Abstract. Let M be a smooth, compact manifold of dimension n ≥ 5 and sectional curvature ∣K∣ ≤ 1. Let Met(M) = Riem(M)/Diff(M) be the space of Riemannian metrics on M modulo isometries. Nabutovsky and Weinberger studied the connected components of sublevel sets (and local minima) for certain functions on Met(M) such as the diameter. They showed that for every Turing machine Te, e ϵ ω, there is a sequence (uniformly effective in e) of homology n-spheres which are also hypersurfaces, such that is diffeomorphic to the standard n-sphere Sn (denoted )iff Te halts on input k, and in this case the connected sum , so , and is associated with a local minimum of the diameter function on Met(M) whose depth is roughly equal to the settling time ae σe(k)of Te on inputs y < k.

At their request Soare constructed a particular infinite sequence {Ai}ϵω of c.e. sets so that for all i the settling time of the associated Turing machine for Ai dominates that for Ai+1, even when the latter is composed with an arbitrary computable function. From this, Nabutovsky and Weinberger showed that the basins exhibit a “fractal” like behavior with extremely big basins, and very much smaller basins coming off them, and so on. This reveals what Nabutovsky and Weinberger describe in their paper on fractals as “the astonishing richness of the space of Riemannian metrics on a smooth manifold, up to reparametrization.” From the point of view of logic and computability, the Nabutovsky-Weinberger results are especially interesting because: (1) they use c.e. sets to prove structural complexity of the geometry and topology, not merely undecidability results as in the word problem for groups, Hilbert's Tenth Problem, or most other applications; (2) they use nontrivial information about c.e. sets, the Soare sequence {Ai}iϵω above, not merely Gödel's c.e. noncomputable set K of the 1930's; and (3) without using computability theory there is no known proof that local minima exist even for simple manifolds like the torus T5 (see §9.5).

The Hyperuniverse Program is a new approach to set-theoretic truth which is based on justifiable principles and leads to the resolution of many questions independent from ZFC. The purpose of this paper is to present this program, to illustrate its mathematical content and implications, and to discuss its philosophical assumptions.

Dedicated to Dana Scott on his sixtieth birthday.

It is common knowledge that for a short while Hermann Weyl joined Brouwer in his pursuit of a revision of mathematics according to intuitionistic principles. There is, however, little in the literature that sheds light on Weyl's role and in particular on Brouwer's reaction to Weyl's allegiance to the cause of intuitionism. This short episode certainly raises a number of questions: what made Weyl give up his own program, spelled out in “Das Kontinuum”, how did Weyl come to be so well-informed about Brouwer's new intuitionism, in what respect did Weyl's intuitionism differ from Brouwer's intuitionism, what did Brouwer think of Weyl's views,…? To some of these questions at least partial answers can be put forward on the basis of some of the available correspondence and notes. The present paper will concentrate mostly on the historical issues of the intuitionistic episode in Weyl's career.

Weyl entered the foundational controversy with a bang in 1920 with his sensational paper “On the new foundational crisis in mathematics”. He had already made a name for himself in the foundations of mathematics in 1918 with his monograph “The Continuum” [18]; this contained in addition to a technical logical-mathematical construction of the continuum, a fairly extensive discussion of the shortcomings of the traditional construction of the continuum on the basis of arbitrary—and hence also impredicative—Dedekind cuts.

§1. Introduction. Among the most remarkable discoveries in set theory in the last quarter century is the rich structure of the arithmetic of singular cardinals, and its deep relationship to large cardinals. The problem of finding a complete set of rules describing the behavior of the continuum function 2ℵα for singular ℵα's, known as the Singular Cardinals Problem, has been attacked by many different techniques, involving forcing, large cardinals, inner models, and various combinatorial methods. The work on the singular cardinals problem has led to many often surprising results, culminating in a beautiful theory of Saharon Shelah called the pcf theory (“pcf” stands for “possible cofinalities”). The most striking result to date states that if 2ℵn < ℵω for every n = 0, 1, 2, …, then 2ℵω < ℵω4.

In this paper we present a brief history of the singular cardinals problem, the present knowledge, and an introduction into Shelah's pcf theory. In Sections 2, 3 and 4 we introduce the reader to cardinal arithmetic and to the singular cardinals problems. Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 describe the main results and methods of the last 25 years and explain the role of large cardinals in the singular cardinals problem. In Section 9 we present an outline of the pcf theory.

§2. The arithmetic of cardinal numbers. Cardinal numbers were introduced by Cantor in the late 19th century and problems arising from investigations of rules of arithmetic of cardinal numbers led to the birth of set theory. The operations of addition, multiplication and exponentiation of infinite cardinal numbers are a natural generalization of such operations on integers. Addition and multiplication of infinite cardinals turns out to be simple: when at least one of the numbers κ, λ is infinite then both κ + λ and κ·λ are equal to max {κ, λ}. In contrast with + and ·, exponentiation presents fundamental problems. In the simplest nontrivial case, 2κ represents the cardinal number of the power set P(κ), the set of all subsets of κ. (Here we adopt the usual convention of set theory that the number κ is identified with a set of cardinality κ, namely the set of all ordinal numbers smaller than κ.

In the 1920s, Paul Hertz (1881–1940) developed certain calculi based on structural rules only and established normal form results for proofs. It is shown that he anticipated important techniques and results of general proof theory as well as of resolution theory, if the latter is regarded as a part of structural proof theory. Furthermore, it is shown that Gentzen, in his first paper of 1933, which heavily draws on Hertz, proves a normal form result which corresponds to the completeness of propositional SLD-resolution in logic programming.

§0. Alonzo Church's contributions to philosophy and to that most philosophical part of logic, intensional logic, are impressive indeed. He wrote relatively few papers actually devoted to specifically philosophical issues, as distinguished from related technical work in logic. Many of his contributions appear in reviews for The Journal of Symbolic Logic, and it can hardly be maintained that one finds there a “philosophical system”. But there occur a clearly articulated and powerful methodology, terse arguments, often of “crushing cogency”, and philosophical observations of the first importance.

Many of the less formal philosophical contributions center around questions concerning meaning, but there are important clarifications and insights into matters of the epistemology and ontology of the sciences, especially the formal sciences.

1.1. The logistic method. Church's writings on philosophical matters exhibit an unwavering commitment to what he called the “logistic method”. The term did not catch on and now one would just speak of “formalization”. The use of these ideas is now so common and familiar among logicians and logically-oriented philosophers that they are simply taken for granted. But they deserve to be celebrated and re-emphasized, for there are (still) philosophers who seriously underestimate and even consciously reject these techniques.

Gentzen's systems of natural deduction and sequent calculus were byproducts in his program of proving the consistency of arithmetic and analysis. It is suggested that the central component in his results on logical calculi was the use of a tree form for derivations. It allows the composition of derivations and the permutation of the order of application of rules, with a full control over the structure of derivations as a result. Recently found documents shed new light on the discovery of these calculi. In particular, Gentzen set up five different forms of natural calculi and gave a detailed proof of normalization for intuitionistic natural deduction. An early handwritten manuscript of his thesis shows that a direct translation from natural deduction to the axiomatic logic of Hilbert and Ackermann was, in addition to the influence of Paul Hertz, the second component in the discovery of sequent calculus. A system intermediate between the sequent calculus LI and axiomatic logic, denoted LIG in unpublished sources, is implicit in Gentzen's published thesis of 1934–35. The calculus has half rules, half “groundsequents,” and does not allow full cut elimination. Nevertheless, a translation from LI to LIG in the published thesis gives a subformula property for a complete class of derivations in LIG. After the thesis, Gentzen continued to work on variants of sequent calculi for ten more years, in the hope to find a consistency proof for arithmetic within an intuitionistic calculus.

There have been several different and even opposed conceptions of the problem of logical constants, i.e., of the requirements that a good theory of logical constants ought to satisfy. This paper is in the first place a survey of these conceptions and a critique of the theories they have given rise to. A second aim of the paper is to sketch some ideas about what a good theory would look like. A third aim is to draw from these ideas and from the preceding survey the conclusion that most conceptions of the problem of logical constants involve requirements of a philosophically demanding nature which are probably not satisfiable by any minimally adequate theory.

We prove that the two-variable fragment of first-order intuitionistic logic is undecidable, even without constants and equality. We also show that the two-variable fragment of a quantified modal logic L with expanding first-order domains is undecidable whenever there is a Kripke frame for L with a point having infinitely many successors (such are, in particular, the first-order extensions of practically all standard modal logics like K, K4, GL, S4, S5, K4.1, S4.2, GL.3, etc.). For many quantified modal logics, including those in the standard nomenclature above, even the monadic two-variable fragments turn out to be undecidable.

This little gem is stated unbilled and proved (completely) in the last two lines of §2 of the short note Kleene [1938]. In modern notation, with all the hypotheses stated explicitly and in a strong (uniform) form, it reads as follows:

Second Recursion Theorem (SRT). Fix a set V ⊆ ℕ, and suppose that for each natural number n ϵ ℕ = {0, 1, 2, …}, φn: ℕ1+n ⇀ V is a recursive partial function of (1 + n) arguments with values in V so that the standard assumptions (a) and (b) hold with

.

(a) Every n-ary recursive partial function with values in V is for some e.

(b) For all m, n, there is a recursive function : Nm+1 → ℕ such that

.

Then, for every recursive, partial function f of (1+m+n) arguments with values in V, there is a total recursive function of m arguments such that

Proof. Fix e ϵ ℕ such that and let .

We will abuse notation and write ž; rather than ž() when m = 0, so that (1) takes the simpler form

in this case (and the proof sets ž = S(e, e)).

In this paper, we sketch the development of two important themes of modern set theory, both of which can be regarded as growing out of work of Kurt Gödel. We begin with a review of some basic concepts and conventions of set theory.

§0. The ordinal numbers were Georg Cantor's deepest contribution to mathematics. After the natural numbers 0, 1, …, n, … comes the first infinite ordinal number ω, followed by ω + 1, ω + 2, …, ω + ω, … and so forth. ω is the first limit ordinal as it is neither 0 nor a successor ordinal. We follow the von Neumann convention, according to which each ordinal number α is identified with the set {ν ∣ ν α} of its predecessors. The ∈ relation on ordinals thus coincides with <. We have 0 = ∅ and α + 1 = α ∪ {α}. According to the usual set-theoretic conventions, ω is identified with the first infinite cardinal ℵ0, similarly for the first uncountable ordinal number ω1 and the first uncountable cardinal number ℵ1, etc. We thus arrive at the following picture:

The von Neumann hierarchy divides the class V of all sets into a hierarchy of sets Vα indexed by the ordinal numbers. The recursive definition reads: (where } is the power set of x);

Vλ = ∪v<λVv for limit ordinals λ. We can represent this hierarchy by the following picture.

For the modern set theorist the empty set Ø, the singleton {a}, and the ordered pair 〈x, y〉 are at the beginning of the systematic, axiomatic development of set theory, both as a field of mathematics and as a unifying framework for ongoing mathematics. These notions are the simplest building locks in the abstract, generative conception of sets advanced by the initial axiomatization of Ernst Zermelo [1908a] and are quickly assimilated long before the complexities of Power Set, Replacement, and Choice are broached in the formal elaboration of the ‘set of’f {} operation. So it is surprising that, while these notions are unproblematic today, they were once sources of considerable concern and confusion among leading pioneers of mathematical logic like Frege, Russell, Dedekind, and Peano. In the development of modern mathematical logic out of the turbulence of 19th century logic, the emergence of the empty set, the singleton, and the ordered pair as clear and elementary set-theoretic concepts serves as amotif that reflects and illuminates larger and more significant developments in mathematical logic: the shift from the intensional to the extensional viewpoint, the development of type distinctions, the logical vs. the iterative conception of set, and the emergence of various concepts and principles as distinctively set-theoretic rather than purely logical. Here there is a loose analogy with Tarski's recursive definition of truth for formal languages: The mathematical interest lies mainly in the procedure of recursion and the attendant formal semantics in model theory, whereas the philosophical interest lies mainly in the basis of the recursion, truth and meaning at the level of basic predication. Circling back to the beginning, we shall see how central the empty set, the singleton, and the ordered pair were, after all.

