Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 81 references

In 1955, Paul Lorenzen clears the sky in foundations of mathematics for Hermann Weyl

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Four months before his death, Hermann Weyl endorsed Paul Lorenzen's operative mathematics as the way out of the foundations crisis.

desk verdict A well-documented archival study that establishes Weyl's 1955 endorsement of Lorenzen with two full primary letters; the Tarski episode is peripheral and secondhand. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16469 v1 pith:VF23H3OO submitted 2024-11-25 math.HO math.LO

Stefan Neuwirth (LMB) , Henri Lombardi (LMB) , Thierry Coquand (CSE) This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.HOmath.LO MSC 01A6003A05
keywords HermannWeylPaulLorenzenoperativemathematicspredicativeDasKontinuumdefiniteandindefinitequantifiersfoundationsofhistorylogic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Hermann Weyl's last months included a quiet but consequential turn: after reading Paul Lorenzen's "Einführung in die operative Logik und Mathematik" (1955), he wrote to Lorenzen that he saw "at last again a clear sky after long years of resignation," and he added a published note naming the book the most viable way out of the foundations crisis. The paper assembles letters, drafts, and archival records to argue that this was not a personal courtesy: Weyl recognised Lorenzen's operative mathematics as the living continuation of the predicative programme of "Das Kontinuum" (1918), and his final position should therefore be read as closer to Lorenzen than to the intuitionism he had embraced after 1921. The paper also reconstructs a later development in Lorenzen's own path: after Tarski's doubts in 1957–1958, Lorenzen abandoned his hierarchy of language levels and simplified analysis to a single distinction between definite and indefinite quantifiers, a move he himself described as faithful to Weyl's approach. The episode matters because it changes the standard picture of Weyl's late thought and gives the predicative tradition a concrete historical pivot.

What carries the argument

The paper's load-bearing machinery is a dated reconstruction of primary documents—the 1955 addendum, Weyl's letter, the Princeton invitation files, and Gödel's reports—set around a defined mathematical concept: Lorenzen's operative mathematics, in which mathematical objects are not postulated as a pre-existing totality but generated by rule-governed operations and inductive definitions. The key defined notion is that of a 'definite' proposition: one decidable by schematic operations or equipped with a stipulated proof or refutation concept. On that basis Lorenzen's final system separates definite quantifiers, for which a consistency proof secures the law of excluded middle, from indefinite quantifiers, which govern domains such as the real numbers where no such proof is available. The machinery does double work: it gives the paper a precise criterion for why Weyl recognised Lorenzen's kinship with "Das Kontinuum," and it explains the later simplification by which Lorenzen dropped his language levels after Tarski's doubts and returned to the architecture Weyl had used in 1918.

What would settle it

A dated letter or note from Hermann Weyl between 23 September 1955 and his death in which he retracts his praise, qualifies it, or reaffirms Brouwerian intuitionism as the only sound route would falsify the central claim; alternatively, evidence that the 'Nachtrag Juni 1955' was composed later by an editor, or was not written by Weyl, would remove the public endorsement on which the argument partly rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Hermann Weyl, four months before his death, recognised Paul Lorenzen's operative mathematics as the successful continuation and broadening of the programme he had begun in "Das Kontinuum." The documentary backbone is Weyl's June 1955 addendum to his 1921 paper, which presents Lorenzen's book as the most viable way out of the difficulties; his letter of 23 September 1955, which speaks of a clear sky after long years of resignation and praises the precision with which Lorenzen formulates everything; and his immediately ensuing efforts to bring Lorenzen to Princeton, where he wrote that on the operative standpoint Gödel's discovery "loses completely its disquieting character." The paper reads these documents as evidence of genuine intellectual kinship: Weyl explicitly recognised the methodical connection to his own 1918 restriction of relation construction, while noting that Lorenzen iterates the mathematical process far beyond anything he had allowed. On the paper's account, Weyl's late position belongs to the predicative/operative lineage, not to a simple intuitionism, and Lorenzen's later simplification to definite and indefinite quantifiers, stated in the foreword to "Differential und Integral" (1965), is the completion of that lineage's return to Weyl's no-higher-levels architecture.

Load-bearing premise

The causal story of Lorenzen's turn away from language levels rests entirely on Kuno Lorenz's private recollection, dated 8 February 2022, of what Tarski said to Lorenzen in 1958; if that memory is inaccurate, the paper has no independent evidence for why the simplification happened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Weyl's late intellectual position should be described as an endorsement of a predicative/operative program, not as a simple adherence to Brouwerian intuitionism; accounts that place Weyl in the intuitionist camp after 1921 have to accommodate the 1955 addendum and letter.
  • Lorenzen's 1965 "Differential und Integral" is positioned as the direct descendant of "Das Kontinuum": dropping language levels and using definite/indefinite quantifiers recovered the main theorems of classical analysis without impredicative definitions, just as Weyl had hoped but could not justify.
  • Gödel's reports show that the same evidence was read very differently in Princeton: the invitation was extended on Weyl's initiative despite Gödel's strongly negative assessment, so the "clear sky" was a contested judgment, not a consensus.
  • If Weyl is right that on the operative standpoint Gödel's incompleteness result loses its disquieting character, foundational anxiety shifts from consistency proofs of formal systems to the question of which inductive definitions and quantifier domains are legitimate.
  • The generalised inductive formulation of the Cantor–Bendixson theorem produced during Lorenzen's Princeton visit is a concrete mathematical dividend of the program Weyl endorsed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if Weyl's late endorsement is taken at face value, the standard narrative that Weyl moved to Brouwerian intuitionism in 1921 and stayed there needs revision; one testable consequence is that Weyl's late unpublished notes, if any survive, should show more sympathy to inductive and predicative methods than to choice sequences.
  • Editorial inference: the definite/indefinite quantifier split is structurally similar to later semi-constructive systems built around the Limited Principle of Omniscience; a companion study could test whether Weyl's late view, as reconstructed here, is a coherent precursor of that line of thought.
  • Editorial inference: the episode suggests a general pattern—an external objection can force a foundational framework into a simpler and explanatorily clearer shape; the 1951-to-1965 comparison of Lorenzen's two presentations offers a controlled case for studying that pattern.
  • Editorial inference: Angelelli's reading, cited in the paper, that Lorenzen supplies a genuine theory of abstraction offers a concrete way to test Weyl's continuity claim: real numbers as Cauchy sequences modulo an equivalence relation, without quotient classes, should recover the classical theorems of analysis that Weyl thought had to be abandoned.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a documented timeline (1909–1969) of the relationship between Hermann Weyl and Paul Lorenzen, centered on Weyl's enthusiastic reception of Lorenzen's 'Einführung in die operative Logik und Mathematik' (1955). The central claim is that Weyl, in the last months of his life, regarded Lorenzen's operative mathematics as the most promising resolution of the foundational crisis, thereby moving beyond the intuitionism he had endorsed since 1921. The paper supports this with full transcriptions and translations of Weyl's letter to Lorenzen (23 September 1955) and an undated letter to Atle Selberg recommending Lorenzen for the IAS, together with school minutes, Gödel's reports, and Bernays' review. It also traces Lorenzen's later transition from language levels to a simple definite/indefinite quantifier distinction, attributing the trigger to a discussion with Tarski at Berkeley on the basis of Kuno Lorenz's testimony. The paper ends with philosophical remarks on predicativity, the law of excluded middle, and abstraction.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper materially revises the standard picture of Weyl's late foundational views: instead of ending in resignation or a settled intuitionism, Weyl saw in Lorenzen's program a viable route forward from the crisis. The evidentiary basis is unusually strong for a historical claim of this kind: two primary letters are quoted in full with archival shelf marks, the German originals are supplied, and supporting administrative documents are transcribed. The authors are also exemplary in flagging their own uncertainties, including the undated Selberg letter, the summarized 'Nachtrag Juni 1955', the unsupported Feferman presumption, and the absence of a discussion of generalized inductive definitions in the 1955 book. The paper's main fragility—the causal role of Tarski's doubts, based on a single private communication—is peripheral to the central claim and does not undermine it. Overall, this is a valuable scholarly contribution to the history of predicative and constructive mathematics.

minor comments (4)
  1. [§3, 'Nachtrag Juni 1955'] Since the 'Nachtrag Juni 1955' is a published text in Weyl's Selecta, direct quotation would be preferable to the present summary; quoting it would complete the documentary record and avoid relying on the paraphrase in Heinzmann 2021.
  2. [§5, '1958. The transition to dialogical logic'] The causal attribution to Tarski's doubts rests on Kuno Lorenz's private communication of 8 February 2022; I recommend adding an explicit sentence noting that this is a single, secondhand testimony and that the 1965 foreword independently documents only the simplification itself, not its cause.
  3. [Abstract and §6, 'Definiteness and inductive definitions'] The abstract's phrase 'the most famous achievement of this enterprise is a generalised inductive formulation of the Cantor-Bendixson theorem' can be misread as attributing this result to the 1955 book; since §6 notes that the result belongs to Lorenzen (1958) and that no discussion of generalized inductive definitions was found in the 1955 book, the abstract should be reworded to attribute the theorem to the operative program rather than to the book.
  4. [§4, '1955. Letter from Weyl to Selberg'] The letter to Selberg is undated; the year attribution is inferential (from the IAS file and the school minutes of 26 October 1955) and should be stated as such in the text rather than implied by the timeline heading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Weyl's 1955 endorsement rests on fully quoted primary letters, with authors' self-citations only as editorial apparatus.

full rationale

The paper advances a historical thesis, not a formal derivation, so the circularity patterns (self-definitional predictions, fitted inputs, imported uniqueness theorems, ansatz-by-citation, renamed known results) do not apply. Its central claim—Weyl's late endorsement of Lorenzen's operative mathematics—is supported by primary archival documents quoted in full, including Weyl's letter to Lorenzen of 23 September 1955 and his undated recommendation letter to Selberg, and by contemporaneous IAS records and Gödel reports. The authors do cite their own earlier editions (Coquand and Neuwirth 2020, 2023), but only as scholarly apparatus for the text of Lorenzen's 1944 and 1951 work; those citations are not the ground for the historical conclusion and no reduction of conclusion to citation occurs. The account of Tarski's 1958 effect on Lorenzen rests on Kuno Lorenz's private communication, but the paper flags this source, and the 1965 foreword independently documents the abandonment of language levels and its claimed kinship with Das Kontinuum; even if the Tarski anecdote were wrong, the central endorsement claim would stand. I find no circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters apply to a historical study. The axioms are the trustworthiness of the archival sources, the accuracy of a witness's recollection, and the reliability of prior analyses of Lorenzen's mathematics cited by the authors.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The archival documents quoted (Weyl's letter, Gödel's drafts, IAS minutes, Ackermann and Bernays letters) are authentic and accurately transcribed.
    The entire timeline is built on these documents; the authors provide shelf marks but the preprint does not include facsimiles or scans.
  • domain assumption Kuno Lorenz's private communication (8 February 2022) accurately reports Lorenzen's reaction to Tarski's doubts about 'definite'.
    This is the only evidence for the causal claim that Tarski provoked Lorenzen's abandonment of language levels (Section 5).
  • domain assumption The analysis of Lorenzen's constructive Cantor-Bendixson theorem in Coquand (2021) and the editions in Coquand and Neuwirth (2020, 2023) are accurate.
    The paper cites these works for the mathematical content it attributes to Lorenzen but does not re-derive the mathematics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In 1955, Paul Lorenzen clears the sky in foundations of mathematics for Hermann Weyl." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VF23H3OO

@misc{pith2026241116469,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In 1955, Paul Lorenzen clears the sky in foundations of mathematics for Hermann Weyl},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VF23H3OO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16469}
}
read the original abstract

In 1955, Paul Lorenzen is a mathematician who devotes all his research to foundations of mathematics, on a par with Hans Hermes, but his academic background is algebra in the tradition of Helmut Hasse and Wolfgang Krull. This shift from algebra to logic goes along with his discovery that his ``algebraic works [...] have been concerned with a problem that has formally the same structure as the problem of consistency of the classical calculus of logic'' (letter to Carl Friedrich Gethmann dated 14 January 1988). After having provided a proof of consistency for arithmetic in 1944 and published it in 1951, Lorenzen inquires still further into the foundations of mathematics and arrives at the conviction that analysis can also be given a predicative foundation. Wilhelm Ackermann as well as Paul Bernays have pointed out to him in 1947 that his views are very close to those proposed by Hermann Weyl in Das Kontinuum (1918): sets are not postulated to exist beforehand; they are being generated in an ongoing process of comprehension. This seems to be the reason for Lorenzen to get into contact with Weyl, who develops a genuine interest into Lorenzen's operative mathematics and welcomes with great enthusiasm his Einf{\"u}hrung in die operative Logik und Mathematik (1955), which he studies line by line. This book's aim is to grasp the objects of analysis by means of inductive definitions; the most famous achievement of this enterprise is a generalised inductive formulation of the Cantor-Bendixson theorem that makes it constructive. This mathematical kinship is brutally interrupted by Weyl's death in 1955; a planned visit by Lorenzen at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton takes place only in 1957--1958. As told by Kuno Lorenz, Lorenzen's first Ph.D. student, a discussion with Alfred Tarski during this visit provokes a turmoil in Lorenzen's operative research program that leads to his abandonment of language levels and to a great simplification of his presentation of analysis by distinguishing only between ``definite'' and ``indefinite'' quantifiers: the former govern domains for which a proof of consistency is available and secures the use of the law of excluded middle; the latter govern those for which there isn't, e.g. the real numbers. Lorenzen states in his foreword to Differential und Integral (1965) that he is faithful to Weyl's approach of Das Kontinuum in this simplification. This history motivates a number of mathematical and philosophical issues about predicative mathematics: how does Weyl's interest into Lorenzen's operative mathematics fit with his turn to Brouwer's intuitionism as expressed in ``{\"U}ber die neue Grundlagenkrise der Mathematik'' (1921)? Why does Lorenzen turn away from his language levels and how does this turn relate to Weyl's conception of predicative mathematics? What do Lorenzen's conceptions of mathematics reveal about Weyl's conceptions?

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aus dem B riefwechsel W ilhelm A ckermanns

    Hans Richard Ackermann. Aus dem B riefwechsel W ilhelm A ckermanns. Hist. Philos. Logic, 4, 181--202, 1983. doi:10.1080/01445348308837054

    work page doi:10.1080/01445348308837054 1983

  2. [2]

    Review of hallett84

    Ignacio Angelelli. Review of hallett84 . Math. Rev., MR0765076 (86e:03003), 1986

    1986

  3. [3]

    Review of pollardbole87

    Ignacio Angelelli. Review of pollardbole87 . Math. Rev., MR1040831 (91h:01105), 1991

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    Review of largeault94

    Ignacio Angelelli. Review of largeault94 . Math. Rev., MR1372265 (97h:00007), 1997

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Review of silva97

    Ignacio Angelelli. Review of silva97 . Math. Rev., MR1445990 (98i:01024), 1998

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Review of hale00

    Ignacio Angelelli. Review of hale00 . Math. Rev., MR1768940 (2001i:03015), 2001

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Adventures of abstraction

    Ignacio Angelelli. Adventures of abstraction. Idealization XI: historical studies on abstraction and idealization, Francesco Coniglione, Roberto Poli, Robin Rollinger, 11--35. Poznań studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, 82, Rodopi, Amsterdam, 2004. doi:10.1163/9789004333215_003

    work page doi:10.1163/9789004333215_003 2004

  8. [8]

    K. E. Aubert. Review of lorenzen55 . Nordisk Mat. Tidskr., 4, 107--108, 1956. ://www.jstor.org/stable/24524606

    work page arXiv 1956

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Review of lorenzen55

    Oskar Becker. Review of lorenzen55 . Kant-Studien, 48, 447--454, 1957. doi:10.1515/kant.1957.48.1-4.437

    1957 doi

  2. [10]

    David Hilbert and Paul Bernays: Foundations of Mathematics, Vol

    Bernays Project . David Hilbert and Paul Bernays: Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 1 (1934), 2003. Translation of 1 of hilbertbernays34 by Ian Mueller: https://www.phil.cmu.edu/projects/bernays/Pdf/bernays12-1_2003-06-25.pdf

    1934

  3. [11]

    Foundations of constructive analysis

    Errett Bishop. Foundations of constructive analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967

    1967

  4. [12]

    Granice nauki: zarys logiki i metodologji nauk \'s cis ych

    Leon Chwistek. Granice nauki: zarys logiki i metodologji nauk \'s cis ych . Ksi a \.z nica-Atlas, Lw \'o w, 1935. ://www.sbc.org.pl/Content/80039/PDF/ii305153.pdf

    1935

  5. [13]

    The limits of science: outline of logic and of the methodology of the exact sciences

    Leon Chwistek. The limits of science: outline of logic and of the methodology of the exact sciences. International Library of Psychology, Philosophy, and Scientific Method, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., London, 1948. Translation of chwistek35 (revised and supplemented by ...

    1948

  6. [14]

    Lorenzen and constructive mathematics

    Thierry Coquand. Lorenzen and constructive mathematics. heinzmannwolters21 , 47--61, 2021

    2021

  7. [16]

    An introduction to Lorenzen's ``Algebraic and logistic investigations on free lattices'' (1951), 2023

    Thierry Coquand Stefan Neuwirth. An introduction to Lorenzen's ``Algebraic and logistic investigations on free lattices'' (1951), 2023. a rXiv: 1711.06139 http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.06139, accepted for publication in Hist. Philos. Logic

    1951 arXiv

  8. [17]

    English Intuitionistic choice and classical logic

    Thierry Coquand Erik Palmgren. English Intuitionistic choice and classical logic . Arch. Math. Logic, 39, 53--74, 2000. doi:10.1007/s001530050003

    2000 doi

  9. [18]

    Review of lorenzen55

    William Craig. Review of lorenzen55 . Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 63, 316--320, 1957. doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1957-10127-X

    1957 doi

  10. [19]

    Predicativity and constructive mathematics

    Laura Crosilla. Predicativity and constructive mathematics. Objects, structures, and logics: F il M at studies in the philosophy of mathematics , Gianluigi Oliveri, Claudio Ternullo, Stefano Boscolo, 287--309. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, 339, Sprin...

    2022 doi

  11. [20]

    Husserl's phenomenology and W eyl's predic[a]tivism

    Jairo Jos\' e da Silva. Husserl's phenomenology and W eyl's predic[a]tivism. Synthese, 110, 277--296, 1997. doi:10.1023/A :1004937311034

    1997 doi

  12. [21]

    Review of MR0241272

    Osvald Demuth. Review of MR0241272 . Časopis Pěst. Mat., 97, 99--100, 1972. doi:10.21136/CPM.1972.117743

    1972

  13. [22]

    o ssische Technische Hochschule Institute for Advanced Study ( ). Selecta Hermann Weyl. Birkh \

    Eidgen \"o ssische Technische Hochschule Institute for Advanced Study ( ). Selecta Hermann Weyl. Birkh \"a user, Basel, 1956

    1956

  14. [23]

    Relationships between constructive, predicative and classical systems of analysis

    Solomon Feferman. Relationships between constructive, predicative and classical systems of analysis. Proof theory: History and philosophical significance, Vincent F. Hendricks, Stig Andur Pedersen, Klaus Frovin J rgensen, 221--236. Synthese Library, 292, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2000

    2000

  15. [24]

    Predicativity

    Solomon Feferman. Predicativity. The O xford handbook of philosophy of mathematics and logic , Stewart Shapiro, 19, 590--624. Oxford Handbooks in Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005

    2005

  16. [25]

    English On the strength of some semi-constructive theories

    Solomon Feferman. English On the strength of some semi-constructive theories . Logic, construction, computation: dedicated to the 70th birthday of H elmut S chwichtenberg , Ulrich Berger, Hannes Diener, Peter Schuster, Monika Seisenberger, 201--225. Ontos Mathematical Logic, 3...

    2012

  17. [26]

    Dawson, Jr., Warren Goldfarb, Charles Parsons, Wilfried Sieg ( )

    Solomon Feferman, John W. Dawson, Jr., Warren Goldfarb, Charles Parsons, Wilfried Sieg ( ). Kurt G \"o del: collected works, V : correspondence H -- Z . Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2003

    2003

  18. [27]

    Dawson, Jr., Stephen C

    Solomon Feferman, John W. Dawson, Jr., Stephen C. Kleene, Gregory H. Moore, Robert M. Solovay, Jean van Heijenoort ( ). Kurt G \"o del: collected works, II : publications 1938--1974 . Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990

    1938

  19. [28]

    Fraenkel Yehoshua Bar-Hillel

    Abraham A. Fraenkel Yehoshua Bar-Hillel. Foundations of set theory. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1958

    1958

  20. [29]

    Review of lorenzen55

    Gerhard Frey. Review of lorenzen55 . Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 11, 631--633, 1957. ://www.jstor.org/stable/20480957

    1957

  21. [30]

    Review of MR0241272

    Jean-Louis Gardies. Review of MR0241272 . Les Études philosophiques, 1972(1), 94--95, 1972. ://www.jstor.org/stable/20846220

    1972

  22. [31]

    Review of lorenzen55

    Helmuth Gericke. Review of lorenzen55 . Zentralblatt Math., 68, 8--10, 1961. Zbl 0068.00801

    1961

  23. [32]

    a ltnis von Ph \

    Carl Friedrich Gethmann. german Ph \"a nomenologie, L ebensphilosophie und konstruktive W issenschaftstheorie: eine historische S kizze zur V orgeschichte der E rlanger S chule . german Lebenswelt und Wissenschaft: Studien zum Verh \"a ltnis von Ph \"a nomenologie und Wissensc...

