Foundations of real analysis and computability theory in non-Aristotelian finitary logic

This paper outlines new paradigms for real analysis and computability theory in the recently proposed non-Aristotelian finitary logic (NAFL). Constructive real analysis in NAFL (NRA) is accomplished by a translation of diagrammatic concepts from Euclidean geometry into an extension (NPAR) of the NAFL version of Peano Arithmetic (NPA). Such a translation is possible because NPA proves the existence of every infinite proper class of natural numbers that is definable in the language of NPA. Infinite sets are not permitted in NPAR and quantification over proper classes is banned; hence Cantor’s diagonal argument cannot be legally formulated in NRA, and there is no ‘cardinality’ for any collection (‘super-class’) of real numbers. Many of the useful aspects of classical real analysis, such as, the calculus of Newton and Leibniz, are justifiable in NRA. But the paradoxes, such as, Zeno’s paradoxes of motion and the Banach-Tarski paradox, are resolved because NRA admits only closed super-classes of real numbers; in particular, open/semi-open intervals of real numbers are not permitted. The NAFL version of computability theory (NCT) rejects Turing’s argument for the undecidability of the halting problem and permits hypercomputation. Important potential applications of NCT are in the areas of quantum and autonomic computing.