Ordinal analysis is a research program wherein recursive ordinals are assigned to axiomatic theories. According to conventional wisdom, ordinal analysis measures the strength of theories. Yet what is the attendant notion of strength? In this paper we present abstract characterizations of ordinal analysis that address this question. -/- First, we characterize ordinal analysis as a partition of $\Sigma^1_1$-definable and $\Pi^1_1$-sound theories, namely, the partition whereby two theories are equivalent if they have the same proof-theoretic ordinal. We show that no equivalence (...) relation $\equiv$ is finer than the ordinal analysis partition if both: (1) $T\equiv U$ whenever $T$ and $U$ prove the same $\Pi^1_1$ sentences; (2) $T\equiv T+U$ for every set $U$ of true $\Sigma^1_1$ sentences. In fact, no such equivalence relation makes a single distinction that the ordinal analysis partition does not make. -/- Second, we characterize ordinal analysis as an ordering on arithmetically-definable and $\Pi^1_1$-sound theories, namely, the ordering wherein $T\leq U$ if the proof-theoretic ordinal of $T$ is less than or equal to the proof-theoretic ordinal of $U$. The standard ways of measuring the strength of theories are consistency strength and inclusion of $\Pi^0_1$ theorems. We introduce analogues of these notions---$\Pi^1_1$-reflection strength and inclusion of $\Pi^1_1$ theorems---in the presence of an oracle for $\Sigma^1_1$ truths, and prove that they coincide with the ordering induced by ordinal analysis. (shrink)

The axiom of infinity states that infinite sets exist. I will argue that this axiom lacks justification. I start by showing that the axiom is not self-evident, so it needs separate justification. Following Maddy’s :481–511, 1988) distinction, I argue that the axiom of infinity lacks both intrinsic and extrinsic justification. Crucial to my project is Skolem’s From Frege to Gödel: a source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, pp. 290–301, 1922) distinction between a theory of real sets, (...) and a theory of objects that theory calls “sets”. While Dedekind’s argument fails, his approach was correct: the axiom of infinity needs a justification it currently lacks. This epistemic situation is at variance with everyday mathematical practice. A dilemma ensues: should we relax epistemic standards or insist, in a skeptical vein, that a foundational problem has been ignored? (shrink)

This is an article whose intended scope is to deal with the question of infinity in formal mathematics, mainly in the context of the theory of large cardinals as it has developed over time since Cantor’s introduction of the theory of transfinite numbers in the late nineteenth century. A special focus has been given to this theory’s interrelation with the forcing theory, introduced by P. Cohen in his lectures of 1963 and further extended and deepened since then, which leads to (...) a development and further refinement of the theory of large cardinals ultimately touching, especially in view of the discussion in the last section, on the metatheoretical nature of infinity. The whole undertaking, which takes into account major stages of the research in large cardinals theory, tries to present a defensible argumentation against an ontology of infinity actually rooted in the notion of subjectivity within the world. This means that rather than talking of a general ontology of infinity in the ideal platonic or in the aristotelian sense of potentiality, even in the alternative sense of an ontology of the event in A. Badiou’s sense, one can argue from a subjective point of view about the impossibility of defining cardinalities greater than the first uncountable one \ that would correspond to a distinct existence in real world terms or would be supported by a mathematical intuition in terms of reciprocity with experience. The argumentation from the particular standpoint includes also certain comments on the delimitative character of Gödel’s constructive universe L and the influence of the constructive approach in narrowing the breadth of an ‘ontology’ of infinity. (shrink)