[FOM] stopping at ACA_0
nweaver at math.wustl.edu
Tue Feb 21 00:44:51 EST 2006
Antonino Drago wrote (quoting me):
> > I like ACA_0 and am genuinely interested in knowing
> > whether it really has a "nice story" so I'll ask again.
> In a previous posting I recalled that Feferman's studies
> located the very important Weyl's elementary mathematics
> at the level of ACA_0.
Yes, but Weyl didn't suggest any philosophical reason for
stopping at arithmetic definability. If I remember right
he was very clear about the possibility of going further
but felt that for his purposes (developing 19th century
real analysis in a predicatively acceptable way) there
was no need to do this. In other words his criterion for
stopping at ACA_0 was esthetic. Weyl scholars, please
correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Friedman claimed that it is "child's play" to come up with
a coherent foundational stance corresponding to ACA_0. I'd
still like to see one.
More information about the FOM