Two-tracking the debate on RM

[Mikhail Katz]

Dear colleagues,
There has been an intriguing debate recently on the foundations of Reverse
Mathematics among some of the best practitioners in the field.
It is clear (to me anyway) that there are (at least) two distinct
philosophical ways of viewing RM, its purpose, and its modus operandi.
It is somewhat tedious when the sides accuse each other of fundamental
misconceptions, major misunderstandings, and the like.
What I was going to propose is that someone develop, say, a two-track
approach to the debate on RM, formulating, first, the key issues, and then
how each of the (say) two sides relates to them in their distinct ways.
This may help separate more clearly the philosophical assumptions from the
mathematical nuts-and-bolts.
Misha Katz

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
בלי
וירוסים. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/fom/attachments/20211008/ac5d00c2/attachment-0001.html>