    1991

  24. [33]

    Reals by abstraction

    Bob Hale. Reals by abstraction. Philos. Math. (3), 8, 100--123, 2000. doi:10.1093/philmat/8.2.100. Reprinted in Roy T. Cook (ed.), The A rch\' e papers on the mathematics of abstraction , Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, 71, Springer, Dordrecht, 2007, 175--196

    2000 doi

  25. [34]

    Cantorian set theory and limitation of size

    Michael Hallett. Cantorian set theory and limitation of size. Oxford Logic Guides, 10, Oxford University Press, New York, 1984

    1984

  26. [35]

    F. H. Heinemann. German philosophy. Philosophy, 31(119), 358–361, 1956. doi:10.1017/S0031819100046404

    1956 doi

  27. [38]

    Review of MR0241272

    Wolfram Heitsch. Review of MR0241272 . Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 19, 1042, 1971

    1971

  28. [39]

    German Grundlagen der Mathematik I

    David Hilbert Paul Bernays. German Grundlagen der Mathematik I . Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften in Einzeldarstellungen mit besonderer Ber\"ucksichtigung der Anwendungsgebiete, 40, Springer, Berlin, 1934

    1934

  29. [40]

    Lorenzen between G entzen and S ch \"u tte

    Reinhard Kahle Isabel Oitavem. Lorenzen between G entzen and S ch \"u tte. heinzmannwolters21 , 63--76, 2021

    2021

  30. [41]

    Review of lorenzen55

    Stanisław Kamiński. Review of lorenzen55 . Roczniki Filozoficzne, 5(2), 214--214, 1955. ://www.jstor.org/stable/43409209

    1955

  31. [42]

    Hermann Weyl: L e continu et autres \' e crits

    Jean Largeault ( ). Hermann Weyl: L e continu et autres \' e crits . Mathesis, Vrin, Paris, 1994. Translation of weyl18 and other writings of Weyl by the editor

    1994

  32. [43]

    Ignacio Angelelli (1933-2019)

    Javier Legris. Ignacio Angelelli (1933-2019). Revista Latinoamericana de Filosofía, 46, 151–156, 2020. doi:10.36446/rlf2020204

    1933 doi

  33. [44]

    Basic objectives of dialogue logic in historical perspective

    Kuno Lorenz. Basic objectives of dialogue logic in historical perspective. Synthese, 127, 255--263, 2001. doi:10.1023/A:1010367416884

    2001 doi

  34. [46]

    b K onstruktive B egr\"undung der M athematik

    Paul Lorenzen. b K onstruktive B egr\"undung der M athematik. Math. Z., 53, 162--202, 1950. ://eudml.org/doc/169180

    1950

  35. [47]

    uber freie V erb\

    Paul Lorenzen. Algebraische und logistische U ntersuchungen \"uber freie V erb\"ande. J. Symb. Log., 16, 81--106, 1951 a . ://www.jstor.org/stable/2266681. Translation by Stefan Neuwirth: Algebraic and logistic investigations on free lattices, 2017, arXiv: 1710.08138 http://ar...

    1951

  36. [48]

    Die W iderspruchsfreiheit der klassischen A nalysis

    Paul Lorenzen. Die W iderspruchsfreiheit der klassischen A nalysis. Math. Z., 54, 1--24, 1951 b

    1951

  37. [49]

    uhrung in die operative L ogik und M athematik . Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften in Einzeldarstellungen mit besonderer Ber\

    Paul Lorenzen. german Einf\"uhrung in die operative L ogik und M athematik . Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften in Einzeldarstellungen mit besonderer Ber\"ucksichtigung der Anwendungsgebiete , 78, Springer, Berlin, 1955

    1955

  38. [50]

    Logical reflection and formalism

    Paul Lorenzen. Logical reflection and formalism. J. Symb. Log., 23, 241--249, 1958. ://www.jstor.org/stable/2964281

    1958

  39. [51]

    Review of weyl60

    Paul Lorenzen. Review of weyl60 . J. Symb. Log., 25, 282--284, 1960. ://www.jstor.org/stable/2964720

    1960

  40. [52]

    german Metamathematik

    Paul Lorenzen. german Metamathematik . B\! \!I -Hochschultaschenb\"ucher, 25, german Bibliographisches Institut , german Mannheim , 1962. Translation by Jean-Blaise Grize: Métamathématique, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1967. Translation by Jacobo Mu \ n oz: Metamatemática, Tecnos,...

