Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We argue that (1) a purported example of an infinite inference we humans can actually perform admits a faithful, finitary description, and (2) infinite inference contravenes any view which does not grant our minds uncomputable powers. These arguments block the strategy, dating back to Carnap's Logical Syntax of Language , of using infinitary inference rules to secure the determinacy of arithmetical truth on conventionalist grounds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Douglas Blue (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: