Part II - Predicative Mathematics and Beyond
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 January 2021
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Mathematics and Its LogicsPhilosophical Essays, pp. 101 - 172Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
References
Dedekind, R. [1888] “The nature and meaning of numbers,” reprinted in Beman, W. W., ed., Essays on the Theory of Numbers (New York: Dover, 1963), pp. 31–115, translated from the German original, Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen? (Brunswick: Vieweg, 1888).Google Scholar
Feferman, S. [1964] “Systems of predicative analysis,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 29: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. [1968] “Autonomous transfinite progressions and the extent of predicative mathematics,” in Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science III (Amsterdam: North Holland), pp. 121–135.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. [1988] “Weyl vindicated: Das Kontinuum 70 years later,” in Temi e Prospettive della Logica e della Filosofia della Scienza Contemporanee (Bologna: CLUEB), pp. 59–93.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. [1989] Mathematics without Numbers: Towards a Modal-Structural Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Isaacson, D. [1987] “Arithmetical truth and hidden higher-order concepts,” in Paris Logic Group, eds., Logic Colloquium ‘85 (Amsterdam: North-Holland,), pp. 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, E. [1986] Predicative Arithmetic (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, C. [1983] “The impredicativity of induction,” in How Many Questions? Essays in Honor of S. Morgenbesser (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett), pp. 132–154.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. [1991] Foundations without Foundationalism: The Case for Second-Order Logic (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Shoenfield, J. [1954] “A relative consistency proof,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 19: 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieg, W. [1985] “Fragments of arithmetic,” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 28: 33–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, S. G. [1987] “Subsystems of Z2 and reverse mathematics,” in Takeuti, G., ed., Proof Theory, 2nd edn. (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 432–446.Google Scholar
References
Dedekind, R. [1888] “The nature and meaning of numbers,” reprinted in Beman, W. W., ed., Essays on the Theory of Numbers (New York: Dover, 1963), pp. 31–115, translated from the German original, Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen? (Brunswick: Vieweg, 1888).Google Scholar
Dummett, M. [1978] “The philosophical significance of Gödel’s theorem,” in Truth and Other Enigmas (London: Duckworth), pp. 186–201 (first published in 1963).Google Scholar
Feferman, S. [1964] “Systems of predicative analysis,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 29: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. [1977] “Theories of finite type related to mathematical practice,” in Barwise, J., ed., Handbook of Mathematical Logic (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 913–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. [1985] “Intensionality in mathematics,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 14: 41–55.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. [1996] “Gödel’s program for new axioms: why, where, how and what?” in Hájek, P., ed., Gödel ‘96, Lecture Notes in Logic 6 (Berlin: Springer), pp. 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S., and Hellman, G. [1995] “Predicative foundations of arithmetic,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 24: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, A., and Velleman, D. [1998] “Two conceptions of natural number,” in Dales, G. and Olivieri, G., eds., Truth in Mathematics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 311–327.Google Scholar
Hallett, M. [1990] “Physicalism, reductionism, and Hilbert,” in Irvine, A. D., ed., Physicalism in Mathematics (Dordrecht: Kluwer), pp. 183–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G. [1989] Mathematics without Numbers: Towards a Modal-Structural Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Hellman, G. [1996] “Structuralism without structures,” Philosophia Mathematica 4: 100–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. [1956] “Identity, variables, and impredicative definitions,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 21: 225–245.Google Scholar
Isaacson, D. [1987] “Arithmetical truth and hidden higher-order concepts,” in Paris Logic Group, eds., Logic Colloquium ‘85 (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 147–169.Google Scholar
Parsons, C. [1990] “The structuralist view of mathematical objects,” Synthese 84: 303–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, C. [1992] “The impredicativity of induction,” in Detlefsen, M., ed., Proof, Logic and Formalization (London: Routledge), pp. 139–161 (revised and expanded version of a 1983 paper).Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. [1961] “A basis for number theory in finite classes,” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 67: 391–392.Google Scholar
Schütte, K. [1965] “Eine Grenze für die Beweisbarkeit der transfiniten Induktion in der verzweigten Typenlogik,” Archiv für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen-forschung 7: 45–60.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. [1985] “Friedman’s research on subsystems of second-order arithmetic,” in Harrington, L. A., Morley, M., Scedrov, A., and Simpson, S. G., eds., Harvey Friedman’s Research on the Foundations of Mathematics (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 137–159.Google Scholar
Wang, H. [1963] “Eighty years of foundational studies,” reprinted in A Survey of Mathematical Logic (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 34–56.Google Scholar
References
Drake, F. R. [1974] Set Theory: An Introduction to Large Cardinals (Amsterdam: North Holland).Google Scholar
