Mathematical logic

Theories of logic were developed in many cultures in history, including China, India, Greece and the Islamic world. Greek methods, particularly Aristotelian logic (or term logic) as found in the Organon, found wide application and acceptance in Western science and mathematics for millennia.[6] The Stoics, especially Chrysippus, began the development of predicate logic. In 18th-century Europe, attempts to treat the operations of formal logic in a symbolic or algebraic way had been made by philosophical mathematicians including Leibniz and Lambert, but their labors remained isolated and little known.

In the middle of the nineteenth century, George Boole and then Augustus De Morgan presented systematic mathematical treatments of logic. Their work, building on work by algebraists such as George Peacock, extended the traditional Aristotelian doctrine of logic into a sufficient framework for the study of foundations of mathematics.[7] Charles Sanders Peirce later built upon the work of Boole to develop a logical system for relations and quantifiers, which he published in several papers from 1870 to 1885.

Gottlob Frege presented an independent development of logic with quantifiers in his Begriffsschrift, published in 1879, a work generally considered as marking a turning point in the history of logic. Frege's work remained obscure, however, until Bertrand Russell began to promote it near the turn of the century. The two-dimensional notation Frege developed was never widely adopted and is unused in contemporary texts.

From 1890 to 1905, Ernst Schröder published Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik in three volumes. This work summarized and extended the work of Boole, De Morgan, and Peirce, and was a comprehensive reference to symbolic logic as it was understood at the end of the 19th century.

Concerns that mathematics had not been built on a proper foundation led to the development of axiomatic systems for fundamental areas of mathematics such as arithmetic, analysis, and geometry.

In logic, the term arithmetic refers to the theory of the natural numbers. Giuseppe Peano[8] published a set of axioms for arithmetic that came to bear his name (Peano axioms), using a variation of the logical system of Boole and Schröder but adding quantifiers. Peano was unaware of Frege's work at the time. Around the same time Richard Dedekind showed that the natural numbers are uniquely characterized by their induction properties. Dedekind proposed a different characterization, which lacked the formal logical character of Peano's axioms.[9] Dedekind's work, however, proved theorems inaccessible in Peano's system, including the uniqueness of the set of natural numbers (up to isomorphism) and the recursive definitions of addition and multiplication from the successor function and mathematical induction.

In the mid-19th century, flaws in Euclid's axioms for geometry became known.[10] In addition to the independence of the parallel postulate, established by Nikolai Lobachevsky in 1826,[11] mathematicians discovered that certain theorems taken for granted by Euclid were not in fact provable from his axioms. Among these is the theorem that a line contains at least two points, or that circles of the same radius whose centers are separated by that radius must intersect. Hilbert[12] developed a complete set of axioms for geometry, building on previous work by Pasch.[13] The success in axiomatizing geometry motivated Hilbert to seek complete axiomatizations of other areas of mathematics, such as the natural numbers and the real line. This would prove to be a major area of research in the first half of the 20th century.

The 19th century saw great advances in the theory of real analysis, including theories of convergence of functions and Fourier series. Mathematicians such as Karl Weierstrass began to construct functions that stretched intuition, such as nowhere-differentiable continuous functions. Previous conceptions of a function as a rule for computation, or a smooth graph, were no longer adequate. Weierstrass began to advocate the arithmetization of analysis, which sought to axiomatize analysis using properties of the natural numbers. The modern (ε, δ)-definition of limit and continuous functions was already developed by Bolzano in 1817,[14] but remained relatively unknown. Cauchy in 1821 defined continuity in terms of infinitesimals (see Cours d'Analyse, page 34). In 1858, Dedekind proposed a definition of the real numbers in terms of Dedekind cuts of rational numbers, a definition still employed in contemporary texts.[15]

Georg Cantor developed the fundamental concepts of infinite set theory. His early results developed the theory of cardinality and proved that the reals and the natural numbers have different cardinalities.[16] Over the next twenty years, Cantor developed a theory of transfinite numbers in a series of publications. In 1891, he published a new proof of the uncountability of the real numbers that introduced the diagonal argument, and used this method to prove Cantor's theorem that no set can have the same cardinality as its powerset. Cantor believed that every set could be well-ordered, but was unable to produce a proof for this result, leaving it as an open problem in 1895.[17]

In the early decades of the 20th century, the main areas of study were set theory and formal logic. The discovery of paradoxes in informal set theory caused some to wonder whether mathematics itself is inconsistent, and to look for proofs of consistency.

In 1900, Hilbert posed a famous list of 23 problems for the next century. The first two of these were to resolve the continuum hypothesis and prove the consistency of elementary arithmetic, respectively; the tenth was to produce a method that could decide whether a multivariate polynomial equation over the integers has a solution. Subsequent work to resolve these problems shaped the direction of mathematical logic, as did the effort to resolve Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem, posed in 1928. This problem asked for a procedure that would decide, given a formalized mathematical statement, whether the statement is true or false.

Ernst Zermelo gave a proof that every set could be well-ordered, a result Georg Cantor had been unable to obtain.[18] To achieve the proof, Zermelo introduced the axiom of choice, which drew heated debate and research among mathematicians and the pioneers of set theory. The immediate criticism of the method led Zermelo to publish a second exposition of his result, directly addressing criticisms of his proof.[19] This paper led to the general acceptance of the axiom of choice in the mathematics community.

Skepticism about the axiom of choice was reinforced by recently discovered paradoxes in naive set theory. Cesare Burali-Forti[20] was the first to state a paradox: the Burali-Forti paradox shows that the collection of all ordinal numbers cannot form a set. Very soon thereafter, Bertrand Russell discovered Russell's paradox in 1901, and Jules Richard discovered Richard's paradox.[21]

Zermelo provided the first set of axioms for set theory.[22] These axioms, together with the additional axiom of replacement proposed by Abraham Fraenkel, are now called Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZF). Zermelo's axioms incorporated the principle of limitation of size to avoid Russell's paradox.

In 1910, the first volume of Principia Mathematica by Russell and Alfred North Whitehead was published. This seminal work developed the theory of functions and cardinality in a completely formal framework of type theory, which Russell and Whitehead developed in an effort to avoid the paradoxes. Principia Mathematica is considered one of the most influential works of the 20th century, although the framework of type theory did not prove popular as a foundational theory for mathematics.[23]

Fraenkel[24] proved that the axiom of choice cannot be proved from the axioms of Zermelo's set theory with urelements. Later work by Paul Cohen[25] showed that the addition of urelements is not needed, and the axiom of choice is unprovable in ZF. Cohen's proof developed the method of forcing, which is now an important tool for establishing independence results in set theory.[26]

Leopold Löwenheim[27] and Thoralf Skolem[28] obtained the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem, which says that first-order logic cannot control the cardinalities of infinite structures. Skolem realized that this theorem would apply to first-order formalizations of set theory, and that it implies any such formalization has a countable model. This counterintuitive fact became known as Skolem's paradox.

In his doctoral thesis, Kurt Gödel proved the completeness theorem, which establishes a correspondence between syntax and semantics in first-order logic.[29] Gödel used the completeness theorem to prove the compactness theorem, demonstrating the finitary nature of first-order logical consequence. These results helped establish first-order logic as the dominant logic used by mathematicians.

In 1931, Gödel published On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems, which proved the incompleteness (in a different meaning of the word) of all sufficiently strong, effective first-order theories. This result, known as Gödel's incompleteness theorem, establishes severe limitations on axiomatic foundations for mathematics, striking a strong blow to Hilbert's program. It showed the impossibility of providing a consistency proof of arithmetic within any formal theory of arithmetic. Hilbert, however, did not acknowledge the importance of the incompleteness theorem for some time.[lower-alpha 1]

Gödel's theorem shows that a consistency proof of any sufficiently strong, effective axiom system cannot be obtained in the system itself, if the system is consistent, nor in any weaker system. This leaves open the possibility of consistency proofs that cannot be formalized within the system they consider. Gentzen proved the consistency of arithmetic using a finitistic system together with a principle of transfinite induction.[30] Gentzen's result introduced the ideas of cut elimination and proof-theoretic ordinals, which became key tools in proof theory. Gödel gave a different consistency proof, which reduces the consistency of classical arithmetic to that of intuitionistic arithmetic in higher types.[31]

The first textbook on symbolic logic for the layman was written by Lewis Carroll, author of Alice in Wonderland, in 1896.[32]

Alfred Tarski developed the basics of model theory.

Beginning in 1935, a group of prominent mathematicians collaborated under the pseudonym Nicolas Bourbaki to publish Éléments de mathématique, a series of encyclopedic mathematics texts. These texts, written in an austere and axiomatic style, emphasized rigorous presentation and set-theoretic foundations. Terminology coined by these texts, such as the words bijection, injection, and surjection, and the set-theoretic foundations the texts employed, were widely adopted throughout mathematics.

The study of computability came to be known as recursion theory or computability theory, because early formalizations by Gödel and Kleene relied on recursive definitions of functions.[lower-alpha 2] When these definitions were shown equivalent to Turing's formalization involving Turing machines, it became clear that a new concept – the computable function – had been discovered, and that this definition was robust enough to admit numerous independent characterizations. In his work on the incompleteness theorems in 1931, Gödel lacked a rigorous concept of an effective formal system; he immediately realized that the new definitions of computability could be used for this purpose, allowing him to state the incompleteness theorems in generality that could only be implied in the original paper.

Numerous results in recursion theory were obtained in the 1940s by Stephen Cole Kleene and Emil Leon Post. Kleene[33] introduced the concepts of relative computability, foreshadowed by Turing,[34] and the arithmetical hierarchy. Kleene later generalized recursion theory to higher-order functionals. Kleene and Georg Kreisel studied formal versions of intuitionistic mathematics, particularly in the context of proof theory.

First-order logic is a particular formal system of logic. Its syntax involves only finite expressions as well-formed formulas, while its semantics are characterized by the limitation of all quantifiers to a fixed domain of discourse.

Early results from formal logic established limitations of first-order logic. The Löwenheim–Skolem theorem (1919) showed that if a set of sentences in a countable first-order language has an infinite model then it has at least one model of each infinite cardinality. This shows that it is impossible for a set of first-order axioms to characterize the natural numbers, the real numbers, or any other infinite structure up to isomorphism. As the goal of early foundational studies was to produce axiomatic theories for all parts of mathematics, this limitation was particularly stark.

Gödel's completeness theorem established the equivalence between semantic and syntactic definitions of logical consequence in first-order logic.[29] It shows that if a particular sentence is true in every model that satisfies a particular set of axioms, then there must be a finite deduction of the sentence from the axioms. The compactness theorem first appeared as a lemma in Gödel's proof of the completeness theorem, and it took many years before logicians grasped its significance and began to apply it routinely. It says that a set of sentences has a model if and only if every finite subset has a model, or in other words that an inconsistent set of formulas must have a finite inconsistent subset. The completeness and compactness theorems allow for sophisticated analysis of logical consequence in first-order logic and the development of model theory, and they are a key reason for the prominence of first-order logic in mathematics.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems establish additional limits on first-order axiomatizations.[35] The first incompleteness theorem states that for any consistent, effectively given (defined below) logical system that is capable of interpreting arithmetic, there exists a statement that is true (in the sense that it holds for the natural numbers) but not provable within that logical system (and which indeed may fail in some non-standard models of arithmetic which may be consistent with the logical system). For example, in every logical system capable of expressing the Peano axioms, the Gödel sentence holds for the natural numbers but cannot be proved.

Here a logical system is said to be effectively given if it is possible to decide, given any formula in the language of the system, whether the formula is an axiom, and one which can express the Peano axioms is called "sufficiently strong." When applied to first-order logic, the first incompleteness theorem implies that any sufficiently strong, consistent, effective first-order theory has models that are not elementarily equivalent, a stronger limitation than the one established by the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem. The second incompleteness theorem states that no sufficiently strong, consistent, effective axiom system for arithmetic can prove its own consistency, which has been interpreted to show that Hilbert's program cannot be reached.

Many logics besides first-order logic are studied. These include infinitary logics, which allow for formulas to provide an infinite amount of information, and higher-order logics, which include a portion of set theory directly in their semantics.

