Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T12:51:00.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE PREHISTORY OF THE SUBSYSTEMS OF SECOND-ORDER ARITHMETIC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2017

WALTER DEAN  and
SEAN WALSH
WALTER DEAN*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Warwick
SEAN WALSH*
Affiliation:
Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of California, Irvine
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK COVENTRY CV4 7AL UK E-mail: W.H.Dean@warwick.ac.uk
†DEPARTMENT OF LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 5100 SOCIAL SCIENCE PLAZA IRVINE, CA 92697-5100 USA E-mail: swalsh108@gmail.com or walsh108@uci.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic study of the prehistory of the traditional subsystems of second-order arithmetic that feature prominently in the reverse mathematics program promoted by Friedman and Simpson. We look in particular at: (i) the long arc from Poincaré to Feferman as concerns arithmetic definability and provability, (ii) the interplay between finitism and the formalization of analysis in the lecture notes and publications of Hilbert and Bernays, (iii) the uncertainty as to the constructive status of principles equivalent to Weak König’s Lemma, and (iv) the large-scale intellectual backdrop to arithmetical transfinite recursion in descriptive set theory and its effectivization by Borel, Lusin, Addison, and others.

Keywords

01A6003-0303F35history of logicreverse mathematicssecond-order arithmeticpredicativityfinitismconstructive mathematics
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 357 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackermann, W. (1925). Begründung des “tertium non datur” mittels der Hilbertschen Theorie der Widerspruchsfreiheit. Mathematische Annalen, 93(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Ackermann, W. (1937). Die Widerspruchsfreiheit der allgemeinen Mengenlehre. Mathematische Annalen, 114(1), 305–315.Google Scholar
Addison, J. W. (1954). On Some Points of the Theory of Recursive Functions. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin at Madison.Google Scholar
Addison, J. W. (1959). Separation principles in the hierarchies of classical and effective descriptive set theory. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 46, 123–135.Google Scholar
Addison, J. W. (1962). The theory of hierarchies. In Nagel, E., Suppes, P., and Tarski, A., editors. Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress). Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 26–37.Google Scholar
Addison, J. W. (2004). Tarski’s theory of definability: Common themes in descriptive set theory, recursive function theory, classical pure logic, and finite-universe logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 126(1–3), 77–92.Google Scholar
Addison, J. W. & Moschovakis, Y. N. (1968). Some consequences of the axiom of definable determinateness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 59, 708–712.Google Scholar
Apt, K. R. & Marek, W. (1973). Second order arithmetic and related topics. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 6, 177–229.Google Scholar
Ash, C. & Knight, J. (2000). Computable Structures and the Hyperarithmetical Hierarchy. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 144. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bernays, P. (1930). Die Philosophie der Mathematik und die Hilbertsche Beweistheorie. Blätter für deutsche Philosophie, 4, 326–367.Google Scholar
Bernays, P. (1937). A system of axiomatic set theory: Part I. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 2(1), 65–77.Google Scholar
Bernays, P. (1942). A : Part III. Infinity and enumerability. Analysis. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 7(2), 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beth, E. (1947). Semantical considerations on intuitionistic mathematics. Indagationes Mathematicae, 9, 572–577.Google Scholar
Beth, E. (1956). Semantic construction of intuitionistic logic. Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, 19(11), 357–388.Google Scholar
Bishop, E. (1967). Foundations of Constructive Analysis, Vol. 60. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Borel, É. (1898). Leçons sur la Thèorie des Fonctions. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.Google Scholar
Borel, É. (1909). Sur les principes de la théorie des ensembles. In Feferman, S., Parsons, C., and Simpson, S.G., editors. Atti del IV Congresso Internazionale dei Matematici (Roma, 6–11 Aprile 1908), Vol. 1. Roma: Tipografia della R. Accademia dei Lincei, pp. 15–17.Google Scholar
Borel, É. (1914). Leçons sur la Thèorie des Fonctions (second edition). Paris: Gauthier-Villars.Google Scholar
