After sketching the main lines of Hilbert's program, certain well-known andinfluential interpretations of the program are critically evaluated, and analternative interpretation is presented. Finally, some recent developments inlogic related to Hilbert's program are reviewed.

It is well-known (due to C. Parsons) that the extension of primitive recursive arithmeticPRA by first-order predicate logic and the rule ofΠ 2 0 -inductionΠ 2 0 -IR isΠ 2 0 -conservative overPRA. We show that this is no longer true in the presence of function quantifiers and quantifier-free choice for numbersAC 0,0-qf. More precisely we show that ℐ :=PRA 2 +Π 2 0 -IR+AC 0,0-qf proves the totality of the Ackermann function, wherePRA 2 is the extension ofPRA by number (...) and function quantifiers andΠ 2 0 -IR may contain function parameters. This is true even forPRA 2 +∑ 1 0 -IR+Π 2 0 -IR −+AC 0,0-qf, whereΠ 2 0 -IR − is the restriction ofΠ 2 0 -IR without function parameters. (shrink)

For “natural enough” systems of ordinal notation we show that α times iterated local reflection schema over a sufficiently strong arithmetic T proves the same Π 1 0 -sentences as ω α times iterated consistency. A corollary is that the two hierarchies catch up modulo relative interpretability exactly at ε-numbers. We also derive the following more general “mixed” formulas estimating the consistency strength of iterated local reflection: for all ordinals α ⩾ 1 and all β, β ≡ Π 1 0 (...) T ω α · , α ≡ Π 1 0 T β + ω α . Here T α stands for α times iterated local reflection over T , T β stands for β times iterated consistency, and ≡ Π 1 0 denotes mutual Π 1 0 -conservativity. In an appendix to this paper we develop our notion of “natural enough” system of ordinal notation and show that such systems do exist for every recursive ordinal. (shrink)

Does science justify any part of mathematics and, if so, what part? These questions are related to the so-called indispensability arguments propounded, among others, by Quine and Putnam; moreover, both were led to accept significant portions of set theory on that basis. However, set theory rests on a strong form of Platonic realism which has been variously criticized as a foundation of mathematics and is at odds with scientific realism. Recent logical results show that it is possible to directly formalize (...) almost all, if not all, scientifically applicable mathematics in a formal system that is justified simply by Peano Arithmetic (via a proof-theoretical reduction). It is argued that this substantially vitiates the indispensability arguments. (shrink)

Toisaalta ennennäkemätön äärettömien joukko-opillisten menetelmien hyödyntäminen sekä toisaalta epäilyt niiden hyväksyttävyydestä ja halu oikeuttaa niiden käyttö ovat ratkaisevasti muovanneet vuosisatamme matematiikkaa ja logiikkaa. Tämän kehityksen vaikutus nykyajan filosofiaan on myös ollut valtaisa; merkittävää osaa siitä ei voi edes ymmärtää tuntematta sen yhteyttä tähän matematiikan ja logiikan vallankumoukseen. Lähestymistapoja, jotka tavalla tai toisella hyväksyvät äärettömän matematiikan ja perinteisten logiikan sääntöjen (erityisesti kolmannen poissuljetun lain) soveltamisen myös sen piirissä, on tullut tavaksi kutsua klassiseksi matematiikaksi ja logiikaksi erotuksena nämä hylkäävistä radikaaleista intuitionistisista ja (...) konstruktivistisista opeista. (shrink)

We characterize the bimodal provability logics for certain natural (classes of) pairs of recursively enumerable theories, mostly related to fragments of arithmetic. For example, we shall give axiomatizations, decision procedures, and introduce natural Kripke semantics for the provability logics of (IΔ 0 + EXP, PRA); (PRA, IΣ 1 ); (IΣ m , IΣ n ) for $1 \leq m etc. For the case of finitely axiomatized extensions of theories these results are extended to modal logics with propositional constants.