The most well studied infinitary logic is ${\displaystyle L_{\omega _{1},\omega }}$. In this logic, quantifiers may only be nested to finite depths, as in first-order logic, but formulas may have finite or countably infinite conjunctions and disjunctions within them. Thus, for example, it is possible to say that an object is a whole number using a formula of ${\displaystyle L_{\omega _{1},\omega }}$ such as

${\displaystyle (x=0)\lor (x=1)\lor (x=2)\lor \cdots .}$

Higher-order logics allow for quantification not only of elements of the domain of discourse, but subsets of the domain of discourse, sets of such subsets, and other objects of higher type. The semantics are defined so that, rather than having a separate domain for each higher-type quantifier to range over, the quantifiers instead range over all objects of the appropriate type. The logics studied before the development of first-order logic, for example Frege's logic, had similar set-theoretic aspects. Although higher-order logics are more expressive, allowing complete axiomatizations of structures such as the natural numbers, they do not satisfy analogues of the completeness and compactness theorems from first-order logic, and are thus less amenable to proof-theoretic analysis.

Another type of logics are fixed-point logics that allow inductive definitions, like one writes for primitive recursive functions.

One can formally define an extension of first-order logic — a notion which encompasses all logics in this section because they behave like first-order logic in certain fundamental ways, but does not encompass all logics in general, e.g. it does not encompass intuitionistic, modal or fuzzy logic.

Lindström's theorem implies that the only extension of first-order logic satisfying both the compactness theorem and the downward Löwenheim–Skolem theorem is first-order logic.

Modal logics include additional modal operators, such as an operator which states that a particular formula is not only true, but necessarily true. Although modal logic is not often used to axiomatize mathematics, it has been used to study the properties of first-order provability[36] and set-theoretic forcing.[37]

Intuitionistic logic was developed by Heyting to study Brouwer's program of intuitionism, in which Brouwer himself avoided formalization. Intuitionistic logic specifically does not include the law of the excluded middle, which states that each sentence is either true or its negation is true. Kleene's work with the proof theory of intuitionistic logic showed that constructive information can be recovered from intuitionistic proofs. For example, any provably total function in intuitionistic arithmetic is computable; this is not true in classical theories of arithmetic such as Peano arithmetic.

Algebraic logic uses the methods of abstract algebra to study the semantics of formal logics. A fundamental example is the use of Boolean algebras to represent truth values in classical propositional logic, and the use of Heyting algebras to represent truth values in intuitionistic propositional logic. Stronger logics, such as first-order logic and higher-order logic, are studied using more complicated algebraic structures such as cylindric algebras.

An important subfield of recursion theory studies algorithmic unsolvability; a decision problem or function problem is algorithmically unsolvable if there is no possible computable algorithm that returns the correct answer for all legal inputs to the problem. The first results about unsolvability, obtained independently by Church and Turing in 1936, showed that the Entscheidungsproblem is algorithmically unsolvable. Turing proved this by establishing the unsolvability of the halting problem, a result with far-ranging implications in both recursion theory and computer science.

There are many known examples of undecidable problems from ordinary mathematics. The word problem for groups was proved algorithmically unsolvable by Pyotr Novikov in 1955 and independently by W. Boone in 1959. The busy beaver problem, developed by Tibor Radó in 1962, is another well-known example.

Hilbert's tenth problem asked for an algorithm to determine whether a multivariate polynomial equation with integer coefficients has a solution in the integers. Partial progress was made by Julia Robinson, Martin Davis and Hilary Putnam. The algorithmic unsolvability of the problem was proved by Yuri Matiyasevich in 1970.[43]