Brouwer, L. E. (1927). Über Definitionsbereiche von Funktionen. Mathematische Annalen, 97(1), 60–75. Reprinted in Brouwer (1975) and van Heijenoort (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouwer, L. E. J. (1975). In Heyting, A., editor. Collected Works 1. Philosophy and Foundations of Mathematics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Burgess, J. P. (2010). On the outside looking in: A caution about conservativeness. In Kurt Gödel: Essays for His Centennial. Lecture Notes in Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 128–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldon, P. & Ignjatovic, A. (2005). On mathematical instrumentalism. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 70(3), 778–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenzer, D. & Remmel, J. B. (2012). Effectively Closed Sets. To appear in the ASL series Lecture Notes in Logic. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Church, A. (1940). A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5(2), 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, A. (1944). Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Church, A. (1956). Introduction to Mathematical Logic (second edition). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Church, A. (1976). Comparison of Russell’s resolution of the semantical antinomies with that of Tarski. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 41(4), 747–760.Google Scholar
Dedekind, R. (1888). Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen? Braunschweig: Vieweg.Google Scholar
Demopoulos, W. & Clark, P. (2005). The logicism of Frege, Dedekind, and Russell. In Shapiro, S., editor. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 129–165.Google Scholar
Drake, F. R. (1989). On the foundations of mathematics in 1987. In Ebbinghaus, H.-D., Fernández-Prida, J., Garrido, M., Lascar, D. and Rodríquez Artalejo, M., editors. Logic Colloquium ’87. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 129. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 11–25.Google Scholar
Dyson, V. & Kreisel, G. (1961). Analysis of Beth’s semantic construction of intuitionistic logic. Technical Report DA-04-200-ORD-997, Applied Mathematics and Statistical Laboratories, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, H.-D. (2003). Zermelo: Definiteness and the universe of definable sets. History and Philosophy of Logic, 24(3), 197–219.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1964). Systems of predicative analysis. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 29, 1–30.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1981). Preface: How we got from there to here. In Wilfried, B., Feferman, S., Pohlers, W., and Sieg, W., editors. Iterated Inductive Definitions and Subsystems of Analysis: Recent Proof-Theoretical Studies. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 897. Berlin: Springer, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1987). Proof theory: A personal report. In Takeuti, G., editor. Proof Theory, Second Edition. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 81. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 447–481.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1988). Hilbert’s program relativized: Proof-theoretical and foundational reductions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 53(2), 364–384.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1993). What rests on what? The proof-theoretic analysis of mathematics. In Philosophy of Mathematics. Schriftenreihe der Wittgenstein-Gesellschaft, Vol. 20. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, pp. 147–171.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1998). In the Light of Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. (2005). Predicativity. In Shapiro, S., editor. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 590–624.Google Scholar
Feferman, S., Friedman, H. M., Maddy, P., & Steel, J. R. (2000). Does mathematics need new axioms? The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 6(4), 401–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. & Sieg, W. (1981). Iterated inductive definitions and subsystems of analysis. In Wilfried, B., Feferman, S., Pohlers, W., and Sieg, W., editors. Iterated Inductive Definitions and Subsystems of Analysis: Recent Proof-Theoretical Studies. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 897. Berlin: Springer, pp. 16–77.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. & Spector, C. (1962). Incompleteness along paths in progressions of theories. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 27, 383–390.Google Scholar
Ferreirós, J. (1999). Labyrinth of Thought: A History of Set Theory and its Role in Modern Mathematics, Vol. 23. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Franchella, M. (1997). On the origins of Dénes König’s infinity lemma. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 51(1), 3–27.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. (1967). Subsystems of set theory and analysis. Dissertation, MIT, Unpublished.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. (1973). Countable models of set theories. In Mathias, A. and Rogers, H., editors. Cambridge Summer School in Mathematical Logic. Berlin: Springer, pp. 539–573.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. (1975a). Some systems of second-order arithmetic and their use. In James, R. D., editor. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, 1974, Vol. 1. Vancouver: Canadian Mathematical Congress, pp. 235–242.