axiom rather than a theorem inferable from the axioms of (Peano) arithmetic, (ZFC) set theory, and propositional logic, this would pioneer the pathway to Hilbert mathematics. One of the main arguments that it is an axiom consists in the direct contradiction of the axiom of induction in arithmetic and the axiom of infinity in set theory. Thus, the pair of arithmetic and set are to be similar to Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries distinguishably only by the Fifth postulate now, i.e. after replacing it and its negation correspondingly by the axiom of finiteness (induction) versus that of finiteness being idempotent negations to each other. Indeed, the axiom of choice, as far as it is equivalent to the well-ordering “theorem”, transforms any set in a well-ordering either necessarily finite according to the axiom of induction or also optionally infinite according to the axiom of infinity. So, the Gödel incompleteness statement relies on the logical contradiction of the axiom of induction and the axiom of infinity in the final analysis. Nonetheless, both can be considered as two idempotent versions of the same axiom (analogically to the Fifth postulate) and then unified after logicism and its inherent intensionality since the opposition of finiteness and infinity can be only extensional (i.e., relevant to the elements of any set rather than to the set by itself or its characteristic property being a proposition). So, the pathway for interpreting the Gödel incompleteness statement as an axiom and the originating from that assumption for “Hilbert mathematics” accepting its negation is pioneered. A much wider context relevant to realizing the Gödel incompleteness statement as a metamathematical axiom is consistently built step by step. The horizon of Hilbert mathematics is the proper subject in the third part of the paper, and a reinterpretation of Gödel’s papers (1930; 1931) as an apology of logicism as the only consistent foundations of mathematics is the topic of the next second part.

Keywords: Boolean algebra, completeness, dual axiomatics, Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries, Gödel, the Fifth postulate, finitism, foundations of mathematics, Hilbert arithmetic, Hilbert program, Husserl, incompleteness, logicism, Peano arithmetic, phenomenology, Principia mathematica, propositional logic, Riemann’s “space curvature”, Russell, set theory

The file as a PDF or @ repositories: @ EasyChair, @ CanbridgeOpenEngage,
@ HAL, @ PhilPapers, @ SocArxiv, @ SSRN, @ Authorea. @ PhilSci (Pittsburgh), @ International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Research

Gentzen’s “cut rule” and quantum measurement in terms of Hilbert arithmetic. Metaphor and understanding modeled formally

 Abstract. Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense, including Hilbert arithmetic in a narrow sense consisting by two dual and anti-isometric Peano arithmetics, on the one hand, and the qubit Hilbert space (originating for the standard separable complex Hilbert space of quantum mechanics), on the other hand, allows for an arithmetic version of Gentzen’s cut elimination and quantum measurement to be described uniformly as two processes occurring accordingly in those two branches. A philosophical reflection also justifying that unity by quantum neo-Pythagoreanism links it to the opposition of propositional logic, to which Gentzen’s cut rule refers immediately, on the one hand, and the linguistic and mathematical theory of metaphor therefore sharing the same structure borrowed from Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense. An example by hermeneutical circle modeled as a dual pair of a syllogism (accomplishable also by a Turing machine) and a relevant metaphor (being a formal and logical mistake and thus fundamentally inaccessible to any Turing machine) visualizes human understanding corresponding also to Gentzen’s cut elimination and the Gödel dichotomy about the relation of arithmetic to set theory: either incompleteness or contradiction. The metaphor as the complementing “half” of any understanding of hermeneutical circle is what allows for that Gödel-like incompleteness to be overcome in human thought. 

Keywords: cut-elimination, Hilbert arithmetic, metaphor, proposition, propositional logic, quantum measurement 

The paper as a PDF file or @ repositories: @ HAL, @ PrePrints, @ EasyChair. @ PhilPapers, @ SocArxiv, @ SSRN, @ OpenCambridgeEngage, @ PhilSci (Pittsburgh)

Fermat’s last theorem proved in Hilbert arithmetic. III. The quantum-information unification of Fermat’s last theorem and Gleason’s theorem

Abstract. The previous two parts of the paper (correspondingly, https://philpapers.org/rec/PENFLT-2  and https://philpapers.org/rec/PENFLT-3) demonstrate that the interpretation of Fermat’s last theorem (FLT) in Hilbert arithmetic meant both in a narrow sense and in a wide sense can suggest a proof by induction in Part I and by means of the Kochen - Specker theorem in Part II. The same interpretation can serve also for a proof FLT based on Gleason’s theorem and partly similar to that in Part II. The concept of (probabilistic) measure of a subspace of Hilbert space and especially its uniqueness can be unambiguously linked to that of partial algebra or incommensurability, or interpreted as a relation of the two dual branches of Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense. The investigation of the last relation allows for FLT and Gleason’s theorem to be equated in a sense, as two dual counterparts, and the former to be inferred from the latter, as well as vice versa under an additional condition relevant to the Gödel incompleteness of arithmetic to set theory. The qubit Hilbert space itself in turn can be interpreted by the unity of FLT and Gleason’s theorem. The proof of such a fundamental result in number theory as FLT by means of  Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense can be generalized to an idea about “quantum number theory”. It is able to research mathematically the origin of Peano arithmetic from Hilbert arithmetic by mediation of the “nonstandard bijection” and its two dual branches inherently linking it to information theory. Then, infinitesimal analysis and its revolutionary application to physics can be also re-realized in that wider context, for example, as an exploration of the way for physical quantity of time (respectively, for time derivative in any temporal process considered in physics) to appear at all. Finally, the result admits a philosophical reflection of how any hierarchy arises or changes itself only thanks to its dual and idempotent counterpart.     

