Boolos, G. [1985] “Nominalist Platonism,” Philosophical Review 94: 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, D. K. and Simpson, S. G. [1986] “Which set-existence axioms are needed to prove the separable Hahn-Banach theorem?,” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 31: 123–144.Google Scholar

Burgess, J. [1983] “Why I am not a nominalist,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 24(1): 93–105.Google Scholar

Burgess, J., Hazen, A., and Lewis, D. [1991] “Appendix,” in Lewis, D., Parts of Classes (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 121–149.Google Scholar

Chihara, C. [1973] Ontology and the Vicious Circle Principle (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar

Dedekind, R. [1888] “The nature and meaning of numbers,” reprinted in Beman, W. W., ed., Essays on the Theory of Numbers (New York: Dover, 1963), pp. 31–115, translated from the German original, Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen? (Brunswick: Vieweg, 1888).Google Scholar

Feferman, S. [1964] “Systems of predicative analysis,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 29: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feferman, S. [1968] “Autonomous transfinite progressions and the extent of predicative mathematics,” in Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science III (Amsterdam: North Holland), pp. 121–135.Google Scholar

Feferman, S. [1977] “Theories of finite type related to mathematical practice,” in Barwise, J., ed., Handbook of Mathematical Logic (Amsterdam: North Holland), pp. 913–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feferman, S. [1988] “Weyl vindicated: Das Kontinuum 70 years later,” in Temi e Prospettive della Logica e della Filosofia della Scienza Contemporanee (Bologna: CLUEB), pp. 59–93.Google Scholar

Feferman, S. [1992] “Why a little bit goes a long way: logical foundations of scientifically applicable mathematics,” in Hull, D., Forbes, M., and Okruhlik, K., eds., Philosophy of Science Association 1992, Volume 2 (East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association), pp. 442–455.Google Scholar

Feferman, S. and Hellman, G. [1995] “Predicative foundations of arithmetic,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 24: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Field, H. [1980] Science without Numbers (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar

Field, H. [1992] “A nominalist proof of the conservativeness of set theory,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 21: 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodman, N. [1977] The Structure of Appearance, 3rd edn. (Dordrecht: Reidel).Google Scholar

Halmos, P. R. [1974] Measure Theory (New York: Springer-Verlag).Google Scholar

Hellman, G. [1989] Mathematics without Numbers: Towards a Modal-Structural Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Hellman, G. [1990] “Modal-structural mathematics,” in Irvine, A. D., ed., Physicalism in Mathematics (Dordrecht: Kluwer), pp. 307–330.Google Scholar

Hellman, G. [1994] “Real analysis without classes,” Philosophia Mathematica 2(3): 228–250.Google Scholar

Hellman, G. [1999] “Some ins and outs of indispensability,” in Cantini, A., et al., eds., Logic and Foundations of Mathematics (Dordrecht: Kluwer), pp. 25–39.Google Scholar

Kelley, J. L. [1955] General Topology (New York: Van Nostrand).Google Scholar

Lewis, D. [1991] Parts of Classes (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar

Mac Lane, S. [1986] Mathematics: Form and function (New York: Springer-Verlag).Google Scholar

Mayberry, J. [1994] “What is required of a foundation for mathematics,” Philosophia Mathematica 2(1): 16–35.Google Scholar

McLarty, C. [1993] “Numbers can be just what they have to,” Noûs 27: 487–498.Google Scholar

O’Neill, B. [1983] Semi-Riemannian Geometry with Applications to General Relativity (Orlando, FL: Academic Press).Google Scholar

Parsons, C. [1990] “The structuralist view of mathematical objects,” Synthese 84: 303–346.Google Scholar

Resnik, M. [1981] “Mathematics as a science of patterns: ontology and reference,” Noûs 15: 529–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapiro, S. [1983] “Mathematics and reality,” Philosophy of Science 50: 522–548.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. [1989] “Structure and ontology,” Philosophical Topics 17: 145–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapiro, S. [1991] Foundations without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-Order Logic (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. [1997] Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Smorynski, C. [1982] “The varieties of arboreal experience,” Mathematical Intelligencer 4: 182–189.Google Scholar

Tait, W. W. [1986] “Critical notice: Charles Parsons,” Mathematics in Philosophy, Philosophy of Science 53: 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Awodey, S. [1996] “Structure in mathematics and logic: a categorical perspective,” Philosophia Mathematica 4: 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Awodey, S. [2004] “An answer to Hellman’s question: ‘Does category theory provide a framework for mathematical structuralism?’,” Philosophia Mathematica 12: 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bell, J. L. [1998] A Primer of Infinitesimal Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Berra, Y. [1998] The Yogi Book: “I Really Didn’t Say Everything I Said!” (New York: Workman Publishing).Google Scholar