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. (1975b). The Analysis of Mathematical Texts, and their Calibration in Terms of Intrinsic Strength; and the Logical Strength of Mathematical Statements. Unpublished manuscripts. https://u.osu.edu/friedman.8/foundational-adventures/downloadable-manuscripts/.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. (1976). Systems of second order arithmetic with restricted induction. I and II (abstracts). The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 41(2), 551–560.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. (1977). Set theoretic foundations for constructive analysis. Annals of Mathematics, 105(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. (2007). Interpretations, According to Tarski. 19th Annual Tarski Lectures. Available at: http://u.osu.edu/friedman.8/foundational-adventures/downloadable-manuscripts/.Google Scholar
Friedman, H., Simpson, S., & Smith, R. (1983). Countable algebra and set existence axioms. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 25(2), 141–181.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. & Simpson, S. G. (2000). Issues and problems in reverse mathematics. In Cholak, P. A., Lempp, S., Lerman, M., and Shore, R. A., editors. Computability Theory and its Applications. Contemporary Mathematics, Vol. 257. Providence: American Mathematical Society, pp. 127–144.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. M. (1970/1971). Higher set theory and mathematical practice. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 2(3), 325–357.Google Scholar
Gandy, R. O., Kreisel, G., & Tait, W. W. (1960). Set existence. Bulletin de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences. Série des Sciences Mathématiques, Astronomiques et Physiques, 8, 577–582.Google Scholar
Garciadiego, A. R. D. (1992). Bertrand Russell and the Origins of the Set-Theoretic ‘Paradoxes’. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Gispert, H. (1995). La théorie des ensembles en France avant la crise de 1905: Baire, Borel, Lebesgue … et tous les autres. Revue d’Histoire des Mathématiques, 1(1), 39–81.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1986). In Feferman, S. et al., editors. Collected Works. Volume I. Publications 1929–1936. New York: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1990). In Feferman, S. et al., editors. Collected Works. Vol. II. Publications 1938–1974. New York: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Grzegorczyk, A. (1955). Elementarily definable analysis. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 41, 311–338.Google Scholar
Grzegorczyk, A. (1959). Some approaches to constructive analysis. In Heyting, A., editor. Constructivity in Mathematics: Proceedings of the Colloquium held at Amsterdam, 1957. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 43–61.Google Scholar
Hadamard, J. (1905a). Cinq lettres sur la théorie des ensembles. Bulletin de la Société mathématique de France, 33, 261–273.Google Scholar
Hadamard, J. (1905b). La théorie des ensembles. Revue générale des sciences pures et appliquées, 16, 241–242.Google Scholar
Hájek, P. & Pudlák, P. (1998). Metamathematics of First-Order Arithmetic. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Harrison, J. (1968). Recursive pseudo-well-orderings. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 131, 526–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasenjaeger, G. (1953). Eine Bemerkung zu Henkin’s Beweis für die vollständigkeit des Prädikatenkalküls der ersten Stufe. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 18(01), 42–48.Google Scholar
Hazen, A. P. (1983). Predicative logics. In Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F., editors. Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Volume I: Elements of Classical Logic. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 331–407.Google Scholar
Henkin, L. (1949). The completeness of the first-order functional calculus. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 14(3), 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henkin, L. (1953). Banishing the rule of substitution for functional variables. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 18, 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyting, A. (1956). Intuitionism. An introduction. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Heyting, A. (1959). Some remarks on intuitionism. In Heyting, A., editor. Constructivity in Mathematics. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 69–71.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. (1922). Neubegründung der Mathematik. Erste Mitteilung. Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Universität Hamburg, 1(1), 157–177.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. (1926). Über das Unendliche. Mathematische Annalen, 95, 161–190.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. (2013). In Ewald, W. and Sieg, W., editors. Lectures on the Foundations of Arithmetic and Logic: 1917–1933. David Hilbert’s Foundational Lectures, Vol. 3. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. & Ackermann, W. (1928). Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik. Berlin: Springer. Reprinted in Hilbert (2013), pp. 809 ff.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. & Ackermann, W. (1938). Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik (second edition). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. & Bernays, P. (1934). Grundlagen der Mathematik (first edition), Vol. I. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. & Bernays, P. (1939). Grundlagen der Mathematik (first edition), Vol. II. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Hinkis, A. (2013). Proofs of the Cantor-Bernstein Theorem: A Mathematical Excursion. Science Networks. Historical Studies, Vol. 45. Heidelberg: Birkhäuser/Springer.Google Scholar
