  The enterprise of comparing mathematical theorems according to their logical
strength is an active area in mathematical logic. In this setting, called
reverse mathematics, one investigates which theorems provably imply which
others in a weak formal theory roughly corresponding to computable mathematics.
Since the proofs of such implications take place in classical logic, they may
in principle involve appeals to multiple applications of a particular theorem,
or to non-uniform decisions about how to proceed in a given construction. In
practice, however, if a theorem $\mathsf{Q}$ implies a theorem $\mathsf{P}$, it
is usually because there is a direct uniform translation of the problems
represented by $\mathsf{P}$ into the problems represented by $\mathsf{Q}$, in a
precise sense. We study this notion of uniform reducibility in the context of
several natural combinatorial problems, and compare and contrast it with the
traditional notion of implication in reverse mathematics. We show, for
instance, that for all $n,j,k \geq 1$, if $j < k$ then Ramsey's theorem for
$n$-tuples and $k$ many colors does not uniformly reduce to Ramsey's theorem
for $j$ many colors. The two theorems are classically equivalent, so our
analysis gives a genuinely finer metric by which to gauge the relative strength
of mathematical propositions. We also study Weak K\"{o}nig's Lemma, the Thin
Set Theorem, and the Rainbow Ramsey's Theorem, along with a number of their
variants investigated in the literature. Uniform reducibility turns out to be
connected with sequential forms of mathematical principles, where one wishes to
solve infinitely many instances of a particular problem simultaneously. We
exploit this connection to uncover new points of difference between
combinatorial problems previously thought to be more closely related.
