Skip to main content

The Philosophical Impact of the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science ((LEUS,volume 25))

Abstract

Not only that the theorem which Löwenheim proved 1915 was the first big result in what we now call Model Theory, but, primarily due to Skolem, who profoundly analyzed and understood the significance of its far-reaching consequences, the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem made also a revolutionary impact on the history of the twentieth century mathematics, and philosophy of mathematics in particular. Among the consequences, the most disastrous were those that concerned Hilbert’s categoricity demand and Cantor’s concept of cardinality. In this article, it is argued that though it should be admitted that the first group of consequences, related to the possibility of non-standard models, clearly pointed to the expressive weakness of the (first-order) language in which, in the first three decades of the last century, the main mathematical theories were expected to be formalized, this lesson concerning language was only the first part of the story. The need for re-investigation of the concept of relational structure, and the concept of cardinality in particular, became acute only in view of results by Paul Cohen, Solomon Feferman and Azriel Lévy in the seventh decade of the century. It is shown how the relativity of cardinality should be understood and why instead of being attributed to sets as such it should be rather attributed to sets as basic sets of relational structures. It is also shown that, if properly understood, the relativity of cardinals may be relevant not only for the philosophy of mathematics but for metaphysics as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also [8, p. 146] and [24, p. 142]

References

  1. Arkeryd, Leif. 2005. “Nonstandard Analysis.” The American Mathematical Monthly 112:926–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arsenijević, Miloš, and Miodrag Kapetanović. 2008. “The ‘Great Struggle’ Between Cantorians and Neo-Aristotelians: Much Ado About Nothing.” Grazer Philosophische Studien 76:79–90.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arsenijević, Miloš, and Miodrag Kapetanović. 2008. “An \(\mathrm{L}_{\omega_{1}\omega_{1}}\) Axiomatization of the Linear Archimedean Continua as Merely Relational Structures.” WSEAS Transactions on Mathematics 7:39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brouwer, Luitzen Egbertus Jan. 1975. Collected Works I. Amsterdam: North-Holland and Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cantor, Georg. 1962. Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts. Edited by Ernst Zermelo. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cohen, Paul. 1963. “The Independence of the Continuum Hypothesis.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 50:1143–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen, Paul. 1964. “The Independence of the Continuum Hypothesis II.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 51:105–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen, Paul. 1966. Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis. New York, NY: W.A. Benjamin.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Feferman, Solomon, and Azriel Lévy. 1963. “Independence Results in Set Theory by Cohen’s Method II.” Notices of the American Mathematical Society 10:592–93.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fraenkel, Abraham Adolf. 1922. “Zu den Grundlagen der Cantor-Zermeloschen Mengenlehre.” Mathematische Annalen 86:230–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fraenkel, Abraham Adolf, and Yehoshua Bar-Hillel. 1958. Foundations of Set Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fraenkel, Abraham Adolf, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, and Azriel Levy. 1973. Foundation of Set Theory. 2nd revised edition. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Frege, Gottlob. 1960. “Fuction and Concept.” In Translation from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, edited by Peter Geach and Max Black, 21–41. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Frege, Gottlob. 1960. “On Concept and Object.” In Translation from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, edited by Peter Geach and Max Black, 42–55. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Frege, Gottlob. 1960. “On Sense and Reference.” In Translation from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, edited by Peter Geach and Max Black, 56–78. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Frege, Gottlob. 1964. Basic Laws of Arithmetic. Edited by M. Furth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gödel, Kurt. 1930. “Die Vollständigkeit der Axiome des logischen Funktionenkalküls.” Monatschriften für Mathematik und Physik 37:349–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gödel, Kurt. 1930/1931. “Über Vollständigkeit und Widerspruchsfreiheit.” Ergebnisse eines mathematischen Kolloquiums 3:12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gödel, Kurt. 1931. “Über formal unentscheibare Sätze der Pricipia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I.” Monatschriften für Mathematik und Physik 38:173–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hilbert, David. 1918. “Axiomatisches Denken.” Mathematische Annalen 78:405–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hilbert, David. 1922. “Neubegründung der Mathematik: Erste Mitteilung.” Abhandlungen aus dem Seminar der Hamburgischen Universität 1:157–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hilbert, David, and Wilhelm Friedrich Ackermann. 1928. Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hilbert, David. 1964. “On the Infinite.” In Philosophy of Mathematics, edited by Paul Benacerraf and Hilary Putnam, 134–54. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jech, Thomas. 1973. The Axiom of Choice. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lévy, Azriel. 1963. “Independence Results in Set Theory by Cohens method I.” Notices of the American Mathematical Society 10:592–93.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Löwenheim, Leopold. 1915. “Über Möglichkeiten in Relativkalkül.” Mathematische Annalen 76:447–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Malcev, Anatoly. 1936. “Untersuchungen aus dem Gebiet der mathematischen Logik.” Recueil Mathématique 43:323–36.

    Google Scholar 

  28. von Neumann, John. 1925. “Eine Axiomatisierung der Mengenlehre.” Jahrschrift für Mathematik 154:219–40.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Robinson, Abraham. 1966. Non-standard Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Russell, Bertrand. 1997. My Philosophical Development, revised edition 1995. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Skolem, Thoralf. 1920. “Logisch-kombinatorische Untersuchungen über die Erfüllbarkeit oder Beweisbarkeit mathematischer Sätze nebst einem Theoreme über dichte Mengen.” Skrifter utgit av Videnskapsselkapet i Kristiania I, Matematiska-Naturvetenskap Kl 4:1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Skolem, Thoralf. 1922. “Einige Bemerkungen zur axiomatischen Begründung der Mengenlehre.” Wissenschaftliche Vorträge gehalten auf dem 5. Kongress der skandinavischen Mathematiker in Helsingfors 4:217–32.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Skolem, Thoralf. 1923. “Begründung der elementaren Arithmetik durch die rekurrierende Denkweise ohne Anwendung scheinbarer Veränderlichen mit unendlichem Ausdehnungsbereich.” Skrifter utgit av Videnskapsselkapet i Kristiania I, Matematiska-Naturvetenskap Kl 6:1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Skolem, Thoralf. 1928. “Über die mathematische Logik.” Norsk. Mat. Tidsk. 10:125–42.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Skolem, Thoralf. 1929. “Über einige Grundlagenfragen der Mathematik.” Skrifter uigit av det NorskeVid. Akad. i Oslo I 4:73–82.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Skolem, Thoralf. 1934. “Über die Nicht-Charakterisierbarkeit der Zahlenreihe mittels endlich oder abzählbar unendlich vieler Aussagen mit ausschliesslich Zahlenvariablen.” Foundations of Mathematics 23:150–61.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Todorčević, Stevo. 1997. “Comparing the Continuum with the First Two Uncountable Cardinals.” In Logic and Scientific Methods, 145–55. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Vaught, Robert Lawson. 1974. “Model Theory Before 1945.” In Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium, edited by Leon Henkin et al., 153–72. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Weyl, Hermann. 1949. Philosophy of Mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1955. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Zermelo, Ernst. 1930. “Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche.” Foundations of Mathematics 16:29–47.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgments I am very much thankful to Miloš Adžić for discussions about the topic and an anonymous referee for useful comments on an earlier draft of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miloš Arsenijević .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Arsenijević, M. (2012). The Philosophical Impact of the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem. In: Trobok, M., Miščević, N., Žarnić, B. (eds) Between Logic and Reality. Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, vol 25. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2390-0_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics