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.

It is by now well known that Gödel first advocated the philosophy of Leibniz and then, since 1959, that of Husserl. This raises three questions:

1. 1. How is this turn to Husserl to be interpreted? Is it a dismissal of the Leibnizian philosophy, or a different way to achieve similar goals?

2. 2. Why did Gödel turn specifically to the later Husserl's transcendental idealism?

3. 3. Is there any detectable influence from Husserl on Gödel's writings?

Regarding the first question, Wang [96, p.165] reports that Gödel ‘[saw] in Husserl's work a method of refining and consolidating Leibniz' monadology’. But what does this mean? In what for Gödel relevant sense is Husserl's work a refinement and consolidation of Leibniz' monadology?

The second question is particularly pressing, given that Gödel was, by his own admission, a realist in mathematics since 1925. Wouldn't the uncompromising realism of the early Husserl's Logical investigations have been a more obvious choice for a Platonist like Gödel?

The third question can only be approached when an answer to the second has been given, and we want to suggest that the answer to the first question follows from the answer to the second. We begin, therefore, with a closer look at the actual turn towards phenomenology.

Some 30 years before his serious study of Husserl began, Gödel was well aware of the existence of phenomenology. Apart from its likely appearance in the philosophy courses that Gödel took, it reached him from various directions.

Some thirty years ago, two proposals were made concerning criteria for identity of proofs. Prawitz proposed to analyze identity of proofs in terms of the equivalence relation based on reduction to normal formin natural deduction. Lambek worked on a normalization proposal analogous to Prawitz's, based on reduction to cut-free form in sequent systems, but he also suggested understanding identity of proofs in terms of an equivalence relation based on generality, two derivations having the same generality if after generalizing maximally the rules involved in them they yield the same premises and conclusions up to a renaming of variables. These two proposals proved to be extensionally equivalent only for limited fragments of logic.

The normalization proposal stands behind very successful applications of the typed lambda calculus and of category theory in the proof theory of intuitionistic logic. In classical logic, however, it did not fare well.

The generality proposal was rather neglected in logic, though related matters were much studied in pure category theory in connection with coherence problems, and there are also links to low-dimensional topology and linear algebra. This proposal seems more promising than the other one for the general proof theory of classical logic.

The fact that Gödel's famous incompleteness theorem and the archetype of all logical paradoxes, that of the Liar, are related closely is, of course, not only well known, but is a part of the common knowledge of the community of logicians. Indeed, almost every more or less formal treatment of the theorem makes a reference to this connection. Gödel himself remarked in the paper announcing his celebrated result (cf. [7]):

The analogy between this result and Richard's antinomy leaps to the eye;

there is also a close relationship with the ‘liar’ antinomy, since … we are

… confronted with a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.

In the light of the fact that the existence of this connection is commonplace it is all the more surprising that very little can be learnt about its exact nature except perhaps that it is some kind of similarity or analogy. There is, however, a lot more to it than that. Indeed, as we shall try to show below, the general ideas underlying the three central theorems concerning internal limitations of formal deductive systems can be taken as different ways to resolve the Liar paradox. More precisely, it will turn out that an abstract formal variant of the Liar paradox, which can almost straightforwardly inferred from its original ordinary language version, is a possible common generalization of (both the syntactic and semantic versions of) Gödel's incompleteness theorem, the theorem of Tarski on the undefinability of truth, and that of Church concerning the undecidability of provability.

Ludics [1] is a novel approach to logic—especially proof-theory. The present introduction emphasises foundational issues.

For ages, not a single disturbing idea in the area of “foundations”: the discussion is sort of ossified—as if everything had been said, as if all notions had taken their definite place, in a big cemetery of ideas. One can still refresh the flowers or regild the stone, e.g., prove technicalities, sometimes non-trivial; but the real debate is still: this paper begins with an autopsy, the autopsy of the foundational project.

Up to say 1900, the realist/dualist approach to science was dominant; during the last century some domains like physics evolved so as to become completely anti-realist; but this evolution hardly concerned logic.

By the turn of the XXth century mathematics was jeopardised by paradoxes, the most famous of them being due to Russell. Hilbert's reaction was to focus on consistency. But the reduction of paradoxes—and therefore of foundations—to solely the antinomies is highly questionable: indeed, the typical paradoxical artifacts are secret sharers, objects satisfying the formal definitions but far astray from the intended meaning, typically the Peano “curve” which contradicts our perception of dimension. Fortunately, topology has been able to show that dimension m is not the same as dimension n … but just for a second, forget this and imagine consistent mathematics in which balls in any dimension are homeomorphic: what a disaster! This exclusive focus on consistency—not to speak of the strategic failure of the Programme—should explain why logic, especially foundations lost contact with other sciences during last century.

We analyse the connection between the computability and continuity of functions in the case of homomorphisms between topological algebraic structures. Inspired by the Pour-El and Richards equivalence theorem between computability and boundedness for closed linear operators on Banach spaces, we study the rather general situation of partial homomorphisms between metric partial universal algebras. First, we develop a set of basic notions and results that reveal some of the delicate algebraic, topological and effective properties of partial algebras. Our main computability concepts are based on numerations and include those of effective metric partial algebras and effective partial homomorphisms. We prove a general equivalence theorem that includes a version of the Pour-El and Richards Theorem, and has other applications. Finally, the Pour-El and Richards axioms for computable sequence structures on Banach spaces are generalised to computable partial sequence structures on metric algebras, and we prove their equivalence with our computability model based on numerations.

We recall some of the early occurrences of the notions of interactivity and symmetry in the operational and denotational semantics of programming languages. We suggest some connections with ludics.

We survey some results and problems arising from a classic problem of Steinhaus: Is there a subset S of ℝ2 such that each isometric copy of ℤ2 (the lattice points in the plane) meets S in exactly one point.

Recent results on initial segments of the Turing degrees are presented, and some conjectures about initial segments that have implications for the existence of nontrivial automorphisms of the Turing degrees are indicated.

Following F. William Lawvere, we show that many self-referential paradoxes, incompleteness theorems and fixed point theorems fall out of the same simple scheme. We demonstrate these similarities by showing how this simple scheme encompasses the semantic paradoxes, and how they arise as diagonal arguments and fixed point theorems in logic, computability theory, complexity theory and formal language theory.

In this talk I will introduce two spaces: the first space is the usual n-dimensional vector space with the unusual feature that n is a non-integer; the second space is composed of the linear matrices acting on the previous space (physicists are particularly interested in studying the limit as n goes to zero). These two spaces are not known to most mathematicians, but they are widely used by physicists. It is possible that, by extending the notion of space, they can become well defined mathematical objects.

I see model theory as becoming increasingly detached from set theory, and the Tarskian notion of set-theoretic model being no longer central to model theory. In much of modern mathematics, the set-theoretic component is of minor interest, and basic notions are geometric or category-theoretic. In algebraic geometry, schemes or algebraic spaces are the basic notions, with the older “sets of points in affine or projective space” no more than restrictive special cases. The basic notions may be given sheaf-theoretically, or functorially. To understand in depth the historically important affine cases, one does best to work with more general schemes. The resulting relativization and “transfer of structure” is incomparably more flexible and powerful than anything yet known in “set-theoretic model theory”.

It seems to me now uncontroversial to see the fine structure of definitions as becoming the central concern of model theory, to the extent that one can easily imagine the subject being called “Definability Theory” in the near future.

Tarski's set-theoretic foundational formulations are still favoured by the majority of model-theorists, and evolution towards a more suggestive language has been perplexingly slow. None of the main texts uses in any nontrivial way the language of category theory, far less sheaf theory or topos theory. Given that the most notable interactions of model theory with geometry are in areas of geometry where the language of sheaves is almost indispensable (to the geometers), this is a curious situation, and I find it hard to imagine that it will not change soon, and rapidly.

We provide a canonical construction of conformal covers for finite hypergraphs and present two immediate applications to the finite model theory of relational structures. In the setting of relational structures, conformal covers serve to construct guarded bisimilar companion structures that avoid all incidental Gaifman cliques—thus serving as a partial analogue in finite model theory for the usually infinite guarded unravellings. In hypergraph theoretic terms, we show that every finite hypergraph admits a bisimilar cover by a finite conformal hypergraph. In terms of relational structures, we show that every finite relational structure admits a guarded bisimilar cover by a finite structure whose Gaifman cliques are guarded. One of our applications answers an open question about a clique constrained strengthening of the extension property for partial automorphisms (EPPA) of Hrushovski, Herwig and Lascar. A second application provides an alternative proof of the finite model property (FMP) for the clique guarded fragment of first-order logic CGF, by reducing (finite) satisfiability in CGF to (finite) satisfiability in the guarded fragment, GF.