Ackermann, Wilhelm. “Die Widerspruchsfreiheit der allgemeinen Mengenlehre.” Mathematische Annalen 114 (1937), 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aczel, Peter. “An Introduction to Inductive Definitions.” In Barwise, Handbook, pp. 739–782.

Barwise, Jon. Admissible Sets and Structures. Berlin: Springer, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barwise, Jon, ed. Handbook of Mathematical Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.Google Scholar

Bealer, George. “Intuition.” In Borchert, Donald M. (editor in chief), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Supplement, pp. 268–269. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 1996. Reprinted in Borchert, Encyclopedia 2nd ed., IV, 732–733.Google Scholar

Bealer, George. “On the Possibility of Philosophical Knowledge.” Philosophical Perspectives 10 (1996), 1–34.Google Scholar

Beeson, Michael. Foundations of Constructive Mathematics. Berlin: Springer, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benacerraf, Paul. “Mathematical Truth.” The Journal of Philosophy 70 (1973), 661–679. Reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam, pp. 403–420. (Not in 1st ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benacerraf, Paul. “What Numbers Could Not Be.” Philosophical Review 74 (1965), 47–73. Reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam, pp. 272–294. (Not in 1st ed.) Cited according to reprint.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benacerraf, Paul, and Putnam, Hilary, eds. Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1964. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 1983 (published 1984).Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. Abhandlungen zur Philosophie der Mathematik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976.Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Bemerkungen zum Paradoxon von Thoralf Skolem.” Avhandlingen uitgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, I. Mat.-Naturv. Klasse, 1957, No. 5, 3–9. Reprinted in Abhandlungen, pp. 113–118.Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Die Mathematik als ein zugleich Vertrautes und Unbekanntes.” Synthese 9 (1955), 465–471. Reprinted in Abhandlungen, pp. 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Mathematische Existenz und Widerspruchsfreiheit.” In Études de philosophie des sciences, en hommage à F. Gonseth à l'occasion de son soixantième anniversaire, pp. 11–25. Neuchâtel: Griffon, 1950. Reprinted in Abhandlungen, pp. 92–106.Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Die Philosophie der Mathematik und die Hilbertsche Beweistheorie.” Blätter für deutsche Philosophie 4 (1930), 326–367. Reprinted with postscript in Abhandlungen, pp. 17–61.Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Quelques points essentiels de la métamathématique.” L'enseignement mathématique 52 (1935), 70–95.Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Quelques points de vue concernant le problème de l'évidence,” Synthese 5 (1946), 321–326. (The German translation in Abhandlungen is by Bernays but was evidently done in 1974.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Sur le platonisme dans les mathématiques.” L'enseignement mathématique 52 (1935), 52–69. Translation in Benacerraf and Putnam, pp. 258–271 of 2nd ed. (The German version in Abhandlungen is a translation from the French.)Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “A System of Axiomatic Set Theory, Part II.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 6 (1941), 1–17. Reprinted in Müller, Sets and Classes, pp. 14–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “A System of Axiomatic Set Theory, Part VII.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 19 (1954), 81–96. Reprinted in Müller, Sets and Classes, pp. 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Über Hilberts Gedanken zur Grundlegung der Arithmetik,” Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung 31 (1922), 10–19.Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Zur Frage der Unendlichkeitsschemata in deraxiomatischen Mengenlehre.” In Essays on the Foundations of Mathematics, dedicated to Professor A. A. Fraenkel on his 70th birthday, pp. 3–49. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961. Translation, “partially revised,” in Müller, Sets and Classes, pp. 121–172.Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. See also Hilbert and Bernays.

Black, Max. “The elusiveness of sets.” Review of Metaphysics 24 (1970–1971), 614–636.Google Scholar

Bolzano, Bernard. Paradoxien des Unendlichen. Ed. by Příhonský, F.. Leipzig 1851.Google Scholar

Bolzano, Bernard. Wissenschaftslehre. 4 vols. Sulzach 1837.Google Scholar

BonJour, Laurence. In Defense of Pure Reason. A Rationalist Account of a priori Justification. Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Boolos, George. “Iteration Again.” Philosophical Topics 17 (1989), 5–21. Reprinted in LLL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boolos, George. “The Iterative Conception of Set.” The Journal of Philosophy 68 (1971), 215–231. Reprinted in LLL. Also reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam, 2nd ed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boolos, George. Logic, Logic, and Logic. Edited by Jeffrey, Richard. With Introductions and Afterword by John P. Burgess. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Hereafter LLL.Google Scholar

Boolos, George. The Logic of Provability. Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Boolos, George. “Must we believe in set theory?” In LLL, pp. 120–132. Also in Sher and Tieszen, pp. 257–268.

Boolos, George. “Nominalist Platonism.” Philosophical Review 94 (1985), 327–344. Reprinted in LLL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boolos, George. “Reply to Charles Parsons, ‘Sets and Classes’.” In LLL, pp. 30–36. (Written and presented in 1974.)

Boolos, George. “To Be is to be the Value of a Variable (or to be Some Values of Some Variables).” The Journal of Philosophy 81 (1984), 430–449. Reprinted in LLL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boolos, George, and Jeffrey, Richard C.. Computability and Logic. Cambridge University Press, 1974. 2nd ed., 1981. 3rd ed., 1990. 4th ed., with John P. Burgess, 2002.Google Scholar

Borchert, Donald M. (Editor in chief). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Second Edition. 10 vols. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2006. (For first edition, see Edwards.)Google Scholar

Brentano, Franz. Wahrheit und Evidenz. Erkenntnistheoretische Abhandlungen und Briefe. Edited by Kraus, Oskar. Leipzig: Meiner, 1930. Reprinted Hamburg: Meiner, 1962, 1974.Google Scholar

Bromberger, Sylvain. On What We Know We Don't Know. Explanation, Theory, Linguistics, and How Questions Shape Them. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, and Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1992.Google Scholar

Bromberger, Sylvain. “Types and Tokens in Linguistics.” In George, Alexander (ed.), Reflections on Chomsky, pp. 58–89. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1989. Reprinted in On What We Know We Don't Know, pp. 170–208.Google Scholar

Bromberger, Sylvain, and Halle, Morris. “The Ontology of Phonology.” In Bromberger, On What We Know We Don't Know, pp. 209–228.

Brouwer, L. E. J. Collected Works, volume 1: Philosophy and Intuitionistic Mathematics. Edited by Heyting, Arend. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1975.Google Scholar

Brouwer, L. E. J.. “Mathematik, Wissenschaft, und Sprache.” Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 36 (1929), 153–164. Reprinted, Collected Works, vol. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brouwer, L. E. J.. Over de grondslagen der wiskunde. Amsterdam and Leipzig: Maass and van Suchtelen, 1907. Critical edition in Dirk van Dalen (ed.), L. E. J. Brouwer en de grondslagen van de wiskunde (Utrecht: Epsilon, 2001), pp. 39–147. English translation (of the main text) in Collected Works, vol. 1.Google Scholar

Buchholz, Wilfried, Feferman, Solomon, Pohlers, Wolfram, and Sieg, Wilfried, Iterated Inductive Definitions and Subsystems of Analysis. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 897. Berlin etc.: Springer, 1981.Google Scholar

Burgess, John P. “E pluribus unum: Plural Logic and Set Theory.” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 12 (2004), 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burgess, John P.. Fixing Frege. Princeton University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Burgess, John P.. “Mathematics and Bleak House.” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 12 (2004), 18–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burgess, John P.. Review of Shapiro, Philosophy of Mathematics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 40 (1999), 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burgess, John P., and Hazen, Allen. “Predicative Logic and Formal Arithmetic.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 39 (1998), 1–17.Google Scholar

Burgess, John P., and Rosen, Gideon. A Subject with no Object. Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Cantor, Georg. Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts. Edited by Zermelo, Ernst. Berlin: Springer, 1932. Reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1962.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. Logische Syntax der Sprache. Vienna: Springer, 1934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. Logical Syntax of Language. Translated by Amethe Smeation. London: Kegan Paul, 1937. (Contains two sections not in the German edition.)Google Scholar

Carson, Emily. “On realism in set theory.” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 4 (1996), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cartwright, Richard L. “Speaking of Everything.” NoÛs 28 (1994), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Church, Alonzo. “Comparison of Russell's Solution of the Semantical Paradoxes with that of Tarski.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 41 (1976), 747–760. Reprinted in Martin, Recent Essays.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Church, Alonzo. “A Formulation of the Logic of Sense and Denotation.” In Structure, Method, and Meaning: Essays in Honor of Henry M. Sheffer, pp. 3–24. New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1951.Google Scholar

Church, Alonzo. “A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 5 (1940), 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohn-Vossen, S. See Hilbert and Cohn-Vossen.

Collins, George E., and Halpern, J. D.. “On the Interpretability of Arithmetic in Set Theory.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 11 (1970), 477–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dales, H. G., and Oliveri, G. (eds.). Truth in Mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. “On Saying That.” Synthese 19 (1968), 130–146. Reprinted in Inquiries.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davidson, Donald. “Radical Interpretation.” Dialectica 27 (1973), 313–328. Reprinted in Inquiries.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dedekind, Richard. Gesammelte mathematische Werke. 3 vols. Edited by Fricke, Robert, Noether, Emmy, and Ore, Öystein. Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1930–32.Google Scholar

Dedekind, Richard. Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen?Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1888, 3rd ed. 1911. Translation in Ewald, II, 787–833.Google Scholar

Demopoulos, William (ed.). Frege's Philosophy of Mathematics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Descartes, René. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar

Donnellan, Keith. “Reference and Definite Descriptions.” Philosophical Review 75 (1966), 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drake, F. R.Set Theory. An Introduction to Large Cardinals. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1974.Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. Frege: Philosophy of Language. London: Duckworth, 1973. 2nd ed., 1981.Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. Frege: Philosophy of Mathematics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991.Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. “The Philosophical Basis of Intuitionistic Logic.” In Rose, H. E. and Shepherdson, J. C. (eds.), Logic Colloquium '73, pp. 5–40. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1975. Reprinted in Truth and Other Enigmas, pp. 215–247, and in Benacerraf and Putnam (not in 1st ed.).Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. “The Philosophical Significance of Gödel's Theorem.” Ratio 5 (1963), 140–155. Reprinted in Truth and Other Enigmas, pp. 186–201.Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. “Platonism.” In Truth and Other Enigmas, pp. 202–214. (Text of an address given in 1967.)Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. The Seas of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. Truth and Other Enigmas. London: Duckworth, 1978.Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. “Wang's Paradox.” Synthese 30 (1975), 301–324. Reprinted in Truth and Other Enigmas, pp. 248–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dummett, Michael. “What is Mathematics About?” In George, Mathematics and Mind, pp. 11–26. Also in The Seas of Language, pp. 429–445.

Edwards, Paul (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 7 vols. New York: Free Press/Macmillan, 1967. (For second edition, see Borchert.)Google Scholar

Evans, Gareth. “Can there be Vague Objects?” Analysis 38 (1978), 208. Reprinted in Collected Papers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 176–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ewald, William (ed.). From Kant to Hilbert. A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Feferman, Solomon. “Definedness.” Erkenntnis 43 (1995), 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feferman, Solomon. In the Light of Logic. Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Feferman, Solomon. “Reflecting on Incompleteness.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (1991), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feferman, Solomon. “Systems of Predicative Analysis.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 29 (1964), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feferman, Solomon. “Weyl vindicated. Das Kontinuum 70 years later.” In Cellucci, Carlo and Sambin, Giovanni (eds.), Temi e prospettive della logica e della scienza contemporanee, vol. 1, pp. 59–93. Bologna: CLUEB, 1988. Reprinted with corrrections and additions in In the Light of Logic.Google Scholar

See also Buchholz, Feferman, Pohlers, and Sieg.

See also Gödel.

Feferman, Solomon, and Hellman, Geoffrey. “Predicative Foundations of Arithmetic.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 22 (1995), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feferman, Solomon, and Geoffrey Hellman. “Challenges to Predicative Foundations of Arithmetic.” In Sher and Tieszen, pp. 317–335.

Ferreira, Fernando. “A Note on Finiteness in the Predicative Foundations of Arithmetic.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (1999), 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Field, Hartry. “Are Our Logical and Mathematical Concepts Highly Indeterminate?” In French, Peter A., Uehling, Theodore E. Jr., and Wettstein, Howard K. (eds.), Midwest Studies in Philosophy, volume 19: Philosophical Naturalism, pp. 391–429. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Field, Hartry. “Is Mathematical Knowledge Just Logical Knowledge?” Philosophical Review 93 (1984), 509–552. Reprinted, with revisions and postscript, in Realism, Mathematics, and Modality, pp. 79–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Field, Hartry. “On Conservativeness and Incompleteness.” The Journal of Philosophy 82 (1985), 239–260. Reprinted in Realism, Mathematics, and Modality, pp. 125–146.Google Scholar

Field, Hartry. “Realism, Mathematics, and Modality.” Philosophical Topics 19 (1988), 57–107. Reprinted in Realism, Mathematics, and Modality, pp. 227–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Field, Hartry. Realism, Mathematics, and Modality. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.Google Scholar

Field, Hartry. Science without Numbers: A Defense of Nominalism. Princeton University Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Field, Hartry. Truth and the Absence of Fact. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Field, Hartry. “Which Undecidable Mathematical Sentences have Determinate Truth Values?” In Dales and Oliveri, pp. 291–310. Reprinted with Postscript in Truth and the Absence of Fact, pp. 332–360.

Fraenkel, (Abraham) Adolf. Einleitung in die Mengenlehre. Berlin: Springer, 1919. 2nd ed., revised and enlarged, 1923. 3d ed., further revised and enlarged, 1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Begriffschrift. Eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle: Nebert, 1879. Reprinted in Begriffschrift und andere Aufsätze. Translation in van Heijenoort.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Begriffschrift und andere Aufsätze. Edited by Angelelli, Ignacio. Hildesheim: Olms, 1964.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy. Edited by McGuinness, Brian. Translated by Max Black and others. Oxford: Blackwell, 1984.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Frege on the Foundations of Geometry and Formal Theories in Arithmetic. Translated and edited by Eike-Henner W. Kluge. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.

Frege, Gottlob. “Der Gedanke: Eine logische Untersuchung.” Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 1 (1918–19), 58–77. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften. Translation in Collected Papers.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. The Foundations of Arithmetic. Translated by J. L. Austin. Contains the German text. Oxford: Blackwell, 1950. 2nd ed. 1953. (The pagination of the German text is exactly the same as that of the original, and thus that of the translation is very close.)Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Funktion und Begriff. Jena: Pohle, 1891. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften. Translation in Collected Papers.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. Jena: Pohle. Vol. I, 1893. Vol. II, 1903. Reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1962, 1998.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Breslau: Koebner, 1884. Centenary edition, with amplifying texts, critically edited by Christian Thiel. Hamburg: Meiner, 1986. English translation Foundations.

Frege, Gottlob. Kleine Schriften. Edited by Angelelli, Ignacio. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967. Translated as Collected Papers.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Logical Investigations. Edited by Geach, Peter. Translated by Geach and R. H. Stoothoff. Oxford: Blackwell, 1977.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Nachgelassene Schriften. Edited by Hermes, Hans, Kambartel, Friedrich, and Kaulbach, Friedrich. Hamburg: Meiner, 1969. 2nd. ed., revised, with an appendix (lecture notes) ed. with an introduction by Lothar Kreiser. Hamburg: Meiner, 1983.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Review of Husserl, Philosophie der Arithmetik. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 103 (1894), 313–332. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften. Translation in Collected Papers.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel. Edited by Gabriel, Gottfried, Hermes, Hans, Kambartel, Friedrich, Thiel, Christian, and Veraart, Albert. Hamburg: Meiner, 1976.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael. Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Gallin, Daniel. Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1975.Google Scholar

Gandy, Robin O. “Limitations to Mathematical Knowledge.” In Dalen, D., Lascar, D., and Smiley, T. J. (eds.), Logic Colloquium ′80, pp. 129–145. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1982.Google Scholar

George, Alexander. “The Imprecision of Impredicativity.” Mind N. S. 96 (1987), 514–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

George, Alexander,(ed.). Mathematics and Mind. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

George, Alexander, and Daniel J. Velleman. “Two Conceptions of Natural Number.” In Dales and Oliveri, pp. 311–327.

Givant, Steven, and Tarski, Alfred. “Peano Arithmetic and the Zermelo-like Theory of Sets with Finite Ranks.” Abstract 77T-E51. Notices of the Americal Mathematical Society 24 (1977), A-437.Google Scholar

See also Tarski and Givant.

Gödel, Kurt. Collected Works. Volume I, Publications 1929–1936. Edited by Feferman, Solomon, Dawson, John W. Jr., Kleene, Stephen C., Moore, Gregory H., Solovay, Robert M., and Heijenoort, Jean. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. Collected Works. Volume II, Publications 1938–1974. Edited by Feferman, Solomon, Dawson, John W. Jr., Kleene, Stephen C., Moore, Gregory H., Solovay, Robert M., and Heijenoort, Jean. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. Collected Works. Volume III, Unpublished Essays and Lectures. Edited by Feferman, Solomon, Dawson, John W. Jr., Goldfarb, Warren, Parsons, Charles, and Solovay, Robert M.. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. Collected Works. Volume IV, Correspondence, A-G. Edited by Feferman, Solomon, Dawson, John W. Jr., Goldfarb, Warren, Parsons, Charles, and Sieg, Wilfried. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. Collected Works. Volume V, Correspondence, H-Z. Edited by Feferman, Solomon, Dawson, John W. Jr., Goldfarb, Warren, Parsons, Charles, and Sieg, Wilfried. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. The Consistency of the Continuum Hypothesis. Princeton University Press, 1940. Reprinted in Collected Works, II, 33–101.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. “Is Mathematics Syntax of Language?” Unfinished paper written between 1953 and 1959. Versions III and V in Collected Works, III, 334–362.

Gödel, Kurt. “On an Extension of Finitary Mathematics which has not yet been Used.” Revised English version, with additional notes, of “Über eine noch nicht benützte Erweiterung.” In Collected Works, II, 271–280.

Gödel, Kurt. “The Present Situation in the Foundations of Mathematics.” Lecture to the Mathematical Association of America, 1933. In Collected Works, III, 45–53.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. “Russell's Mathematical Logic.” In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell (Evanston: Northwestern University, 1944), pp. 125–153. Reprinted in Collected Works, II, 119–141. Also reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam, pp. 442–470.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. “Some Basic Theorems on the Foundations of Mathematics and their Philosophical Implications.” Josiah Willard Gibbs Lecture, American Mathematical Society, 1951. In Collected Works, III, 304–323. (The word ‘philosophical’ was omitted from the title of the published version. See Collected Works, IV, 636.)Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. “Über eine bisher noch nicht benützte Erweiterung des finiten Standpunktes.” Dialectica 12 (1958), 280–287. Reprinted, with English translation, in Collected Works, II, 240–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. “Vortrag bei Zilsel.” Lecture to an informal circle, Vienna, 1938. In Collected Works, III, 86–113. With English translation.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. “What is Cantor's Continuum Problem?” American Mathematical Monthly 54 (1947), 515–525. Revised and expanded in Benacerraf and Putnam, 1st ed., pp. 258–271, also in 2nd ed., pp. 470–485. Both versions reprinted in Collected Works, II, 176–187 and 254–270 respectively.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. “Zur intuitionistischen Arithmetik und Zahlentheorie.” Ergebnisse eines mathematischen Kolloquiums 4 (1933), 34–38. Reprinted, with English translation, in Collected Works, I, 286–295.Google Scholar

Goldfarb, Warren. See Gödel.

Goldfarb, Warren, and Thomas Ricketts. “Carnap and the Philosophy of Mathematics.” In Bell, David and Vossenkuhl, Wilhelm (eds.), Wissenschaft und Subjektivität, pp. 61–78. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar

Goodman, Nelson. Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955. 4th ed., 1983.Google Scholar

Goodman, Nelson. Problems and Projects. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972.Google Scholar

Goodman, Nelson. “Sense and Certainty.” The Philosophical Review 61 (1952), 160–167. Reprinted in Problems and Projects, pp. 60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodman, Nelson. The Structure of Appearance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951. 3rd ed. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1977.Google Scholar

Goodman, Nelson, and Quine, W. V.. “Steps towards a Constructive Nominalism.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 12 (1947), 105–122. Reprinted in Goodman, Problems and Projects, pp. 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodman, Nicolas D. “The Knowing Mathematician.” Synthese 60 (1984), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodstein, R. L.Recursive Number Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1957.Google Scholar

Gottlieb, Dale. Ontological Economy. Substitutional Quantification and Mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Grossmann, Reinhardt. “Meinong's Doctrine of the Aussersein of the Pure Object.” NoÛs 8 (1974), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hájek, Petr, and Pudlák, Pavel. Metamathematics of First-Order Arithmetic. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, Bob. “Structuralism's Unpaid Epistemological Debts.” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 4 (1996), 124–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, Bob, and Wright, Crispin. The Reason's Proper Study. Essays towards a Neo-Fregean Philosophy of Mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, Bob, and Wright, Crispin. “Benacerraf's Dilemma Revisited.” European Journal of Philosophy 10 (2002), 101–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halle, Morris. See Bromberger and Halle.

Hart, W. D. “Benacerraf's Dilemma.” Crítica 23 (1991), 87–103.Google Scholar

Hart, W. D.. Review of Steiner, Mathematical Knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 74 (1977), 118–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hart, W. D.. “Skolem's Promises and Paradoxes.” The Journal of Philosophy 67 (1970), 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hauser, Kai. “Is Cantor's Continuum Problem Inherently Vague?” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 10 (2002), 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heck, Richard G. Jr. “The consistency of predicative fragments of Frege's Grundgesetze der Arithmetik.” History and Philosophy of Logic 17 (1996), 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hellman, Geoffrey. Mathematics without Numbers: Toward a Modal-Structural Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.Google Scholar

See also Feferman and Hellman.

Higginbotham, James. “Linguistic Theory and Davidson's Program in Semantics.” In Lepore, Ernest (ed.), Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.Google Scholar

Higginbotham, James. “On Higher-Order Logic and Natural Language.” Proceedings of the British Academy 95 (1998), 1–27. Somewhat abridged version in Sher and Tieszen, pp. 75–99.Google Scholar

Hilbert, David. Grundlagen der Geometrie. Leipzig: Teubner, 1899. 11th ed., ed. by Bernays, Paul, Stuttgart: Teubner, 1972. English translation of 10th ed. by Leo Unger, La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1971, 2nd ed. 1992.Google Scholar

Hilbert, David. “Neubegründung der Mathematik (Erste Mitteilung).” Abhandlungen aus dem mathematischen Seminar der Hamburgischen Universität 1 (1922), 157–177. Translation in Mancosu.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hilbert, David. “Über das Unendliche.” Mathematische Annalen 95 (1926), 161–190. Translation in van Heijenoort. Partial translation in Benacerraf and Putnam. (Citations of a translation are of the one in van Heijenoort.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hilbert, David, and Bernays, Paul. Grundlagen der Mathematik. Berlin: Springer, vol. I, 1934; vol. II, 1939. 2nd ed., vol. I, 1968; vol. II, 1970.

Hilbert, David, and Cohn-Vossen, S.. Anschauliche Geometrie. Berlin: Springer, 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hodes, Harold T. “Logicism and the Ontological Commitments of Arithmetic.” The Journal of Philosophy 81 (1984), 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Husserl, Edmund. Erfahrung und Urteil. Edited by Landgrebe, Ludwig. Hamburg: Claassen, 1948.Google Scholar

Husserl, Edmund. Formale und transzendentale Logik. Halle: Niemeyer, 1929; reprinted Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1981. Critical edition edited by Paul Janssen. Husserliana, vol. 17. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1974.Google Scholar

Husserl, Edmund. Logical Investigations. Translated by J. N. Findlay. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970. Translation of second edition of Logische Untersuchungen.Google Scholar

Husserl, Edmund. Logische Untersuchungen. Halle: Niemeyer, 1900–01, 2nd ed. 1913–20. Critical edition of volume 1 edited by Elmar Holenstein. Husserliana, vol. 18. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1975. Critical edition of volume 2 edited by Ursula Panzer. Husserliana, vol. 19. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1984. Page references prefixed A are to the 1st ed., B to the 2nd ed., with the subscript indicating the part of volume 2 in the 2nd ed.Google Scholar

Husserl, Edmund. Philosophie der Arithmetik, mit ergänzenden Texten (1890–1901). Edited by Eley, Lothar. Hussserliana, vol. 12. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1970. (Philosophie der Arithmetik first published Halle: Pfeffer, 1891.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Isles, David. “What Evidence Is There that 265536 Is a Natural Number?” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 33 (1992), 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jeffrey, Richard C. See Boolos and Jeffrey.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Norman Kemp Smith. London: Macmillan, 1929. 2nd ed., 1933.Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. Gesammelte Schriften. Edited by the Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften and its successors. Berlin: Reimer, later de Gruyter, 1902–. Cited as Ak.Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Edited by Timmermann, Jens. Hamburg: Meiner, 1998.Google Scholar

Kant, Immanuel. Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics. Translated by Lewis White Beck (revising earlier translations). New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1956.Google Scholar

Kaufman, E. L., Lord, M. W., Reese, T. W., and Volkmann, J.. “The Discrimination of Visual Number.” American Journal of Psychology 62 (1949), 498–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Keränen, Jukka. “The Identity Problem for Realist Structuralism.” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 9 (2001), 308–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, Jaegwon. “The Role of Perception in A Priori Knowledge.” Philosophical Studies 40 (1981), 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kirby, Laurence. “Finitary Set Theory.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, forthcoming.

Kitcher, Philip. The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.Google Scholar

Kitcher, Philip. “The Plight of the Platonist.” NoÛs 12 (1978), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kleene, Stephen Cole. Introduction to Metamathematics. New York: Van Nostrand, 1952.Google Scholar

See also Gödel.

Kluge, Eike-Henner W. See Frege.

Koellner, Peter. “On the Question of Absolute Undecidability.” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 14 (2006), 153–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kreisel, G. “Informal Rigour and Completeness Proofs.” In Lakatos, Imre (ed.), Problems in the Philosophy of Mathematics, pp. 138–186. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1967.Google Scholar

Kreisel, G.. “Mathematical Logic.” In Saaty, T. L. (ed.), Lectures on Modern Mathematics, vol. III, pp. 95–195. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965.Google Scholar

Kreisel, G.. “Ordinal logics and the characterization of informal concepts of proof.” In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Edinburgh 1958, pp. 289–299. Cambridge University Press, 1960.Google Scholar

Kripke, Saul A. “Is There a Problem about Substitutional Quantification?” In Evans, Gareth and and McDowell, John (eds.). Truth and Meaning, pp. 325–419. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.Google Scholar

Kripke, Saul A.. “Naming and Necessity.” In Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert, eds., Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 253–355, 763–769. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1972. 2nd ed.: Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krivine, Jean-Louis. Introduction to Axiomatic Set Theory. Translated by David Miller. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ladyman, James. See Leitgeb and Ladyman.

Lambek, Joachim, and Scott, P. J.. Introduction to Higher-Order Categorical Logic. Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google Scholar

Lambert, Karel. Meinong and the Principle of Independence: Its Place in Meinong's Theory of Objects and its Significance in Contemporary Philosophical Logic. Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar

Lavine, Shaughan. “Something about Everything: Universal Quantification in the Universal Sense of Universal Quantification.” In Rayo and Uzquiano, pp. 98–148.

Lavine, Shaughan. Understanding the Infinite. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Philosophical Essays. Translated and edited by Ariew, Roger and Garber, Daniel. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989.Google Scholar

Leitgeb, Hannes, and James Ladyman. “Criteria of Identity and Structuralist Ontology.” Analysis, forthcoming.

Lévy, Azriel. Basic Set Theory. Berlin: Springer, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, David. “Mathematics is Megethology.” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 1 (1993), 3–23. Reprinted in Papers in Philosophical Logic (Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, David. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.Google Scholar

Lewis, David. Parts of Classes. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.Google Scholar

Linnebo, Øystein. “Epistemological Challenges to Mathematical Platonism.” Philosophical Studies 129 (2006), 545–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Linnebo, Øystein . “Plural Quantification.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2004. Online at http://plato.stanford.edu.Google Scholar

Lorenzen, Paul. Einführung in die operative Logik und Mathematik. Berlin: Springer, 1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lorenzen, Paul. “Logical Reflection and Formalism.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 23 (1958), 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lorenzen, Paul, and Myhill, John. “Constructive Definition of Certain Analytic Sets of Numbers.” Ibid. 24 (1959), 37–49.Google Scholar

MacBride, Fraser. “Structuralism Reconsidered.” In Shapiro, Oxford Handbook, pp. 563–589.

