In this paper we explain our pretense account of truth-talk and apply it in a diagnosis and treatment of the Liar Paradox. We begin by assuming that some form of deflationism is the correct approach to the topic of truth. We then briefly motivate the idea that all T-deflationists should endorse a fictionalist view of truth-talk, and, after distinguishing pretense-involving fictionalism (PIF) from error- theoretic fictionalism (ETF), explain the merits of the former over the latter. After presenting the basic framework (...) of our PIF account of truth-talk, we demonstrate a few advantages it offers over T-deflationist accounts that do not explicitly acknowledge pretense at work in the discourse. In turning to the Liar Paradox, we explain how the quasi-anaphoric functioning that our account attributes to truth-talk provides a diagnosis of the Liar Paradox (and other instances of semantic pathology) as having no content—in the sense of not specifying any of what we call M-conditions. At the same time, however, we vindicate the intuition that we can understand liar sentences, thereby avoiding one standard objection to “meaningless strategy” responses to the Liar Paradox. With this diagnosis in place, we then, by way of treatment, introduce a new predicate, ‘semantically defective’, and show how the explanation we give for its application allows for a consistent, yet revenge-immune, (dis)solution of the Liar Paradox, and semantic pathology generally. (shrink)

This anthology of the very latest research on truth features the work of recognized luminaries in the field, put together following a rigorous refereeing process. Along with an introduction outlining the central issues in the field, it provides a unique and unrivaled view of contemporary work on the nature of truth, with papers selected from key conferences in 2011 such as Truth Be Told, Truth at Work, Paradoxes of Truth and Denotation and Axiomatic Theories of Truth. Studying the nature of (...) the concept of ‘truth’ has always been a core role of philosophy, but recent years have been a boom time in the topic. With a wealth of recent conferences examining the subject from various angles, this collection of essays recognizes the pressing need for a volume that brings scholars up to date on the arguments. Offering academics and graduate students alike a much-needed repository of today’s cutting-edge work in this vital topic of philosophy, the volume is required reading for anyone needing to keep abreast of developments, and is certain to act as a catalyst for further innovation and research. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is twofold: first, I provide a cluster of theories of truth in classical logic that is (internally) consistent with global reflection principles: the theories of positive truth (and falsity). After that, I analyse the _epistemic value_ of such theories. I do so employing the framework of cognitive projects introduced by Wright (Proc Aristot Soc 78:167–245, 2004), and employed—in the context of theories of truth—by Fischer et al. (Noûs 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12292 ). In particular, I will argue (...) that theories of positive truth are _trustworthy_, analogously to the theories of full disquotational truth. Moreover, I argue that, for a given cognitive project, _if_ the acceptance of trustworthy theories is taken to be an _epistemic norm_ of cognitive project, then one has good reasons to accept theories of positive truth over other rival theories of truth in classical logic. On the other hand, the latter theories are deemed epistemically unacceptable. (shrink)

Ordinal analysis is a research program wherein recursive ordinals are assigned to axiomatic theories. According to conventional wisdom, ordinal analysis measures the strength of theories. Yet what is the attendant notion of strength? In this paper we present abstract characterizations of ordinal analysis that address this question. -/- First, we characterize ordinal analysis as a partition of $\Sigma^1_1$-definable and $\Pi^1_1$-sound theories, namely, the partition whereby two theories are equivalent if they have the same proof-theoretic ordinal. We show that no equivalence (...) relation $\equiv$ is finer than the ordinal analysis partition if both: (1) $T\equiv U$ whenever $T$ and $U$ prove the same $\Pi^1_1$ sentences; (2) $T\equiv T+U$ for every set $U$ of true $\Sigma^1_1$ sentences. In fact, no such equivalence relation makes a single distinction that the ordinal analysis partition does not make. -/- Second, we characterize ordinal analysis as an ordering on arithmetically-definable and $\Pi^1_1$-sound theories, namely, the ordering wherein $T\leq U$ if the proof-theoretic ordinal of $T$ is less than or equal to the proof-theoretic ordinal of $U$. The standard ways of measuring the strength of theories are consistency strength and inclusion of $\Pi^0_1$ theorems. We introduce analogues of these notions---$\Pi^1_1$-reflection strength and inclusion of $\Pi^1_1$ theorems---in the presence of an oracle for $\Sigma^1_1$ truths, and prove that they coincide with the ordering induced by ordinal analysis. (shrink)

We present a critical discussion of the claim (most forcefully propounded by Chaitin) that algorithmic information theory sheds new light on Godel's first incompleteness theorem.

