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

A new foundational crisis in mathematics, is it really happening?

The article reconsiders the position of the foundations of mathematics after the discovery of HoTT. Discussion that this discovery has generated in the community of mathematicians, philosophers and computer scientists might indicate a new crisis in the foundation of mathematics. By examining the mathematical facts behind HoTT and their relation with the existing foundations, we conclude that the present crisis is not one. We reiterate a pluralist vision of the foundations of mathematics. The article contains a short survey of the mathematical and historical background needed to understand the main tenets of the foundational issues.Comment: Final versio

Univalent Foundations as a Foundation for Mathematical Practice

I prove that invoking the univalence axiom is equivalent to arguing 'without loss of generality' (WLOG) within Propositional Univalent Foundations (PropUF), the fragment of Univalent Foundations (UF) in which all homotopy types are mere propositions. As a consequence, I argue that practicing mathematicians, in accepting WLOG as a valid form of argument, implicitly accept the univalence axiom and that UF rightly serves as a Foundation for Mathematical Practice. By contrast, ZFC is inconsistent with WLOG as it is applied, and therefore cannot serve as a foundation for practice

Univalent Foundations and the UniMath Library

We give a concise presentation of the Univalent Foundations of mathematics outlining the main ideas, followed by a discussion of the UniMath library of formalized mathematics implementing the ideas of the Univalent Foundations (section 1), and the challenges one faces in attempting to design a large-scale library of formalized mathematics (section 2). This leads us to a general discussion about the links between architecture and mathematics where a meeting of minds is revealed between architects and mathematicians (section 3). On the way our odyssey from the foundations to the "horizon" of mathematics will lead us to meet the mathematicians David Hilbert and Nicolas Bourbaki as well as the architect Christopher Alexander

Introducing Formalism in Economics: The Growth Model of John von Neumann

The objective is to interpret John von Neumann's growth model as a decisive step of the forthcoming formalist revolution of the 1950s in economics. This model gave rise to an impressive variety of comments about its classical or neoclassical underpinnings. We go beyond this traditional criterion and interpret rather this model as the manifestation of von Neumann's involvement in the formalist programme of mathematician David Hilbert. We discuss the impact of Kurt Gödel’s discoveries on this programme. We show that the growth model reflects the pragmatic turn of the formalist programme after Gödel and proposes the extension of modern axiomatisation to economics..Von Neumann, Growth model, Formalist revolution, Mathematical formalism, Axiomatics

Mathematics as the role model for neoclassical economics (Blanqui Lecture)

Born out of the conscious effort to imitate mechanical physics, neoclassical economics ended up in the mid 20th century embracing a purely mathematical notion of rigor as embodied by the axiomatic method. This lecture tries to explain how this could happen, or, why and when the economists’ role model became the mathematician rather than the physicist. According to the standard interpretation, the triumph of axiomatics in modern neoclassical economics can be explained in terms of the discipline’s increasing awareness of its lack of good experimental and observational data, and thus of its intrinsic inability to fully abide by the paradigm of mechanics. Yet this story fails to properly account for the transformation that the word “rigor” itself underwent first and foremost in mathematics as well as for the existence of a specific motivation behind the economists’ decision to pursue the axiomatic route. While the full argument is developed in Giocoli 2003, these pages offer a taste of a (partially) alternative story which begins with the so-called formalist revolution in mathematics, then crosses the economists’ almost innate urge to bring their discipline to the highest possible level of generality and conceptual integrity, and ends with the advent and consolidation of that very core set of methods, tools and ideas that constitute the contemporary image of economics.Axiomatic method, formalism, rationality, neoclassical economics