Our ultimate purpose is to give an axiomatic treatment of recursion theory sufficient to develop the priority method. The direct or abstract approach is to keep in mind as clearly as possible the methods actually used in recursion theory, and then to formulate them explicitly. The indirect or experimental approach is to look first for other mathematical theories which seem similar to recursion theory, to formulate the analogies precisely, and then to search for an axiomatic treatment which covers not only (...) recursion theory but also the analogous theories as particular cases.The first approach is more general because it does not depend on the existence of analogues. A concrete mathematical theory, it seems, need have no such analogues and still be important, as e.g. classical number theory. In such a case, an axiomatic treatment may still be useful for exhibiting the mathematical structure of the theory considered and the assumptions on which it rests. However, it will lack one of the most heavily advertised advantages of the axiomatic method, namely, the “economy of thought” which results from an uniform theory for several different and interesting cases: we cannot hope for this if, by hypothesis, we know of only one particular case. In contrast, the second approach, if successful at all, is bound to achieve such “economy” because we start out with several interesting particular cases. Another possible virtue of the second approach is that of field work over insight: the abstract pattern that we are looking for and hoping to formalize in axioms, may not be evident in any one mathematical theory, but may spring to the eye if one happens to look simultaneously at several theories which happen to realize the pattern. (shrink)

IN Hilbert's theory of the foundations of any given branch of mathematics the main problem is to establish the consistency (of a suitable formalisation) of this branch. Since the (intuitionist) criticisms of classical logic, which Hilbert's theory was intended to meet, never even alluded to inconsistencies (in classical arithmetic), and since the investigations of Hilbert's school have always established much more than mere consistency, it is natural to formulate another general problem in the foundations of mathematics: to translate statements of (...) theorems and proofs in the branch considered into those of some preferred system, where the translation must satisfy certain appropriate conditions (interpretation). The problem is relative to the choice of preferred system, as is Hilbert's consistency problem since he required the consistency to be established by particular methods (finitist ones). A finitist interpretation of classical number theory, which has been published in full detail elsewhere, is here described by means of typical examples. Partial results on analysis (theory of arbitrary functions whose arguments and values are the non-negative integers) are here presented for the first time. One of these results is restricted to functions whose values are bounded; its interest derives from the fact that real numbers may be represented by such functions. It is hoped that diverse general observations and comments, which would bore the specialist, may be of help to the general reader. The specialist may find some points of interest in the last two sections of the main text and in the notes following it. (shrink)

Summary. This article develops two principal points. First, the so-called rivals of logical foundations, associated with Zermelo, Hilbert, and Brouwer, are here regarded as variants; specifically: to simplify, refine, resp. extend Frege’s scheme. Each of the variations is seen as a special case of a familiar strategy in the pursuit of knowledge. In particular, the extension provided by Brouwer’s intuitionistic logic concerns the class of propositions considered: about incompletely defined objects such as choice sequences. In contrast, Frege or, for that (...) matter, Aristotle thought that only propositions about precisely defined terms lent themselves to anything like logical theory.. This view of intuitionistic logic is fairly consistent with the mature Brouwer’s own research practice, but not at all with his rhetoric. Secondly, the article explains the silent majority’s scepticism about all variants of logical foundations, and, in note 7, sketches a genuine alternative which is almost explicit in the manifesto [#3] of Bourbaki with the aim of exploring the architecture of mathematics and our intuitive resonances to it. The alternative sees the weakness of logical foundations not in any logical defects, such as lack of precision, but in its sterility: stress on the logical elements of mathematics and mathematical reasoning draws attention away from discoveries of more significant features; more significant even for validity and reliability, though these matters are less prominent here than in logical foundations. The weakness in question is relevant beyond the present topic of foundations because this kind of weakness affects the whole analytic tradition in philosophy. Finally, for reasons explained there, an Appendix goes into some relations between the present paper and [17]. (shrink)