Maddy, Penelope. “Believing the Axioms.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 53 (1988), 481–511, 736–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maddy, Penelope. “Indispensability and Practice.” The Journal of Philosophy 89 (1992), 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maddy, Penelope. Naturalism in Mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Maddy, Penelope. “Perception and Mathematical Intuition.” Philosophical Review 89 (1980), 163–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maddy, Penelope. Realism in Mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Majer, Ulrich. “Geometrie und Erfahrung: Ein Vergleich der Auffassungen von Hilbert und Kant.” Report no. 17/93 of the Research Group on Semantical Aspects of Space-Time Theories. Bielefeld: Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Forschung, 1993.

Majer, Ulrich. “Geometry, intuition, and experience: From Kant to Husserl.” Erkenntnis 42 (1995), 261–285. Revised English version of “Geometrie und Erfahrung.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martin, Donald A. “Descriptive Set Theory: Projective Sets.” In Barwise, Handbook, pp. 783–815.

Martin, Donald A.. “Mathematical Evidence.” In Dales and Oliveri, pp. 214–231.

Martin, Robert L. (ed.). Recent Essays on Truth and the Liar Paradox. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martin-Löf, Per. Intuitionistic Type Theory. Naples: Bibliopilis, 1984.Google Scholar

McCarthy, Timothy. “Platonism and Possibility.” The Journal of Philosophy 83 (1986), 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McGee, Vann. “How we Learn Mathematical Language.” Philosophical Review 107 (1997), 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McGee, Vann. “Truth by Default.” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 9 (2001), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meinong, Alexius. Gesamtausgabe. Edited by Chisholm, Roderick M., Haller, Rudolf, and Kindlinger, Rudolf. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1968–78.Google Scholar

Meinong, Alexius. “Über Gegenstandstheorie.” In Meinong, (ed.), Untersuchungen zur Gegenstandstheorie und Psychologie, pp. 1–50. Leipzig: Barth, 1904. Reprinted in Gesamtausgabe, II.Google Scholar

Meinong, Alexius. Über die Stellung der Gegenstandstheorie im System der Wissenschaften. Leipzig: Voigtländer, 1907. Reprinted in Gesamtausgabe, V.Google Scholar

Meyer, Robert K. “In Memoriam: Richard (Routley) Sylvan, 1935–1996.” The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 4 (1998), 338–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Montagna, Franco, and Mancini, Antonella. “A Minimal Predicative Set Theory.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 35 (1994), 186–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moore, Gregory H. “Beyond First-Order Logic: The Historical Interplay between Mathematical Logic and Axiomatic Set Theory.” History and Philosophy of Logic 1 (1980), 95–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

See also Gödel.

Moschovakis, Yiannis N.Descriptive Set Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1980.Google Scholar

Mostowski, Andrzej. See Tarski, Mostowski, and Robinson.

Müller, Gert H. “Framing Mathematics.” Epistemologia 4 (1981), 253–286.Google Scholar

Müller, Gert H. (ed.). Sets and Classes: On the Work by Paul Bernays. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976.Google Scholar

Myhill, John. “The Undefinability of the Set of Natural Numbers in the Ramified Principia.” In Nakhnikian, George (ed.), Bertrand Russell's Philosophy, pp. 19–27. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1974.Google Scholar

See also Lorenzen and Myhill.

Nagel, Thomas. The Last Word. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Nelson, Edward. Predicative Arithmetic. Mathematical Notes, 32. Princeton University Press, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Page, James. “Parsons on Mathematical Intuition.” Mind N. S. 102 (1993), 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “Arithmetic and the Categories.” Topoi 3 (1984), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “Developing Arithmetic in Set Theory without the Axiom of Infinity: Some Historical Remarks.” History and Philosophy of Logic 8 (1987), 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “Finitism and intuitive knowledge.” In Schirn, The Philosophy of Mathematics Today, pp. 249–270.

Parsons, Charles. “Genetic Explanation in The Roots of Reference.” In Barrett, Robert B. and Gibson, Roger F. (eds.), Perspectives on Quine, pp. 273–290. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990.Google Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “The Impredicativity of Induction.” In Cauman, Leigh S., Levi, Isaac, Parsons, Charles, and Schwartz, Robert (eds.), How Many Questions? Essays in Honor of Sidney Morgenbesser, pp. 132–153. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983. Revised and expanded version in Michael Detlefsen (ed.), Proof, Logic, and Formalization, pp. 139–161. London: Routledge, 1992.Google Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “Intuition and Number.” In George, Mathematics and Mind, pp. 141–157.

Parsons, Charles. “Intuition in Constructive Mathematics.” In Butterfield, Jeremy (ed.). Language, Mind, and Logic, pp. 211–229. Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “Mathematical Intuition.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society N. S. 80 (1979–1980), 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Charles. Mathematics in Philosophy: Selected Essays. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983. Paperback edition with corrections and short preface, 2005.Google Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “On Some Difficulties concerning Intuition and Intuitive Knowledge.” Mind N. S. 102 (1993), 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “Paul Bernays' Later Philosophy of Mathematics.” In Dimitracopoulos, Costa, Newelski, Ludomir, and Normann, Dag (eds.), Logic Colloquium 2005, pp. 129–150. Lecture Notes in Logic, 28. Urbana, Association for Symbolic Logic, and Cambridge University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “Platonism and Mathematical Intuition in Kurt Gödel's Thought.” The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 1 (1995), 44–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “Realism and the Debate on Impredicativity, 1917–1944.” In Sieg, Sommer, and Talcott, pp. 372–389.

Parsons, Charles. “Reason and Intuition.” Synthese 125 (2000), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Charles. Review of Kitcher, The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge. Philosophical Review 95 (1986), 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “The Structuralist View of Mathematical Objects.” Synthese 84 (1990), 303–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “Substitutional Quantification and Mathematics. Review of Gottlieb, Ontological Economy.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 33 (1982), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “The Transcendental Aesthetic.” In Guyer, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant, pp. 62–100. Cambridge University Press, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “The Uniqueness of the Natural Numbers.” Iyyun 39 (1990), 13–44.Google Scholar

Parsons, Charles. “What Can We Do ‘In Principle’?” In Chiara, Maria Luisa Dalla, Doets, Kees, Mundici, Daniele, and Benthem, Johan (eds.), Logic and Scientific Methods, pp. 335–354. Volume One of the Tenth International Congress of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Florence, August 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1997.Google Scholar

See also Gödel.

Parsons, Terence. “The Methodology of Nonexistence.” The Journal of Philosophy 76 (1979), 639–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parsons, Terence. Nonexistent Objects. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Plantinga, Alvin. The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974.Google Scholar

Pohlers, Wolfram. See Buchholz, Feferman, Pohlers, and Sieg.

Poincaré, Henri. Dernières Pensées. Paris: Flammarion, 1913. 2nd ed., 1926.Google Scholar

Poincaré, Henri. “Réflexions sur les deux notes précédentes,” Acta Mathematica 32 (1909), 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Previale, Flavio. “Induction and Foundation in the Theory of Hereditarily Finite Sets.” Archive for Mathematical Logic 33 (1994), 213–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pudlák, Pavel. See Hájek and Pudlák.

Putnam, Hilary. Mathematics, Matter, and Method. Collected Philosophical Papers, Volume 1. Cambridge University Press, 1975. 2nd ed. 1980.Google Scholar

Putnam, Hilary. “Mathematics without Foundations.” The Journal of Philosophy 64 (1967), 5–22. Reprinted in Mathematics, Matter, and Method, pp. 43–59, and in Benacerraf and Putnam, pp. 295–311 (not in 1st ed.). Cited according to Mathematics, Matter, and Method.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Putnam, Hilary. “Models and Reality.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 45 (1980), 464–482. Reprinted in Realism and Reason, pp. 1–25, and in Benacerraf and Putnam, pp. 421–444 (not in 1st ed.). Cited according to Realism and Reason.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Putnam, Hilary. Realism and Reason: Collected Philosophical Papers, Volume 3. Cambridge University Press, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Putnam, Hilary. “The Thesis that Mathematics is Logic.” In Schoenman, Ralph ed., Bertrand Russell: Philosopher of the Century, pp. 273–303. London: Allen & Unwin, 1967. Reprinted in Mathematics, Matter, and Method, pp. 12–42.Google Scholar

See also Benacerraf and Putnam.

Quine, W. V.Methods of Logic. New York: Holt, 1950. 3rd ed., 1972. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V.. “Ontological Relativity.” The Journal of Philosophy 65 (1968), 185–212. Reprinted in Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, pp. 26–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quine, W. V.. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V.. Philosophy of Logic. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970. 2nd ed., Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1986.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V.. The Roots of Reference. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1974.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V.. Set Theory and its Logic. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press, Harvard University Press, 1963. Revised edition, 1969.Google Scholar

See also Goodman and Quine.

Rawls, John. Collected Papers. Edited by Freeman, Samuel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Rawls, John. “The Independence of Moral Theory.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 48 (1974–75), 5–22. Reprinted in Collected Papers, pp. 286–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar

Rayo, Agustín. “Word and Objects.” NoÛs 36 (2002), 436–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rayo, Agustín, and Uzquiano, Gabriel (eds.). Absolute Generality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006.Google Scholar

Reinhardt, W. N. “Epistemic Theories and the Interpretation of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 15 (1986), 427–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Resnik, Michael D.Frege and the Philosophy of Mathematics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Resnik, Michael D.. “Mathematics as a Science of Patterns: Ontology and Reference.” NoÛs 15 (1981), 529–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Resnik, Michael D.. Mathematics as a Science of Patterns. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Resnik, Michael D.. “Parsons on Mathematical Intuition and Obviousness.” In Sher and Tieszen, pp. 219–231.

Resnik, Michael D.. “Quine and the Web of Belief.” In Shapiro, Oxford Handbook, pp. 412–436.

Resnik, Michael D.. “Second-order Logic Still Wild.” The Journal of Philosophy 85 (1988), 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rheinwald, Rosemarie. Der Formalismus und seine Grenzen. Untersuchungen zur neueren Philosophie der Mathematik. Königstein/Ts.: Hain, 1984.Google Scholar

Ricketts, Thomas. See Goldfarb and Ricketts.

Robinson, Raphael M. See Tarski, Mostowski, and Robinson.

Rödding, Dieter. “Primitiv-rekursive Funktionen über einem Bereich endlicher Mengen.” Archiv für mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung 10 (1967), 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosen, Gideon. See Burgess and Rosen.

Rorty, Richard. “Intuition.” In Edwards, Encyclopedia, III, 204–212, and with addenda by George Bealer and Bruce Russell in Borchert, Encyclopedia 2nd ed., IV, 722–735.

Routley, Richard. Exploring Meinong's Jungle and Beyond. Departmental Monograph #3, Philosophy Department, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, 1980.Google Scholar

Routley, Richard, and Routley, Valerie. “Rehabilitating Meinong's Theory of Objects.” Revue internationale de philosophie 27 (1973), 224–254.Google Scholar

Russell, Bertrand. Essays in Analysis. Edited by Lackey, Douglas. New York: Braziller, 1973.Google Scholar

Russell, Bertrand. Logic and Knowledge. Edited by Marsh, Robert C.. London: Allen and Unwin, 1956.Google Scholar

Russell, Bertrand. “Mathematical Logic as Based on the Theory of Types.” American Journal of Mathematics 30 (1908), 222–262. Reprinted in Logic and Knowledge, pp. 59–102, and in van Heijenoort, pp. 150–182 (with introductory note by W. V. Quine).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russell, Bertrand. “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism.” The Monist 28 (1918), 495–527; 29 (1919), 32–63, 190–222, 345–380. Reprinted in Logic and Knowledge, pp. 175–281, and in The Philosophy of Logical Atomism and Other Essays, 1914–19, pp. 157–244. Cited according to Logic and Knowledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russell, Bertrand. The Philosophy of Logical Atomism and Other Essays, 1914–19. Edited by Slater, John G.. The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 8. London: Allen and Unwin, 1986.Google Scholar

Russell, Bertrand. The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 1903. 2nd ed. London: Allen and Unwin, 1937.Google Scholar

Russell, Bertrand. The Problems of Philosophy. London: Williams and Norgate, and New York: Holt, 1912. Later reprints Oxford University Press. (That of 1997 adds an introduction by John Perry.)Google Scholar

See also Whitehead and Russell.

Saunders, Simon. “Are Quantum Particles Objects?” Analysis 66 (2006), 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schirn, Matthias (ed.). The Philosophy of Mathematics Today. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Schütte, Kurt. Beweistheorie. Berlin: Springer, 1960.Google Scholar

Schütte, Kurt. “Logische Abgrenzungen des Transfiniten.” In Käsbauer, Max and Kutschera, Franz (eds.), Logik und Logikkalkül, pp. 105–114. Freiburg: Alber, 1962.Google Scholar

Schütte, Kurt. Proof Theory. Revised and expanded translation of Beweistheorie. Berlin: Springer, 1977.

Scott, Dana. “Axiomatizing Set Theory.” In Jech, Thomas J. (ed.), Axiomatic Set Theory, part 2, pp. 207–214. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 13, part 2. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1974.Google Scholar

Shapiro, Stewart (ed.). Intensional Mathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985.Google Scholar

Shapiro, Stewart, (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapiro, Stewart. Philosophy of Mathematics. Structure and Ontology. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Shapiro, Stewart. “Space, Number, and Structure: A Tale of Two Debates.” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 4 (1996), 148–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sharvy, Richard. “Why a Class Can't Change its Members.” NoÛs 2 (1968), 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sher, Gila, and Tieszen, Richard (eds.). Between Logic and Intuition. Essays in honor of Charles Parsons. Cambridge University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shoenfield, J. R. “Axioms of Set Theory.” In Barwise, Handbook, pp. 321–344.

Sieg, Wilfried. “Fragments of Arithmetic.” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 28 (1985), 33–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sieg, Wilfried, Sommer, Richard, and Talcott, Carolyn (eds.). Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics. Essays in honor of Solomon Feferman. Lecture Notes in Logic, 15. Urbana, IL: Association for Symbolic Logic, and Natick, MA: A. K. Peters, 2002.Google Scholar

See also Buchholz, Feferman, Pohlers, and Sieg.

Simons, Peter. Parts. A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.Google Scholar

Simpson, Stephen G. “Predicativity: The Outer Limits.” In Sieg, Sommer, and Talcott, pp. 130–136.

Simpson, Stephen G.. “Reverse Mathematics.” In Nerode, Anil and Shore, Richard A. (eds.), Recursion Theory, pp. 261–271. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, 42. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simpson, Stephen G.. Subsystems of Second-Order Arithmetic. Springer-Verlag, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Skolem, Thoralf. Abstract Set Theory. Notre Dame Mathematical Lectures, 8. University of Notre Dame, 1962.Google Scholar

Skolem, Thoralf. “Begründung der elementaren Zahlentheorie durch die rekurrierende Denkweise ohne Anwendung scheinbarer Veränderlichen mit unendlichem Ausdehnungsbereich.” Skrifter, Videnskabsakadmiet i Kristiania I, no. 6 (1923). Reprinted in Selected Works, pp. 153–188. Translation in van Heijenoort, pp. 303–333.Google Scholar

Skolem, Thoralf. “Einige Bermerkungen zur axiomatischen Begründung der Mengenlehre.” In Matematikerkongressen i Helsingfors den 4–7 Juli 1922, Den femte skandinaviska matematikerkongressen, Redogörelse, pp. 217–232. Helsinki: Akademiska Bokhandeln, 1923. Reprinted in Selected Works, pp. 137–152. Translation in van Heijenoort, pp. 290–301.Google Scholar

Skolem, Thoralf. Selected Works in Logic. Edited by Fenstad, Jens Erik. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1970.Google Scholar

Sommer, Richard. See Sieg, Sommer, and Talcott.

Steiner, Mark. Mathematical Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975.Google Scholar

Sylvan, Richard. See Routley.

Szmielew, Wanda, and Tarski, Alfred. “Mutual Interpretability of some Essentially Undecidable Theories” (abstract). In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A., August 30–September 6, 1950, vol. 1, p. 734. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1952.Google Scholar

Tait, William (W. W.). “Against Intuitionism: Constructive Mathematics is Part of Classical Mathematics.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 12 (1983), 173–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tait, William (W. W.). “Constructing Cardinals from Below.” In The Provenance, pp. 133–154.

Tait, William (W. W.). “Constructive Reasoning.” In Rootselaar, B. and Staal, J. F. (eds.), Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science III, pp. 185–198. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1968.Google Scholar

Tait, William (W. W.). “Critical Notice: Charles Parsons' Mathematics in Philosophy.” Philosophy of Science 53 (1986), 588–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tait, William (W. W.). “Finitism.” The Journal of Philosophy 78 (1981), 524–546. Reprinted in The Provenance, pp. 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tait, William (W. W.). “Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind: On the Concept of Number.” In Tait, W. W. (ed.), Early Analytic Philosophy, Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein: Essays in honor of Leonard Linsky, pp. 213–248. Chicago and La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1997. Reprinted in The Provenance, pp. 212–251.Google Scholar

Tait, William (W. W.). The Provenance of Pure Reason. Essays in the Philosophy of Mathematics and its History. Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Tait, William W. W.). “Truth and Proof: The Platonism of Mathematics.” Synthese 69 (1986), 341–370. Reprinted with some additional notes in The Provenance, pp. 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Takeuti, Gaisi. “Construction of the Set Theory from the Theory of Ordinal Numbers.” Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan 6 (1954), 196–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Talcott, Carolyn. See Sieg, Sommer, and Talcott.

Tarski, Alfred. “Sur les ensembles finis.” Fundamenta Mathematicae 6 (1924), 45–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tarski, Alfred. “What is Elementary Geometry?” In Henkin, Leon, Suppes, Patrick, and Tarski, Alfred (eds.), The Axiomatic Method, with Special Reference to Geometry and Physics, pp. 16–29. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the University of California, Berkeley, December 26, 1957–January 4, 1958. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1959.Google Scholar

Tarski, Alfred, Mostowski, Andrzej, and Robinson, Raphael M.. Undecidable Theories. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1953.Google Scholar

Tarski, Alfred, and Givant, Steven. A Formalization of Set Theory without Variables. American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, 41. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

See also Givant and Tarski and Szmielew and Tarski.

Taylor, R. Gregory. “Mathematical Definability and the Paradoxes.” Dissertation, Columbia University, 1983.

Taylor, R. Gregory. “Zermelo, Reductionism, and the Philosophy of Mathematics.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 34 (1993), 539–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thomason, Richmond H. “Modal Logic and Metaphysics.” In Lambert, Karel (ed.), The Logical Way of Doing Things, pp. 119–146. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969.Google Scholar

Tieszen, Richard L.Mathematical Intuition: Phenomenology and Mathematical Knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

See also Sher and Tieszen.

Troelstra, A. S., and Dalen, Dirk. Constructivism in Mathematics: An Introduction. 2 vols. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1988.Google Scholar

James, Aken. “Axioms for the Set-Theoretic Hierarchy.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 51 (1986), 992–1004.Google Scholar

van Dalen, Dirk. See Troelstra and van Dalen and also Brouwer.

D[avid], Dantzig. “Is 101010 a Finite Number?” Dialectica 9 (1955–56), 272–277.Google Scholar

Jean, Heijenoort, ed. From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.Google Scholar

See also Gödel.

Velleman, Daniel J. See George and Velleman.

Johann, Neumann. “Eine Axiomatisierung der Mengenlehre.” Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 154 (1925), 219–240. Berichtigung, ibid. 155, 128. Translation in van Heijenoort, pp. 393–413.Google Scholar

Wang, Hao. “Between Number Theory and Set Theory.” Mathematische Annalen 126 (1953), 385–409. Reprinted as chapter XIX of A Survey.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wang, Hao. A Logical Journey: From Gödel to Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Wang, Hao. From Mathematics to Philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974.Google Scholar

Wang, Hao. “Ordinal Numbers and Predicative Set Theory.” Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 5 (1959), 216–239. Reprinted as Chapter XXV of Survey.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wang, Hao. A Survey of Mathematical Logic. Peking: Science Press, and Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1962. Reprinted as Logic, Computers, and Sets. New York: Chelsea, 1970.Google Scholar

Wang, Hao. “What is an Individual?” Philosophical Review 62 (1953), 413–420. Reprinted as Appendix 5 to From Mathematics to Philosophy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wetzel, Linda. “Expressions vs. Numbers.” Philosophical Topics 17 (1989), 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weyl, Hermann. Das Kontinuum. Leipzig: Veit, 1918.Google Scholar

Weyl, Hermann. “Der circulus vitiosus in der heutigen Begründung der Analysis.” Jahresbericht der deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung 28 (1919), 85–92.Google Scholar

Whitehead, A. N., and Russell, Bertrand. Principia Mathematica. 3 vols. Cambridge University Press, 1910–13. 2nd ed., 1925–27.Google Scholar

Williamson, Timothy. “Everything.” In Hawthorne, John and Zimmerman, Dean (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives 17: Language and Philosophical Linguistics, pp. 415–465. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003.Google Scholar

Wollheim, Richard. Art and its Objects. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. 2nd ed. with six suppelementary essays. Cambridge University Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Woodin, W. Hugh. “The Continuum Hypothesis, part I.” Notices of the American Mathematical Society 48 (2001), 567–576.Google Scholar

Woodin, W. Hugh. “The Continuum Hypothesis, part II.” Ibid., 681–690.

Woodin, W. Hugh. “The Continuum Hypothesis.” In Cori, René, Razborov, Alexander, Todorcevic, Stevo, and Wood, Carol (eds.), Logic Colloquium 2000, pp. 143–197. Lecture Notes in Logic, 19. Urbana, IL: Association for Symbolic Logic, and Wellesley, MA: A. K. Peters, 2005.Google Scholar

Woodin, W. Hugh. “Set Theory after Russell: The Journey Back to Eden.” In Link, Godehard (ed.), One Hundred Years of Russell's Paradox: Mathematics, Logic, Philosophy, pp. 29–47. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wright, Crispin. Frege's Conception of Numbers as Objects. Aberdeen University Press, 1983.Google Scholar

See also Hale and Wright.

Yi, Byeong-Uk. “Is Two a Property?”The Journal of Philosophy 96 (1999), 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yi, Byeong-Uk. “The Logic and Meaning of Plurals. Part I.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 34 (2005), 459–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yi, Byeong-Uk. “The Logic and Meaning of Plurals. Part II.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (2006), 239–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zach, Richard. “The Practice of Finitism: Epsilon Calculus and Consistency Proofs in Hilbert's Program.” Synthese 137 (2003), 211–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zermelo, Ernst. “Sur les ensembles finis et le principe de l'induction complète,” Acta Mathematica 32 (1909), 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zermelo, Ernst. “Über den Begriff der Definitheit in der Axiomatik.” Fundamenta Mathematicae 14 (1929), 339–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zermelo, Ernst. “Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche.” Ibid. 16 (1930), 29–47. Translation in Ewald, II, 1219–1233.Google Scholar

Zermelo, Ernst. “Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre I.” Mathematische Annalen 65 (1908), 261–281. Translation in van Heijenoort, pp. 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

See also Cantor.

Ackermann, Wilhelm. “Die Widerspruchsfreiheit der allgemeinen Mengenlehre.” Mathematische Annalen 114 (1937), 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aczel, Peter. “An Introduction to Inductive Definitions.” In Barwise, Handbook, pp. 739–782.

Barwise, Jon. Admissible Sets and Structures. Berlin: Springer, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barwise, Jon, ed. Handbook of Mathematical Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.Google Scholar

Bealer, George. “Intuition.” In Borchert, Donald M. (editor in chief), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Supplement, pp. 268–269. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 1996. Reprinted in Borchert, Encyclopedia 2nd ed., IV, 732–733.Google Scholar

Bealer, George. “On the Possibility of Philosophical Knowledge.” Philosophical Perspectives 10 (1996), 1–34.Google Scholar

Beeson, Michael. Foundations of Constructive Mathematics. Berlin: Springer, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benacerraf, Paul. “Mathematical Truth.” The Journal of Philosophy 70 (1973), 661–679. Reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam, pp. 403–420. (Not in 1st ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benacerraf, Paul. “What Numbers Could Not Be.” Philosophical Review 74 (1965), 47–73. Reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam, pp. 272–294. (Not in 1st ed.) Cited according to reprint.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benacerraf, Paul, and Putnam, Hilary, eds. Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1964. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 1983 (published 1984).Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. Abhandlungen zur Philosophie der Mathematik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976.Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Bemerkungen zum Paradoxon von Thoralf Skolem.” Avhandlingen uitgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, I. Mat.-Naturv. Klasse, 1957, No. 5, 3–9. Reprinted in Abhandlungen, pp. 113–118.Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Die Mathematik als ein zugleich Vertrautes und Unbekanntes.” Synthese 9 (1955), 465–471. Reprinted in Abhandlungen, pp. 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Mathematische Existenz und Widerspruchsfreiheit.” In Études de philosophie des sciences, en hommage à F. Gonseth à l'occasion de son soixantième anniversaire, pp. 11–25. Neuchâtel: Griffon, 1950. Reprinted in Abhandlungen, pp. 92–106.Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Die Philosophie der Mathematik und die Hilbertsche Beweistheorie.” Blätter für deutsche Philosophie 4 (1930), 326–367. Reprinted with postscript in Abhandlungen, pp. 17–61.Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Quelques points essentiels de la métamathématique.” L'enseignement mathématique 52 (1935), 70–95.Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Quelques points de vue concernant le problème de l'évidence,” Synthese 5 (1946), 321–326. (The German translation in Abhandlungen is by Bernays but was evidently done in 1974.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Sur le platonisme dans les mathématiques.” L'enseignement mathématique 52 (1935), 52–69. Translation in Benacerraf and Putnam, pp. 258–271 of 2nd ed. (The German version in Abhandlungen is a translation from the French.)Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “A System of Axiomatic Set Theory, Part II.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 6 (1941), 1–17. Reprinted in Müller, Sets and Classes, pp. 14–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “A System of Axiomatic Set Theory, Part VII.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 19 (1954), 81–96. Reprinted in Müller, Sets and Classes, pp. 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Über Hilberts Gedanken zur Grundlegung der Arithmetik,” Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung 31 (1922), 10–19.Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. “Zur Frage der Unendlichkeitsschemata in deraxiomatischen Mengenlehre.” In Essays on the Foundations of Mathematics, dedicated to Professor A. A. Fraenkel on his 70th birthday, pp. 3–49. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961. Translation, “partially revised,” in Müller, Sets and Classes, pp. 121–172.Google Scholar

Bernays, Paul. See also Hilbert and Bernays.

Black, Max. “The elusiveness of sets.” Review of Metaphysics 24 (1970–1971), 614–636.Google Scholar

Bolzano, Bernard. Paradoxien des Unendlichen. Ed. by Příhonský, F.. Leipzig 1851.Google Scholar

Bolzano, Bernard. Wissenschaftslehre. 4 vols. Sulzach 1837.Google Scholar

BonJour, Laurence. In Defense of Pure Reason. A Rationalist Account of a priori Justification. Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Boolos, George. “Iteration Again.” Philosophical Topics 17 (1989), 5–21. Reprinted in LLL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boolos, George. “The Iterative Conception of Set.” The Journal of Philosophy 68 (1971), 215–231. Reprinted in LLL. Also reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam, 2nd ed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boolos, George. Logic, Logic, and Logic. Edited by Jeffrey, Richard. With Introductions and Afterword by John P. Burgess. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Hereafter LLL.Google Scholar

Boolos, George. The Logic of Provability. Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Boolos, George. “Must we believe in set theory?” In LLL, pp. 120–132. Also in Sher and Tieszen, pp. 257–268.

Boolos, George. “Nominalist Platonism.” Philosophical Review 94 (1985), 327–344. Reprinted in LLL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boolos, George. “Reply to Charles Parsons, ‘Sets and Classes’.” In LLL, pp. 30–36. (Written and presented in 1974.)