• Walicki, Michał (2011). Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. ISBN 9789814343879.
• Boolos, George; Burgess, John; Jeffrey, Richard (2002). Computability and Logic (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521007580.
• Crossley, J.N.; Ash, C.J.; Brickhill, C.J.; Stillwell, J.C.; Williams, N.H. (1972). What is mathematical logic?. London, Oxford, New York City: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198880875. Zbl 0251.02001.
• Enderton, Herbert (2001). A mathematical introduction to logic (2nd ed.). Boston MA: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-238452-3.
• Fisher, Alec (1982). Formal Number Theory and Computability: A Workbook. (suitable as a first course for independent study) (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-853188-3.
• Hamilton, A.G. (1988). Logic for Mathematicians (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-36865-0.
• Ebbinghaus, H.-D.; Flum, J.; Thomas, W. (1994). Mathematical Logic (2nd ed.). New York City: Springer. ISBN 9780387942582.
• Katz, Robert (1964). Axiomatic Analysis. Boston MA: D. C. Heath and Company.
• Mendelson, Elliott (1997). Introduction to Mathematical Logic (4th ed.). London: Chapman & Hall. ISBN 978-0-412-80830-2.
• Rautenberg, Wolfgang (2010). A Concise Introduction to Mathematical Logic (3rd ed.). New York City: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1221-3. ISBN 9781441912206.
• Schwichtenberg, Helmut (2003–2004). Mathematical Logic (PDF). Munich: Mathematisches Institut der Universität München. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
• Shawn Hedman, A first course in logic: an introduction to model theory, proof theory, computability, and complexity, Oxford University Press, 2004, ISBN 0-19-852981-3. Covers logics in close relation with computability theory and complexity theory
• van Dalen, Dirk (2013). Logic and Structure. Universitext. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4558-5. ISBN 978-1-4471-4557-8.

• Hinman, Peter G. (2005). Fundamentals of mathematical logic. A K Peters, Ltd. ISBN 1-56881-262-0.
• Andrews, Peter B. (2002). An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: To Truth Through Proof (2nd ed.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4020-0763-7.
• Barwise, Jon, ed. (1989). Handbook of Mathematical Logic. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ISBN 9780444863881.
• Hodges, Wilfrid (1997). A shorter model theory. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521587136.
• Jech, Thomas (2003). Set Theory: Millennium Edition. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Berlin, New York: Springer. ISBN 9783540440857.
• Kleene, Stephen Cole.(1952), Introduction to Metamathematics. New York: Van Nostrand. (Ishi Press: 2009 reprint).
• Kleene, Stephen Cole. (1967), Mathematical Logic. John Wiley. Dover reprint, 2002. ISBN 0-486-42533-9.
• Shoenfield, Joseph R. (2001) [1967]. Mathematical Logic (2nd ed.). A K Peters. ISBN 9781568811352.
• Troelstra, Anne Sjerp; Schwichtenberg, Helmut (2000). Basic Proof Theory. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-77911-1.

• Augusto, Luis M. (2017). Logical consequences. Theory and applications: An introduction. London: College Publications. ISBN 978-1-84890-236-7.
• Boehner, Philotheus (1950). Medieval Logic. Manchester.
• Cohen, Paul J. (1966). Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis. Menlo Park CA: W. A. Benjamin.
• Cohen, Paul J. (2008) [1966]. Set theory and the continuum hypothesis. Mineola NY: Dover Publications. ISBN 9780486469218.
• J.D. Sneed, The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1971 (revised edition 1979).
• Davis, Martin (1973). "Hilbert's tenth problem is unsolvable". The American Mathematical Monthly. 80 (3): 233–269. doi:10.2307/2318447. JSTOR 2318447.
  Reprinted as an appendix in Martin Davis (1985). Computability and Unsolvability. Dover. ISBN 9780486614717.
• Felscher, Walter (2000). "Bolzano, Cauchy, Epsilon, Delta". The American Mathematical Monthly. 107 (9): 844–862. doi:10.2307/2695743. JSTOR 2695743.
• Ferreirós, José (2001). "The Road to Modern Logic-An Interpretation" (PDF). Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. 7 (4): 441–484. doi:10.2307/2687794. hdl:11441/38373. JSTOR 2687794. S2CID 43258676.
• Hamkins, Joel David; Löwe, Benedikt (2007). "The modal logic of forcing". Transactions of the American Mathematical Society. 360 (4): 1793–1818. arXiv:math/0509616. doi:10.1090/s0002-9947-07-04297-3. S2CID 14724471.
• Katz, Victor J. (1998). A History of Mathematics. Addison–Wesley. ISBN 9780321016188.
• Morley, Michael (1965). "Categoricity in Power". Transactions of the American Mathematical Society. 114 (2): 514–538. doi:10.2307/1994188. JSTOR 1994188.
• Soare, Robert I. (1996). "Computability and recursion". Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. 2 (3): 284–321. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.35.5803. doi:10.2307/420992. JSTOR 420992. S2CID 5894394.
• Solovay, Robert M. (1976). "Provability Interpretations of Modal Logic". Israel Journal of Mathematics. 25 (3–4): 287–304. doi:10.1007/BF02757006. S2CID 121226261.
• Woodin, W. Hugh (2001). "The Continuum Hypothesis, Part I" (PDF). Notices of the American Mathematical Society. 48 (6).

