Laver and set theory

In this commemorative article, the work of Richard Laver is surveyed in its full range and extent.Accepted manuscrip

Computability and analysis: the legacy of Alan Turing

We discuss the legacy of Alan Turing and his impact on computability and analysis.Comment: 49 page

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

An interpretation of the Sigma-2 fragment of classical Analysis in System T

We show that it is possible to define a realizability interpretation for the $\Sigma_2$-fragment of classical Analysis using G\"odel's System T only. This supplements a previous result of Schwichtenberg regarding bar recursion at types 0 and 1 by showing how to avoid using bar recursion altogether. Our result is proved via a conservative extension of System T with an operator for composable continuations from the theory of programming languages due to Danvy and Filinski. The fragment of Analysis is therefore essentially constructive, even in presence of the full Axiom of Choice schema: Weak Church's Rule holds of it in spite of the fact that it is strong enough to refute the formal arithmetical version of Church's Thesis

On what I do not understand (and have something to say): Part I

This is a non-standard paper, containing some problems in set theory I have in various degrees been interested in. Sometimes with a discussion on what I have to say; sometimes, of what makes them interesting to me, sometimes the problems are presented with a discussion of how I have tried to solve them, and sometimes with failed tries, anecdote and opinion. So the discussion is quite personal, in other words, egocentric and somewhat accidental. As we discuss many problems, history and side references are erratic, usually kept at a minimum (``see ... '' means: see the references there and possibly the paper itself). The base were lectures in Rutgers Fall'97 and reflect my knowledge then. The other half, concentrating on model theory, will subsequently appear