FOM: proof theory (correction); call for discussion
Stephen G Simpson
simpson at math.psu.edu
Thu Apr 9 10:59:46 EDT 1998
In my posting of a few minutes ago I wrote:
> Would some of the other proof-theorists on the FOM list (Tait,
> Rathjen, Friedman, Pohlers, Takeuti, Sommer, Sieg, Buss,
> Kohlenbach, Pfeiffer, Fine, ...) care to commment on this matter?
It was foolish of me to attempt to list the proof theorists who
subscribe to FOM off the top of my head. I unintentionally omitted
two of the most prominent ones, Charles Parsons and Peter Aczel, and
perhaps others. I apologize to anyone who was left out.
In any case, the purpose of my postings was to advance a discussion of
foundational issues and programs in proof theory. Could some of you
proof-theorists please jump in? You need to get involved in this
discussion! I need your help! I'm unqualified, because I'm not even
a real honest-to-God proof-theorist.
More information about the FOM