Perspectives for proof unwinding by programming languages techniques

In this chapter, we propose some future directions of work, potentially beneficial to Mathematics and its foundations, based on the recent import of methodology from the theory of programming languages into proof theory. This scientific essay, written for the audience of proof theorists as well as the working mathematician, is not a survey of the field, but rather a personal view of the author who hopes that it may inspire future and fellow researchers

Turing jumps through provability

Fixing some computably enumerable theory $T$, the Friedman-Goldfarb-Harrington (FGH) theorem says that over elementary arithmetic, each $\Sigma_1$ formula is equivalent to some formula of the form $\Box_T \varphi$ provided that $T$ is consistent. In this paper we give various generalizations of the FGH theorem. In particular, for $n>1$ we relate $\Sigma_{n}$ formulas to provability statements $[n]_T^{\sf True}\varphi$ which are a formalization of "provable in $T$ together with all true $\Sigma_{n+1}$ sentences". As a corollary we conclude that each $[n]_T^{\sf True}$ is $\Sigma_{n+1}$-complete. This observation yields us to consider a recursively defined hierarchy of provability predicates $[n+1]^\Box_T$ which look a lot like $[n+1]_T^{\sf True}$ except that where $[n+1]_T^{\sf True}$ calls upon the oracle of all true $\Sigma_{n+2}$ sentences, the $[n+1]^\Box_T$ recursively calls upon the oracle of all true sentences of the form $\langle n \rangle_T^\Box\phi$. As such we obtain a `syntax-light' characterization of $\Sigma_{n+1}$ definability whence of Turing jumps which is readily extended beyond the finite. Moreover, we observe that the corresponding provability predicates $[n+1]_T^\Box$ are well behaved in that together they provide a sound interpretation of the polymodal provability logic ${\sf GLP}_\omega$

Hilbert's Program Then and Now

Hilbert's program was an ambitious and wide-ranging project in the philosophy and foundations of mathematics. In order to "dispose of the foundational questions in mathematics once and for all, "Hilbert proposed a two-pronged approach in 1921: first, classical mathematics should be formalized in axiomatic systems; second, using only restricted, "finitary" means, one should give proofs of the consistency of these axiomatic systems. Although Godel's incompleteness theorems show that the program as originally conceived cannot be carried out, it had many partial successes, and generated important advances in logical theory and meta-theory, both at the time and since. The article discusses the historical background and development of Hilbert's program, its philosophical underpinnings and consequences, and its subsequent development and influences since the 1930s.Comment: 43 page

Relevant Arithmetic and Mathematical Pluralism

In The Consistency of Arithmetic and elsewhere, Meyer claims to “repeal” Goedel’s second incompleteness theorem. In this paper, I review his argument, and then consider two ways of understanding it: from the perspective of mathematical pluralism and monism, respectively. Is relevant arithmetic just another legitimate practice among many, or is it a rival of its classical counterpart—a corrective to Goedel, setting us back on the path to the (One) True Arithmetic? To help answer, I sketch a few worked examples from relevant mathematics, to see what a non-classical (re)formulation of mathematics might look like in practice. I conclude that, while it is unlikely that relevant arithmetic describes past and present mathematical practice, and so might be most acceptable as a pluralist enterprise, it may yet prescribe a more monistic future venture

Fourteen Arguments in Favour of a Formalist Philosophy of Real Mathematics

The formalist philosophy of mathematics (in its purest, most extreme version) is widely regarded as a “discredited position”. This pure and extreme version of formalism is called by some authors “game formalism”, because it is alleged to represent mathematics as a meaningless game with strings of symbols. Nevertheless, I would like to draw attention to some arguments in favour of game formalism as an appropriate philosophy of real mathematics. For the most part, these arguments have not yet been used or were neglected in past discussions