    1962

  41. [53]

    Wie ist die O bjektivität der P hysik möglich? Argumentationen: Festschrift für Josef König, Harald Delius Günther Patzig, 143--150

    Paul Lorenzen. Wie ist die O bjektivität der P hysik möglich? Argumentationen: Festschrift für Josef König, Harald Delius Günther Patzig, 143--150. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1964. Translation: ``How is objectivity in physics possible?'', in lorenzen87b , 231--237

    1964

  42. [54]

    Differential und I ntegral: eine konstruktive E inf\"uhrung in die klassische A nalysis

    Paul Lorenzen. Differential und I ntegral: eine konstruktive E inf\"uhrung in die klassische A nalysis . Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Frankfurt, 1965

    1965

  43. [55]

    uhrung in die operative L ogik und M athematik . Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften in Einzeldarstellungen mit besonderer Ber\

    Paul Lorenzen. Einf\"uhrung in die operative L ogik und M athematik . Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften in Einzeldarstellungen mit besonderer Ber\"ucksichtigung der Anwendungsgebiete, 78, Springer, Berlin, second , 1969 a

    1969

  44. [56]

    Normative logic and ethics

    Paul Lorenzen. Normative logic and ethics. B\! \!I -Hochschultaschenb \"u cher, 236 ^ , Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, 1969 b . [ Lorenzen (1970 [1965]) ] MR0346097 Paul Lorenzen. Differential and integral: a constructive introduction to classical analysis. University o...

    1969

  45. [57]

    a higkeit des K ontinuums . Jahrbuch \

    Paul Lorenzen. German Die T heorief \"a higkeit des K ontinuums . Jahrbuch \"U berblicke M athematik 1986 , S. D. Chatterji, Istv \'a n Feny \"o , Ulrich Kulisch, Detlef Laugwitz, Roman Liedl, 147--153. Mathematical Surveys (Mannheim), 19, B\! \!I -Wissenschaftsverlag, Mannheim, 1986

    1986

  46. [58]

    Constructive philosophy

    Paul Lorenzen. Constructive philosophy. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 1987. Translation of a collection of articles by Karl Richard Pavlovic. [ Lorenzen (2020 [1944]) ] lorenzen20 Paul Lorenzen. Ein halbordnungstheoretischer W iderspruchsfreiheitsbeweis. Hist. Ph...

    1987

  47. [59]

    Constructive definition of certain analytic sets of numbers

    Paul Lorenzen John Myhill. Constructive definition of certain analytic sets of numbers. J. Symb. Log., 24, 37--49, 1959. ://www.jstor.org/stable/2964572

    1959

  48. [60]

    M. Meigne. Review of MR0241272 . Archives de Philosophie, 33(2), 332--333, 1970. ://www.jstor.org/stable/43033176

    1970

  49. [61]

    On the operational foundations of logic and mathematics

    Gert Heinz Müller. On the operational foundations of logic and mathematics. Ratio (Oxford), 1(1), 85--95, 1957 a

    1957

  50. [62]

    Review of lorenzen55

    Gert Heinz Müller. Review of lorenzen55 . Zentralblatt Math., 66, 248--254, 1957 b . Zbl 0066.24802

    1957

  51. [63]

    Zur operativen Begründung von Logik und Mathematik

    Gert Heinz Müller. Zur operativen Begründung von Logik und Mathematik. Ratio (Frankfurt), 1(1), 77--86, 1957 c . Translation: mueller57b

    1957

  52. [64]

    Lorenzen's correspondence with H asse, K rull, and A ubert, together with some relevant documents

    Stefan Neuwirth. Lorenzen's correspondence with H asse, K rull, and A ubert, together with some relevant documents. heinzmannwolters21 , 185--268, 2021. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-65824-3\_10

    2021 doi

  53. [65]

    French Sur quelques th\'eor\`emes d'existence

    Petr Sergeevich Novikov. French Sur quelques th\'eor\`emes d'existence . C. R. (Doklady) Acad. Sci. URSS (N.S.), 23, 438--440, 1939

    1939

  54. [66]

    On the consistency of certain logical calculus

    Petr Sergeevich Novikov. On the consistency of certain logical calculus. Rec. Math. [Mat. Sbornik] (N.S.), 12(54), 231--261, 1943. ://mi.mathnet.ru/eng/msb6158

    1943

  55. [67]

    Mathematical thought and its objects

    Charles Parsons. Mathematical thought and its objects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008

    2008

  56. [68]

    a ge \"u ber ausgew \

    Henri Poincar \'e . Sechs V ortr \"a ge \"u ber ausgew \"a hlte G egenst \"a nde aus der reinen M athematik und mathematischen P hysik . Teubner, Leipzig, 1910

    1910

  57. [69]

    English Property is prior to set: F ichte and W eyl

    Stephen Pollard. English Property is prior to set: F ichte and W eyl . Essays on the foundations of mathematics and logic, Giandomenico Sica, 209--226. Advanced Studies in Mathematics and Logic, 1, Polimetrica, Monza, 2005

    2005

  58. [70]

    Hermann Weyl: The continuum: a critical examination of the foundation of analysis