This paper presents a systematic study of the prehistory of the traditional subsystems of second-order arithmetic that feature prominently in the reverse mathematics program of Friedman and Simpson. We look in particular at: (i) the long arc from Poincar\'e to Feferman as concerns arithmetic definability and provability, (ii) the interplay between finitism and the formalization of analysis in the lecture notes and publications of Hilbert and Bernays, (iii) the uncertainty as to the constructive status of principles equivalent to Weak K\"onig's (...) Lemma, and (iv) the large-scale intellectual backdrop to arithmetical transfinite recursion in descriptive set theory and its effectivization by Borel, Lusin, Addison, and others. (shrink)

In the early 1920s, the German mathematician David Hilbert (1862–1943) put forward a new proposal for the foundation of classical mathematics which has come to be known as Hilbert's Program. It calls for a formalization of all of mathematics in axiomatic form, together with a proof that this axiomatization of mathematics is consistent. The consistency proof itself was to be carried out using only what Hilbert called “finitary” methods. The special epistemological character of finitary reasoning then yields the required justification (...) of classical mathematics. Although Hilbert proposed his program in this form only in 1921, various facets of it are rooted in foundational work of his going back until around 1900, when he first pointed out the necessity of giving a direct consistency proof of analysis. Work on the program progressed significantly in the 1920s with contributions from logicians such as Paul Bernays, Wilhelm Ackermann, John von Neumann, and Jacques Herbrand. It was also a great influence on Kurt Gödel, whose work on the incompleteness theorems were motivated by Hilbert's Program. Gödel's work is generally taken to show that Hilbert's Program cannot be carried out. It has nevertheless continued to be an influential position in the philosophy of mathematics, and, starting with the work of Gerhard Gentzen in the 1930s, work on so-called Relativized Hilbert Programs have been central to the development of proof theory. (shrink)

At the turn of the nineteenth century, mathematics exhibited a style of argumentation that was more explicitly computational than is common today. Over the course of the century, the introduction of abstract algebraic methods helped unify developments in analysis, number theory, geometry, and the theory of equations; and work by mathematicians like Dedekind, Cantor, and Hilbert towards the end of the century introduced set-theoretic language and infinitary methods that served to downplay or suppress computational content. This shift in emphasis away (...) from calculation gave rise to concerns as to whether such methods were meaningful, or appropriate to mathematics. The discovery of paradoxes stemming from overly naive use of set-theoretic language and methods led to even more pressing concerns as to whether the modern methods were even consistent. This led to heated debates in the early twentieth century and what is sometimes called the “crisis of foundations.” In lectures presented in 1922, David Hilbert launched his Beweistheorie, or Proof Theory, which aimed to justify the use of modern methods and settle the problem of foundations once and for all. This, Hilbert argued, could be achieved as follows. (shrink)

In the first part of this paper we discuss some aspects of Detlefsen's attempt to save Hilbert's Program from the consequences of Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem. His arguments are based on his interpretation of the long standing and well-known controversy on what, exactly, finitistic means are. In his paper [1] Detlefsen takes the position that there is a form of the ω-rule which is a finitistically valid means of proof, sufficient to prove the consistency of elementary number theory Z. On (...) the other hand, he claims that Z with its first-order logic is not strong enough to allow a formalization of such an ω-rule. This would explain why the unprovability of $\operatorname{Con}(Z)$ in Z does not imply that the consistency of Z cannot be proved by finitistic means. We show that Detlefsen's proposal is unacceptable as originally formulated in [1], but that a reasonable modification of the rule he suggest leads to a partial program already studied for many years. We investigate the scope of such a program in terms of proof-theoretic reducibilities. We also show that this partial program encompasses mathematically important theories studied in the "Reverse Mathematics" program. In order to investigate the provability with such a modified rule, we define new consistency and provability predicates which are weaker than the usual ones. We then investigate their properties, including a few that have no apparent philosophical significance but compare interestingly with the properties of the program based on the iteration of our ω-rule. We determine some of the limitations of such programs, pointing out that these limitations partly explain why partial programs that have been successfully carried out use quite different and substantially more radical extensions of finitistic methods with more general forms of restricted reasoning. (shrink)

Inspired by Pohlers' proof-theoretic analysis of KPω we give a straightforward non-metamathematical proof of the (well-known) classification of the provably total functions of $PA, PA + TI(\prec\lceil)$ (where it is assumed that the well-ordering $\prec$ has some reasonable closure properties) and KPω. Our method relies on a new approach to subrecursion due to Buchholz, Cichon and the author.

We show that certain model-theoretic forcing arguments involving subsystems of second-order arithmetic can be formalized in the base theory, thereby converting them to effective proof-theoretic arguments. We use this method to sharpen the conservation theorems of Harrington and Brown-Simpson, giving an effective proof that WKL+0 is conservative over RCA0 with no significant increase in the lengths of proofs.

Working within weak subsystems of second-order arithmetic Z2 we consider two versions of the Baire Category theorem which are not equivalent over the base system RCA0. We show that one version (B.C.T.I) is provable in RCA0 while the second version (B.C.T.II) requires a stronger system. We introduce two new subsystems of Z2, which we call RCA+ 0 and WKL+ 0, and show that RCA+ 0 suffices to prove B.C.T.II. Some model theory of WKL+ 0 and its importance in view of (...) Hilbert's program is discussed, as well as applications of our results to functional analysis. (shrink)

is a fragment of first-order aritlimetic so weak that it cannot prove the totality of an iterated exponential fimction. Surprisingly, however, the theory is remarkably robust. I will discuss formal results that show that many theorems of number theory and combinatorics are derivable in elementary arithmetic, and try to place these results in a broader philosophical context.

In this paper the numerical strength of fragments of arithmetical comprehension, choice and general uniform boundedness is studied systematically. These principles are investigated relative to base systems Tnω in all finite types which are suited to formalize substantial parts of analysis but nevertheless have provably recursive functions of low growth. We reduce the use of instances of these principles in Tnω-proofs of a large class of formulas to the use of instances of certain arithmetical principles thereby determining faithfully the arithmetical (...) content of the former. This is achieved using the method of elimination of Skolem functions for monotone formulas which was introduced by the author in a previous paper.As corollaries we obtain new conservation results for fragments of analysis over fragments of arithmetic which strengthen known purely first-order conservation results.We also characterize the provably recursive functions of type 2 of the extensions of Tnω based on these fragments of arithmetical comprehension, choice and uniform boundedness. (shrink)

A well-known result states that, over basic Kalmar elementary arithmetic EA, the induction schema for ∑n formulas is equivalent to the uniform reflection principle for ∑n + 1 formulas . We show that fragments of arithmetic axiomatized by various forms of induction rules admit a precise axiomatization in terms of reflection principles as well. Thus, the closure of EA under the induction rule for ∑n formulas is equivalent to ω times iterated ∑n reflection principle. Moreover, for k < ω, k (...) times iterated ∑n reflection principle over EA precisely corresponds to the extension of EA by k nested applications of ∑n induction rule.The above relationship holds in greater generality than just stated. In fact, we give general formulas characterizing in terms of iterated reflection principles the extension of any given theory by k nested applications of ∑n or Πn induction rules. In particular, the closure of a theory T under just one application of ∑1 induction rule is equivalent to T together with ∑1 reflection principle for each finite Π2 axiomatized subtheory of T.These results have closely parallel ones in the theory of subrecursive function classes. The rules under study correspond, in a canonical way, to natural closure operators on the classes of provably recursive functions. Thus, ∑1 induction rule precisely corresponds to the primitive recursive closure operator, and ∑1 collection rule, introduced below, corresponds to the elementary closure operator. (shrink)

In this paper we devise some technical tools for dealing with problems connected with the philosophical view usually called mathematical instrumentalism. These tools are interesting in their own right, independently of their philosophical consequences. For example, we show that even though the fragment of Peano's Arithmetic known as IΣ₁ is a conservative extension of the equational theory of Primitive Recursive Arithmetic (PRA). IΣ₁ has a super-exponential speed-up over PRA. On the other hand, theories studied in the Program of Reverse Mathematics (...) that formalize powerful mathematical principles have only polynomial speed-up over IΣ₁. (shrink)

This paper deals with: (i) the theory ID # 1 which results from $\widehat{\mathrm{ID}}_1$ by restricting induction on the natural numbers to formulas which are positive in the fixed point constants, (ii) the theory BON(μ) plus various forms of positive induction, and (iii) a subtheory of Peano arithmetic with ordinals in which induction on the natural numbers is restricted to formulas which are Σ in the ordinals. We show that these systems have proof-theoretic strength φω 0.

The concept of the (full) unfolding of a schematic system is used to answer the following question: Which operations and predicates, and which principles concerning them, ought to be accepted if one has accepted ? The program to determine for various systems of foundational significance was previously carried out for a system of nonfinitist arithmetic, ; it was shown that is proof-theoretically equivalent to predicative analysis. In the present paper we work out the unfolding notions for a basic schematic system (...) of finitist arithmetic, , and for an extension of that by a form of the so-called Bar Rule. It is shown that and are proof-theoretically equivalent, respectively, to Primitive Recursive Arithmetic, , and to Peano Arithmetic,. (shrink)

It is well-known (due to C. Parsons) that the extension of primitive recursive arithmeticPRA by first-order predicate logic and the rule ofΠ 2 0 -inductionΠ 2 0 -IR isΠ 2 0 -conservative overPRA. We show that this is no longer true in the presence of function quantifiers and quantifier-free choice for numbersAC 0,0-qf. More precisely we show that ℐ :=PRA 2 +Π 2 0 -IR+AC 0,0-qf proves the totality of the Ackermann function, wherePRA 2 is the extension ofPRA by number (...) and function quantifiers andΠ 2 0 -IR may contain function parameters.This is true even forPRA 2 +∑ 1 0 -IR+Π 2 0 -IR −+AC 0,0-qf, whereΠ 2 0 -IR − is the restriction ofΠ 2 0 -IR without function parameters. (shrink)

These are some minor notes and observations related to a paper by Cholak, Jockusch, and Slaman [3].

We continue the work of [14, 3, 1, 19, 16, 4, 12, 11, 20] investigating the strength of set existence axioms needed for separable Banach space theory. We show that the separation theorem for open convex sets is equivalent to WKL 0 over RCA 0 . We show that the separation theorem for separably closed convex sets is equivalent to ACA 0 over RCA 0 . Our strategy for proving these geometrical Hahn-Banach theorems is to reduce to the finite-dimensional case (...) by means of a compactness argument. (shrink)

Leo Harrington showed that the second-order theory of arithmetic WKL 0 is ${\Pi^1_1}$ -conservative over the theory RCA 0. Harrington’s proof is model-theoretic, making use of a forcing argument. A purely proof-theoretic proof, avoiding forcing, has been eluding the efforts of researchers. In this short paper, we present a proof of Harrington’s result using a cut-elimination argument.

By a result of Paris and Friedman, the collection axiom schema for $\Sigma_{n+1}$ formulas, $B\Sigma_{n+1}$ , is $\Pi_{n+2}$ conservative over $I\Sigma_n$ . We give a new proof-theoretic proof of this theorem, which is based on a reduction of $B\Sigma_n$ to a version of collection rule and a subsequent analysis of this rule via Herbrand's theorem. A generalization of this method allows us to improve known results on reflection principles for $B\Sigma_n$ and to answer some technical questions left open by Sieg (...) [23] and Hájek [9]. We also give a new proof of independence of $B\Sigma_{n+1}$ over $I\Sigma_n$ by a direct recursion-theoretic argument and answer an open problem formulated by Gaifman and Dimitracopoulos [8]. (shrink)

Let be the fragment of elementary Peano arithmetic in which induction is restricted to -formulas. More than three decades ago, Parsons showed that the provably total functions of are exactly the primitive recursive functions. In this paper, we observe that Parsons' result is a consequence of Herbrand's theorem concerning the -consequences of universal theories. We give a self-contained proof requiring only basic knowledge of mathematical logic.

We show that the modal prepositional logicILM (interpretability logic with Montagna's principle), which has been shown sound and complete as the interpretability logic of Peano arithmetic PA (by Berarducci and Savrukov), is sound and complete as the logic ofπ 1-conservativity over eachbE 1-sound axiomatized theory containingI⌆ 1 (PA with induction restricted tobE 1-formulas). Furthermore, we extend this result to a systemILMR obtained fromILM by adding witness comparisons in the style of Guaspari's and Solovay's logicR (this will be done in a (...) separate continuation of the present paper). (shrink)

Herbrand's Theorem, in the form of $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle-}$}}{\exists } $$ -inversion lemmata for finitary and infinitary sequent calculi, is the crucial tool for the determination of the provably total function(al)s of a variety of theories. The theories are (second order extensions of) fragments of classical arithmetic; the classes of provably total functions include the elements of the Polynomial Hierarchy, the Grzegorczyk Hierarchy, and the extended Grzegorczyk Hierarchy $\mathfrak{E}^\alpha $ , α < ε0. A subsidiary aim of the paper is to show (...) that the proof theoretic methods used here are distinguished by technical elegance, conceptual clarity, and wide-ranging applicability. (shrink)

In 1958, G¨ odel published in the journal Dialectica an interpretation of intuitionistic number theory in a quantifier-free theory of functionals of finite type; this subsequently came to be known as G¨ odel’s functional or Dialectica interpretation. The article itself was written in German for an issue of that journal in honor of Paul Bernays’ 70th birthday. In 1965, Bernays told G¨.

A notion called Herbrand saturation is shown to provide the model-theoretic analogue of a proof-theoretic method, Herbrand analysis, yielding uniform model-theoretic proofs of a number of important conservation theorems. A constructive, algebraic variation of the method is described, providing yet a third approach, which is finitary but retains the semantic flavor of the model-theoretic version.

It is argued that an instrumentalist notion of proof such as that represented in Hilbert's viewpoint is not obligated to satisfy the conservation condition that is generally regarded as a constraint on Hilbert's Program. A more reasonable soundness condition is then considered and shown not to be counter-exemplified by Godel's First Theorem. Finally, attention is given to the question of what a theory is; whether it should be seen as a "list" or corpus of beliefs, or as a method for (...) selecting beliefs. The significance of this question for assessing "intensional" results like Godel's Second Theorem, and their bearing on Hilbert's Program are discussed. (shrink)

This paper discusses what kind of quantitative information one can extract under which circumstances from proofs of convergence statements in analysis. We show that from proofs using only a limited amount of the law-of-excluded-middle, one can extract functionals , where L is a learning procedure for a rate of convergence which succeeds after at most B-many mind changes. This -learnability provides quantitative information strictly in between a full rate of convergence and a rate of metastability in the sense of Tao (...) . In fact, it corresponds to rates of metastability of a particular simple form. Moreover, if a certain gap condition is satisfied, then B and L yield a bound on the number of possible fluctuations. We explain recent applications of proof mining to ergodic theory in terms of these results. (shrink)

We show that a statement HIL, which is motivated by a lemma of Hilbert and close in formulation to Hindman’s theorem, is actually much weaker than Hindman’s theorem. In particular, HIL is finitistically reducible in the sense of Hilbert’s program, while Hindman’s theorem is not.

