Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:36:20.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Discovery of My Completeness Proofs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2014

Leon Henkin
Leon Henkin*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.E-mail:henkin@math.berkeley.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

§1. Introduction. This paper deals with aspects of my doctoral dissertation which contributed to the early development of model theory. What was of use to later workers was less the results of my thesis, than the method by which I proved the completeness of first-order logic—a result established by Kurt Gödel in his doctoral thesis 18 years before.

The ideas that fed my discovery of this proof were mostly those I found in the teachings and writings of Alonzo Church. This may seem curious, as his work in logic, and his teaching, gave great emphasis to the constructive character of mathematical logic, while the model theory to which I contributed is filled with theorems about very large classes of mathematical structures, whose proofs often by-pass constructive methods.

Another curious thing about my discovery of a new proof of Gödel's completeness theorem, is that it arrived in the midst of my efforts to prove an entirely different result. Such “accidental” discoveries arise in many parts of scientific work. Perhaps there are regularities in the conditions under which such “accidents” occur which would interest some historians, so I shall try to describe in some detail the accident which befell me.

A mathematical discovery is an idea, or a complex of ideas, which have been found and set forth under certain circumstances. The process of discovery consists in selecting certain input ideas and somehow combining and transforming them to produce the new output ideas. The process that produces a particular discovery may thus be represented by a diagram such as one sees in many parts of science; a “black box” with lines coming in from the left to represent the input ideas, and lines going out to the right representing the output. To describe that discovery one must explain what occurs inside the box, i.e., how the outputs were obtained from the inputs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 127 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1996

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

[1948] Birkhoff, G., Lattice theory, American Mathematical Society, New York, 1948.Google Scholar
[1940] Church, A., A formulation of the simple theory of types, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 5 (1940), pp. 56–68.Google Scholar
[1951] Church, A., A formulation of the logic of sense and denotation, Structure, method and meaning; essays in honor of Henry M. Sheffer, New York, 1951, pp. 3–24, revisions of the system of this paper were published in NOUS, vol. 7 (1973), pp. 24–33; vol. 8 (1974), pp. 135–156; and vol. 27 (1993), pp. 141–157.Google Scholar
[1956] Church, A., Introduction to mathematical logic, I, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1956.Google Scholar
[1965] Feferman, S., Some applications of the notions of forcing and generic sets, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 56 (1965), pp. 325–245.Google Scholar
[1986] Feferman, S., Dawson, J. W. Jr., Kleene, S. C., Moore, G. H., Solovay, R. M., and van Heijenoort, J. (editors), Kurt Godel collected works, vol. I, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986.Google Scholar
[1992] Feferman, S., Dawson, J. W. Jr., Kleene, S. C., Moore, G. H., Solovay, R. M., and van Heijenoort, J. (editors), Kurt Godel collected works, vol. II, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992.Google Scholar
[1929] Gödel, K., Über die Vollstöndigkeit des Logikkalküls, Doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna, 1929, reprinted in Kurt Gödel Collected Works, vol. I, pp. 60–100.Google Scholar
[1930] Gödel, K., Die Vollstöndigkeit der Axiome des logischen Funktionenkalküle, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, vol. 37 (1930), pp. 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[1931] Gödel, K., Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia mathematica und verwandter Systeme I , Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, vol. 38 (1931), pp. 173–198.Google Scholar
[1940] Gödel, K., The consistency of the axiom of choice and the generalized continuum-hypothesis with the axioms of set theory, Annals of Mathematics Studies No. 3, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1940.Google Scholar
[1953] Hasenjaeger, G., Eine Bemerkung zu Henkin's Beweis für die Vollständigkeit des Prädikaten-kalküls der ersten Stufe, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 18 (1953), pp. 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[1949] Henkin, L., The completeness of the first-order functional calculus, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 14 (1949), pp. 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[1950] Henkin, L., Completeness in the theory of types, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 15 (1950), pp. 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[1953] Henkin, L., Some interconnections between modern algebra and mathematical logic, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 74 (1953), pp. 410–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[1928] Hilbert, D. and Ackermann, W., Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1928.Google Scholar
[1958] Nagel, E. and Newman, J. R., Gödel's proof, New York University Press, New York, 1958.Google Scholar
[1938] Quine, W.V., Completeness of the propositional calculus, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 3 (1938), pp. 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[1903] Russell, B., Principles of mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1903.Google Scholar
[1936] Stone, M. H., The theory of representation for Boolean algebras, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 40 (1936), pp. 37–111.Google Scholar
[1954] Tarski, A., Contributions to the theory of models, I, II, III, Indagationes Mathematicae, vol. 16 (1954), pp. 572–581, 582–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[1955] Tarski, A., Contributions to the theory of models, I, II, III, Indagationes Mathematicae, vol. 17 (1955), pp. 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[1910] Veblen, O. and Young, J. W., Projective geometry, vol. I, Ginn and Company, New York, 1910.Google Scholar
[1918] Veblen, O. and Young, J. W., Projective geometry, vol. II, Ginn and Company, New York, 1918.Google Scholar
[1910] Whitehead, A. N. and Russell, B., Principia mathematica, vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1910.Google Scholar
[1912] Whitehead, A. N., Principia mathematica, vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1912.Google Scholar
[1913] Whitehead, A. N., Principia mathematica, vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1913.Google Scholar