Hölder, O. (1926). Der angebliche circulus vitiosus und die sogenannte Grundlagenkrise in der Analysis. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Leipzig, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, 78, 243–250.Google Scholar
Jech, T. (2003). Set Theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Jockusch, C. G. Jr. & Soare, R. I. (1972). ${\rm{\Pi }}_1^0 $ classes and degrees of theories. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 173, 33–56.Google Scholar
Kanovei, V. G. & Lyubetskii, V. A. (2003). On some classical problems of descriptive set theory. Russian Mathematical Surveys, 58(5), 839–927.Google Scholar
Kechris, A. S. (1995). Classical Descriptive Set Theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 156. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Keldysh, L. (1974). The ideas of N.N. Luzin in descriptive set theory. Russian Mathematical Surveys, 29(5), 179–193.Google Scholar
Kleene, S. C. (1952a). Introduction to Metamathematics. Bibliotheca Mathematica, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Kleene, S. C. (1952b). Recursive functions and intuitionistic mathematics. In Graves, L., Hille, E., Smith, P., and Zariski, O., editors. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, 1950. Providence: American Mathematical Society, pp. 679–685.Google Scholar
Kleene, S. C. (1955). Hierarchies of number-theoretic predicates. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 61, 193–213.Google Scholar
Kleene, S. C. (1959). Quantification of number-theoretic functions. Compositio Mathematica, 14, 23–40.Google Scholar
Koellner, P. (2009). Truth in mathematics: The question of pluralism. In Bueno, O. and Linnebo, O., editors. New Waves in the Philosophy of Mathematics. New York: Palmgrave, pp. 80–116.Google Scholar
Kohlenbach, U. (2008). Applied Proof Theory: Proof Interpretations and Their Use in Mathematics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kondô, M. (1939). Sur l’uniformisation des complémentaires analytiques et les ensembles projectifs de la seconde classe. Japanese Journal of Mathematics, 15, 197–230.Google Scholar
Kondô, M. (1956). Sur la nommabilité d’ensembles. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des Sciences, 242, 1841–1843.Google Scholar
Kondô, M. (1958). Sur les ensembles nommables et le fondement de l’analyse mathématique. I. Japanese Journal of Mathematics, 28, 1–116.Google Scholar
Kondô, M. (1960). Le fondement constructif du calcul infinitésimal. Osaka Journal of Mathematics, 12, 61–96.Google Scholar
Kondô, M. (1985). In Tugué, T., Tanaka, H., and Yasuda, Y., editors. Selected Works of Motokiti Kondô. Tokyo: Shige Kondô.Google Scholar
König, D. (1927). Über eine Schlussweise aus dem Endlichen ins Unendliche. Acta litterarum ac scientiarum Ragiae Universitatis Hungaricae Francisco-Josephinae, 3, 121–130.Google Scholar
König, D. (1936). Theorie der endlichen und unendlichen Graphen. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
König, D. (1990). Theory of Finite and Infinite Graphs. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Krajewski, S. & Woleriski, J. (2007). Andrzej Grzegorczyk: Logic and philosophy. Topics in Logic, Philosophy and Foundations of Mathematics, and Computer Science: In Recognition of Professor Andrzej Grzegorczyk, 81, 1–17.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1950). Note on arithmetic models for consistent formulae of the predicate calculus. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 37, 265–285.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1953). A variant to Hilbert’s theory of the foundations of arithmetic. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 4(14), 107–129.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1955). Review of kleene (1955). Mathematical Reviews. MR0070593 (17,4f).Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1958a). Elementary completeness properties of intuitionistic logic with a note on negations of prenex formulae. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 23(3), 317–330.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1958b). Mathematical significance of consistency proofs. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 23(2), 155–182.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1959a). Analysis of the Cantor-Bendixson theorem by means of the analytic hierarchy. Bulletin de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences. Série des Sciences Mathématiques, Astronomiques et Physiques, 7, 621–626.