Erkenntnis

, Volume 53, Issue 1–2, pp 63–96 | Cite as

Does Reductive Proof Theory Have A Viable Rationale?

  • Solomon Feferman

Abstract

The goals of reduction andreductionism in the natural sciences are mainly explanatoryin character, while those inmathematics are primarily foundational.In contrast to global reductionistprograms which aim to reduce all ofmathematics to one supposedly ``universal'' system or foundational scheme, reductive proof theory pursues local reductions of one formal system to another which is more justified in some sense. In this direction, two specific rationales have been proposed as aims for reductive proof theory, the constructive consistency-proof rationale and the foundational reduction rationale. However, recent advances in proof theory force one to consider the viability of these rationales. Despite the genuine problems of foundational significance raised by that work, the paper concludes with a defense of reductive proof theory at a minimum as one of the principal means to lay out what rests on what in mathematics. In an extensive appendix to the paper,various reduction relations betweensystems are explained and compared, and arguments against proof-theoretic reduction as a ``good'' reducibilityrelation are taken up and rebutted.

REFERENCES

  1. Aczel, P.: 1978, ‘The Type Theoretic Interpretation of Constructive Set Theory', in A. MacIntyre et al. (eds), '77, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 55–66.Google Scholar
  2. Arai, T.: 1996, 'systems of Ordinal Diagrams', Preprint.Google Scholar
  3. Arai, T.: 1997, ‘Proof Theory for Theories of Ordinals II: 61–Stability', Preprint.Google Scholar
  4. Benacerraf, P. and H. Putnam eds.: 1983, Philosophy of Mathematics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  5. Buchholz, W.: 1991, ‘Notation System for Infinitary Derivations', Archive for Mathematical Logic 30, 277–96.Google Scholar
  6. Buchholz, W.: 1997, ‘Explaining Gentzen's Consistency Proof within Infinitary Proof Theory', in KGC'97, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1289, pp. 4–17.Google Scholar
  7. Buchholz, W.: 1999, ‘Explaining the Gentzen-Takeuti Reduction Steps: A Second Order System', Preprint; to appear in Archive for Mathematical Logic.Google Scholar
  8. Buchholz, W., S. Feferman, W. Pohlers, and W. Sieg: 1981, Iterated Inductive Definitions and Subsystems of Analysis, Vol. 897, Lecture Notes in Mathematics.Google Scholar
  9. Buss, S. R. ed.: 1998, Handbook of Proof Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  10. Dupré, J.: 1993, The Disorder of Things, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Feferman, S.: 1960, ‘Arithmetization of Metamathematics in a General Setting', Fundamenta Mathematicae 49, 35–92.Google Scholar
  12. Feferman, S.: 1975, ‘A Language and Axioms for Explicit Mathematics', in J. N. Crossley ed., Algebra and Logic, Vol. 450, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pp. 87–139.Google Scholar
  13. Feferman, S.: 1979, ‘Constructive Theories of Functions and Classes', in M. Boffa et al. (eds), '78, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 159–224.Google Scholar
  14. Feferman, S.: 1984, Foundational Ways. in W. Jäger et al. (eds), Perspectives in Mathematics, Birkhäuser, Basel, pp. 147–85. Reprinted in Feferman 1998, 94–104.Google Scholar
  15. Feferman, S.: 1988, ‘Hilbert's Program Relativized. Proof-Theoretical and Foundational Reductions', J. Symbolic Logic 53, 364–84.Google Scholar
  16. Feferman, S.: 1993, ‘What Rests on What? The Proof-Theoretical Analysis of Mathematics', in J. Czermak, (ed.), Philosophy of Mathematics, Vol. I., Verlag-Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, Vienna, pp. 147–71. Reprinted in Feferman 1998, 187–208.Google Scholar
  17. Feferman, S.: 1996, ‘Kreisel's “Unwinding” Program', in P. Odifreddi (ed.), Kreiseliana, A. K. Peters Ltd., Wellesley, pp. 247–73.Google Scholar
  18. Feferman, S.: 1998, In the Light of Logic, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Feferman, S.: 1999, ‘Does Mathematics Need New Axioms?', American Mathematical Monthly 106, 99–111.Google Scholar
