Viewpoint Wiki - All Viewpoints, No Gatekeepers

This article traces the historical development of Principia Mathematica, the three-volume work on the logical foundations of mathematics authored by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell and published between 1910 and 1913. For the philosophical arguments surrounding logicism and its rivals, see the Principia Mathematica Debate page. For the subsequent development of mathematical logic and foundational research, see Mathematical Logic - History and Foundations of Mathematics - History.

—

The second half of the nineteenth century produced a series of results that unsettled the assumed foundations of mathematics. Georg Cantor's development of set theory beginning in the 1870s introduced the concept of infinite sets and transfinite numbers, results that generated controversy among mathematicians and revealed that naive intuitions about infinity and collection were unreliable guides. Richard Dedekind and Karl Weierstrass pursued the arithmetization of analysis, attempting to ground the calculus in the arithmetic of real numbers rather than geometric intuition, which in turn raised questions about the foundations of arithmetic itself.

Gottlob Frege undertook the most systematic attempt to answer those questions. In his Begriffsschrift (1879), he developed a formal notation for logical inference - what he called a “concept-script” - adequate to express mathematical reasoning without appeal to intuition or diagrams. In the Grundlagen der Arithmetik (1884) and the two-volume Grundgesetze der Arithmetik (1893, 1903), Frege attempted to derive arithmetic from purely logical principles, the program that came to be called logicism. His system rested on a general comprehension principle, Basic Law V, which held that every predicate determines a corresponding set.

In June 1902, Bertrand Russell, then working on his own book on the foundations of mathematics, discovered a contradiction in Frege's system. Russell constructed a set of all sets that do not contain themselves and showed that this set both must and cannot contain itself. Frege received Russell's letter while the second volume of the Grundgesetze was in press and appended a hastily written appendix acknowledging the contradiction. The episode demonstrated that Frege's logicist program, as formulated, was inconsistent, and focused the attention of logicians on the question of how to constrain set formation to avoid paradox.

—

Alfred North Whitehead was Russell's mathematics tutor at Trinity College, Cambridge, in the early 1890s. The two men maintained an intellectual relationship after Russell's graduation. Whitehead had published A Treatise on Universal Algebra in 1898, which attempted to systematize algebraic systems including Boolean algebra and Grassmann's calculus of extension. Russell attended the First International Congress of Philosophy in Paris in August 1900, where he encountered the work of the Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peano and his school.

Peano had developed a precise symbolic notation for mathematical propositions and a set of axioms for arithmetic that bore his name, though they had been anticipated in part by Dedekind. Russell recognized that Peano's notation, more tractable than Frege's cumbersome ideography, provided tools for the kind of rigorous foundational work he was pursuing. Russell spent the following months mastering Peano's methods and applied them in his Principles of Mathematics, completed in draft by late 1902 and published in 1903. The Principles set out the logicist thesis in prose: that all of pure mathematics deals exclusively with concepts definable in terms of a very small number of logical concepts and that all its propositions are deducible from a very small number of logical principles.

The Principles contained an appendix on Frege's logic and acknowledged Russell's paradox, but did not resolve it. Russell proposed, tentatively, a “theory of types” as a solution. He and Whitehead agreed to collaborate on a formal, symbolic sequel that would actually carry out the derivation of mathematics from logic, resolving the paradox along the way. They estimated the work would take about a year.

—

The collaboration between Whitehead and Russell extended for approximately a decade and proved far more difficult than either had anticipated. They worked in close contact, exchanging drafts and revisions, though the precise division of labor between them has been a subject of later discussion. Russell later characterized Whitehead as responsible for the more mathematical portions and himself for the more philosophical and logical parts, though the work was thoroughly integrated and published under joint authorship.

The central technical problem was constructing a type theory capable of blocking the paradoxes while remaining logically strong enough to recover the mathematics Frege had attempted to derive. Russell developed the ramified theory of types, which sorted propositional functions not only by the types of their arguments but by the order of quantifiers in their definitions. This stratification prevented self-referential constructions that generated paradox. However, the ramified theory was too restrictive: it could not directly recover standard mathematical results involving real numbers and infinite series.

