Talk:Hilbert's program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-class, Mid-priority)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
Start Class
Mid Priority
 Field: Foundations, logic, and set theory

1920[edit]

Where did the 1920 date come from? My understanding of Hilbert's Program was that it was an umbrella term for all of the stated goals. Did Hilbert have a specific paper with those stated goals? I agree that these are the goals of the program, and it's not any OR to state them as such, but I'm just wondering how concrete the 1920 date is. His 1900 address certainly had a direct bearing to the program itself. Thanks! --M a s 20:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to editors[edit]

The usage of the terminology, "Hilbert's program", rather than "Hilbert's Program" became established after the date of the post of 7 June 2006 above, and continues currently, as of the date of this post. — Newbyguesses - Talk 05:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hilbert's Response to Godel[edit]

This is not included, and I think it must. I will add it.Likebox 23:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous use of "completeness"[edit]

In the second item of the section "Hilbert's program after Gödel", the term "completeness" is used in two different meanings without notice, see "semantically complete" and "deductively complete" on the page Completeness. --Tillmo (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to "Hilbert's Response to Godel"[edit]

The material after the bullet list beginning at "Hilbert wrote about Gödel's theorem" was added four years ago and seems to have gone mostly unquestioned since then, but I am very skeptical both about its value and its factual accuracy. At least one of the existing citations is spurious: the material ends claiming that "This process proves the consistency of Peano Arithmetic" with a citation to Gentzen 1936, but the argument sketched in the previous paragraphs has nothing to do with Gentzen's consistency proof. Also, I am not a historian, but I have never seen this particular interpretation of finitary methods attributed to Hilbert -- I do not know what paper the citation "(Hilbert 1931, p. 215)" is referring to (is it one of the two papers listed at the SEP article?). Without explanation from User:Likebox, my inclination would be to undo this entire revision. Noamz (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the passage. If somebody objects, please respond to these questions before restoring the material. Noamz (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)