Boolos, George. “To Be is to be the Value of a Variable (or to be Some Values of Some Variables).” The Journal of Philosophy 81 (1984), 430–449. Reprinted in LLL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boolos, George, and Jeffrey, Richard C.. Computability and Logic. Cambridge University Press, 1974. 2nd ed., 1981. 3rd ed., 1990. 4th ed., with John P. Burgess, 2002.Google Scholar

Borchert, Donald M. (Editor in chief). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Second Edition. 10 vols. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2006. (For first edition, see Edwards.)Google Scholar

Brentano, Franz. Wahrheit und Evidenz. Erkenntnistheoretische Abhandlungen und Briefe. Edited by Kraus, Oskar. Leipzig: Meiner, 1930. Reprinted Hamburg: Meiner, 1962, 1974.Google Scholar

Bromberger, Sylvain. On What We Know We Don't Know. Explanation, Theory, Linguistics, and How Questions Shape Them. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, and Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1992.Google Scholar

Bromberger, Sylvain. “Types and Tokens in Linguistics.” In George, Alexander (ed.), Reflections on Chomsky, pp. 58–89. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1989. Reprinted in On What We Know We Don't Know, pp. 170–208.Google Scholar

Bromberger, Sylvain, and Halle, Morris. “The Ontology of Phonology.” In Bromberger, On What We Know We Don't Know, pp. 209–228.

Brouwer, L. E. J. Collected Works, volume 1: Philosophy and Intuitionistic Mathematics. Edited by Heyting, Arend. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1975.Google Scholar

Brouwer, L. E. J.. “Mathematik, Wissenschaft, und Sprache.” Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 36 (1929), 153–164. Reprinted, Collected Works, vol. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brouwer, L. E. J.. Over de grondslagen der wiskunde. Amsterdam and Leipzig: Maass and van Suchtelen, 1907. Critical edition in Dirk van Dalen (ed.), L. E. J. Brouwer en de grondslagen van de wiskunde (Utrecht: Epsilon, 2001), pp. 39–147. English translation (of the main text) in Collected Works, vol. 1.Google Scholar

Buchholz, Wilfried, Feferman, Solomon, Pohlers, Wolfram, and Sieg, Wilfried, Iterated Inductive Definitions and Subsystems of Analysis. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 897. Berlin etc.: Springer, 1981.Google Scholar

Burgess, John P. “E pluribus unum: Plural Logic and Set Theory.” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 12 (2004), 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burgess, John P.. Fixing Frege. Princeton University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Burgess, John P.. “Mathematics and Bleak House.” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 12 (2004), 18–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burgess, John P.. Review of Shapiro, Philosophy of Mathematics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 40 (1999), 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burgess, John P., and Hazen, Allen. “Predicative Logic and Formal Arithmetic.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 39 (1998), 1–17.Google Scholar

Burgess, John P., and Rosen, Gideon. A Subject with no Object. Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Cantor, Georg. Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts. Edited by Zermelo, Ernst. Berlin: Springer, 1932. Reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1962.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. Logische Syntax der Sprache. Vienna: Springer, 1934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. Logical Syntax of Language. Translated by Amethe Smeation. London: Kegan Paul, 1937. (Contains two sections not in the German edition.)Google Scholar

Carson, Emily. “On realism in set theory.” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 4 (1996), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cartwright, Richard L. “Speaking of Everything.” NoÛs 28 (1994), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Church, Alonzo. “Comparison of Russell's Solution of the Semantical Paradoxes with that of Tarski.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 41 (1976), 747–760. Reprinted in Martin, Recent Essays.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Church, Alonzo. “A Formulation of the Logic of Sense and Denotation.” In Structure, Method, and Meaning: Essays in Honor of Henry M. Sheffer, pp. 3–24. New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1951.Google Scholar

Church, Alonzo. “A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 5 (1940), 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohn-Vossen, S. See Hilbert and Cohn-Vossen.

Collins, George E., and Halpern, J. D.. “On the Interpretability of Arithmetic in Set Theory.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 11 (1970), 477–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dales, H. G., and Oliveri, G. (eds.). Truth in Mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. “On Saying That.” Synthese 19 (1968), 130–146. Reprinted in Inquiries.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davidson, Donald. “Radical Interpretation.” Dialectica 27 (1973), 313–328. Reprinted in Inquiries.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dedekind, Richard. Gesammelte mathematische Werke. 3 vols. Edited by Fricke, Robert, Noether, Emmy, and Ore, Öystein. Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1930–32.Google Scholar

Dedekind, Richard. Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen?Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1888, 3rd ed. 1911. Translation in Ewald, II, 787–833.Google Scholar

Demopoulos, William (ed.). Frege's Philosophy of Mathematics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Descartes, René. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar

Donnellan, Keith. “Reference and Definite Descriptions.” Philosophical Review 75 (1966), 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drake, F. R.Set Theory. An Introduction to Large Cardinals. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1974.Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. Frege: Philosophy of Language. London: Duckworth, 1973. 2nd ed., 1981.Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. Frege: Philosophy of Mathematics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991.Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. “The Philosophical Basis of Intuitionistic Logic.” In Rose, H. E. and Shepherdson, J. C. (eds.), Logic Colloquium '73, pp. 5–40. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1975. Reprinted in Truth and Other Enigmas, pp. 215–247, and in Benacerraf and Putnam (not in 1st ed.).Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. “The Philosophical Significance of Gödel's Theorem.” Ratio 5 (1963), 140–155. Reprinted in Truth and Other Enigmas, pp. 186–201.Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. “Platonism.” In Truth and Other Enigmas, pp. 202–214. (Text of an address given in 1967.)Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. The Seas of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. Truth and Other Enigmas. London: Duckworth, 1978.Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael. “Wang's Paradox.” Synthese 30 (1975), 301–324. Reprinted in Truth and Other Enigmas, pp. 248–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dummett, Michael. “What is Mathematics About?” In George, Mathematics and Mind, pp. 11–26. Also in The Seas of Language, pp. 429–445.

Edwards, Paul (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 7 vols. New York: Free Press/Macmillan, 1967. (For second edition, see Borchert.)Google Scholar

Evans, Gareth. “Can there be Vague Objects?” Analysis 38 (1978), 208. Reprinted in Collected Papers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 176–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ewald, William (ed.). From Kant to Hilbert. A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Feferman, Solomon. “Definedness.” Erkenntnis 43 (1995), 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feferman, Solomon. In the Light of Logic. Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Feferman, Solomon. “Reflecting on Incompleteness.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (1991), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feferman, Solomon. “Systems of Predicative Analysis.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 29 (1964), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feferman, Solomon. “Weyl vindicated. Das Kontinuum 70 years later.” In Cellucci, Carlo and Sambin, Giovanni (eds.), Temi e prospettive della logica e della scienza contemporanee, vol. 1, pp. 59–93. Bologna: CLUEB, 1988. Reprinted with corrrections and additions in In the Light of Logic.Google Scholar

See also Buchholz, Feferman, Pohlers, and Sieg.

See also Gödel.

Feferman, Solomon, and Hellman, Geoffrey. “Predicative Foundations of Arithmetic.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 22 (1995), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feferman, Solomon, and Geoffrey Hellman. “Challenges to Predicative Foundations of Arithmetic.” In Sher and Tieszen, pp. 317–335.

Ferreira, Fernando. “A Note on Finiteness in the Predicative Foundations of Arithmetic.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (1999), 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Field, Hartry. “Are Our Logical and Mathematical Concepts Highly Indeterminate?” In French, Peter A., Uehling, Theodore E. Jr., and Wettstein, Howard K. (eds.), Midwest Studies in Philosophy, volume 19: Philosophical Naturalism, pp. 391–429. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Field, Hartry. “Is Mathematical Knowledge Just Logical Knowledge?” Philosophical Review 93 (1984), 509–552. Reprinted, with revisions and postscript, in Realism, Mathematics, and Modality, pp. 79–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Field, Hartry. “On Conservativeness and Incompleteness.” The Journal of Philosophy 82 (1985), 239–260. Reprinted in Realism, Mathematics, and Modality, pp. 125–146.Google Scholar

Field, Hartry. “Realism, Mathematics, and Modality.” Philosophical Topics 19 (1988), 57–107. Reprinted in Realism, Mathematics, and Modality, pp. 227–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Field, Hartry. Realism, Mathematics, and Modality. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.Google Scholar

Field, Hartry. Science without Numbers: A Defense of Nominalism. Princeton University Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Field, Hartry. Truth and the Absence of Fact. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Field, Hartry. “Which Undecidable Mathematical Sentences have Determinate Truth Values?” In Dales and Oliveri, pp. 291–310. Reprinted with Postscript in Truth and the Absence of Fact, pp. 332–360.

Fraenkel, (Abraham) Adolf. Einleitung in die Mengenlehre. Berlin: Springer, 1919. 2nd ed., revised and enlarged, 1923. 3d ed., further revised and enlarged, 1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Begriffschrift. Eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle: Nebert, 1879. Reprinted in Begriffschrift und andere Aufsätze. Translation in van Heijenoort.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Begriffschrift und andere Aufsätze. Edited by Angelelli, Ignacio. Hildesheim: Olms, 1964.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy. Edited by McGuinness, Brian. Translated by Max Black and others. Oxford: Blackwell, 1984.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Frege on the Foundations of Geometry and Formal Theories in Arithmetic. Translated and edited by Eike-Henner W. Kluge. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.

Frege, Gottlob. “Der Gedanke: Eine logische Untersuchung.” Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 1 (1918–19), 58–77. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften. Translation in Collected Papers.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. The Foundations of Arithmetic. Translated by J. L. Austin. Contains the German text. Oxford: Blackwell, 1950. 2nd ed. 1953. (The pagination of the German text is exactly the same as that of the original, and thus that of the translation is very close.)Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Funktion und Begriff. Jena: Pohle, 1891. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften. Translation in Collected Papers.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. Jena: Pohle. Vol. I, 1893. Vol. II, 1903. Reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1962, 1998.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Breslau: Koebner, 1884. Centenary edition, with amplifying texts, critically edited by Christian Thiel. Hamburg: Meiner, 1986. English translation Foundations.