To recover these results, Russell introduced the Axiom of Reducibility, which asserted that for any propositional function of any order, there exists a predicative function of the lowest order coextensive with it. This axiom was controversial from the outset: it restored much of the mathematical power of the system but lacked the self-evident character that logicists required of logical axioms. Russell acknowledged the difficulty, describing the axiom as one whose truth he could not fully justify on purely logical grounds.

The system also required the Axiom of Infinity, which asserted the existence of infinitely many individuals in the logical universe, and the Multiplicative Axiom, equivalent to the Axiom of Choice. Both were similarly contested as logical rather than substantive existential assumptions.

The manuscript grew to an unwieldy size. Cambridge University Press agreed to publish the work but declined to bear the full cost; the Royal Society provided a subsidy of £200, and Whitehead and Russell each contributed £50 from their own funds to cover the remaining deficit. A planned fourth volume, to cover geometry, was drafted primarily by Whitehead but was never published; Whitehead later used portions of this material in other works.

—

Volume I of Principia Mathematica was published by Cambridge University Press in 1910. Volume II appeared in 1912 and Volume III in 1913. The three volumes together ran to approximately 2,000 pages of dense symbolic notation and prose commentary.

Volume I covered the logical foundations of the system: the theory of deduction, the theory of apparent variables (quantification theory), classes and relations, and cardinal arithmetic through the early treatment of cardinals. The famous proposition *54.43, from which it follows that 1 + 1 = 2 - a result reached only after several hundred pages of preliminary work - became a widely cited illustration of the work's method and ambition.

Volume II extended the treatment of cardinal arithmetic, order types, and ordinal numbers. Volume III addressed the theory of series and their properties.

The work's reception within the mathematical and philosophical communities was respectful but not uncritically enthusiastic. Mathematicians generally acknowledged the rigor and ambition of the project while remaining skeptical of its foundational significance for working mathematics. The symbolic notation, though more readable than Frege's, was formidable, and the work was not widely read in full even by specialists.

—

Frege read Volume I and wrote to Russell in 1912 with detailed technical objections, focusing on the theory of types and the treatment of identity. Frege was dissatisfied with the system's handling of concepts and objects, consistent with his long-standing objections to the set-theoretic approach. The two men did not meet, and their correspondence on the subject was limited.

Ludwig Wittgenstein arrived in Cambridge in 1911 and began working with Russell. Wittgenstein's engagement with the logical foundations of Principia was intense and critical; he developed objections to the Theory of Types and to the status of logical propositions that would eventually shape his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921). Russell regarded Wittgenstein as a genius and was significantly influenced by his criticisms, though Wittgenstein ultimately moved in a different direction from Russell's logicism.

Henri Poincaré, the French mathematician and philosopher of science, had objected to the logicist program before the publication of Principia, arguing that mathematical induction could not be grounded in pure logic because it embodies a genuine synthetic intuition about the structure of the natural numbers. He also objected to impredicative definitions, a concern that Whitehead and Russell's ramified type theory was designed partly to address. Poincaré's objections influenced the development of predicativist and intuitionist alternatives to logicism.

Hermann Weyl's Das Kontinuum (1918) pursued a systematic predicativist reconstruction of analysis, working out in detail how much of classical mathematics could be recovered without impredicative definitions. Weyl's work demonstrated both the power and the limitations of a predicativist program and raised questions about whether the Axiom of Reducibility's role in Principia was consistent with its stated foundational aims.

—

A second edition of Principia Mathematica was published in three volumes between 1925 and 1927. Volume I appeared in 1925 and Volumes II and III in 1927. Whitehead took no part in the preparation of the second edition; Russell wrote it alone, with assistance from Ramsey on specific technical points.

The second edition incorporated an extended new introduction in which Russell discussed the objections and alternatives that had been advanced since the first edition, including those of Wittgenstein, Ramsey, and the intuitionists. Russell revised the treatment of identity and made a number of technical adjustments but did not fundamentally reorganize the system. He engaged with Ramsey's proposal to simplify the type theory but retained a version of the ramified hierarchy, though he acknowledged the Axiom of Reducibility's problematic character more explicitly than in the first edition. An appendix examined whether the system could be reconstructed along lines suggested by Wittgenstein's Tractatus.

