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.

We offer a novel picture of mathematical language from the perspective of speech act theory. There are distinct speech acts within mathematics, and, as we intend to show, distinct illocutionary force indicators as well. Even mathematics in its most formalized version cannot do without some such indicators. This goes against a certain orthodoxy both in contemporary philosophy of mathematics and in speech act theory. As we will comment, the recognition of distinct illocutionary acts within logic and mathematics and the incorporation of illocutionary force indicators in the formal language for both goes back to Frege’s conception of these topics. We are, therefore, going back to a Fregean perspective. This paper is part of a larger project of applying contemporary speech act theory to the scientific language of mathematics in order to uncover the varieties and regular combinations of illocutionary acts present in it. For reasons of space, we here concentrate only on assertive and declarative acts within mathematics, leaving the investigation of other kinds of acts for a future occasion.

We propose a novel, ontological approach to studying mathematical propositions and proofs. By “ontological approach” we refer to the study of the categories of beings or concepts that, in their practice, mathematicians isolate as fruitful for the advancement of their scientific activity (like discovering and proving theorems, formulating conjectures, and providing explanations). We do so by developing what we call a “formal ontology” of proofs using semantic modeling tools (like RDF and OWL) developed by the computer science community. In this article, (i) we describe this new approach and, (ii) to provide an example, we apply it to the problem of the identity of proofs. We also describe open issues and further applications of this approach (for example, the study of purity of methods). We lay some foundations to investigate rigorously and at large scale intellectual moves and attitudes that underpin the advancement of mathematics through cognitive means (carving out investigationally valuable concepts and techniques) and social means (like communication, collaboration, revision, and criticism of specific categories, inferential patterns, and levels of analysis). Our approach complements other types of analysis of proofs such as reconstruction in a deductive system and examination through a proof-assistant.

This article outlines a semantic approach to the logics of unknown truths, and the logic of false beliefs, using neighborhood structures, giving results on soundness, completeness, and expressivity. Relational semantics for the logics of unknown truths are also addressed, specically the conditions under which sound axiomatizations of these logics might be obtained from their normal counterparts, and the relationship between refexive insensitive logics and logics containing the provability operator as the primary modal operator.

: 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.

This article investigates the connections between the logics of being wrong, introduced in Steinsvold (2011, Notre Dame J. Form. Log., 52, 245–253), and factive ignorance, presented in Kubyshkina and Petrolo (2021, Synthese, 198, 5917–5928). The first part of the paper provides a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic of factive ignorance that corrects errors in Kubyshkina and Petrolo (2021, Synthese, 198, 5917–5928) and resolves questions about the expressivity of the language. In the second half, it is shown that the relationship between the two logics suggests an alternative axiomatization for the logic of factive ignorance, the adequacy of which is easily proved via straightforward translations.

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.

In this paper we extend to non-classical set theories the standard strategy of proving independence using Boolean-valued models. This extension is provided by means of a new technique that, combining algebras (by taking their product), is able to provide product-algebra-valued models of set theories. In this paper we also provide applications of this new technique by showing that: (1) we can import the classical independence results to non-classical set theory (as an example we prove the independence of $\mathsf {CH}$ ); and (2) we can provide new independence results. We end by discussing the role of non-classical algebra-valued models for the debate between universists and multiversists and by arguing that non-classical models should be included as legitimate members of the multiverse.

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.

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 is an introductory paper to a series of results linking generic absoluteness results for second and third order number theory to the model theoretic notion of model companionship. Specifically we develop here a general framework linking Woodin’s generic absoluteness results for second order number theory and the theory of universally Baire sets to model companionship and show that (with the required care in details) a $$\Pi _2$$ -property formalized in an appropriate language for second order number theory is forcible from some $$T\supseteq \mathsf {ZFC}+$$ large cardinals if and only if it is consistent with the universal fragment of T if and only if it is realized in the model companion of T. In particular we show that the first order theory of $$H_{\omega _1}$$ is the model companion of the first order theory of the universe of sets assuming the existence of class many Woodin cardinals, and working in a signature with predicates for $$\Delta _0$$ -properties and for all universally Baire sets of reals. We will extend these results also to the theory of $$H_{\aleph _2}$$ in a follow up of this paper.

We present recent results on the model companions of set theory, placing them in the context of a current debate in the philosophy of mathematics. We start by describing the dependence of the notion of model companionship on the signature, and then we analyze this dependence in the specific case of set theory. We argue that the most natural model companions of set theory describe (as the signature in which we axiomatize set theory varies) theories of $H_{\kappa ^+}$, as $\kappa $ ranges among the infinite cardinals. We also single out $2^{\aleph _0}=\aleph _2$ as the unique solution of the continuum problem which can (and does) belong to some model companion of set theory (enriched with large cardinal axioms). While doing so we bring to light that set theory enriched by large cardinal axioms in the range of supercompactness has as its model companion (with respect to its first order axiomatization in certain natural signatures) the theory of $H_{\aleph _2}$ as given by a strong form of Woodin’s axiom $(*)$ (which holds assuming $\mathsf {MM}^{++}$ ). Finally this model-theoretic approach to set-theoretic validities is explained and justified in terms of a form of maximality inspired by Hilbert’s axiom of completeness.

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 \.

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.