There are two standard ways to establish consistency in set theory. One is to prove consistency using inner models, in the way that Gödel proved the consistency of GCH using the inner model L. The other is to prove consistency using outer models, in the way that Cohen proved the consistency of the negation of CH by enlarging L to a forcing extension L[G].

But we can demand more from the outer model method, and we illustrate this by examining Easton's strengthening of Cohen's result:

Theorem 1 (Easton's Theorem). There is a forcing extensionL[G] of L in which GCH fails at every regular cardinal.

Assume that the universe V of all sets is rich in the sense that it contains inner models with large cardinals. Then what is the relationship between Easton's model L[G] and V? In particular, are these models compatible, in the sense that they are inner models of a common third model? If not, then the failure of GCH at every regular cardinal is consistent only in a weak sense, as it can only hold in universes which are incompatible with the universe of all sets. Ideally, we would like L[G] to not only be compatible with V, but to be an inner model of V.

We say that a statement is internally consistent iff it holds in some inner model, under the assumption that there are innermodels with large cardinals.

Throughout the development of finite model theory, the fragments of first-order logic with only finitely many variables have played a central role. This survey gives an introduction to the theory of finite variable logics and reports on recent progress in the area.

For each k ≥ 1 we let Lk be the fragment of first-order logic consisting of all formulas with at most k (free or bound) variables. The logics Lk are the simplest finite-variable logics. Later, we are going to consider infinitary variants and extensions by so-called counting quantifiers.

Finite variable logics have mostly been studied on finite structures. Like the whole area of finite model theory, they have interesting model theoretic, complexity theoretic, and combinatorial aspects. For finite structures, first-order logic is often too expressive, since each finite structure can be characterized up to isomorphism by a single first-order sentence, and each class of finite structures that is closed under isomorphism can be characterized by a first-order theory. The finite variable fragments seem to be promising candidates with the right balance between expressive power and weakness for a model theory of finite structures. This may have motivated Poizat [67] to collect some basic model theoretic properties of the Lk. Around the same time Immerman [45] showed that important complexity classes such as polynomial time (PTIME) or polynomial space (PSPACE) can be characterized as collections of all classes of (ordered) finite structures definable by uniform sequences of first-order formulas with a fixed number of variables and varying quantifier-depth.

In this paper we shall answer some questions in the set theory of L(ℝ), the universe of all sets constructible from the reals. In order to do so, we shall assume ADL(ℝ), the hypothesis that all 2-person games of perfect information on ω whose payoff set is in L(ℝ) are determined. This is by now standard practice. ZFC itself decides few questions in the set theory of L(ℝ), and for reasons we cannot discuss here, ZFC + ADL(ℝ) yields the most interesting “completion” of the ZFC-theory of L(ℝ).

ADL(ℝ) implies that L(ℝ) satisfies “every wellordered set of reals is countable”, so that the axiom of choice fails in L(ℝ). Nevertheless, there is a natural inner model of L(ℝ), namely HODL(ℝ), which satisfies ZFC. (HOD is the class of all hereditarily ordinal definable sets, that is, the class of all sets x such that every member of the transitive closure of x is definable over the universe from ordinal parameters (i.e., “OD”). The superscript “L(ℝ)” indicates, here and below, that the notion in question is to be interpreted in L(R).) HODL(ℝ) is reasonably close to the full L(ℝ), in ways we shall make precise in § 1. The most important of the questions we shall answer concern HODL(ℝ): what is its first order theory, and in particular, does it satisfy GCH?

These questions first drew attention in the 70's and early 80's. (See [4, p. 223]; also [12, p. 573] for variants involving finer notions of definability.)

There are two principles that lend Brouwer's mathematics the extra power beyond arithmetic. Both are presented in Brouwer's writings with little or no argument. One, the principle of bar induction, will not concern us here. The other, the continuity principle for numbers, occurs for the first time in print in [4]. It is formulated and immediately applied to show that the set of numerical choice sequences is not enumerable. In fact, the idea of the continuity property can be dated fairly precisely, it is to be found in the margin of Brouwer's notes for his course on Pointset Theory of 1915/16. The course was repeated in 1916/17 and he must have inserted his first formulation of the continuity principle in the fall of 1916 as new material right at the beginning of the course.

