Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The least upper bound of the ordinal indices appearing in the finitist autonomous progression is the ordinal epsilon_0
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Tait's analysis of finitism identifies primitive recursive arithmetic (PRA) as the correct formalization, not Kreisel's autonomous progression.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
PRA's proof-theoretic ordinal is omega^omega, which falls strictly below epsilon_0, undermining the claimed supremum.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Feferman argued that Kreisel's autonomy condition is epistemically circular: recognizing a progression as finitistically legitimate already presupposes the ordinal comprehension it purports to generate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the autonomy condition is viciously circular, the progression cannot legitimately be said to converge on epsilon_0 as a finitistically meaningful bound.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Kreisel identified a specific autonomous progression of theories for finitism
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Kreisel determined the supremum of ordinal indices in this finitist hierarchy
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Epsilon_0 is also the proof-theoretic ordinal of Peano Arithmetic
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.