Frege’s work was, however, overtaken by Bertrand Russell, whose theory was on the same lines. Russell had made Frege’s ideas more concrete by introducing the idea of the ‘set’. His proposal was that a set which contained just one thing could be characterised by the feature that if an object were picked out of that set, it would always be the same object. This idea enabled one-ness to be defined in terms of same-ness, or equality. But then equality could be defined in terms of satisfying the same range of predicates. In this way the concept of number and the axioms of arithmetic could, it appeared, be rigorously derived from the most primitive notions of entities, predicates and propositions.
Unfortunately it was not so simple. Russell wanted to define a set-with-one-element, without appealing to a concept of counting, by the idea of equality. Then he would define the number ‘one’ to be ‘the set of all sets-with-one-element’. But in 1901 Russell noticed that logical contradictions arose as soon as one tried to use ‘sets of all sets’.
The difficulty arose through the possibility of self-referring, self-contradictory assertions, such as ‘this statement is a lie.’ One problem of this kind had emerged in the theory of the infinite developed by the German mathematician G. Cantor. Russell noticed that Cantor’s paradox had an analogy in the theory of sets. He divided the sets into two kinds, those that contained themselves, and those that did not. ‘Normally’, wrote Russell, ‘a class is not a member of itself. Mankind, for example, is not a man.’ But the set of abstract concepts, or the set of all sets, would contain itself. Russell then explained the resulting paradox in this way:
Form now the assemblage of classes which are not members of themselves. This is a class: is it a member of itself or not? If it is, it is one of those classes that are not members of themselves, i.e. it is not a member of itself. If it is not, it is not one of those classes that are not members of themselves, i.e. it is a member of itself. Thus of the two hypotheses – that it is, and that it is not, a member of itself – each implies its contradictory. This is a contradiction.
This paradox could not be resolved by asking what, if anything, it really meant. Philosophers could argue about that as long as they liked, but it was irrelevant to what Frege and Russell were trying to do. The whole point of this theory was to derive arithmetic from the most primitive logical ideas in an automatic, watertight, depersonalised way, without any arguments en route. Regardless of what Russell’s paradox meant, it was a string of symbols which, according to the rules of the game, would lead inexorably to its own contradiction. And that spelt disaster. In any purely logical system there was no room for a single inconsistency. If one could ever arrive at ‘2 + 2 = 5’ then it would follow that ‘4 = 5’, and ‘0 = 1’, so that any number was equal to 0, and so that every proposition whatever was equivalent to ‘0 = 0’ and therefore true. Mathematics, regarded in this game-like way, had to be totally consistent or it was nothing.
For ten years Russell and A.N. Whitehead laboured to remedy the defect. The essential difficulty was that it had proved self-contradictory to assume that any kind of lumping together of objects could be called ‘a set’. Some more refined definition was required. The Russell paradox was by no means the only problem with the theory of sets, but it alone consumed a large part of Principia Mathematical, the weighty volumes which in 1910 set out their derivation of mathematics from primitive logic. The solution that Russell and Whitehead found was to set up a hierarchy of different kinds of sets, called ‘types’. There were to be primitive objects, then sets of objects, then sets of sets, then sets of sets of sets, and so on. By segregating the different ‘types’ of set, it was made impossible for a set to contain itself. But this made the theory very complicated, much more difficult than the number system it was supposed to justify. It was not clear that this was the only possible way in which to think about sets and numbers, and by 1930 various alternative schemes had been developed, one of them by von Neumann.
The innocuous-sounding demand that there should be some demonstration that mathematics formed a complete and consistent whole had opened a Pandora’s box of problems. In one sense, mathematical propositions still seemed as true as anything could possibly be true; in another, they appeared as no more than marks on paper, which led to mind-stretching paradoxes when one tried to elucidate what they meant.