Keywords: completeness, Gleason’s theorem, Fermat’s last theorem, Hilbert arithmetic, idempotency and hierarchy, Kochen and Specker theorem, nonstandard bijection, Peano arithmetic, quantum information 

The paper as a PDF or @ repositories: @ PhilPapers; @ HAL; @ CambridgeOpenEngage; @ PrePrints; @ SSRN; @ EasyChair 

Fermat’s last theorem proved in Hilbert arithmetic. II. Its proof in Hilbert arithmetic by the Kochen-Specker theorem with or without induction

 

The paper is a continuation of another paper (https://philpapers.org/rec/PENFLT-2) published as Part I. Now, the case of “n=3” is inferred as a corollary from the Kochen and Specker theorem (1967): the eventual solutions of Fermat’s equation for “n=3” would correspond to an admissible disjunctive division of  qubit into two absolutely independent parts therefore versus the contextuality of any qubit, implied by the Kochen – Specker theorem. Incommensurability (implied by the absence of hidden variables) is considered as dual to quantum contextuality. The relevant mathematical structure is Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense (https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3656179), in the framework of which Hilbert arithmetic in a narrow sense and the qubit Hilbert space are dual to each other. A few cases involving set theory are possible: (1) only within the case “n=3” and implicitly, within any next level  of “n” in Fermat’s equation; (2) the identification of the case “n=3” and the general case utilizing the axiom of choice rather than the axiom of induction. If the former is the case, the application of set theory and arithmetic can remain disjunctively divided: set theory, “locally”, within any level; and arithmetic, “globally”, to all levels. If the latter is the case, the proof is thoroughly within set theory. Thus, the relevance of Yablo’s paradox to the statement of Fermat’s last theorem is avoided in both cases. The idea of “arithmetic mechanics” is sketched: it might deduce the basic physical dimensions of mechanics (mass, time, distance) from the axioms of arithmetic after a relevant generalization, Furthermore, a future Part III of the paper is suggested: FLT by mediation of Hilbert arithmetic in a wide sense can be considered as another expression of Gleason’s theorem in quantum mechanics: the exclusions about (n = 1, 2) in both theorems as well as the validity for all the rest values of “n” can be unified after the theory of quantum information. The availability (respectively, non-availability) of solutions of Fermat’s equation can be proved as equivalent to the non-availability (respectively, availability) of a single probabilistic measure as to Gleason’s theorem.

Keywords: arithmetic mechanics, Gleason’s theorem, Fermat’s last theorem (FLT), Hilbert arithmetic, Kochen and Specker’s theorem, Peano arithmetic, quantum information

The paper as a PDF file or @ repositories: @ SSRN, @ PhilPapers, @ HAL, @ EasyChair, @ CambridgeOpenEngage, @ Preprints, @ PhilSci Archive (Pittsburgh) 

Fermat’s last theorem proved in Hilbert arithmetic. I. From the proof by induction to the viewpoint of Hilbert arithmetic

 Abstract. In a previous paper (https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3648127 ), an elementary and thoroughly arithmetical proof of Fermat’s last theorem by induction has been demonstrated if the case for “n = 3” is granted as proved only arithmetically (which is a fact a long time ago), furthermore in a way accessible to Fermat himself though without being absolutely and precisely correct. The present paper elucidates the contemporary mathematical background, from which an inductive proof of FLT can be inferred since its proof for the case for “n = 3” has been known for a long time. It needs “Hilbert mathematics”, which is inherently complete unlike the usual “Gödel mathematics”, and based on “Hilbert arithmetic” to generalize Peano arithmetic in a way to unify it with the qubit Hilbert space of quantum information. An “epoché to infinity” (similar to Husserl’s “epoché to reality”) is necessary to map Hilbert arithmetic into Peano arithmetic in order to be relevant to Fermat’s age. Furthermore, the two linked semigroups originating from addition and multiplication and from the Peano axioms in the final analysis can be postulated algebraically as independent of each other in a “Hamilton” modification of arithmetic supposedly equivalent to Peano arithmetic. The inductive proof of FLT can be deduced absolutely precisely in that Hamilton arithmetic and the pransfered as a corollary in the standard Peano arithmetic furthermore in a way accessible in Fermat’s epoch and thus, to himself in principle. A future, second part of the paper is outlined, getting directed to an eventual proof of the case “n=3” based on the qubit Hilbert space and the Kochen-Specker theorem inferable from it.   

Keywords: Fermat’s last theorem, Hilbert arithmetic, Kochen and Specker’s theorem, Peano arithmetic, quantum information, qubit Hilbert space

The paper also as a PDF or @ repositories such as: @ EasyChair, @ SSRN, @ CambridgeOpenEngage, @ PhilPapers, @ HAL, @ Preprints, @ PhilSci Archive (Pittsburgh)