Feferman, S. and G. Jäger, Systems of explicit mathematics with non-constructive μ-operator. Part I, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 65 243-263. This paper is mainly concerned with the proof-theoretic analysis of systems of explicit mathematics with a non-constructive minimum operator. We start off from a basic theory BON of operators and numbers and add some principles of set and formula induction on the natural numbers as well as axioms for μ. The principal results then state: BON plus set induction (...) is proof-theoretically equivalent to Peano arithmetic PA; BON plus formula induction is proof-theoretically equivalent to the system <0 of second-order arithmetic. (shrink)

While it is known that intuitionistic ZF set theory formulated with Replacement, IZFR, does not prove Collection, it is a longstanding open problem whether IZFR and intuitionistic set theory ZF formulated with Collection, IZF, have the same proof-theoretic strength. It has been conjectured that IZF proves the consistency of IZFR. This paper addresses similar questions but in respect of constructive Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, CZF. It is shown that in the latter context the proof-theoretic strength of Replacement is the same as (...) that of Strong Collection and also that the functional version of the Regular Extension Axiom is as strong as its relational version.Moreover, it is proved that, contrary to IZF, the strength of CZF increases if one adds an axiom asserting that the trichotomous ordinals form a set.Unlike IZF, constructive Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory is amenable to ordinal analysis and the proofs in this paper make pivotal use thereof in the guise of well-ordering proofs for ordinal representation systems. (shrink)

We define a realizability interpretation of Aczel's Constructive Set Theory CZF into Explicit Mathematics. The final results are that CZF extended by Mahlo principles is realizable in corresponding extensions of T 0 , thus providing relative lower bounds for the proof-theoretic strength of the latter.

We characterize the proof-theoretic strength of systems of explicit mathematics with a general principle asserting the existence of least fixed points for monotone inductive definitions, in terms of certain systems of analysis and set theory. In the case of analysis, these are systems which contain the Σ12-axiom of choice and Π12-comprehension for formulas without set parameters. In the case of set theory, these are systems containing the Kripke-Platek axioms for a recursively inaccessible universe together with the existence of a stable (...) ordinal. In all cases, the exact strength depends on what forms of induction are admitted in the respective systems. (shrink)

§1. Introduction. The purpose of this paper is, in general, to report the state of the art of ordinal analysis and, in particular, the recent success in obtaining an ordinal analysis for the system of -analysis, which is the subsystem of formal second order arithmetic, Z2, with comprehension confined to -formulae. The same techniques can be used to provide ordinal analyses for theories that are reducible to iterated -comprehension, e.g., -comprehension. The details will be laid out in [28].Ordinal-theoretic proof theory (...) came into existence in 1936, springing forth from Gentzen's head in the course of his consistency proof of arithmetic. Gentzen fostered hopes that with sufficiently large constructive ordinals one could establish the consistency of analysis, i.e., Z2. Considerable progress has been made in proof theory since Gentzen's tragic death on August 4th, 1945, but an ordinal analysis of Z2 is still something to be sought. However, for reasons that cannot be explained here, -comprehension appears to be the main stumbling block on the road to understanding full comprehension, giving hope for an ordinal analysis of Z2 in the foreseeable future.Roughly speaking, ordinally informative proof theory attaches ordinals in a recursive representation system to proofs in a given formal system; transformations on proofs to certain canonical forms are then partially mirrored by operations on the associated ordinals. Among other things, ordinal analysis of a formal system serves to characterize its provably recursive ordinals, functions and functionals and can yield both conservation and combinatorial independence results. (shrink)

We introduce a way of relativizing operational set theory that also takes care of application. After presenting the basic approach and proving some essential properties of this new form of relativization we turn to the notion of relativized regularity and to the system OST that extends OST by a limit axiom claiming that any set is element of a relativized regular set. Finally we show that OST is proof-theoretically equivalent to the well-known theory KPi for a recursively inaccessible universe.

We define an applicative theoryCL 2 similar to combinatory logic which can be interpreted in classes of functions possessing an enumerating function. In contrast to the models of classical combinatory logic, it is not necessarily assumed that the enumerating function itself belongs to that function class. Thereby we get a variety of possible models including e. g. the classes of primitive recursive, recursive, elementary, polynomial-time comptable ofɛ 0-recursive functions.We show that inCL 2 a major part of the metatheory of enumerated (...) classes of functions can be developed. Namely, a kind of λ-abstraction can be defined and abstract versions of theS n m - and (Primitive) Recursion Theorems are proved. Thereby, a closer analysis of the phenomenon of the different recursion theorems is achieved.A theory closely related toCL 2 can be used to replace the applicative part of Feferman's theories for explicit mathematics. So this work can be seen as an answer to Feferman's question to formulate a theory for explicit mathematics in which operations can be interpreted as primitive recursive or even more feasible ones.Finally it is shown that the proof-theoretical strength of various theoreies for explicit mathematics is preserved when replacing the applicative part of the theories by our theory together with an operation for primitive recursion. (shrink)

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".