As in the Looking-Glass garden, an approach towards the heart of mathematics was liable to lead away into a forest of tangled technicalities. This lack of any simple connection between mathematical symbols and the world of actual objects fascinated Alan. Russell had ended his book saying, ‘As the above hasty survey must have made evident, there are innumerable unsolved problems in the subject, and much work needs to be done. If any student is led into a serious study of mathematical logic by this little book, it will have served the chief purpose for which it has been written.’ So the Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy did serve its purpose, for Alan thought seriously about the problem of ‘types’ – and more generally, faced Pilate’s question: What is truth?
Kenneth Harrison was also acquainted with some of Russell’s ideas, and he and Alan would spend hours discussing them. Rather to Alan’s annoyance, however, he would ask ‘but what use is it?’ Alan would say quite happily that of course it was completely useless. But he must also have talked to more enthusiastic listeners, for in the autumn of 1933 he was invited to read a paper to the Moral Science Club. This was a rare honour for any undergraduate, especially one from outside the faculty of Moral Sciences, as philosophy and its allied disciplines were called at Cambridge. It would have been a quite unnerving experience, speaking in front of professional philosophers, but he wrote with customary sangfroid to his mother:
26/11/33
… I am reading a paper to the Moral Science Club on Friday. Something by way of being Mathematical Philosophy. I hope they don’t know it all allready.
The minutes24 of the Moral Science Club recorded that on Friday 1 December 1933:
The sixth meeting of the Michaelmas term was held in Mr Turing’s rooms in King’s College. A.M. Turing read a paper on ‘Mathematics and logic’. He suggested that a purely logistic view of mathematics was inadequate; and that mathematical propositions possessed a variety of interpretations, of which the logistic was merely one. A discussion followed.
R.B. Braithwaite (signed).
Richard Braithwaite, the philosopher of science, was a young Fellow of King’s; and it might well have been through him that the invitation was made. Certainly, by the end of 1933, Alan Turing had his teeth into two parallel problems of great depth. Both in quantum physics and in pure mathematics, the task was to relate the abstract and the physical, the symbolic and the real.
German mathematicians had been at the centre of this enquiry, as in all mathematics and science. But as 1933 closed, that centre was a gaping, jagged hole, with Hilbert’s Göttingen ruined. John von Neumann had left for America, never to return, and others had arrived in Cambridge. ‘There are several distinguished German Jews coming to Cambridge this year,’ wrote Alan on 16 October. ‘Two at least to the mathematical faculty, viz. Born and Courant.’ He might well have attended the lectures on quantum mechanics that Born gave that term, or those of Courant* on differential equations the next term. Born went on to Edinburgh, and Schrödinger to Oxford, but most exiled scientists found America more accommodating than Britain. The Institute for Advanced Study, at Princeton University, grew particularly quickly. When Einstein took up residence there in 1933, the physicist Langevin commented, ‘It is as important an event as would be the transfer of the Vatican from Rome to the New World. The Pope of physics has moved and the United States will become the centre of the natural sciences.’
It was not Jewish ancestry alone that attracted the interference of Nazi officialdom, but scientific ideas themselves, even in the philosophy of mathematics:25
A number of mathematicians met recently at Berlin University to consider the place of their science in the Third Reich. It was
stated that German mathematics would remain those of the ‘Faustian man’, that logic alone was no sufficient basis for them, and that the Germanic intuition which had produced the concepts of infinity was superior to the logical equipment which the French and Italians had brought to bear on the subject. Mathematics was a heroic science which reduced chaos to order. National Socialism had the same task and demanded the same qualities. So the ‘spiritual connexion’ between them and the New Order was established – by a mixture of logic and intuition
To English minds, the wonder was that any state or party could interest itself in abstract ideas.