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1959b). Review of Kondô (1958). Mathematical Reviews. MR0113806 (22 #4638).Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1960a). La prédicativité. Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France, 88, 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1960b). Ordinal logics and the characterization of informal concepts of proof. In Todd, J. A., editor. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, 1958. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 289–299.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1962a). The axiom of choice and the class of hyperarithmetic functions. Indagationes Mathematicae, 24, 307–319.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1962b). On weak completeness of intuitionistic predicate logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 27, 139–158.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1967). Informal rigour and completeness proofs [with discussion]. In Lakatos, I., editor. Problems in the Philosophy of Mathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 138–186.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1968). A survey of proof theory. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 33, 321–388.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1970a). Church’s Thesis: A kind of reducibility axiom for constructive mathematics. In Kino, A., Myhill, J., and Vesley, R. E., editors. Intuitionism and Proof Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 121–150.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1970b). Principles of proof and ordinals implicit in given concepts. In Kino, A., Myhill, J., and Vesley, R. E., editors. Intuitionism and Proof Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 489–516.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1976). What have we learnt from Hilbert’s second problem? In Browder, F. E., editor. Mathematical Developments Arising from Hilbert Problems. Providence: American Mathematical Society, pp. 93–130.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G., Mints, G., & Simpson, S. G. (1975). The use of abstract language in elementary metamathematics: Some pedagogic examples. In Logic Colloquium. Berlin: Springer, pp. 38–131.Google Scholar
Kuratowski, C. (1922). Une méthode d’élimination des nombres transfinis des raisonnements mathématiques. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 3(1), 76–108.Google Scholar
Lebesgue, H. (1905). Sur les fonctions représentables analytiquement. Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées 6e série, 1, 139–216.Google Scholar
Leisenring, A. C. (1969). Mathematical Logic and Hilbert’s ε-Symbol. New York: Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar
Lusin, N. (1925). Sur le probleme de M. Émile Borel et la méthode des résolvantes. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des Sciences, 181, 279–281.Google Scholar
Lusin, N. (1930a). Analogies entre les ensembles mesurables B et les ensembles analytiques. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 1(16), 48–76.Google Scholar
Lusin, N. (1930b). Leçons sur les ensembles analytiques et leurs applications. Collection de monographies sur la théorie des fonctions. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.Google Scholar
Mancosu, P. (2003). The Russellian influence on Hilbert and his school. Synthese, 137, 59–101.Google Scholar
Michel, A. (2008). Remarks on the supposed French ‘semi-’ or ‘pre-intuitionism’. In van Atten, M., Boldini, P., Bourdeau, M., and Heinzmann, G., editors. One Hundred Years of Intuitionism (1907–2007). The Cerisy Conference. Publications des Archives Henri-Poincaré. Basel: Birkhäuser, pp. 149–162.Google Scholar
Montalbán, A. & Shore, R. A. (2012). The limits of determinacy in second-order arithmetic. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 104(2), 223–252.Google Scholar
Moore, G. H. (1982). Zermelo’s Axiom of Choice. Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences, Vol. 8. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Moore, G. H. & Garciadiego, A. (1981). Burali-Forti’s paradox: A reappraisal of its origins. Historia Mathematica, 8(3), 319–350.Google Scholar
Moschovakis, Y. N. (1980). Descriptive Set Theory. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 100. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Moschovakis, Y. N. (2009). Descriptive Set Theory (second edition). Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Vol. 155. Providence: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Mostowski, A. (1950). Some impredicative definitions in the axiomatic set-theory. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 37(1), 110–124.Google Scholar
Mostowski, A. (1956). On models of axiomatic set theory. Bulletin de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences, 4, 663–667.Google Scholar
Mostowski, A. (1959). On various degrees of constructivism. In Heyting, A., editor. Constructivity in Mathematics, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 178–194.Google Scholar
Parsons, C. (1970). On a number theoretic choice schema and its relation to induction. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 60, 459–473.Google Scholar
Parsons, C. (2002). Realism and the debate on impredicativity, 1917–1944. In Feferman, S., Sieg, W., Sommer, R., and Talcott, C. L., editors. Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics (Stanford, CA, 1998). Lecture Notes in Logic, Vol. 15. Urbana: Associaton of Symbolic Logic, pp. 372–389.Google Scholar
Pohlers, W. (1987). Contributions of the Schütte school. In Takeuti, G., editor. Proof Theory, Second Edition. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 81. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 406–431.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1905). Les mathématiques et la logique. Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 13, 815–835.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1906). Les mathématiques et la logique. Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 14, 294–317.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1909a). La logique de l’infini. Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 17, 461–482.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1909b). Réflexions sur les deux notes précédentes. Acta Mathematica, 32, 195–200.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1910). Über transfinite Zahlen. In Sechs Vorträge über ausgewählte Gegenstände aus der reinen Mathematik und mathematischen Physik. Mathematische Vorlesungen an der Universität Göttingen. Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner, pp. 44–48.Google Scholar
Post, E. L. (1948). Degrees of unsolvability – preliminary report. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 54(7), 641–642.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. (1925). The foundations of mathematics. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 25(5), 338–384.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. (1926). Mathematical logic. The Mathematical Gazette, 13(184), 185–194.Google Scholar
Rosser, J. B. & Wang, H. (1950). Non-standard models for formal logics. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 15(02), 113–129.Google Scholar
Rubin, H. & Rubin, J. E. (1963). Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice, Vols. I,II. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1906). Les paradoxes de la logique. Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 14(5), 627–650.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1907). On some difficulities in the theory of transfinite numbers and order types. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2–4(1), 29–53. This is text of a talk from December 14, 1905.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1908). Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types. American Journal of Mathematics, 30(3), 222–262.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1910). La théorie des types logiques. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 18(3), 263–301.Google Scholar
Sacks, G. E. (1990). Higher Recursion Theory. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Schütte, K. (1960). Beweistheorie. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol. 103. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Schütte, K. (1965a). Eine Grenze für die Beweisbarkeit der transfiniten Induktion in der verzweigten Typenlogik. Archiv für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung, 7, 45–60 (1965).Google Scholar
Schütte, K. (1965b). Predicative well-orderings. In Crossley, J. N. and Dummett, M., editors. Formal Systems and Recursive Functions. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 280–303.Google Scholar
Schütte, K. (1977). Proof Theory. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol. 225. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (1962). Algebras of sets binumerable in complete extensions of arithmetic. In Dekker, J. C. E., editor. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Vol. 5. Providence: American Mathematical Society, pp. 117–121.Google Scholar
Shoenfield, J. R. (1960). Degrees of models. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 25(3), 233–237.Google Scholar
Shoenfield, J. R. (1967). Mathematical Logic, Vol. 21. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Shore, R. A. (2010). Reverse mathematics: The playground of logic. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 16(3), 378–402.Google Scholar
Sieg, W. (1985). Fragments of arithmetic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 28(1), 33–71.Google Scholar
Sieg, W. (2009). Hilbert’s proof theory. In Gabbay, D. M. and Woods, J., editors. Handbook of the History of Logic. Volume 5: Logic from Russell to Church. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 321–384.Google Scholar
