Giorgio Venturi

In the contemporary philosophy of set theory, discussion of new axioms that purport to resolve independence necessitates an explanation of how they come to be justified. Ordinarily, justification is divided into two broad kinds: intrinsic justification relates to how `intuitively plausible' an axiom is, whereas extrinsic justification supports an axiom by identifying certain `desirable' consequences. This paper puts pressure on how this distinction is formulated and construed. In particular, we argue that the distinction as often presented is neither well-demarcated nor sufficiently precise. Instead, we suggest that the process of justification in set theory should not be thought of as neatly divisible in this way, but should rather be understood as a conceptually indivisible notion linked to the goal of explanation.

This paper contributes to the generalization of lattice-valued models of set theory to non-classical contexts. First, we show that there are infinitely many complete bounded distributive lattices, which are neither Boolean nor Heyting algebra, but are able to validate the negation-free fragment of \. Then, we build lattice-valued models of full \, whose internal logic is weaker than intuitionistic logic. We conclude by using these models to give an independence proof of the Foundation axiom from \.

In this article we analyze the method of forcing from a more philosophical perspective. After a brief presentation of this technique we outline some of its philosophical imports in connection with realism. We shall discuss some philosophical reactions to the invention of forcing, concentrating on Mostowski’s proposal of sharpening the notion of generic set. Then we will provide an overview of the notions of multiverse and the related philosophical debate on the foundations of set theory. In conclusion, we connect this modern debate and Mostowski’s proposal, suggesting a way to analyze the notion of genericity within the framework of a multiverse structure.

In the Tractatus, it is stated that questions about logical formatting cannot be meaningfully formulated, since it is precisely the application of logical rules which enables the formulation of a question whatsoever; analogously, Wittgenstein’s celebrated infinite regress argument on rule-following seems to undermine any explanation of deduction, as relying on a logical argument. On the other hand, some recent mathematical developments of the Curry-Howard bridge between proof theory and type theory address the issue of describing the “subjective” side of logic, that is, the concrete manipulation of rules and proofs in space and time. It is advocated that such developments can shed some light on the question of logical formatting and its apparently unintelligible paradoxes, thus reconsidering Wittgenstein’s verdict.

This paper aims to show how the mathematical content of Hilbert's Axiom of Completeness consists in an attempt to solve the more general problem of the relationship between intuition and formalization. Hilbert found the accordance between these two sides of mathematical knowledge at a logical level, clarifying the necessary and sufficient conditions for a good formalization of geometry. We will tackle the problem of what is, for Hilbert, the definition of geometry. The solution of this problem will bring out how Hilbert's conception of mathematics is not as innovative as his conception of the axiomatic method. The role that the demonstrative tools play in Hilbert's foundational reflections will also drive us to deal with the problem of the purity of methods, explicitly addressed by Hilbert. In this respect Hilbert's position is very innovative and deeply linked to his modern conception of the axiomatic method. In the end we will show that the role played by the Axiom of Completeness for geometry is the same as the Axiom of Induction for arithmetic and of Church-Turing thesis for computability theory. We end this paper arguing that set theory is the right context in which applying the axiomatic method to mathematics and we postpone to a sequel of this work the attempt to offer a solution similar to Hilbert's for the completeness of set theory.

ABSTRACT We present and discuss a change in the introduction of Hilbert’s Grundlagen der Geometrie between the first and the subsequent editions: the disappearance of the reference to the independence of the axioms. We briefly outline the theoretical relevance of the notion of independence in Hilbert’s work and we suggest that a possible reason for this disappearance is the discovery that Hilbert’s axioms were not, in fact, independent. In the end we show how this change gives textual evidence for the connection between the notions of independence and simplicity.

: In this article we analyze the key concept of Hilbert's axiomatic method, namely that of axiom. We will find two different concepts: the first one from the period of Hilbert's foundation of geometry and the second one at the time of the development of his proof theory. Both conceptions are linked to two different notions of intuition and show how Hilbert's ideas are far from a purely formalist conception of mathematics. The principal thesis of this article is that one of the main problems that Hilbert encountered in his foundational studies consisted in securing a link between formalization and intuition. We will also analyze a related problem, that we will call "Frege's Problem", form the time of the foundation of geometry and investigate the role of the Axiom of Completeness in its solution.

Je me propose dans cet article de traiter de la théorie des ensembles, non seulement comme fondement des mathématiques au sens traditionnel, mais aussi comme fondement de la pratique mathématique. De ce point de vue, je marque une distinction entre un fondement ensembliste standard, d'une nature ontologique, grâce auquel tout objet mathématique peut trouver un succédané ensembliste, et un fondement pratique, qui vise à expliquer les phénomènes mathématiques, en donnant des conditions nécessaires et suffisantes pour prouver les propositions mathématiques. Je présente quelques exemples de cette utilisation des méthodes ensemblistes, dans le contexte des principales théories mathématiques, en termes de preuves d'indépendance et de résultats d'équiconsistance, et je discute quelques résultats récents qui montrent comment il est possible de « compléter » les structures H(ℵ1) et H(ℵ2). Ensuite, je montre que les fondements ensemblistes de mathématiques peuvent être utiles aussi pour la philosophie de la pratique mathématique, car certains axiomes de la théorie des ensembles peuvent être considérés comme des explications de phénomènes mathématiques. Dans la dernière partie de mon article, je propose une distinction plus générale entre deux différentes espèces de fondement : pratique et théorique, en tirant quelques exemples de l'histoire des fondements des mathématiques.