Meanwhile to the New Statesman, Hitler’s rancour at the Treaty of Versailles only vindicated what Keynes and Lowes Dickinson had always said. The difficulty was that being fair to Germany now meant making concessions to a barbarous regime. Conservative opinion, however, perceived the new Germany in terms of a balance of nation states, in which it was a renewed potential threat to Britain, but also a strong ‘bulwark’ against the Soviet Union. It was in this context that the Cambridge Anti-War movement revived in November 1933. Alan wrote:
12/11/33
There has been a lot happening this week. The Tivoli Cinema had arranged to shew a film called ‘Our Fighting Navy’ which was blatant militarist propaganda. The Anti-War movement organized a protest. The organization wasn’t very good and we only got 400 signatures of wh[ich] 60 or more were from King’s. The film was eventually withdrawn, but this was on account of the shindy that the militarists made outside the cinema when they had heard of our protest and had got it into their heads that we were going to break up the Cinema.-
A further comment, that ‘There was a very successful A[nti]-W[ar] demonstration yesterday’, referred to the Armistice Day wreath-laying ceremony, which this year had more the flavour of a political statement. This was not wholly pacifist in spirit. Alan’s friend James Atkins had decided that he was a pacifist, and Alan himself that he was not. But very influential was the suggestion that the First World War had been whipped up by the self-interest of the armament manufacturers. There was great feeling, in which probably Alan shared, that glorification of weapons should not be allowed to make a second great war more likely.
It was Eddington, who as a Quaker was a pacifist and internationalist, who stimulated the next outward and visible step in Alan’s career. This time it was not in connection with the ‘Jabberwocky’ of quantum mechanics, but through his course of lectures on the methodology of science26 which Alan attended in the autumn of 1933. Eddington touched upon the tendency of scientific measurements to be distributed, when plotted on a graph, on what was technically called a ‘normal’ curve. Whether it was the wingspans of Drosophilae, or Alfred Beuttell’s winnings at Monte Carlo, the readings would tend to bunch around a central value, and die away on either side, in a specific way. To explain why this should be so was a problem of fundamental importance in the theory of probability and statistics. Eddington offered an outline of why it was to be expected, but this did not satisfy Alan who, sceptical as ever, wanted to prove an exact result by rigorous pure-mathematical standards.
By the end of February 1934 he had succeeded. It did not require a conceptual advance, but still this was the first substantial result of his own. Typically, for him, it was one that connected pure mathematics with the physical world. But when he showed his work to someone else, he was told that the Central Limit Theorem, as the result was called, had already been proved in 1922 by a certain Lindeberg.27 Working in his self-contained way, he had not thought to find out first whether his objective had already been attained. But he was also advised that provided due explanation was given, it might still be acceptable as original work for a King’s fellowship dissertation.
From 16 March to 3 April 1934, Alan joined a Cambridge party to go skiing in the Austrian Alps. It had a vaguely Quaker, internationalist link with Frankfurt University, whose ski-hut near Lech on the Austro-German border they used. The flavour of cooperation was soured by the fact that the German ski coach was an ardent Nazi. On his return, Alan wrote:
29/4/34
… We had a very amusing letter from Micha, the German leader of the skiing party … He said ‘… but in thoughts I am in your middle’…
I am sending some research I did last year to Czüber* in Vienna, not having found anyone in Cambridge who is interested in it. I am afraid however that he may be dead, as he was writing books in 1891.
But first the final Tripos examination had to be got out of the way; Part II from 28 to 30 May and then the Schedule B papers28 from 4 to 6 June. In between the examinations he had to rush down to Guildford to see his father. Mr Turing, who was now sixty, underwent a prostate operation after which he was never again in the good health he had so far enjoyed.
He passed with distinction, making him what was called a ‘B-star Wrangler’ along with eight others. It was only an examination, and Alan deprecated the fuss that his mother made over sending telegrams, and tried to persuade her not to come to the Degree Day formalities on 19 June. But it did mean the award by King’s of a research studentship at £200 per annum, and this enabled him to stay on to try for a fellowship – a serious ambition of which he could now feel more confident than he had in 1932. Several others of his year stayed, including Fred Clayton and Kenneth Harrison. David Champernowne had switched to economics and had not yet taken his degree. James had found himself disoriented by the abstract nature of Part II, and gained a Second. He was not sure how to begin his career, and for the next few months, during which he came to visit Alan several times, did some private tuition work.