• Banach, Stefan; Tarski, Alfred (1924). "Sur la décomposition des ensembles de points en parties respectivement congruentes" (PDF). Fundamenta Mathematicae (in French). 6: 244–277. doi:10.4064/fm-6-1-244-277.

Bochenski, Jozef Maria, ed. (1959). A Precis of Mathematical Logic. Synthese Library, Vol. 1. Translated by Otto Bird. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0592-9. ISBN 9789048183296.

• Burali-Forti, Cesare (1897). A question on transfinite numbers. Reprinted in van Heijenoort 1976, pp. 104–111

Cantor, Georg (1874). "Ueber eine Eigenschaft des Inbegriffes aller reellen algebraischen Zahlen" (PDF). Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik. 1874 (77): 258–262. doi:10.1515/crll.1874.77.258. S2CID 199545885. Carroll, Lewis (1896). Symbolic Logic. Kessinger Legacy Reprints. ISBN 9781163444955.

• Dedekind, Richard (1872). Stetigkeit und irrationale Zahlen (in German). English translation as: "Consistency and irrational numbers".
• Dedekind, Richard (1888). Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen?. Two English translations:
  • 1963 (1901). Essays on the Theory of Numbers. Beman, W. W., ed. and trans. Dover.
  • 1996. In From Kant to Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, 2 vols, Ewald, William B., ed., Oxford University Press: 787–832.
• Fraenkel, Abraham A. (1922). "Der Begriff 'definit' und die Unabhängigkeit des Auswahlsaxioms". Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse (in German). pp. 253–257. Reprinted in English translation as "The notion of 'definite' and the independence of the axiom of choice" in van Heijenoort 1976, pp. 284–289.
• Frege, Gottlob (1879), Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle a. S.: Louis Nebert. Translation: Concept Script, a formal language of pure thought modelled upon that of arithmetic, by S. Bauer-Mengelberg in van Heijenoort 1976.
• Frege, Gottlob (1884), Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik: eine logisch-mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl. Breslau: W. Koebner. Translation: J. L. Austin, 1974. The Foundations of Arithmetic: A logico-mathematical enquiry into the concept of number, 2nd ed. Blackwell.
• Gentzen, Gerhard (1936). "Die Widerspruchsfreiheit der reinen Zahlentheorie". Mathematische Annalen. 112: 132–213. doi:10.1007/BF01565428. S2CID 122719892. Reprinted in English translation in Gentzen's Collected works, M. E. Szabo, ed., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969.
• Gödel, Kurt (1929). Über die Vollständigkeit des Logikkalküls [Completeness of the logical calculus]. doctoral dissertation. University Of Vienna.
• Gödel, Kurt (1930). "Die Vollständigkeit der Axiome des logischen Funktionen-kalküls" [The completeness of the axioms of the calculus of logical functions]. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik (in German). 37: 349–360. doi:10.1007/BF01696781. S2CID 123343522.
• Gödel, Kurt (1931). "Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I" [On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems]. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik (in German). 38 (1): 173–198. doi:10.1007/BF01700692. S2CID 197663120.
• Gödel, Kurt (1958). "Über eine bisher noch nicht benützte Erweiterung des finiten Standpunktes". Dialectica (in German). 12 (3–4): 280–287. doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.1958.tb01464.x. Reprinted in English translation in Gödel's Collected Works, vol II, Solomon Feferman et al., eds. Oxford University Press, 1993.
• van Heijenoort, Jean, ed. (1976) [1967]. From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931 (3rd ed.). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674324497. (pbk.).
• Hilbert, David (1899). Grundlagen der Geometrie (in German). Leipzig: Teubner. English 1902 edition (The Foundations of Geometry) republished 1980, Open Court, Chicago.
• Hilbert, David (1929). "Probleme der Grundlegung der Mathematik". Mathematische Annalen. 102: 1–9. doi:10.1007/BF01782335. S2CID 122870563. Lecture given at the International Congress of Mathematicians, 3 September 1928. Published in English translation as "The Grounding of Elementary Number Theory", in Mancosu 1998, pp. 266–273.
• Hilbert, David; Bernays, Paul (1934). Grundlagen der Mathematik. I. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Vol. 40. Berlin, New York City: Springer. ISBN 9783540041344. JFM 60.0017.02. MR 0237246.
• Kleene, Stephen Cole (1943). "Recursive Predicates and Quantifiers". Transactions of the American Mathematical Society. 53 (1): 41–73. doi:10.2307/1990131. JSTOR 1990131.
• Lobachevsky, Nikolai (1840). Geometrishe Untersuchungen zur Theorie der Parellellinien (in German). Reprinted in English translation as Robert Bonola, ed. (1955). "Geometric Investigations on the Theory of Parallel Lines". Non-Euclidean Geometry. Dover. ISBN 0-486-60027-0.
• Löwenheim, Leopold (1915). "Über Möglichkeiten im Relativkalkül". Mathematische Annalen (in German). 76 (4): 447–470. doi:10.1007/BF01458217. ISSN 0025-5831. S2CID 116581304. Translated as "On possibilities in the calculus of relatives" in Jean van Heijenoort (1967). A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Harvard Univ. Press. pp. 228–251.
• Mancosu, Paolo, ed. (1998). From Brouwer to Hilbert. The Debate on the Foundations of Mathematics in the 1920s. Oxford University Press.
• Pasch, Moritz (1882). Vorlesungen über neuere Geometrie.
• Peano, Giuseppe (1889). Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita (in Lithuanian). Excerpt reprinted in English translation as "The principles of arithmetic, presented by a new method"in van Heijenoort 1976, pp. 83–97.
• Richard, Jules (1905). "Les principes des mathématiques et le problème des ensembles". Revue Générale des Sciences Pures et Appliquées (in French). 16: 541. Reprinted in English translation as "The principles of mathematics and the problems of sets" in van Heijenoort 1976, pp. 142–144.
• Skolem, Thoralf (1920). "Logisch-kombinatorische Untersuchungen über die Erfüllbarkeit oder Beweisbarkeit mathematischer Sätze nebst einem Theoreme über dichte Mengen". Videnskapsselskapet Skrifter, I. Matematisk-naturvidenskabelig Klasse (in German). 6: 1–36.

Soare, Robert Irving (22 December 2011). "Computability Theory and Applications: The Art of Classical Computability" (PDF). Department of Mathematics. University of Chicago. Retrieved 23 August 2017. Swineshead, Richard (1498). Calculationes Suiseth Anglici (in Lithuanian). Papie: Per Franciscum Gyrardengum.

• Tarski, Alfred (1948). A decision method for elementary algebra and geometry. Santa Monica CA: RAND Corporation.
• Turing, Alan M. (1939). "Systems of Logic Based on Ordinals". Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. 45 (2): 161–228. doi:10.1112/plms/s2-45.1.161. hdl:21.11116/0000-0001-91CE-3.
• Weyl, Hermann (1918). Das Kontinuum. Kritische Untersuchungen über die Grund lagen der Analysis (in German). Leipzig.
• Zermelo, Ernst (1904). "Beweis, daß jede Menge wohlgeordnet werden kann". Mathematische Annalen (in German). 59 (4): 514–516. doi:10.1007/BF01445300. S2CID 124189935. Reprinted in English translation as "Proof that every set can be well-ordered" in van Heijenoort 1976, pp. 139–141.
• Zermelo, Ernst (1908a). "Neuer Beweis für die Möglichkeit einer Wohlordnung". Mathematische Annalen (in German). 65: 107–128. doi:10.1007/BF01450054. ISSN 0025-5831. S2CID 119924143. Reprinted in English translation as "A new proof of the possibility of a well-ordering" in van Heijenoort 1976, pp. 183–198.
• Zermelo, Ernst (1908b). "Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre". Mathematische Annalen. 65 (2): 261–281. doi:10.1007/BF01449999. S2CID 120085563.