Frege, Gottlob. Kleine Schriften. Edited by Angelelli, Ignacio. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967. Translated as Collected Papers.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Logical Investigations. Edited by Geach, Peter. Translated by Geach and R. H. Stoothoff. Oxford: Blackwell, 1977.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Nachgelassene Schriften. Edited by Hermes, Hans, Kambartel, Friedrich, and Kaulbach, Friedrich. Hamburg: Meiner, 1969. 2nd. ed., revised, with an appendix (lecture notes) ed. with an introduction by Lothar Kreiser. Hamburg: Meiner, 1983.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Review of Husserl, Philosophie der Arithmetik. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 103 (1894), 313–332. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften. Translation in Collected Papers.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel. Edited by Gabriel, Gottfried, Hermes, Hans, Kambartel, Friedrich, Thiel, Christian, and Veraart, Albert. Hamburg: Meiner, 1976.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael. Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Gallin, Daniel. Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1975.Google Scholar

Gandy, Robin O. “Limitations to Mathematical Knowledge.” In Dalen, D., Lascar, D., and Smiley, T. J. (eds.), Logic Colloquium ′80, pp. 129–145. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1982.Google Scholar

George, Alexander. “The Imprecision of Impredicativity.” Mind N. S. 96 (1987), 514–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

George, Alexander,(ed.). Mathematics and Mind. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

George, Alexander, and Daniel J. Velleman. “Two Conceptions of Natural Number.” In Dales and Oliveri, pp. 311–327.

Givant, Steven, and Tarski, Alfred. “Peano Arithmetic and the Zermelo-like Theory of Sets with Finite Ranks.” Abstract 77T-E51. Notices of the Americal Mathematical Society 24 (1977), A-437.Google Scholar

See also Tarski and Givant.

Gödel, Kurt. Collected Works. Volume I, Publications 1929–1936. Edited by Feferman, Solomon, Dawson, John W. Jr., Kleene, Stephen C., Moore, Gregory H., Solovay, Robert M., and Heijenoort, Jean. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. Collected Works. Volume II, Publications 1938–1974. Edited by Feferman, Solomon, Dawson, John W. Jr., Kleene, Stephen C., Moore, Gregory H., Solovay, Robert M., and Heijenoort, Jean. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. Collected Works. Volume III, Unpublished Essays and Lectures. Edited by Feferman, Solomon, Dawson, John W. Jr., Goldfarb, Warren, Parsons, Charles, and Solovay, Robert M.. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. Collected Works. Volume IV, Correspondence, A-G. Edited by Feferman, Solomon, Dawson, John W. Jr., Goldfarb, Warren, Parsons, Charles, and Sieg, Wilfried. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. Collected Works. Volume V, Correspondence, H-Z. Edited by Feferman, Solomon, Dawson, John W. Jr., Goldfarb, Warren, Parsons, Charles, and Sieg, Wilfried. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. The Consistency of the Continuum Hypothesis. Princeton University Press, 1940. Reprinted in Collected Works, II, 33–101.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. “Is Mathematics Syntax of Language?” Unfinished paper written between 1953 and 1959. Versions III and V in Collected Works, III, 334–362.

Gödel, Kurt. “On an Extension of Finitary Mathematics which has not yet been Used.” Revised English version, with additional notes, of “Über eine noch nicht benützte Erweiterung.” In Collected Works, II, 271–280.

Gödel, Kurt. “The Present Situation in the Foundations of Mathematics.” Lecture to the Mathematical Association of America, 1933. In Collected Works, III, 45–53.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. “Russell's Mathematical Logic.” In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell (Evanston: Northwestern University, 1944), pp. 125–153. Reprinted in Collected Works, II, 119–141. Also reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam, pp. 442–470.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. “Some Basic Theorems on the Foundations of Mathematics and their Philosophical Implications.” Josiah Willard Gibbs Lecture, American Mathematical Society, 1951. In Collected Works, III, 304–323. (The word ‘philosophical’ was omitted from the title of the published version. See Collected Works, IV, 636.)Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. “Über eine bisher noch nicht benützte Erweiterung des finiten Standpunktes.” Dialectica 12 (1958), 280–287. Reprinted, with English translation, in Collected Works, II, 240–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. “Vortrag bei Zilsel.” Lecture to an informal circle, Vienna, 1938. In Collected Works, III, 86–113. With English translation.Google Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. “What is Cantor's Continuum Problem?” American Mathematical Monthly 54 (1947), 515–525. Revised and expanded in Benacerraf and Putnam, 1st ed., pp. 258–271, also in 2nd ed., pp. 470–485. Both versions reprinted in Collected Works, II, 176–187 and 254–270 respectively.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gödel, Kurt. “Zur intuitionistischen Arithmetik und Zahlentheorie.” Ergebnisse eines mathematischen Kolloquiums 4 (1933), 34–38. Reprinted, with English translation, in Collected Works, I, 286–295.Google Scholar

Goldfarb, Warren. See Gödel.

Goldfarb, Warren, and Thomas Ricketts. “Carnap and the Philosophy of Mathematics.” In Bell, David and Vossenkuhl, Wilhelm (eds.), Wissenschaft und Subjektivität, pp. 61–78. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar

Goodman, Nelson. Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955. 4th ed., 1983.Google Scholar

Goodman, Nelson. Problems and Projects. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972.Google Scholar

Goodman, Nelson. “Sense and Certainty.” The Philosophical Review 61 (1952), 160–167. Reprinted in Problems and Projects, pp. 60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodman, Nelson. The Structure of Appearance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951. 3rd ed. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1977.Google Scholar

Goodman, Nelson, and Quine, W. V.. “Steps towards a Constructive Nominalism.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 12 (1947), 105–122. Reprinted in Goodman, Problems and Projects, pp. 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodman, Nicolas D. “The Knowing Mathematician.” Synthese 60 (1984), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodstein, R. L.Recursive Number Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1957.Google Scholar

Gottlieb, Dale. Ontological Economy. Substitutional Quantification and Mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Grossmann, Reinhardt. “Meinong's Doctrine of the Aussersein of the Pure Object.” NoÛs 8 (1974), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hájek, Petr, and Pudlák, Pavel. Metamathematics of First-Order Arithmetic. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, Bob. “Structuralism's Unpaid Epistemological Debts.” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 4 (1996), 124–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, Bob, and Wright, Crispin. The Reason's Proper Study. Essays towards a Neo-Fregean Philosophy of Mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, Bob, and Wright, Crispin. “Benacerraf's Dilemma Revisited.” European Journal of Philosophy 10 (2002), 101–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halle, Morris. See Bromberger and Halle.

Hart, W. D. “Benacerraf's Dilemma.” Crítica 23 (1991), 87–103.Google Scholar

Hart, W. D.. Review of Steiner, Mathematical Knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 74 (1977), 118–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hart, W. D.. “Skolem's Promises and Paradoxes.” The Journal of Philosophy 67 (1970), 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hauser, Kai. “Is Cantor's Continuum Problem Inherently Vague?” Philosophia Mathematica (III) 10 (2002), 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heck, Richard G. Jr. “The consistency of predicative fragments of Frege's Grundgesetze der Arithmetik.” History and Philosophy of Logic 17 (1996), 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hellman, Geoffrey. Mathematics without Numbers: Toward a Modal-Structural Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.Google Scholar

See also Feferman and Hellman.

Higginbotham, James. “Linguistic Theory and Davidson's Program in Semantics.” In Lepore, Ernest (ed.), Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.Google Scholar

Higginbotham, James. “On Higher-Order Logic and Natural Language.” Proceedings of the British Academy 95 (1998), 1–27. Somewhat abridged version in Sher and Tieszen, pp. 75–99.Google Scholar

Hilbert, David. Grundlagen der Geometrie. Leipzig: Teubner, 1899. 11th ed., ed. by Bernays, Paul, Stuttgart: Teubner, 1972. English translation of 10th ed. by Leo Unger, La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1971, 2nd ed. 1992.Google Scholar

Hilbert, David. “Neubegründung der Mathematik (Erste Mitteilung).” Abhandlungen aus dem mathematischen Seminar der Hamburgischen Universität 1 (1922), 157–177. Translation in Mancosu.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hilbert, David. “Über das Unendliche.” Mathematische Annalen 95 (1926), 161–190. Translation in van Heijenoort. Partial translation in Benacerraf and Putnam. (Citations of a translation are of the one in van Heijenoort.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hilbert, David, and Bernays, Paul. Grundlagen der Mathematik. Berlin: Springer, vol. I, 1934; vol. II, 1939. 2nd ed., vol. I, 1968; vol. II, 1970.

Hilbert, David, and Cohn-Vossen, S.. Anschauliche Geometrie. Berlin: Springer, 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hodes, Harold T. “Logicism and the Ontological Commitments of Arithmetic.” The Journal of Philosophy 81 (1984), 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Husserl, Edmund. Erfahrung und Urteil. Edited by Landgrebe, Ludwig. Hamburg: Claassen, 1948.Google Scholar

Husserl, Edmund. Formale und transzendentale Logik. Halle: Niemeyer, 1929; reprinted Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1981. Critical edition edited by Paul Janssen. Husserliana, vol. 17. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1974.Google Scholar

Husserl, Edmund. Logical Investigations. Translated by J. N. Findlay. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970. Translation of second edition of Logische Untersuchungen.Google Scholar