The second edition's revised introduction predated Gödel's incompleteness results, which were announced in a public lecture in September 1930 and published in 1931, and did not address them.

—

The 1920s saw the articulation of two major alternative programs in the foundations of mathematics, each of which posed explicit challenges to the logicist approach of Principia.

L.E.J. Brouwer, the Dutch mathematician, had developed intuitionism from around 1907 onward, arguing that mathematics is a free mental construction independent of logic and language, and that the validity of a mathematical assertion requires a constructive mental proof, not merely the absence of contradiction. Intuitionism rejected the law of excluded middle - the logical principle that every proposition is either true or false - for infinite domains, a rejection that invalidated large portions of classical mathematics and directly challenged the logical basis of Principia. Brouwer and his student Arend Heyting developed intuitionistic logic as a formal system. The dispute between Brouwer and David Hilbert over the law of excluded middle became a prominent controversy in mathematical circles in the early 1920s.

David Hilbert had pursued a different foundational response to the paradoxes: formalism, the program of treating mathematical theories as formal symbol games and proving their consistency by finitary combinatorial means. Hilbert's “proof theory” or “metamathematics,” developed through the 1920s with collaborators including Wilhelm Ackermann and Paul Bernays, aimed to secure classical mathematics - including the portions challenged by intuitionism - by demonstrating formally that its axiom systems could not produce contradictions. Hilbert's program was more directly engaged with the formal machinery of Principia than with its logicist philosophical claims.

Frank Ramsey, a young Cambridge philosopher and mathematician, published a significant critical reexamination of Principia in 1925. Ramsey argued that the ramified theory of types was unnecessarily complex, that the distinction between orders that motivated the Axiom of Reducibility rested on a confusion between logical and semantic paradoxes, and that the paradoxes Ramsey classified as “semantic” (such as the Liar paradox) were not logical paradoxes at all and need not be addressed within a logical system. On Ramsey's account, a simple theory of types - retaining the stratification by type but eliminating the ramification by order - was sufficient for the logical foundation of mathematics and dispensed with the Axiom of Reducibility. Ramsey's simplification was influential in subsequent presentations of type theory.

—

In 1931, Kurt Gödel published “Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I” (“On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I”) in the Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik. The paper proved two theorems that fundamentally altered the landscape of foundational research.

The First Incompleteness Theorem demonstrated that any consistent formal system rich enough to express basic arithmetic contains true statements that cannot be proved within the system. Gödel constructed, for any such system, a sentence that effectively says “this sentence is not provable in this system” - provable neither as true nor as false within the system, yet determinately true if the system is consistent. The construction used a technique of arithmetically encoding syntactic operations, now called Gödel numbering, which allowed the system to refer to its own provability.

The Second Incompleteness Theorem demonstrated that a consistent system rich enough to express basic arithmetic cannot prove its own consistency by methods formalizable within the system.

Principia Mathematica was the explicit reference system in Gödel's title and the primary object of his proofs. His results showed that the logicist program, as pursued in Principia, could not be completed: even if the system were consistent, it could not prove all arithmetic truths, and its consistency could not be internally verified. Hilbert's program was even more directly refuted, since it had required a finitary consistency proof for systems at least as strong as arithmetic. For more on the reception and implications of Gödel's theorems, see Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems - History.

—

Despite the challenges posed by Gödel's theorems and the ascendancy of alternative foundational programs, the formal apparatus developed in Principia Mathematica had lasting influence on the subsequent development of mathematical logic.

Alonzo Church developed the lambda calculus in the early 1930s as a formal system for defining computable functions, drawing on the theory of functions developed in Principia. Church's work and Alan Turing's independent development of the Turing machine in 1936 established the theoretical foundations of computability, and Church's thesis - that the effectively computable functions coincide with the recursive functions and the lambda-definable functions - unified the approaches. Turing's 1937 paper “Computability and λ-Definability” worked directly with Church's lambda calculus.

The simple theory of types, in Ramsey's revised form, was developed as a formal system by Church in 1940 and became the basis for a family of type-theoretic logical frameworks used in automated theorem proving and the design of programming languages. The influence of Principia's type-theoretic approach on the design of typed programming languages, particularly those in the ML family, is traced through Church's formalization rather than through the original ramified system.

