Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Does reductive proof theory have a viable rationale?Solomon Feferman - 2000 - Erkenntnis 53 (1-2):63-96.
    The goals of reduction andreductionism in the natural sciences are mainly explanatoryin character, while those inmathematics are primarily foundational.In contrast to global reductionistprograms which aim to reduce all ofmathematics to one supposedly ``universal'' system or foundational scheme, reductive proof theory pursues local reductions of one formal system to another which is more justified in some sense. In this direction, two specific rationales have been proposed as aims for reductive proof theory, the constructive consistency-proof rationale and the foundational reduction rationale. However, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • Effective Cut-elimination for a Fragment of Modal mu-calculus.Grigori Mints - 2012 - Studia Logica 100 (1-2):279-287.
    A non-effective cut-elimination proof for modal mu-calculus has been given by G. Jäger, M. Kretz and T. Studer. Later an effective proof has been given for a subsystem M 1 with non-iterated fixpoints and positive endsequents. Using a new device we give an effective cut-elimination proof for M 1 without restriction to positive sequents.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Mathematical proof theory in the light of ordinal analysis.Reinhard Kahle - 2002 - Synthese 133 (1/2):237 - 255.
    We give an overview of recent results in ordinal analysis. Therefore, we discuss the different frameworks used in mathematical proof-theory, namely "subsystem of analysis" including "reverse mathematics", "Kripke-Platek set theory", "explicit mathematics", "theories of inductive definitions", "constructive set theory", and "Martin-Löf's type theory".
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • (1 other version)Gödel's reformulation of Gentzen's first consistency proof for arithmetic: The no-counterexample interpretation.W. W. Tait - 2005 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 11 (2):225-238.
    The last section of “Lecture at Zilsel’s” [9, §4] contains an interesting but quite condensed discussion of Gentzen’s first version of his consistency proof for P A [8], reformulating it as what has come to be called the no-counterexample interpretation. I will describe Gentzen’s result (in game-theoretic terms), fill in the details (with some corrections) of Godel's reformulation, and discuss the relation between the two proofs.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • A Buchholz Rule for Modal Fixed Point Logics.Gerhard Jäger & Thomas Studer - 2011 - Logica Universalis 5 (1):1-19.
    Buchholz’s Ω μ+1-rules provide a major tool for the proof-theoretic analysis of arithmetical inductive definitions. The aim of this paper is to put this approach into the new context of modal fixed point logic. We introduce a deductive system based on an Ω-rule tailored for modal fixed point logic and develop the basic techniques for establishing soundness and completeness of the corresponding system. In the concluding section we prove a cut elimination and collapsing result similar to that of Buchholz (Iterated (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • An extension of the omega-rule.Ryota Akiyoshi & Grigori Mints - 2016 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 55 (3-4):593-603.
    The Ω\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\Omega $$\end{document}-rule was introduced by W. Buchholz to give an ordinal-free proof of cut-elimination for a subsystem of analysis with Π11\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\Pi ^{1}_{1}$$\end{document}-comprehension. W. Buchholz’s proof provides cut-free derivations by familiar rules only for arithmetical sequents. When second-order quantifiers are present, they are introduced by the Ω\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\Omega $$\end{document}-rule and some residual cuts are not (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Proof Theory as an Analysis of Impredicativity( New Developments in Logic: Proof-Theoretic Ordinals and Set-Theoretic Ordinals).Ryota Akiyoshi - 2012 - Journal of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science 39 (2):93-107.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Buchholz Derivation System for the Ordinal Analysis of KP + Π₃-Reflection.Markus Michelbrink - 2006 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 71 (4):1237 - 1283.
    In this paper we introduce a notation system for the infinitary derivations occurring in the ordinal analysis of KP + Π₃-Reflection due to Michael Rathjen. This allows a finitary ordinal analysis of KP + Π₃-Reflection. The method used is an extension of techniques developed by Wilfried Buchholz, namely operator controlled notation systems for RS∞-derivations. Similarly to Buchholz we obtain a characterisation of the provably recursive functions of KP + Π₃-Reflection as <-recursive functions where < is the ordering on Rathjen's ordinal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reading Gentzen's Three Consistency Proofs Uniformly.Ryota Akiyoshi & Yuta Takahashi - 2013 - Journal of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science 41 (1):1-22.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation