Pure proof theory aims, methods and results

Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 2 (2):159-188 (1996)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Apologies. The purpose of the following talk is to give an overview of the present state of aims, methods and results in Pure Proof Theory. Shortage of time forces me to concentrate on my very personal views. This entails that I will emphasize the work which I know best, i.e., work that has been done in the triangle Stanford, Munich and Münster. I am of course well aware that there are as important results coming from outside this triangle and I apologize for not displaying these results as well.Moreover the audience should be aware that in some points I have to oversimplify matters. Those who complain about that are invited to consult the original papers.1.1. General. Proof theory startedwithHilbert's Programme which aimed at a finitistic consistency proof for mathematics.By Gödel's Theorems, however, we know that we can neither formalize all mathematics nor even prove the consistency of formalized fragments by finitistic means. Inspite of this fact I want to give some reasons why I consider proof theory in the style of Gentzen's work still as an important and exciting field of Mathematical Logic. I will not go into applications of Gentzen's cut-elimination technique to computer science problems—this may be considered as applied proof theory—but want to concentrate on metamathematical problems and results. In this sense I am talking about Pure Proof Theory.Mathematicians are interested in structures. There is only one way to find the theorems of a structure. Start with an axiom system for the structure and deduce the theorems logically. These axiom systems are the objects of proof-theoretical research. Studying axiom systems there is a series of more or less obvious questions.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

.[author unknown] - unknown
Proof theory in philosophy of mathematics.Andrew Arana - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (4):336-347.
Basic proof theory.A. S. Troelstra - 1996 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Helmut Schwichtenberg.
Proof theory of modal logic.Heinrich Wansing (ed.) - 1996 - Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
The cost of a cycle is a square.A. Carbone - 2002 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 67 (1):35-60.
The logic of reliable and efficient inquiry.Oliver Schulte - 1999 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (4):399-438.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
39 (#398,894)

6 months
6 (#504,917)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Wolfram Pohlers
University of Muenster

References found in this work

Proof Theory.Gaisi Takeuti - 1990 - Studia Logica 49 (1):160-161.
Systems of predicative analysis.Solomon Feferman - 1964 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 29 (1):1-30.
Proof-theoretic analysis of KPM.Michael Rathjen - 1991 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 30 (5-6):377-403.
Proof theory of reflection.Michael Rathjen - 1994 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 68 (2):181-224.
A well-ordering proof for Feferman's theoryT 0.Gerhard Jäger - 1983 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 23 (1):65-77.

View all 9 references / Add more references