Russell vs Hilbert

[Sayantan Roy]

First of all, let me mention that I am no Russell expert. But, I think that
in this interesting discussion Kevin Klement's article
<https://people.umass.edu/klement/russells-logicism.pdf> on Russell's
Logicism would be relevant (especially section 5).  What is also
interesting is the following (cf. note 14),

It is likely that Gödel’s exposition of PM was not entirely faithful to the
original; in particular, Gödel did not fully take into account that
numerals, as signs for classes, in PM were incomplete symbols and not
genuine terms. This issue, and the complications arising from it, cannot be
explored in depth without providing a full reconstruction of PM, which
cannot be attempted here.

In this context, I think, Gregori Landini's paper Gödel’s Incompleteness
Platonism exempts Principia Mathematica
<https://bertrandrussellsocietyorg.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/landini-gregory-2.pdf>
would
be a relevant read as well. You may find the talk here
<https://bertrandrussellsociety.org/presentations/>.

Regards,
Sayantan Roy

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 07:07, Timothy Y. Chow <tchow at math.princeton.edu>
wrote:

> Regarding the question of what Russell thought of Goedel's results, there
> is a Philosophy StackExchange question that provides several relevant
> references (some of which have already been mentioned by others here on
> FOM):
>
> https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/3951
>
> Tim
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/fom/attachments/20201220/67c16eb5/attachment.html>