One of the main logical functions of the truth predicate is to enable us to express so-called ‘infinite conjunctions’. Several authors claim that the truth predicate can serve this function only if it is fully disquotational, which leads to triviality in classical logic. As a consequence, many have concluded that classical logic should be rejected. The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, we consider two accounts available in the literature of what it means to express infinite conjunctions with a (...) truth predicate and argue that they fail to support the necessity of transparency for that purpose. Second, we show that, with the aid of some regimentation, many expressive functions of the truth predicate can actually be performed using truth principles that are consistent in classical logic. Finally, we suggest a reconceptualisation of deflationism, according to which the principles that govern the use of the truth predicate in natural language are largely irrelevant for the question of what formal theory of truth we should adopt. Many philosophers think that the paradoxes pose a special problem for deflationists; we will argue, on the contrary, that deflationists are in a much better position to deal with the paradoxes than their opponents. (shrink)

Ratajczyk, Z., Subsystems of true arithmetic and hierarchies of functions, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 64 95–152. The combinatorial method coming from the study of combinatorial sentences independent of PA is developed. Basing on this method we present the detailed analysis of provably recursive functions associated with higher levels of transfinite induction, I, and analyze combinatorial sentences independent of I. Our treatment of combinatorial sentences differs from the one given by McAloon [18] and gives more natural sentences. The same (...) method give also a combinatorial technique with no use of the cut-elimination theorem which is appropriate to study proof-theoretic strength of subsystems of first order arithmetic and some of their expansions. It was used to analyze iterated reflection principle and system of transfinite induction with a satisfaction class. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to comprehensively question the validity of the standard way of interpreting Chaitin's famous incompleteness theorem, which says that for every formalized theory of arithmetic there is a finite constant c such that the theory in question cannot prove any particular number to have Kolmogorov complexity larger than c. The received interpretation of theorem claims that the limiting constant is determined by the complexity of the theory itself, which is assumed to be good measure of (...) the strength of the theory. I exhibit certain strong counterexamples and establish conclusively that the received view is false. Moreover, I show that the limiting constants provided by the theorem do not in any way reflect the power of formalized theories, but that the values of these constants are actually determined by the chosen coding of Turing machines, and are thus quite accidental. (shrink)

Chaitin’s incompleteness result related to random reals and the halting probability has been advertised as the ultimate and the strongest possible version of the incompleteness and undecidability theorems. It is argued that such claims are exaggerations.

Classical logic of formal provability includes Löb’s theorem, but not reflection. In contrast, intuitions about the inferential behavior of informal provability (in informal mathematics) seem to invalidate Löb’s theorem and validate reflection (after all, the intuition is, whatever mathematicians prove holds!). We employ a non-deterministic many-valued semantics and develop a modal logic T-BAT of an informal provability operator, which indeed does validate reflection and invalidates Löb’s theorem. We study its properties and its relation to known provability-related paradoxical arguments. We also (...) argue that T-BAT is a fairly sensible candidate for a formal logic of informal provability. (shrink)

According to the dialetheist argument from the inconsistency of informal mathematics, the informal version of the Gödelian argument leads us to a true contradiction. On one hand, the dialetheist argues, we can prove that there is a mathematical claim that is neither provable nor refutable in informal mathematics. On the other, the proof of its unprovability is given in informal mathematics and proves that very sentence. We argue that the argument fails, because it relies on the unjustified and unlikely assumption (...) that the informal Gödel sentence is informally provable. (shrink)