In modern language, the principle reads

where α and β range over choice sequences of natural numbers, m and x over natural numbers, and stands for ⟨α(0), α(1), …, α(m − 1)⟩, the initial segment of α of length m.

An immediate consequence of WC-N is that all full functions are continuous, and, as a corollary, that the continuum is unsplittable [28]. Note that WC-N is incompatible with Church's thesis, [22], section 4.6.

After Brouwer asserted WC-N, Troelstra was the first to ask in print for a conceptual motivation, but he remained an exception; most authors followed Brouwer by simply asserting it, cf. [18].

Let us note first that in one particular case the principle is obvious indeed, namely in the case of the lawless sequences. The notion of lawless sequence surfaced fairly late in the history of intuitionism. Kreisel introduced it in [17] for metamathematical purposes. There is a letter from Brouwer to Heyting in which the phenomenon also occurs [7]. This is an important and interesting fact since it is (probably) the only time that Brouwer made use of a possibility expressly stipulated in, e.g., [5], see below.

We consider fixed point logics, i.e., extensions of first order predicate logic with operators defining fixed points. A number of such operators, generalizing inductive definitions, have been studied in the context of finite model theory, including nondeterministic and alternating operators. We review results established in finite model theory, and also consider the expressive power of the resulting logics on infinite structures. In particular, we establish the relationship between inflationary and nondeterministic fixed point logics and second order logic, and we consider questions related to the determinacy of games associated with alternating fixed points.

Classification is an important goal in many branches of mathematics. The idea is to describe the members of some class of mathematical objects, up to isomorphism or other important equivalence, in terms of relatively simple invariants. Where this is impossible, it is useful to have concrete results saying so. In model theory and descriptive set theory, there is a large body of work showing that certain classes of mathematical structures admit classification while others do not. In the present paper, we describe some recent work on classification in computable structure theory.

Section 1 gives some background from model theory and descriptive set theory. From model theory, we give sample structure and non-structure theorems for classes that include structures of arbitrary cardinality. We also describe the notion of Scott rank, which is useful in the more restricted setting of countable structures. From descriptive set theory, we describe the basic Polish space of structures for a fixed countable language with fixed countable universe. We give sample structure and non-structure theorems based on the complexity of the isomorphism relation, and on Borel embeddings.

Section 2 gives some background on computable structures. We describe three approaches to classification for these structures. The approaches are all equivalent. However, one approach, which involves calculating the complexity of the isomorphism relation, has turned out to be more productive than the others. Section 3 describes results on the isomorphism relation for a number of mathematically interesting classes—various kinds of groups and fields. In Section 4, we consider a setting similar to that in descriptive set theory. We describe an effective analogue of Borel embedding which allows us to make distinctions even among classes of finite structures. Section 5 gives results on computable structures of high Scott rank. Some of these results make use of computable embeddings. Finally, in Section 6, we mention some open problems and possible directions for future work.

Introduction. This survey is intended to introduce to logicians some notions, methods and theorems in set theory which arose—largely through the work of Saharon Shelah—out of (successful) attempts to solve problems in abelian group theory, principally the Whitehead problem and the closely related problem of the existence of almost free abelian groups. While Shelah's first independence result regarding the Whitehead problem used established set-theoretical methods (discussed below), his later work required new ideas; it is on these that we focus. We emphasize the nature of the new ideas and the historical context in which they arose, and we do not attempt to give precise technical definitions in all cases, nor to include a comprehensive survey of the algebraic results.

In fact, very little algebraic background is needed beyond the definitions of group and group homomorphism. Unless otherwise specified, we will use the word “group” to refer to an abelian group, that is, the group operation is commutative. The group operation will be denoted by +, the identity element by 0, and the inverse of a by −a. We shall use na as an abbreviation for a + a + … + a [n times] if n is positive, and na = (−n)(−a) if n is negative.

The advantages and disadvantages of formalization in philosophy are summarized. It is concluded that formalized philosophy is an endangered speciality that needs to be revitalized and to increase its interactions with non-formalized philosophy. The enigmatic style that is common in philosophical logic must give way to explicit discussions of the problematic relationship between formal models and the philosophical concepts and issues that motivated their development.