    Stephen Pollard Thomas Bole ( ). Hermann Weyl: The continuum: a critical examination of the foundation of analysis . Thomas Jefferson University Press, Kirksville, 1987. Translation of weyl18 by the editors with a foreword by John Archibald Wheeler

    1987

  59. [71]

    English The scope of F eferman's semi-intuitionistic set theories and his second conjecture

    Michael Rathjen. English The scope of F eferman's semi-intuitionistic set theories and his second conjecture . Indag. Math. (N.S.), 30, 500--525, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.indag.2019.01.004

    2019 doi

  60. [72]

    Review of lorenzen55

    Abraham Robinson. Review of lorenzen55 . Math. Rev., 17, 223, 1956. MR0072065

    1956

  61. [73]

    Hugo D ingler et l’épistémologie pragmatiste en A llemagne

    Oliver Schlaudt ( ). Hugo D ingler et l’épistémologie pragmatiste en A llemagne . Philosophia Scienti 18-2, 2014 a . doi:10.4000/philosophiascientiae.931

    2014 doi

  62. [74]

    Introduction g \'e n \'e rale

    Oliver Schlaudt. Introduction g \'e n \'e rale. schlaudt14b , 3--29, 2014 b . doi:10.4000/philosophiascientiae.934

    2014 doi

  63. [75]

    Lorenzens operative L ogik und moderne beweistheoretische S emantik

    Peter Schroeder-Heister. Lorenzens operative L ogik und moderne beweistheoretische S emantik. a Der K onstruktivismus in der P hilosophie im A usgang von W ilhelm K amlah und P aul L orenzen , Jürgen Mittelstra , 167--196. Mentis, Paderborn, 2008 a

    2008

  64. [76]

    b Lorenzen's operative justification of intuitionistic logic

    Peter Schroeder-Heister. b Lorenzen's operative justification of intuitionistic logic. One hundred years of intuitionism (1907-2007): the C erisy conference , Mark van Atten, Pascal Boldini, Michel Bourdeau, Gerhard Heinzmann. Birkh \"a user, Basel, 2008 b

    1907

  65. [77]

    Review of lorenzen55

    Thoralf Skolem. Review of lorenzen55 . J. Symb. Log., 22, 289--290, 1957. ://www.jstor.org/stable/2963596

    1957

  66. [78]

    Review of lorenzen55

    Wolfgang Stegmüller. Review of lorenzen55 . Philosophische Rundschau, 6, 161--182, 1958. ://www.jstor.org/stable/42570332

    1958

  67. [79]

    Gibt es noch eine G rundlagenkrise der M athematik? M anfred R iedel zum 60

    Christian Thiel. Gibt es noch eine G rundlagenkrise der M athematik? M anfred R iedel zum 60. G eburtstag. Elemente moderner W issenschaftstheorie: zur I nteraktion von P hilosophie, G eschichte und T heorie der W issenschaften , Friedrich Stadler, 57--71. Ver \"o ffentlichung...

    2000

  68. [80]

    Homotopy type theory: univalent foundations of mathematics

    The Univalent Foundations Program . Homotopy type theory: univalent foundations of mathematics. https://homotopytypetheory.org/book, Institute for Advanced Study, 2013

    2013

  69. [81]

    C. F. von Weizsäcker. Operative Logik und Mathematik. Naturwissenschaften, 44, 482--485, 1957. doi:10.1007/BF00629088

    1957 doi

  70. [82]

    The formalization of mathematics

    Hao Wang. The formalization of mathematics. J. Symb. Log., 19, 241--266, 1954. ://www.jstor.org/stable/2267732. Reprinted in A survey of mathematical logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1963, 559--584

    1954

  71. [83]

    On denumerable bases of formal systems

    Hao Wang. On denumerable bases of formal systems. Mathematical interpretation of formal systems, 57--84. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1955

    1955

  72. [84]

    german Das K ontinuum: kritische U ntersuchungen \"u ber die G rundlagen der A nalysis

    Hermann Weyl. german Das K ontinuum: kritische U ntersuchungen \"u ber die G rundlagen der A nalysis . Veit & Comp., Leipzig, 1918

    1918

  73. [85]

    U ber die neue G rundlagenkrise der M athematik ( V ortr \

    Hermann Weyl. German \"U ber die neue G rundlagenkrise der M athematik ( V ortr \"a ge, gehalten im mathematischen K olloquium Z \"u rich) . Math. Z., 10, 39--79, 1921. ://eudml.org/doc/167631. [ Weyl (1956 [1921] ) ] weyl56 Hermann Weyl. \"U ber die neue G rundlagenkrise der ...

    1921

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.