  20. Gentzen, G.: 1969, in M. E. Szabo (ed.), ‘The Consistency of Elementary Number Theory', The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Jäger, G. and W. Pohlers: 1982, ‘Eine beweistheoretische Untersuchung von (412–CA) + BI und verwandte Systeme', Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  22. Jäger, G. and T. Studer: 1999, ‘Extending the System T0 of Explicit Mathematics: The Limit and Mahlo Axioms', Preprint.Google Scholar
  23. Kreisel, G.: 1955, ‘Models, Translations and Interpretations', in Th. Skolem et al. (eds), Mathematical Interpretation of Formal Systems, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 26–50.Google Scholar
  24. Kreisel, G.: 1958, ‘Hilbert's Programme', Dialectica 12, 346–72. Revised, with Postscript in Benaceraff and Putnam 1983, pp. 207–238.Google Scholar
  25. Kreisel, G.: 1968, ‘A Survey of Proof Theory', J. Symbolic Logic 33, 321–88.Google Scholar
  26. Kreisel, G.: 1987, ‘Proof Theory: Some Personal Recollections', Appendix to Takeuti 1987, pp. 395–405.Google Scholar
  27. Lindström, P.: 1997, ‘Interpretability in Reflexive Theories-A Survey', Theoria 63(3), 182–209.Google Scholar
  28. Martin-Löf, P.: 1984, Intuitionistic Type Theory, Bibliopolis, Naples.Google Scholar
  29. Niebergall, K.-G.: 1999, ‘Proof-Theoretical Reducibility', Preprint.Google Scholar
  30. Niebergall, K.-G.: 2000, ‘On the Logic of Reducibility: Axioms and Examples', This issue.Google Scholar
  31. Oppenheim, P. and H. Putnam: 1958, ‘The Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis', in H. Feigl et al. (eds), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  32. Parsons, C.: 1970, ‘On a Number-Theoretic Choice Scheme and its Relation to Induction', in A. Kino et al. (eds), Intuitionism and Proof Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 459–473.Google Scholar
  33. Pohlers,W.: 1998, 'subsystems of Set Theory and Second Order Number Theory', in Buss 1998, pp. 209–335.Google Scholar
  34. Pour-El, M. B. and S. Kripke: 1967, ‘Deduction-Preserving “Recursive Isomorphisms” between Theories', Fundamenta Mathematicae 61, 141–63.Google Scholar
  35. Rathjen, M.: 1991, ‘Proof-Theoretic Analysis of KPM', Archive for Mathematical Logic 30, 377–403.Google Scholar
  36. Rathjen, M.: 1994, ‘Proof Theory of Reflection', Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 68, 181–224.Google Scholar
  37. Rathjen, M.: 1995, ‘Recent Advances in Ordinal Analysis: 512–CA and Related Systems', Bull. Symbolic Logic 1, 468–485.Google Scholar
  38. Rathjen, M.: 1998, ‘The Superjump in Martin-Löf Type Theory', in '98, Lecture Notes in Logic, 13.Google Scholar
  39. Schütte, K.: 1960, Beweistheorie, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  40. Schütte, K.: 1977, Proof Theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  41. Setzer, A.: 1998, ‘Extending Martin-Löf Type Theory by One Mahlo Universe', Preprint; to appear in Archive for Mathematical Logic. Google Scholar
  42. Simpson, S.: 1988, ‘Partial Realizations of Hilbert's Program', J. Symbolic Logic 53, 349–63.Google Scholar
  43. Simpson, S.: 1998, Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  44. Tait, W. W.: 1981, ‘Finitism', J. Philosophy 78, 524–46.Google Scholar
  45. Takeuti, G.: 1975, Proof Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  46. Takeuti, G.: 1987, Proof Theory, 2nd. edn., North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  47. Tarski, A., A. Mostowski, and R. M. Robinson: 1953, Undecidable Theories, North-Holland, Amserdam.Google Scholar
  48. Tupailo, S.: 2000, ‘Realization of Constructive Set Theory into Explicit Mathematics: A Lower Bound for Impredicative Mahlo Universe', Preprint.Google Scholar
  49. Wang, H.: 1951, ‘Arithmetic Translations of Axiom Systems', Transactions American Math. Soc. 71, 283–93.Google Scholar
  50. Ye, F.: 1999, Strict Constructivism and the Philosophy of Mathematics, PhD Dissertation, Department of Philosophy, Princeton University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Solomon Feferman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsStanford UniversityStanfordU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations