Does reductive proof theory have a viable rationale? (Q1841001)

Reductions in mathematics are carried out for foundational purposes. The author considers the motivations for reductive proof theory and its value for the foundations of mathematics. He defends reductive proof-theory where it is not attempted to reduce all theories to one single theory; rather reductive proof theory considers different theories to which other theories are reduced. The author defends the notion of reduction, which is basic to reductive, proof theory, namely proof-theoretic reduction in the sense of the author's paper [J. Symb. Logic 53, 364-384 (1988; Zbl 0656.03002)] as compared to relative interpretability and translation (e.g., Gödel's ``Dialectica'' interpretation). The author explains how reductive proof theory avails itself of relative consistency proofs and, in particular, of ordinal analysis, which started with Gentzen's analysis of arithmetic by the ordinal \(\epsilon_0\). Recent advances in ordinal analysis with respect to \(\Pi^1_2\)-CA by \textit{M.~Rathjen} [Bull. Symb. Logic 1, 468-485 (1995; Zbl 0855.03035)] are discussed and evaluated on the background of general considerations about reductive proof theory. In an appendix the author surveys different notions of reduction in proof theory and defends his own account of proof-theoretic reducibility against objections by \textit{K.-G.~Niebergall} [Erkenntnis 53, 27-61 (2000; Zbl 0969.03068)] and others.