It is well-known that natural axiomatic theories are well-ordered by consistency strength. However, it is possible to construct descending chains of artificial theories with respect to consistency strength. We provide an explanation of this well-orderedness phenomenon by studying a coarsening of the consistency strength order, namely, the$\Pi ^1_1$reflection strength order. We prove that there are no descending sequences of$\Pi ^1_1$sound extensions of$\mathsf {ACA}_0$in this ordering. Accordingly, we can attach a rank in this order, which we call reflection rank, to any$\Pi (...) ^1_1$sound extension of$\mathsf {ACA}_0$. We prove that for any$\Pi ^1_1$sound theoryTextending$\mathsf {ACA}_0^+$, the reflection rank ofTequals the$\Pi ^1_1$proof-theoretic ordinal ofT. We also prove that the$\Pi ^1_1$proof-theoretic ordinal of$\alpha $iterated$\Pi ^1_1$reflection is$\varepsilon _\alpha $. Finally, we use our results to provide straightforward well-foundedness proofs of ordinal notation systems based on reflection principles. (shrink)

Journal of Mathematical Logic, Volume 23, Issue 02, August 2023. In mathematical logic there are two seemingly distinct kinds of principles called “reflection principles.” Semantic reflection principles assert that if a formula holds in the whole universe, then it holds in a set-sized model. Syntactic reflection principles assert that every provable sentence from some complexity class is true. In this paper, we study connections between these two kinds of reflection principles in the setting of second-order arithmetic. We prove that, for (...) a large swathe of theories, [math]-model reflection is equivalent to the claim that arbitrary iterations of uniform [math] reflection along countable well-orderings are [math]-sound. This result yields uniform ordinal analyzes of theories with strength between [math] and [math]. The main technical novelty of our analysis is the introduction of the notion of the proof-theoretic dilator of a theory [math], which is the operator on countable ordinals that maps the order-type of [math] to the proof-theoretic ordinal of [math]. We obtain precise results about the growth of proof-theoretic dilators as a function of provable [math]-model reflection. This approach enables us to simultaneously obtain not only [math], [math] and [math] ordinals but also reverse-mathematical theorems for well-ordering principles. (shrink)

This paper is an investigation into what could be a goodexplication of ``theory S is reducible to theory T''''. Ipresent an axiomatic approach to reducibility, which is developedmetamathematically and used to evaluate most of the definitionsof ``reducible'''' found in the relevant literature. Among these,relative interpretability turns out to be most convincing as ageneral reducibility concept, proof-theoreticalreducibility being its only serious competitor left. Thisrelation is analyzed in some detail, both from the point of viewof the reducibility axioms and of modal logic.

According to the implicit commitment thesis, once accepting a mathematical formal system S, one is implicitly committed to additional resources not immediately available in S. Traditionally, this thesis has been understood as entailing that, in accepting S, we are bound to accept reflection principles for S and therefore claims in the language of S that are not derivable in S itself. It has recently become clear, however, that such reading of the implicit commitment thesis cannot be compatible with well-established positions (...) in the foundations of mathematics which consider a specific theory S as self-justifying and doubt the legitimacy of any principle that is not derivable in S: examples are Tait’s finitism and the role played in it by Primitive Recursive Arithmetic, Isaacson’s thesis and Peano Arithmetic, Nelson’s ultrafinitism and sub-exponential arithmetical systems. This casts doubts on the very adequacy of the implicit commitment thesis for arithmetical theories. In the paper we show that such foundational standpoints are nonetheless compatible with the implicit commitment thesis. We also show that they can even be compatible with genuine soundness extensions of S with suitable form of reflection. The analysis we propose is as follows: when accepting a system S, we are bound to accept a fixed set of principles extending S and expressing minimal soundness requirements for S, such as the fact that the non-logical axioms of S are true. We call this invariant component the semantic core of implicit commitment. But there is also a variable component of implicit commitment that crucially depends on the justification given for our acceptance of S in which, for instance, may or may not appear reflection principles for S. We claim that the proposed framework regulates in a natural and uniform way our acceptance of different arithmetical theories. (shrink)

