Intuition, iteration, induction

In Mathematical Thought and Its Objects, Charles Parsons argues that our knowledge of the iterability of functions on the natural numbers and of the validity of complete induction is not intuitive knowledge; Brouwer disagrees on both counts. I will compare Parsons' argument with Brouwer's and defend the latter. I will not argue that Parsons is wrong once his own conception of intuition is granted, as I do not think that that is the case. But I will try to make two points: (1) Using elements from Husserl and from Brouwer, Brouwer's claims can be justified in more detail than he has done; (2) There are certain elements in Parsons' discussion that, when developed further, would lead to Brouwer's notion thus analysed, or at least something relevantly similar to it. (This version contains a postscript of May, 2015.)Comment: Elaboration of a presentation on December 5, 2013 at `Intuition and Reason: International Conference on the Work of Charles Parsons', Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, Jerusale

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

Computer theorem proving in math

We give an overview of issues surrounding computer-verified theorem proving in the standard pure-mathematical context. This is based on my talk at the PQR conference (Brussels, June 2003)

Open questions about Ramsey-type statements in reverse mathematics

Ramsey's theorem states that for any coloring of the n-element subsets of N with finitely many colors, there is an infinite set H such that all n-element subsets of H have the same color. The strength of consequences of Ramsey's theorem has been extensively studied in reverse mathematics and under various reducibilities, namely, computable reducibility and uniform reducibility. Our understanding of the combinatorics of Ramsey's theorem and its consequences has been greatly improved over the past decades. In this paper, we state some questions which naturally arose during this study. The inability to answer those questions reveals some gaps in our understanding of the combinatorics of Ramsey's theorem.Comment: 15 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