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.

We will apply the methods developed in the field of ‘proof mining’ to the Bolzano-Weierstraß theorem BW and calibrate the computational contribution of using this theorem in proofs of combinatorial statements. We provide an explicit solution of the Gödel functional interpretation as well as the monotone functional interpretation of BW for the product space Πi ∈ℕ[–ki, ki] . This results in optimal program and bound extraction theorems for proofs based on fixed instances of BW, i.e. for BW applied to fixed (...) sequences in Πi ∈ℕ[–ki, ki]. (shrink)

We show that Spector's “restricted” form of bar recursion is sufficient (over system T) to define Spector's search functional. This new result is then used to show that Spector's restricted form of bar recursion is in fact as general as the supposedly more general form of bar recursion. Given that these two forms of bar recursion correspond to the (explicitly controlled) iterated products of selection function and quantifiers, it follows that this iterated product of selection functions is T‐equivalent to the (...) corresponding iterated product of quantifiers. (shrink)

Schwichtenberg showed that the System T definable functionals are closed under a rule-like version Spector’s bar recursion of lowest type levels 0 and 1. More precisely, if the functional Y which controls the stopping condition of Spector’s bar recursor is T-definable, then the corresponding bar recursion of type levels 0 and 1 is already T-definable. Schwichtenberg’s original proof, however, relies on a detour through Tait’s infinitary terms and the correspondence between ordinal recursion for α < ε₀ and primitive recursion over (...) finite types. This detour makes it hard to calculate on given concrete system T input, what the corresponding system T output would look like. In this paper we present an alternative (more direct) proof based on an explicit construction which we prove correct via a suitably defined logical relation. We show through an example how this gives a straightforward mechanism for converting bar recursive definitions into T-definitions under the conditions of Schwichtenberg’s theorem. Finally, with the explicit construction we can also easily state a sharper result: if Y is in the fragment Tᵢ then terms built from BR^ℕ,σ for this particular Y are definable in the fragment T_i+max{1,level(σ)}+2. (shrink)

In recent years, proof theoretic transformations that are based on extensions of monotone forms of Gödel’s famous functional interpretation have been used systematically to extract new content from proofs in abstract nonlinear analysis. This content consists both in effective quantitative bounds as well as in qualitative uniformity results. One of the main ineffective tools in abstract functional analysis is the use of sequential forms of weak compactness. As we recently verified, the sequential form of weak compactness for bounded closed and (...) convex subsets of an abstract Hilbert space can be carried out in suitable formal systems that are covered by existing metatheorems developed in the course of the proof mining program. In particular, it follows that the monotone functional interpretation of this weak compactness principle can be realized by a functional Ω∗ definable from bar recursion of lowest type. While a case study on the analysis of strong convergence results that are based on weak compactness indicates that the use of the latter seems to be eliminable, things apparently are different for weak convergence theorems such as the famous Baillon nonlinear ergodic theorem. For this theorem we recently extracted an explicit bound on a metastable version of this theorem that is primitive recursive relative to Ω∗.In the current paper we for the first time give the construction of Ω∗ . As a corollary to the fine analysis of the use of bar recursion in this construction we obtain that Ω∗ elevates arguments in Tn at most to resulting functionals in Tn+2 . In particular, one can conclude from this that our bound on Baillon’s theorem is at least definable in T4. (shrink)