A previously unexplored method, combining logical and mathematical elements, is shown to yield substantial numerical improvements in the area of Diophantine approximations. Kreisel illustrated the method abstractly by noting that effective bounds on the number of elements are ensured if Herbrand terms from ineffective proofs of Σ 2 -finiteness theorems satisfy certain simple growth conditions. Here several efficient growth conditions for the same purpose are presented that are actually satisfied in practice, in particular, by the proofs of Roth's theorem due (...) to Roth himself and to Esnault and Viehweg. The analysis of the former yields an exponential bound of order exp(70ε -2 d 2 ) in place of exp(285ε -2 d 2 ) given by Davenport and Roth in 1955, where α is (real) algebraic of degree d ≥ 2 and $|\alpha - pq^{-1}| . (Thus the new bound is less than the fourth root of the old one.) The new bounds extracted from the other proof are polynomial of low degree (in ε -1 and log d). Corollaries: Apart from a new bound for the number of solutions of the corresponding Diophantine equations and inequalities (among them Thue's inequality), $\log \log q_\nu , where q ν are the denominators of the convergents to the continued fraction of α. (shrink)

Reductivist programs in logicand philosophy, especially inthe philosophy of mathematics,are reviewed. The paper argues fora ``methodological realism'' towardsnumbers and sets, but still givesreductionism an important place,albeit in methodology/epistemologyrather than in ontology proper.

In this note we study several topics related to the schema of local reflection \\) and its partial and relativized variants. Firstly, we introduce the principle of uniform reflection with \-definable parameters, establish its relationship with relativized local reflection principles and corresponding versions of induction with definable parameters. Using this schema we give a new model-theoretic proof of the \-conservativity of uniform \-reflection over relativized local \-reflection. We also study the proof-theoretic strength of Feferman’s theorem, i.e., the assertion of 1-provability (...) in S of the local reflection schema \\), and its generalized versions. We relate this assertion to the uniform \-reflection schema and, in particular, obtain an alternative axiomatization of \. (shrink)

LetA H be the Herbrand normal form ofA andA H,D a Herbrand realization ofA H. We showThere is an example of an (open) theory ℐ+ with function parameters such that for someA not containing function parameters Similar for first order theories ℐ+ if the index functions used in definingA H are permitted to occur in instances of non-logical axiom schemata of ℐ, i.e. for suitable ℐ,A In fact, in (1) we can take for ℐ+ the fragment (Σ 1 0 -IA)+ (...) of second order arithmetic with induction restricted toΣ 1 0 -formulas, and in (2) we can take for ℐ the fragment (Σ 1 0,b -IA) of first order arithmetic with induction restricted to formulas VxA(x) whereA contains only bounded quantifiers.On the other hand, $$PA^2 \vdash A^H \Rightarrow PA \vdash A,$$ wherePA 2 is the extension of first order arithmeticPA obtained by adding quantifiers for functions andA∈ℒ(PA). This generalizes to extensional arithmetic in the language of all finite types but not to sentencesA with positively occurring existential quantifiers for functions. (shrink)

In [15], [16] G. Kreisel introduced the no-counterexample interpretation (n.c.i.) of Peano arithmetic. In particular he proved, using a complicated ε-substitution method (due to W. Ackermann), that for every theorem A (A prenex) of first-order Peano arithmetic PA one can find ordinal recursive functionals Φ A of order type 0 which realize the Herbrand normal form A H of A. Subsequently more perspicuous proofs of this fact via functional interpretation (combined with normalization) and cut-elimination were found. These proofs however do (...) not carry out the no-counterexample interpretation as a local proof interpretation and don't respect the modus ponens on the level of the no-counterexample interpretation of formulas A and A → B. Closely related to this phenomenon is the fact that both proofs do not establish the condition (δ) and--at least not constructively-- (γ) which are part of the definition of an 'interpretation of a formal system' as formulated in [15]. In this paper we determine the complexity of the no-counterexample interpretation of the modus ponens rule for (i) PA-provable sentences, (ii) for arbitrary sentences A, B ∈ L(PA) uniformly in functionals satisfying the no-counterexample interpretation of (prenex normal forms of) A and A → B, and (iii) for arbitrary A, B ∈ L(PA) pointwise in given α( 0 ) -recursive functionals satisfying the no-counterexample interpretation of A and A → B. This yields in particular perspicuous proofs of new uniform versions of the conditions (γ), (δ). Finally we discuss a variant of the concept of an interpretation presented in [17] and show that it is incomparable with the concept studied in [15], [16]. In particular we show that the no-counterexample interpretation of PA n by α( n (ω))-recursive functionals (n ≥ 1) is an interpretation in the sense of [17] but not in the sense of [15] since it violates the condition (δ). (shrink)