Dedekind, R. [1888] “The nature and meaning of numbers,” reprinted in Beman, W. W., ed., Essays on the Theory of Numbers (New York: Dover, 1963), pp. 31–115, translated from the German original, Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen? (Brunswick: Vieweg, 1888).Google Scholar

Feferman, S. [1977] “Categorical foundations and foundations of category theory,” in Butts, R. E. and Hintikka, J., eds., Logic, Foundations of Mathematics, and Computability Theory (Dordrecht: Reidel), pp. 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giordano, P. [2001] “Nilpotent infinitesimals and synthetic differential geometry in classical logic,” in Berger, U., Osswald, H., and Schuster, P., eds., Reuniting the Antipodes–Constructive and Nonstandard Views of the Continuum (Dordrecht: Kluwer), pp. 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hellman, G. [2001] “Three varieties of mathematical structuralism,” Philosophia Mathematica 9: 184–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hellman, G. [2003] “Does category theory provide a framework for mathematical structuralism?” Philosophia Mathematica 11: 129–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hellman, G. and Bell, J. L. [2006] “Pluralism and the foundations of mathematics,” in Bell, J. L., ed., Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Series, Volume 19 (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press), pp. 64–79.Google Scholar

Joyal, A. and Moerdijk, I. [1995] Algebraic Set Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mac Lane, S. [1986] Mathematics: Form and Function (New York: Springer-Verlag).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McLarty, C. [1991] “Axiomatizing a category of categories,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 56: 1243–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McLarty, C. [2004] “Exploring categorical structuralism,” Philosophia Mathematica 12: 37–53.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. [1991] Foundations without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-Order Logic (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. [1997] Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. [2005] “Categories, structures, and the Frege–Hilbert controversy: The status of metamathematics,” Philosophia Mathematica 13: 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zermelo, E. [1930] “Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche: Neue Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre,” Fundamenta Mathematicae, 16: 29–47; translated as “On boundary numbers and domains of sets: new investigations in the foundations of set theory,” in Ewald, W., ed., From Kant to Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, Volume 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 1219–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burgess, J., Hazen, A., and Lewis, D. [1991] “Appendix,” in Lewis, D., Parts of Classes (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 121–149.Google Scholar

Ferreirós, J. [2007] The early development of set theory. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/settheory-early/, last accessed September 2010.Google Scholar

Hellman, G. [1989] Mathematics without Numbers: Towards a Modal-Structural Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Menzel, C. [1984] “Cantor and the Burali-Forti paradox,” The Monist 67: 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moore, G. H. and Garciadiego, A. [1981] “Burali-Forti’s paradox: a reappraisal of its origins,” Historia Mathematica 8: 319–350.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. [1967] “Mathematics without foundations,” reprinted in Mathematics, Matter, and Method: Philosophical Papers, Volume I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), pp. 43–59.Google Scholar

Zermelo, E. [1930] “Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche: Neue Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre,” Fundamenta Mathematicae, 16, 29–47; translated as “On boundary numbers and domains of sets: new investigations in the foundations of set theory,” in Ewald, W., ed., From Kant to Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, Volume 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 1219–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boolos, G. [1971] “The iterative conception of set,” reprinted in Logic, Logic, and Logic, Jeffrey, R., ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), pp. 13–29.Google Scholar

Boolos, G. [1989] “Iteration again,” reprinted in Logic, Logic, and Logic, Jeffrey, R., ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), pp. 88–104.Google Scholar

Boolos, G. [2000] “Must we believe in set theory?,” in Sher, G. and Tieszen, R., eds., Between Logic and Intuition: Essays in Honor of Charles Parsons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drake, F. R. [1974] Set Theory: An Introduction to Large Cardinals (Amsterdam: North Holland).Google Scholar

Dummett, M. [1977] Elements of Intuitionism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Friedman, H. [2018a] “Tangible mathematical incompleteness of ZFC,” #108 at http://u.osu.edu/friedman.8/foundational-adventures/downloadable-manuscripts/.Google Scholar

Friedman, H. [2018b] “Concrete mathematical incompleteness: basic emulation theory,” in Cook, R. T. and Hellman, G., eds., Hilary Putnam on Logic and Mathematics (Cham: Springer), pp. 179–234.Google Scholar

Gödel, K. [1931] “On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems,” reprinted in van Heijenoort, J., ed., From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), pp. 596–616.Google Scholar

Hellman, G. [1989] Mathematics without Numbers: Towards a Modal-Structural Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Hellman, G. [2011] “On the significance of the Burali-Forti paradox,” Analysis 71(4): 631–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kanamori, A. [2003] The Higher Infinite (Springer-Verlag).Google Scholar

Kanamori, A. [2012] “In praise of replacement,” Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 18(1): 45–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Linnebo, Ø. [2013] “The potential hierarchy of sets,” Review of Symbolic Logic 6(2): 205–228.Google Scholar

Maddy, P. [2011] Defending the Axioms: On the Philosophical Foundations of Set Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moschovakis, Y. [2009] Descriptive Set Theory, 2nd edn (Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shoenfield, J. R. [1967] Mathematical Logic (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).Google Scholar

Tait, W. W. [2005] “Constructing cardinals from below,” in The Provenance of Pure Reason (Oxford: Oxford University Press), Ch. 6.Google Scholar

Zermelo, E. [1930] “Über Grenzzahlen und Mengenbereiche: Neue Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre,” Fundamenta Mathematicae, 16: 29–47; translated as “On boundary numbers and domains of sets: new investigations in the foundations of set theory,” in Ewald, W., ed., From Kant to Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, Volume 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 1219–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boolos, G. [1985] “Nominalist Platonism,” Philosophical Review 94: 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boolos, G. [1998] Logic, Logic, and Logic, Jeffrey, R., ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar

Burgess, J. [1984] “Synthetic mechanics,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 13: 379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burgess, J. and Rosen, G. [1997] A Subject with No Object: Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Burgess, J., Hazen, A., and Lewis, D. [1991] “Appendix,” in Lewis, D., Parts of Classes (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 121–149.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. [1956] “Empiricism, semantics, and ontology,” in Meaning and Necessity (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), pp. 205–221.Google Scholar

Chihara, C. [1973] Ontology and the Vicious Circle Principle (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar

Chihara, C. [1990] Constructibility and Mathematical Existence (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Colyvan, M. [1999] “Contrastive empiricism and indispensability,” Erkenntnis 51: 323–332.Google Scholar

Feferman, S. [1998] In the Light of Logic (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Field, H. [1980] Science without Numbers (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar

Frege, G. [1884] The Foundations of Arithmetic (Oxford: Blackwell, 1950), translation by J. L. Austin of Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Breslau: Wilhelm Koebner, 1884).Google Scholar

Goodman, N. [1972] “A world of individuals,” in Problems and Projects (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill), pp. 155–172.Google Scholar

Goodman, N. [1977] The Structure of Appearance, 3rd edn. (Dordrecht: Reidel).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodman, N. and Quine, W. V. [1947] “Steps toward a constructive nominalism,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 12: 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harrington, L. A., Morley, M., Scedrov, A., and Simpson, S. G. (eds.) [1985] Harvey Friedman’s Research on the Foundations of Mathematics (Amsterdam: North-Holland).Google Scholar

Hellman, G. [1989] Mathematics without Numbers: Towards a Modal-Structural Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Hellman, G. [1998] “Maoist mathematics? Critical study of John Burgess and Gideon Rosen, A Subject with No Object: Strategies for Nominalist Interpretation of Mathematics (Oxford, l997),” Philosophia Mathematica 6(3): 357–368.Google Scholar

Hellman, G. [1999] “Some ins and outs of indispensability,” in Cantini, A., et al., eds., Logic and Foundations of Mathematics (Dordrecht: Kluwer), pp. 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, D. [1991] Parts of Classes (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar

Maddy, P. [1990] Realism in Mathematics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Maddy, P. [1992] “Indispensability and practice,” Journal of Philosophy 89: 275–289.Google Scholar

Richman, F. [1996] “Interview with a constructive mathematician,” Modern Logic 6: 247–271.Google Scholar

Simpson, S. [1999] Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic (Berlin: Springer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sober, E. [1993] “Mathematics and indispensability,” Philosophical Review 102: 35–57.Google Scholar

Wright, C. [1983] Frege’s Conception of Numbers as Objects (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press).Google Scholar

Burgess, J., Hazen, A., and Lewis, D. [1991] “Appendix,” in Lewis, D., Parts of Classes (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 121–149.Google Scholar

Chihara, C. S. [1990] Constructibility and Mathematical Existence (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Field, H. [1980] Science without Numbers (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar

Goodman, N. [1977] The Structure of Appearance, 3rd edn. (Dordrecht: Reidel).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hellman, G. [1989] Mathematics without Numbers: Towards a Modal-Structural Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Hellman, G. [1993] Book review: Charles S. Chihara, Constructibility and Mathematical Existence (Oxford University Press, 1990),” Philosophia Mathematica 1(1): 75–88.Google Scholar

Hellman, G. [1996] “Structuralism without structures,” Philosophia Mathematica 4(2): 100–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Malament, D. [1982] Review of Field’s Science without Numbers, Journal of Philosophy 79: 523–534.Google Scholar