In this paper are studied the properties of the proofs in PRA of provability logic sentences, i.e. of formulas which are Boolean combinations of formulas of the form PIPRA, where h is the Gödel-number of a sentence in PRA. The main result is a Normal Form Theorem on the proof-trees of provability logic sequents, which states that it is possible to split the proof into an arithmetical part, which contains only atomic formulas and has an essentially intuitionistic character, and into (...) a logical part, which is merely instrumental. Moreover, the induction rules which occur in the arithmetical part are implicit. Some applications of the Normal Form Theorem are shown in order to obtain some syntactical results on the PRA-completeness of modal logic. In particular a completeness theorem for Boolean combinations of modalities is given. (shrink)

This paper is the first of a series of three articles that present the syntactic proof of the PA-completeness of the modal system G, by introducing suitable proof-theoretic objects, which also have an independent interest. We start from the syntactic PA-completeness of modal system GL-LIN, previously obtained in [7], [8], and so we assume to be working on modal sequents S which are GL-LIN-theorems. If S is not a G-theorem we define here a notion of syntactic metric d(S, G): we (...) calculate a canonical characteristic fomula H of S (char(S)) so that ⊢G ∼ H → (∼S) and ⊢GL-LIN ∼ H, and the complexity σ of ∼ H gives the distance d(S, G) of S from G. Then, in order to produce the whole completeness proof as an induction on this d(S, G), we introduce the tree-interpretation of a modal sequent Q into PA, that sends the letters of Q into PA-formulas describing the properties of a GL-LIN-proof P of Q: It is also a d(*, G)-metric linked interpretation, since it will be applied to a proof-tree T of ∼ H with H = char(S) and σ(∼ H) = d(S, G). (shrink)

This paper is the final part of the syntactic demonstration of the Arithmetical Completeness of the modal system G; in the preceding parts [9] and [10] the tools for the proof were defined, in particular the notion of syntactic countermodel. Our strategy is: PA-completeness of G as a search for interpretations which force the distance between G and a GL-LIN-theorem to zero. If the GL-LIN-theorem S is not a G-theorem, we construct a formula H expressing the non G-provability of S, (...) so that ⊢GL-LIN ∼ H and so that a canonical proof T of ∼ H in GL-LIN is a syntactic countermodel for S with respect to G, which has the height θ(T) equal to the distance d(S, G) of S from G. Then we define the interpretation ξ of S which represents the proof-tree T in PA. By induction on θ(T), we prove that ⊢PA Sξ and d(S, G) > 0 imply the inconsistency of PA. (shrink)