In [15], [16] G. Kreisel introduced the no-counterexample interpretation (n.c.i.) of Peano arithmetic. In particular he proved, using a complicated ε-substitution method (due to W. Ackermann), that for every theoremA(Aprenex) of first-order Peano arithmeticPAone can find ordinal recursive functionalsof order type < ε0which realize the Herbrand normal formAHofA.Subsequently more perspicuous proofs of this fact via functional interpretation (combined with normalization) and cut-elimination were found. These proofs however do not carry out the no-counterexample interpretation as alocalproof interpretation and don't respect the (...) modus ponens on the level of the nocounterexample interpretation of formulasAandA → B. Closely related to this phenomenon is the fact that both proofs do not establish the condition (δ) and—at least not constructively—(γ) which are part of the definition of an ‘interpretation of a formal system’ as formulated in [15]. (shrink)

It is well known that Gödel’s incompleteness theorems hold for ∑1-definable theories containing Peano arithmetic. We generalize Gödel’s incompleteness theorems for arithmetically definable theories. First, we prove that every ∑n+1-definable ∑n-sound theory is incomplete. Secondly, we generalize and improve Jeroslow and Hájek’s results. That is, we prove that every consistent theory having ∏n+1set of theorems has a true but unprovable ∏nsentence. Lastly, we prove that no ∑n+1-definable ∑n-sound theory can prove its own ∑n-soundness. These three results are generalizations of Rosser’s (...) improvement of the first incompleteness theorem, Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem, and the second incompleteness theorem, respectively. (shrink)

Azriel Levy did fundamental work in set theory when it was transmuting into a modern, sophisticated field of mathematics, a formative period of over a decade straddling Cohen’s 1963 founding of forcing. The terms “Levy collapse”, “Levy hierarchy”, and “Levy absoluteness” will live on in set theory, and his technique of relative constructibility and connections established between forcing and definability will continue to be basic to the subject. What follows is a detailed account and analysis of Levy’s work and contributions (...) to set theory. (shrink)

By Solovay’s celebrated completeness result [31] on formal provability we know that the provability logic ${\textbf {GL}}$ describes exactly all provable structural properties for any sound and strong enough arithmetical theory with a decidable axiomatisation. Japaridze generalised this result in [22] by considering a polymodal version ${\mathsf {GLP}}$ of ${\textbf {GL}}$ with modalities $[n]$ for each natural number n referring to ever increasing notions of provability. Modern treatments of ${\mathsf {GLP}}$ tend to interpret the $[n]$ provability notion as “provable in (...) a base theory T together with all true $\Pi ^0_n$ formulas as oracles.” In this paper we generalise this interpretation into the transfinite. In order to do so, a main difficulty to overcome is to generalise the syntactical characterisations of the oracle formulas of complexity $\Pi ^0_n$ to the hyper-arithmetical hierarchy. The paper exploits the fact that provability is $\Sigma ^0_1$ complete and that similar results hold for stronger provability notions. As such, the oracle sentences to define provability at level $\alpha $ will recursively be taken to be consistency statements at lower levels: provability through provability whence the name of the paper. The paper proves soundness and completeness for the proposed interpretation for a wide class of theories, namely for any theory that can formalise the recursion described above and that has some further very natural properties. Some remarks are provided on how the recursion can be formalised into second order arithmetic and on lowering the proof-theoretical strength of these systems of second order arithmetic. (shrink)

Leon Horsten has recently claimed that the class of mathematical truths coincides with the class of theorems of ZFC. I argue that the naturalistic character of Horsten’s proposal undermines his contention that this claim constitutes an analogue of a thesis that Daniel Isaacson has advanced for PA. I argue, moreover, that Horsten’s defence of his claim against an obvious objection makes use of a distinction which is not available to him given his naturalistic approach. I suggest a way out of (...) the objection which is in line with the naturalistic spirit of Horsten’s proposal but which further weakens the analogy with Isaacson’s Thesis. I conclude by evaluating the prospects for providing an analogue of Isaacson’s Thesis for ZFC. (shrink)

This article gives an epistemological analysis of the reflection process by means of which you can come to know the consistency of a mathematical theory that you already accept. It is argued that this process can result in warranted belief in new mathematical principles without justifying them.