Feferman, S. [1988] “Weyl vindicated: Das Kontinuum 70 years later,” reprinted in In the Light of Logic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), Chapter 13.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. [1998a] In the Light of Logic (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. [1998b] “What rests on what? Proof-theoretic analysis of mathematics,” in In the Light of Logic (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Feferman, S. and Hellman, G. [1995] “Predicative foundations of arithmetic,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 24: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. [1999] “A note on finiteness in the predicative foundations of arithmetic,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 28: 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, H., Robertson, N., and Seymour, P. [1987] “The metamathematics of the graph minor theorem”, in Simpson, S. G., ed., Logic and Combinatorics, Contemporary Mathematics (Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society), pp. 229–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gödel, K. [1931] “On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems,” reprinted in van Heijenoort, J., ed., From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), pp. 596–616.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. [1947] “What is Cantor’s continuum problem?,” reprinted in Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H., eds., Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1983), pp. 470–485.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. [1989] Mathematics without Numbers: Towards a Modal-Structural Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Hellman, G. [1994] “Real analysis without classes,” Philosophia Mathematica 2(3): 228–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofweber, T. [2000] “Proof-theoretic reduction as a philosopher’s tool,” Erkenntnis 53: 127–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, S. [1985] “Nonprovability of certain properties of finite trees,” in Harrington, L. A., Morley, M., Scedrov, A., and Simpson, S. G., eds., Harvey Friedman’s Research on the Foundations of Mathematics (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 87–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smorynski, C. [1982] “The varieties of arboreal experience,” Mathematical Intelligencer 4: 182–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyl, H. [1918] Das Kontinuum. Kritische Untersuchungen uber die Grundlagen der Analysis (Leipzig: Veit).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H. (eds.) [1983] Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Burgess, J., Hazen, A., and Lewis, D. [1991] “Appendix,” in Lewis, D., Parts of Classes (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 121–149.Google Scholar
Cohen, P. [1963] “The independence of the continuum hypothesis”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 50(6): 1143–1148.Google Scholar
Cohen, P. [1964] “The independence of the continuum hypothesis, II”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 51(1): 105–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drake, F. R. [1974] Set Theory: An Introduction to Large Cardinals (Amsterdam: North Holland).Google Scholar
Earman, J. [1992] Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Friedman, H. [2017] Harvey’s Foundational Adventures: Boolean Relation Theory Book http://u.osu.edu/friedman.8/foundational-adventures/boolean-relation-theory-book/.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. [1931] “On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems,” reprinted in van Heijenoort, J., ed., From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), pp. 596–616.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. [1947] “What is Cantor’s continuum problem?,” reprinted in Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H., eds., Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1983), pp. 470–485.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. [1989] Mathematics without Numbers: Towards a Modal-Structural Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Hellman, G. [1996] “Structuralism without structures,” Philosophia Mathematica 4(2): 100–123.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. [2005] “Structuralism,” in Shapiro, S., ed., Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 536–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G. and Shapiro, S. [2019] Mathematical Structuralism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. [1945] “On the nature of mathematical truth,” reprinted in Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H., eds., Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 377–393.Google Scholar
Howson, C. and Urbach, P. [1989] Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach (Chicago, IL: Open Court).Google Scholar
Janssen, M. [2002] “COI stories: explanation and evidence in the history of science,” Perspectives on Science 10: 457–522.Google Scholar
Linnebo, Ø. [2013] “The potential hierarchy of sets,” Review of Symbolic Logic 6(2): 205–228.Google Scholar
Mac Lane, S. [1986] Mathematics: Form and Function (New York: Springer Verlag).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, D. A. and Steele, J. R. [1988] “Projective determinacy,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 85: 6582–6586.Google Scholar
Martin, D. A. and Steele, J. R. [1989] “A proof of projective determinacy,” Journal of the American Mathematical Society 2: 71–125.Google Scholar
Myrvold, W. S. [2017] “On the evidential import of unification,” Philosophy of Science 84: 92–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paris, J. and Harrington, L. [1977] “A mathematical incompleteness in Peano arithmetic,” in Barwise, J., ed., Handbook of Mathematical Logic (Amsterdam: North Holland), pp. 1133–1142.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. [1967] “Mathematics without foundations,” reprinted in Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H., eds., Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1983), pp. 295–311.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. [1953] “Two dogmas of empiricism,” reprinted in From a Logical Point of View (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), pp. 20–46.Google Scholar
Zermelo, E. [1930] “Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche: Neue Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre,” Fundamenta Mathematicae, 16: 29–47; translated as “On boundary numbers and domains of sets: new investigations in the foundations of set theory,” in Ewald, W., ed., From Kant to Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, Volume 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 1219–1233.Google Scholar