Sieg, W. & Schlimm, D. (2005). Dedekind’s analysis of number: Systems and axioms. Synthese, 147(1), 121–170.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. G. (1973). Notes on subsystems of analysis. Unpublished, typewritten, Berkeley, 38 pages.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. G. (1985). Friedman’s research on subsystems of second order arithmetic. In Harrington, L. A., Morley, M. D., Scedrov, A., and Simpson, S. G., editors. Harvey Friedman’s Research on the Foundations of Mathematics. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 117. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 137–159.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. G. (1988). Partial realizations of Hilbert’s program. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 53(2), 349–363.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. G. (1999). Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. G. (2009). Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic (second edition). Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Souslin, M. (1917). Sur un définition des ensembles measurables B sans nombres transfinis. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des Sciences, 164, 88–91.Google Scholar
Steel, J. (1975). Descending sequences of degrees. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 40(01), 59–61.Google Scholar
Steel, J. (1977). Determinateness and subsystems of analysis.Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Unpublished.Google Scholar
Sullivan, P. M. (2004). Frege’s logic. In Gabbay, D. M. and Woods, J., editors. The Rise of Modern Logic: From Leibniz to Frege. Handbook of the History of Logic, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland, pp. 659–750.Google Scholar
Tait, W. W. (1968). Constructive reasoning. In van Rootselaar, B. and Staal, J. F., editors. Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science III. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 185–199.Google Scholar
Tait, W. W. (1981). Finitism. The Journal of Philosophy, 78(9), 524–546.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1936). Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprache. Studia Philosophica, 1, 261–405.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1956). Logic, Semantics, and Metamathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Troelstra, A. & van Dalen, D. (1988). Constructivism in Mathematics, An Introduction, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Troelstra, A. S. (1982). On the origin and developement of Brouwer’s concept of choice sequence. In Troelstra, A. S. and van Dalen, D., editors. The L. E. J. Brouwer Centenary Symposium. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 110. Amtersdam: North-Holland, pp. 465–477.Google Scholar
Urquhart, A. (2003). The theory of types. In Griffin, N., editor. The Cambridge Companion to Russell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 286–309.Google Scholar
van Dalen, D. (1973). Lectures on intuitionism. In Mathias, A. and Rogers, H., editors. Cambridge Summer School in Mathematical Logic. Berlin: Springer, pp. 1–94.Google Scholar
van Heijenoort, J., editor (1967). From Frege to Gödel : A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Veldman, W. (2014). Brouwer’s fan theorem as an axiom and as a contrast to Kleene’s alternative. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 53(5–6), 621–693.Google Scholar
Von Neumann, J. (1925). Eine Axiomatisierung der Mengenlehre. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 154, 219–240.Google Scholar
Walsh, S. (2014). Logicism, interpretability, and knowledge of arithmetic. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 7(1), 84–119.Google Scholar
Walsh, S. (2016). Predicativity, the Russell-Myhill paradox, and Church’s intensional logic. The Journal of Philosophical Logic, 45(3), 277–326.Google Scholar
Wang, H. (1953). Between number theory and set theory. Mathematische Annalen, 126(1), 385–409.Google Scholar
Wang, H. (1954). The formalization of mathematics. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 19, 241–266.Google Scholar
Wang, H. (1955). On denumerable bases of formal systems. In Skolem, T., editor. Mathematical Interpretation of Formal Systems. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 57–84.Google Scholar
Wang, H. (1974). From Mathematics to Philosophy. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Weyl, H. (1910). Über die Definitionen der mathematischen Grundbegriffe. Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Blätter, 7, 93–95.Google Scholar
Weyl, H. (1918). Das Kontinuum. Kritische Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Analysis. Leipzig: Veit.Google Scholar
Weyl, H. (1921). Über die neue Grundlagenkrise der Mathematik. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 10, 39–79.Google Scholar
Weyl, H. (1926). Die heutige Erkenntnislage in der Mathematik. Symposion; philosophische Zeitschrift für Forschung und Ausspräche, 1, 1–32.Google Scholar
Weyl, H. (1968). In Chandrasekharan, K., editor. Gesammelte Abhandlungen. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. N. & Russell, B. (1910). Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. N. & Russell, B. (1962). Principia Mathematica to *56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zach, R. (2003). The practice of finitism: Epsilon calculus and consistency proofs in Hilbert’s program. Synthese, 137(1–2), 211–259.Google Scholar
Zermelo, E. (1908a). Neuer Beweis für die Möglichkeit einer Wohlordnung. Mathematische Annalen, 65(1), 107–128.Google Scholar
Zermelo, E. (1908b). Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre. I. Mathematische Annalen, 65(2), 261–281.Google Scholar