Clarence Irving Lewis's development of modal logic in the 1910s and 1920s was partly motivated by dissatisfaction with the material conditional used in Principia, which Lewis regarded as an inadequate formalization of the implication relation. His Survey of Symbolic Logic (1918) criticized the “paradoxes of material implication” that the Principia treatment generated.

Rudolf Carnap and other members of the Vienna Circle read Principia closely and built on its formal methods in the development of logical empiricism, using the logicist framework to analyze the language of science and the structure of empirical knowledge.

—

The following are genuinely contested interpretations in the history and reception of Principia Mathematica. Each is noted in one sentence and linked to the relevant debate or viewpoint page; none is resolved on this page.

- Whether the logicist thesis of Principia - that mathematics is reducible to logic - was genuinely refuted by Gödel's incompleteness theorems or remains defensible in modified form is disputed among philosophers of mathematics. See Logicism Viability - Debate.

- Whether the Axiom of Reducibility, the Axiom of Infinity, and the Multiplicative Axiom are genuine logical truths, disguised mathematical postulates, or pragmatic stipulations is a contested question that was unresolved in Principia and remains contested in foundational philosophy. See Principia Mathematica Axioms - Debate.

- The respective contributions of Whitehead and Russell to Principia's content, and particularly the extent of Whitehead's philosophical role versus his technical contributions, have been disputed in biographical and historical scholarship. See Whitehead-Russell Collaboration - Debate.

- Whether Gödel's incompleteness theorems constitute a decisive refutation of Hilbert's formalist program or leave open weaker formalist positions is disputed among logicians and philosophers of mathematics. See Hilbert Program - Debate.

- The significance of Principia Mathematica for the philosophy of language - particularly its influence on the development of analytic philosophy through Russell's theory of descriptions and Wittgenstein's early work - versus its significance purely as a technical contribution to logic is a disputed question in the historiography of analytic philosophy. See Analytic Philosophy Origins - Debate.

—

1. Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, Principia Mathematica, 3 vols. (Cambridge University Press, 1910–1913); second edition, 3 vols. (Cambridge University Press, 1925–1927), the primary source.

2. Bertrand Russell, The Principles of Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 1903), the prose predecessor to Principia.

3. Gottlob Frege, Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, 2 vols. (Jena: Hermann Pohle, 1893, 1903); appendix to Vol. II (1903) responding to Russell's paradox.

4. Kurt Gödel, “Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I,” Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38 (1931): 173–198; translated as “On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I,” in From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931, ed. Jean van Heijenoort (Harvard University Press, 1967), 596–616.

5. Frank Plumpton Ramsey, “The Foundations of Mathematics,” Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, ser. 2, 25 (1925): 338–384; reprinted in The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays (Kegan Paul, 1931).

6. Ivor Grattan-Guinness, The Search for Mathematical Roots, 1870–1940: Logics, Set Theories, and the Foundations of Mathematics from Cantor through Russell to Gödel (Princeton University Press, 2000), the standard comprehensive history of the period.

7. Ray Monk, Bertrand Russell: The Spirit of Solitude, 1872–1921 (Free Press, 1996), on Russell's intellectual development and the composition of Principia.

8. Victor Lowe, Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and His Work, 2 vols. (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985, 1990), on Whitehead's contributions to the collaboration.

9. Michael Hallett, “Cantorian Set Theory and Limitation of Size,” Oxford Logic Guides 10 (Clarendon Press, 1984), on Cantor's set theory and the paradoxes.

10. Warren Goldfarb, “Russell's Reasons for Ramification,” in Rereading Russell: Essays on Bertrand Russell's Metaphysics and Epistemology, ed. C. Wade Savage and C. Anthony Anderson (University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 24–40, on the technical motivations for the ramified type theory.

11. Alonzo Church, “A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 5, no. 2 (1940): 56–68, on the simplified type theory.

12. Jean van Heijenoort, ed., From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931 (Harvard University Press, 1967), primary source collection covering the period.

13. Bertrand Russell, My Philosophical Development (Allen & Unwin, 1959), Russell's retrospective account of the composition of Principia and its reception.