A common objection to hierarchical approaches to truth is that they fragment the concept of truth. This paper defends hierarchical approaches in general against the objection of fragmentation. It argues that the fragmentation required is familiar and unprob-lematic, via a comparison with mathematical proof. Furthermore, it offers an explanation of the source and nature of the fragmentation of truth. Fragmentation arises because the concept exhibits a kind of failure of closure under reflection. This paper offers a more precise characterization of (...) the reflection involved, first in the setting of formal theories of truth, and then in a more general setting. (shrink)

We consider fragments of uniform reflection for formulas in the analytic hierarchy over theories of second order arithmetic. The main result is that for any second order arithmetic theory $T_0$ extending $\mathsf {RCA}_0$ and axiomatizable by a $\Pi ^1_{k+2}$ sentence, and for any $n\geq k+1$, $$\begin{align*}T_0+ \mathrm{RFN}_{\varPi^1_{n+2}} \ = \ T_0 + \mathrm{TI}_{\varPi^1_n}, \end{align*}$$ $$\begin{align*}T_0+ \mathrm{RFN}_{\varSigma^1_{n+1}} \ = \ T_0+ \mathrm{TI}_{\varPi^1_n}^{-}, \end{align*}$$ where T is $T_0$ augmented with full induction, and $\mathrm {TI}_{\varPi ^1_n}^{-}$ denotes the schema of transfinite induction up (...) to $\varepsilon _0$ for $\varPi ^1_n$ formulas without set parameters. (shrink)

Schmerl and Beklemishev’s work on iterated reflection achieves two aims: it introduces the important notion of \-ordinal, characterizing the \-theorems of a theory in terms of transfinite iterations of consistency; and it provides an innovative calculus to compute the \-ordinals for a range of theories. The present note demonstrates that these achievements are independent: we read off \-ordinals from a Schütte-style ordinal analysis via infinite proofs, in a direct and transparent way.

We present a new manifestation of Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem and discuss its foundational significance, in particular with respect to Hilbert’s program. Specifically, we consider a proper extension of Peano arithmetic ( $\mathbf {PA}$ ) by a mathematically meaningful axiom scheme that consists of $\Sigma ^0_2$ -sentences. These sentences assert that each computably enumerable ( $\Sigma ^0_1$ -definable without parameters) property of finite binary trees has a finite basis. Since this fact entails the existence of polynomial time algorithms, it is (...) relevant for computer science. On a technical level, our axiom scheme is a variant of an independence result due to Harvey Friedman. At the same time, the meta-mathematical properties of our axiom scheme distinguish it from most known independence results: Due to its logical complexity, our axiom scheme does not add computational strength. The only known method to establish its independence relies on Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem. In contrast, Gödel’s theorem is not needed for typical examples of $\Pi ^0_2$ -independence (such as the Paris–Harrington principle), since computational strength provides an extensional invariant on the level of $\Pi ^0_2$ -sentences. (shrink)

I had the pleasure of renewing my acquaintance with Per Lindström at the meeting of the Seventh Scandinavian Logic Symposium, held in Uppsala in August 1996. There at lunch one day, Per said he had long been curious about the development of some of the ideas in my paper [1960] on the arithmetization of metamathematics. In particular, I had used the construction of a non-standard definition !* of the set of axioms of P (Peano Arithmetic) to show that P + (...) {¬ Con!} is interpretable in P, where ! is a standard definition of the axioms of P and Con! expresses the consistency of P via that presentation. Per pointed out that there is a simple “two-line” proof of this interpretability result which does not require the use of such formulas as !*, and he wondered whether I had been aware of that. In fact, his proof had never occurred to me, and if it had at the time, it is possible I would never have been led to the use of non-natural definitions. Per regarded this as a happy accident, since subsequent work by him and others on interpretability made essential use of such definitions. In our conversation, I enlarged a bit on the background to my work on arithmetization, and when I was invited to contribute to this special issue of Theoria dedicated to Lindström, it seemed a natural choice to use the occasion to fill out the story. One caveat, though: the following is drawn largely from memory, not always reliable, supplemented by consultation of the 1960 paper and the 1957 dissertation from which it was drawn. (shrink)

