If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

Prosa versus Demonstração: Wittgenstein sobre Gödel, Tarski e a Verdade

Juliet Floyd
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia
T. 58, Fasc. 3, Ludwig Wittgenstein: Sinificados da Sua Obra (Jul. - Sep., 2002), pp. 605-632
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40337708
Page Count: 28
  • Download PDF
  • Cite this Item

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Prosa versus Demonstração: Wittgenstein sobre Gödel, Tarski e a Verdade
Preview not available

Abstract

O presente artigo procede, em primeiro lugar, a um exame das evidências disponíveis referentes à atitude de Wittgenstein em relação ao, bem como conhecimento do, primeiro teorema da incompletude de Gödel, incluindo as suas discussões com Turing, Watson e outros em 1937-1939, e o testemunho posterior de Goodstein e Kreisel Em segundo lugar, o artigo discute a importância filosófica e histórica da atitude de Wittgenstein em relação ao teorema de Gödel e outros teoremas da lógica matemática, contrastando esta atitude com a de, por exemplo, Penrose. Finalmente, a autora responde também a criticas instrutivas feitas por Mark Steiner a um artigo seu publicado em 1995, as quais estabelecem a importância do trabalho semântico de Tarski, quer para o nosso entendimento das observacoes de Wittgenstein. /// This paper presents, first, a survey of current evidence available concerning Wittgenstein's attitude toward, and knowledge of, Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, including his discussions with Turing, Watson and others in 1937-1939, and later testimony of Goodstein and Kreisel Secondly, the article discusses the philosophical and historical importance of Wittgenstein's attitude toward Gödal's and other theorems in mathematical logic, contrasting this attitude with that of, e. g., Penrose. Finally, the author also replies to an instructive criticism of her 1995 paper by Mark Steiner which assesses the importance ofTarskih semantical work, both for our understanding of Wittgenstein's remarks on Godel, and our understanding ofGodeVs theorem itself.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[605]
    [605]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
606
    606
  • Thumbnail: Page 
607
    607
  • Thumbnail: Page 
608
    608
  • Thumbnail: Page 
609
    609
  • Thumbnail: Page 
610
    610
  • Thumbnail: Page 
611
    611
  • Thumbnail: Page 
612
    612
  • Thumbnail: Page 
613
    613
  • Thumbnail: Page 
614
    614
  • Thumbnail: Page 
615
    615
  • Thumbnail: Page 
616
    616
  • Thumbnail: Page 
617
    617
  • Thumbnail: Page 
618
    618
  • Thumbnail: Page 
619
    619
  • Thumbnail: Page 
620
    620
  • Thumbnail: Page 
621
    621
  • Thumbnail: Page 
622
    622
  • Thumbnail: Page 
623
    623
  • Thumbnail: Page 
624
    624
  • Thumbnail: Page 
625
    625
  • Thumbnail: Page 
626
    626
  • Thumbnail: Page 
627
    627
  • Thumbnail: Page 
628
    628
  • Thumbnail: Page 
629
    629
  • Thumbnail: Page 
630
    630
  • Thumbnail: Page 
631
    631
  • Thumbnail: Page 
632
    632