Results 1 
3 of
3
Hilbert’s Program Then and Now
, 2005
"... Hilbert’s program is, in the first instance, a proposal and a research program in the philosophy and foundations of mathematics. It was formulated in the early 1920s by German mathematician David Hilbert (1862–1943), and was pursued by him and his collaborators at the University of Göttingen and els ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Hilbert’s program is, in the first instance, a proposal and a research program in the philosophy and foundations of mathematics. It was formulated in the early 1920s by German mathematician David Hilbert (1862–1943), and was pursued by him and his collaborators at the University of Göttingen and elsewhere in the 1920s
Die another day
 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference ‘FUN with Algorithms 4’, Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 2007
"... Abstract. The Hydra was a manyheaded monster from Greek mythology that would immediately replace a head that was cut off by one or two new heads. It was the second task of Hercules to kill this monster. In an abstract sense, a Hydra can be modeled as a tree where the leaves are the heads, and when ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. The Hydra was a manyheaded monster from Greek mythology that would immediately replace a head that was cut off by one or two new heads. It was the second task of Hercules to kill this monster. In an abstract sense, a Hydra can be modeled as a tree where the leaves are the heads, and when a head is cut off some subtrees get duplicated. Different Hydra species differ by which subtress can be duplicated in which multiplicity. Using some deep mathematics, it had been shown that two classes of Hydra species must always die, independent of the order in which heads are cut off. In this paper we identify three properties for a Hydra that are necessary and sufficient to make it immortal or force it to die. We also give a simple combinatorial proof for this classification. Now, if Hercules had known this... 1
Gentzen’s original consistency proof and the Bar Theorem
"... in December after receiving criticism and, in particular, the criticism that the proof used the Fan Theorem, a criticism that, as the references just cited seem to indicate, Bernays endorsed or initiated at the time but later rejected. That particular criticism is transparently false, but the argume ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
in December after receiving criticism and, in particular, the criticism that the proof used the Fan Theorem, a criticism that, as the references just cited seem to indicate, Bernays endorsed or initiated at the time but later rejected. That particular criticism is transparently false, but the argument of the paper remains nevertheless invalid from a constructive standpoint. In a letter to Bernays dated November 4, 1935, Gentzen protested this evaluation; but then, in another letter to him dated December 11, 1935, he admits that the “critical inference in my consistency proof is defective. ” The defect in question involves the application of proof by induction to certain trees, the ‘reduction trees ’ for sequents (see below and §1), of which it is only given that they are wellfounded. No doubt because of his desire to reason ‘finitistically’, Gentzen nowhere in his paper explicitly speaks of reduction trees, only of reduction rules that would generate such trees; but the requirement of wellfoundedness, that every path taken in accordance with the rule terminates, of course makes implicit reference to the tree. Gentzen attempted to avoid the