By the end of Alan’s undergraduate period, his depression was lifting and new industry was arising, just as in the world outside. He had begun to put down firm Cambridge roots, and to cut a figure as one less subdued and more ready with wit and good humour. It was still true that he belonged neither to an ‘aesthete’ nor to an ‘athlete’ compartment. He had continued to row in the boat club, and got on amiably with the other members, once downing a pint of beer in one go. He played bridge with others of his year, though with the usual defect of serious mathematicians he could not be trusted to add up the scores. The visitor to his room would find a disarray of books and notes and unanswered letters about socks and underpants from Mrs Turing. Round the walls were stuck various mementoes – Christopher’s picture, for one – but also, for those with eyes to see, magazine pictures with male sex-appeal. He also liked to root around in sales and street markets, and picked up a violin in London, on Farringdon Road, for which he took some lessons. This did not produce very aesthetic results, but there was a little of the ‘aesthete’ side in him, inasmuch as it debunked the pompous and stiff-upper-lip models of behaviour. It was all somewhat mystifying to Mrs Turing, when at Christmas 1934 Alan asked for a teddy-bear, saying he had never had one as a little boy. The Turings usually dutifully exchanged more useful and improving presents. But he had his way, and Porgy the bear was installed.
Graduation meant little change in his general way of life, except that he gave up rowing and resumed running. After the degree day he took a cycling trip to Germany, asking an acquaintance, Denis Williams, to come with him. A first-year student of the Moral Sciences Tripos, Denis knew Alan from the Moral Science Club, the King’s boat club and the skiing trip. They took their bicycles on the train as far as Cologne, and then did thirty miles or so a day. One purpose of the trip was to visit Göttingen, where Alan consulted some authority, presumably in connection with the Central Limit Theorem.
A peculiar gangster regime there might be in Berlin, but Germany was still best for student travel, with cheap fares and youth hostels. They could hardly avoid seeing the swastika flags draped everywhere, but to English eyes they seemed less sinister than ridiculous. Once they stopped in a mining village, where they heard the miners singing on their way to work – a welcome contrast to the contrived Nazi displays. In the youth hostel Denis chatted with a German traveller, bidding goodbye amiably with a ‘Heil
Hitler’, as foreign students generally did simply as a matter of polite conformity to local custom. (There had also been cases of them being assaulted when they failed to do so.) Alan came in and happened to see this. He said to Denis, ‘You shouldn’t have said that, he was a Socialist.’ He must have spoken with the German earlier, and Denis was struck by the fact that someone had identified himself to Alan as an opponent of the regime. But it was not that Alan reacted as a signed-up anti-fascist, it was that he could not go through with a ritual with which he did not agree. To Denis it was more like another incident on their trip, when two working-class boys from England happened to catch up with them and Denis said that it would be polite to invite them over to have a drink. ‘Noblesse oblige’, said Alan, which made Denis feel very small and insincere.
They happened to be in Hanover a day or two after 30 June 1934, when the SA was overthrown. Alan’s knowledge of German, although it was culled from mathematical textbooks, was better than Denis’s, and he translated from the newspaper an account of how Roehm first had been given the chance to commit suicide and had then been shot. They were rather surprised by the attention given to his demise by the English press. But then, this was a symbolic event with resonances going beyond the plain fact that Hitler thereby gained supreme power. It removed a major contradiction within the Nazi party, trumpeting its intention to turn Germany into a giant stud farm. To grateful conservatives it was the end of ‘decadent’ Germany. Later, when Hitler was thoroughly unpopular, the opposite connection could be drawn, and Nazidom painted as itself ‘decadent’ and ‘perverse’. Behind it lay the powerful leitmotiv that Hitler so skilfully orchestrated: that of the homosexual traitor.
For some Cambridge students a sight of the new Germany, and a brush with its crudities, might engender a powerful anti-fascist commitment. That step was not for Alan Turing. He was always friendly to the anti-fascist cause, but nothing would make him a ‘political’ person. His was the other road to freedom, that of dedication to his craft. Let others do what they could; he would achieve something right, something true. He would continue the civilisation that the anti-fascists defended.
Alan Turing: The Enigma The Centenary Edition Page 16