The Paradox of the Knower was originally presented by Kaplan and Montague [26] as a puzzle about the everyday notion of knowledge in the face of self-reference. The paradox shows that any theory extending Robinson arithmetic with a predicate K satisfying the factivity axiom K → A as well as a few other epistemically plausible principles is inconsistent. After surveying the background of the paradox, we will focus on a recent debate about the role of epistemic closure principles in the (...) Knower. We will suggest this debate sheds new light on the concept of knowledge which is at issue in the paradox – i.e. is it a “thin” notion divorced from concepts such as evidence or justification, or is it a “thick” notion more closely resembling mathematical provability? We will argue that a number of features of the paradox suggest that the latter option is more plausible. Along the way, we will provide a reconstruction of the paradox using a quantified extension of Artemovʼs [2] Logic of Proofs, as well as a series of results linking the original formulation of the paradox to reflection principles for formal arithmetic. On this basis, we will argue that while the Knower can be understood to motivate a distinction between levels of knowledge, it does not provide a rationale for recognizing a uniform hierarchy of knowledge predicates in the manner suggested by Anderson. (shrink)

Proof-theoretic reflection principles are schemas which attempt to express the soundness of arithmetical theories within their own language, e.g., ${\mathtt{{Prov}_{\mathsf {PA}} \rightarrow \varphi }}$ can be understood to assert that any statement provable in Peano arithmetic is true. It has been repeatedly suggested that justification for such principles follows directly from acceptance of an arithmetical theory $\mathsf {T}$ or indirectly in virtue of their derivability in certain truth-theoretic extensions thereof. This paper challenges this consensus by exploring relationships between reflection principles (...) and principles of mathematical and transfinite induction as well as the status of the latter with respect to various foundational characterizations of number theory. (shrink)

By a result of L.D. Beklemishev, the hierarchy of nested applications of the $$\Sigma _1$$ -collection rule over any $$\Pi _2$$ -axiomatizable base theory extending Elementary Arithmetic collapses to its first level. We prove that this result cannot in general be extended to base theories of arbitrary quantifier complexity. In fact, given any recursively enumerable set of true $$\Pi _2$$ -sentences, S, we construct a sound $$(\Sigma _2 \! \vee \! \Pi _2)$$ -axiomatized theory T extending S such that the (...) hierarchy of nested applications of the $$\Sigma _1$$ -collection rule over T is proper. Our construction uses some results on subrecursive degree theory obtained by L. Kristiansen. (shrink)

Let T be a second-order arithmetical theory, Λ a well-order, λ < Λ and X ⊆ ℕ. We use $[\lambda |X]_T^{\rm{\Lambda }}\varphi$ as a formalization of “φ is provable from T and an oracle for the set X, using ω-rules of nesting depth at most λ”.For a set of formulas Γ, define predicative oracle reflection for T over Γ ) to be the schema that asserts that, if X ⊆ ℕ, Λ is a well-order and φ ∈ Γ, then$$\forall \,\lambda (...) < {\rm{\Lambda }}\,.$$In particular, define predicative oracle consistency ) as Pred–O–RFN{0=1}.Our main result is as follows. Let ATR0 be the second-order theory of Arithmetical Transfinite Recursion, ${\rm{RCA}}_0^{\rm{*}}$ be Weakened Recursive Comprehension and ACA be Arithmetical Comprehension with Full Induction. Then,$${\rm{ATR}}_0 \equiv {\rm{RCA}}_0^{\rm{*}} + {\rm{Pred - O - Cons\ }}\left \equiv {\rm{RCA}}_0^{\rm{*}} + \,{\rm{Pred - O - Cons\ }}\left \equiv {\rm{RCA}}_0^{\rm{*}} + \,{\rm{Pred - O - RFN}}\,_{{\bf{\Pi }}_2^1 } \left.$$We may even replace ${\rm{RCA}}_0^{\rm{*}}$ by the weaker ECA0, the second-order analogue of Elementary Arithmetic.Thus we characterize ATR0, a theory often considered to embody Predicative Reductionism, in terms of strong reflection and consistency principles. (shrink)