Giorgio Venturi

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.

In this article I propose to look at set theory not only as a founda­tion of mathematics in a traditional sense, but as a foundation for mathemat­ical practice. For this purpose I distinguish between a standard, ontological, set theoretical foundation that aims to find a set theoretical surrogate to every mathematical object, and a practical one that tries to explain mathematical phenomena, giving necessary and sufficient conditions for the proof of mathematical propositions. I will present some example of this use of set theoretical methods, in the context of mainstream mathematics, in terms of independence proofs, equiconsistency results and discussing some recent results that show how it is possible to “complete” the structures H(ℵ1) and H(ℵ2). Then I will argue that a set theoretical foundation of mathematics can be relevant also for the philosophy of mathematical practice, as long as some axioms of set theory can be seen as explanations of mathematical phenomena. In the end I will propose a more general distinction between two different kinds of foundation: a practical one and a theoretical one, drawing some examples from the history of the foundation of mathematics.

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.

In this article I propose to look at set theory not only as a founda­tion of mathematics in a traditional sense, but as a foundation for mathemat­ical practice. For this purpose I distinguish between a standard, ontological, set theoretical foundation that aims to find a set theoretical surrogate to every mathematical object, and a practical one that tries to explain mathematical phenomena, giving necessary and sufficient conditions for the proof of mathematical propositions. I will present some example of this use of set theoretical methods, in the context of mainstream mathematics, in terms of independence proofs, equiconsistency results and discussing some recent results that show how it is possible to “complete” the structures H(ℵ1) and H(ℵ2). Then I will argue that a set theoretical foundation of mathematics can be relevant also for the philosophy of mathematical practice, as long as some axioms of set theory can be seen as explanations of mathematical phenomena. In the end I will propose a more general distinction between two different kinds of foundation: a practical one and a theoretical one, drawing some examples from the history of the foundation of mathematics.