Apologies. The purpose of the following talk is to give an overview of the present state of aims, methods and results in Pure Proof Theory. Shortage of time forces me to concentrate on my very personal views. This entails that I will emphasize the work which I know best, i.e., work that has been done in the triangle Stanford, Munich and Münster. I am of course well aware that there are as important results coming from outside this triangle and I (...) apologize for not displaying these results as well.Moreover the audience should be aware that in some points I have to oversimplify matters. Those who complain about that are invited to consult the original papers.1.1. General. Proof theory startedwithHilbert's Programme which aimed at a finitistic consistency proof for mathematics.By Gödel's Theorems, however, we know that we can neither formalize all mathematics nor even prove the consistency of formalized fragments by finitistic means. Inspite of this fact I want to give some reasons why I consider proof theory in the style of Gentzen's work still as an important and exciting field of Mathematical Logic. I will not go into applications of Gentzen's cut-elimination technique to computer science problems—this may be considered as applied proof theory—but want to concentrate on metamathematical problems and results. In this sense I am talking about Pure Proof Theory.Mathematicians are interested in structures. There is only one way to find the theorems of a structure. Start with an axiom system for the structure and deduce the theorems logically. These axiom systems are the objects of proof-theoretical research. Studying axiom systems there is a series of more or less obvious questions. (shrink)

Apologies. The purpose of the following talk is to give an overview of the present state of aims, methods and results in Pure Proof Theory. Shortage of time forces me to concentrate on my very personal views. This entails that I will emphasize the work which I know best, i.e., work that has been done in the triangle Stanford, Munich and Münster. I am of course well aware that there are as important results coming from outside this triangle and I (...) apologize for not displaying these results as well.Moreover the audience should be aware that in some points I have to oversimplify matters. Those who complain about that are invited to consult the original papers.1.1. General. Proof theory startedwithHilbert's Programme which aimed at a finitistic consistency proof for mathematics.By Gödel's Theorems, however, we know that we can neither formalize all mathematics nor even prove the consistency of formalized fragments by finitistic means. Inspite of this fact I want to give some reasons why I consider proof theory in the style of Gentzen's work still as an important and exciting field of Mathematical Logic. I will not go into applications of Gentzen's cut-elimination technique to computer science problems—this may be considered as applied proof theory—but want to concentrate on metamathematical problems and results. In this sense I am talking about Pure Proof Theory.Mathematicians are interested in structures. There is only one way to find the theorems of a structure. Start with an axiom system for the structure and deduce the theorems logically. These axiom systems are the objects of proof-theoretical research. Studying axiom systems there is a series of more or less obvious questions. (shrink)

We give a broad discussion of reflection principles in explicit mathematics, thereby addressing various kinds of universe existence principles. The proof-theoretic strength of the relevant systems of explicit mathematics is couched in terms of suitable extensions of Kripke–Platek set theory.

We present well-ordering proofs for Martin-Löf's type theory with W-type and one universe. These proofs, together with an embedding of the type theory in a set theoretical system as carried out in Setzer show that the proof theoretical strength of the type theory is precisely ψΩ1Ω1 + ω, which is slightly more than the strength of Feferman's theory T0, classical set theory KPI and the subsystem of analysis + . The strength of intensional and extensional version, of the version à (...) la Tarski and à la Russell are shown to be the same. (shrink)

In this paper we discuss extensions of Feferman's theory T 0 for explicit mathematics by the so-called limit and Mahlo axioms and present a novel approach to constructing natural recursion-theoretic models for systems of explicit mathematics which is based on nonmonotone inductive definitions.

In this article we introduce systems for metapredicative Mahlo in explicit mathematics and admissible set theory. The exact upper proof-theoretic bounds of these systems are established.

The aim of this article is to give the proof-theoretic analysis of various subsystems of Feferman's theory T1 for explicit mathematics which contain the non-constructive μ-operator and join. We make use of standard proof-theoretic techniques such as cut-elimination of appropriate semiformal systems and asymmetrical interpretations in standard structures for explicit mathematics.

We define a novel interpretation R of second order arithmetic into Explicit Mathematics. As a difference from standard D-interpretation, which was used before and was shown to interpret only subsystems proof-theoretically weaker than T 0 , our interpretation can reach the full strength of T 0 . The R-interpretation is an adaptation of Kleene's recursive realizability, and is applicable only to intuitionistic theories.

In this paper we introduce a recursive notation system $O(\mu)$ of ordinals. An element of the notation system is called an ordinal diagram following G. Takeuti [25]. The system is designed for proof theoretic study of theories of recursively Mahlo universes. We show that for each $\alpha<\Omega$ in $O(\mu)$ KPM proves that the initial segment of $O(\mu)$ determined by $\alpha$ is a well ordering. Proof theoretic study for such theories will be reported in [9].

In this paper we introduce a recursive notation system O(Π 3 ) of ordinals. An element of the notation system is called an ordinal diagram. The system is designed for proof theoretic study of theories of Π 3 -reflection. We show that for each $\alpha in O(Π 3 ) a set theory KP Π 3 for Π 3 -reflection proves that the initial segment of O(Π 3 ) determined by α is a well ordering. Proof theoretic study for such theories (...) will be reported in [4]. (shrink)

In this paper first order theories for nonmonotone inductive definitions are introduced, and a proof-theoretic analysis for such theories based on combined operator forms a la Richter with recursively inaccessible and Mahlo closure ordinals is given.