Results

**1 - 2**of**2**### Presentation to the panel, “Does mathematics need new axioms?”

"... The point of departure for this panel is a somewhat controversial paper that I published in the American Mathematical Monthly under the title “Does mathematics need new axioms? ” [4]. The paper itself was based on a lecture that I gave in 1997 to a joint session of the American Mathematical Society ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

The point of departure for this panel is a somewhat controversial paper that I published in the American Mathematical Monthly under the title “Does mathematics need new axioms? ” [4]. The paper itself was based on a lecture that I gave in 1997 to a joint session of the American Mathematical Society and the Mathematical Association of America, and it was thus written for a general mathematical audience. Basically, it was intended as an assessment of Gödel’s program for new axioms that he had advanced most prominently in his 1947 paper for the Monthly, entitled “What is Cantor’s continuum problem? ” [7]. My paper aimed to be an assessment of that program in the light of research in mathematical logic in the intervening years, beginning in the 1960s, but especially in more recent years. In my presentation here I shall be following [4] in its main points, though enlarging on some of them. Some passages are even taken almost verbatim from that paper where convenient, though of course all expository background material that was necessary there for a general audience is omitted. 1 For a logical audience I have written before about

### IS SET THEORY INDISPENSABLE?

, 905

"... Abstract. Although Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC) is generally accepted as the appropriate foundation for modern mathematics, proof theorists have known for decades that virtually all mainstream mathematics can actually be formalized in much weaker systems which are essentially number-theoretic i ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

Abstract. Although Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC) is generally accepted as the appropriate foundation for modern mathematics, proof theorists have known for decades that virtually all mainstream mathematics can actually be formalized in much weaker systems which are essentially number-theoretic in nature. Feferman has observed that this severely undercuts a famous argument of Quine and Putnam according to which set theoretic platonism is validated by the fact that mathematics is “indispensable ” for some successful scientific theories (since in fact ZFC is not needed for the mathematics that is currently used in science). I extend this critique in three ways: (1) not only is it possible to formalize core mathematics in these weaker systems, they are in important ways better suited to the task than ZFC; (2) an improved analysis of the proof-theoretic strength of predicative theories shows that most if not all of the already rare examples of mainstream theorems whose proofs are currently thought to require metaphysically substantial set-theoretic principles actually do not; and