Hilbert developed his famous finitist point of view in several essays in the 1920s. In this paper, we discuss various extensions of it, with particular emphasis on those suggested by Hilbert and Bernays in Grundlagen der Mathematik (vol. I 1934, vol. II 1939). The paper is in three sections. The first deals with Hilbert's introduction of a restricted ? -rule in his 1931 paper ?Die Grundlegung der elementaren Zahlenlehre?. The main question we discuss here is whether the finitist (meta-)mathematician would (...) be entitled to accept this rule as a finitary rule of inference. In the second section, we assess the strength of finitist metamathematics in Hilbert and Bernays 1934. The third and final section is devoted to the second volume of Grundlagen der Mathematik. For preparatory reasons, we first discuss Gentzen's proposal of expanding the range of what can be admitted as finitary in his esssay ?Die Widerspruchsfreiheit der reinen Zahlentheorie? (1936). As to Hilbert and Bernays 1939, we end on a ?critical? note: however considerable the impact of this work may have been on subsequent developments in metamathematics, there can be no doubt that in it the ideals of Hilbert's original finitism have fallen victim to sheer proof-theoretic pragmatism. (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)

We show how to extract effective bounds Φ for $\bigwedge u^1 \bigwedge v \leq_\gamma tu \bigvee w^\eta G_0$ -sentences which depend on u only (i.e. $\bigwedge u \bigwedge v \leq_\gamma tu \bigvee w \leq_\eta \Phi uG_0$ ) from arithmetical proofs which use analytical assumptions of the form \begin{equation*}\tag{*}\bigwedge x^\delta\bigvee y \leq_\rho sx \bigwedge z^\tau F_0\end{equation*} (γ, δ, ρ, and τ are arbitrary finite types, η ≤ 2, G0 and F0 are quantifier-free, and s and t are closed terms). If τ (...) ≤ 2, (*) can be weakened to $\bigwedge x^\delta, z^\tau\bigvee y \leq_\rho sx \bigwedge \tilde{z} \leq_\tau z F_0$ . This is used to establish new conservation results about weak König's lemma. Applications to proofs in classical analysis, especially uniqueness proofs in approximation theory, will be given in subsequent papers. (shrink)

We define classes Φnof formulae of first-order arithmetic with the following properties:(i) Everyφϵ Φnis classically equivalent to a Πn-formula (n≠ 1, Φ1:= Σ1).(ii)(iii)IΠnandiΦn(i.e., Heyting arithmetic with induction schema restricted to Φn-formulae) prove the same Π2-formulae.We further generalize a result by Visser and Wehmeier. namely that prenex induction within intuitionistic arithmetic is rather weak: After closing Φnboth under existential and universal quantification (we call these classes Θn) the corresponding theoriesiΘnstill prove the same Π2-formulae. In a second part we consideriΔ0plus collection-principles. We (...) show that both the provably recursive functions and the provably total functions ofare polynomially bounded. Furthermore we show that the contrapositive of the collection-schema gives rise to instances of the law of excluded middle and hence. (shrink)

Continuing the investigations of X. Yu and others, we study the role of set existence axioms in classical Lebesgue measure theory. We show that pairwise disjoint countable additivity for open sets of reals is provable in RCA0. We show that several well-known measure-theoretic propositions including the Vitali Covering Theorem are equivalent to WWKL over RCA0.

It is well known by now that large parts of mathematical reasoning can be carried out in systems which are conservative over primitive recursive arithmetic PRA . On the other hand there are principles S of elementary analysis which are known to be equivalent to arithmetical comprehension and therefore go far beyond the strength of PRA . In this paper we determine precisely the arithmetical and computational strength of weaker function parameter-free schematic versions S− of S, thereby exhibiting different levels (...) of strength between these principles as well as a sharp borderline between fragments of analysis which are still conservative over PRA and extensions which just go beyond the strength of PRA. (shrink)

The so-called weak König's lemma WKL asserts the existence of an infinite path b in any infinite binary tree . Based on this principle one can formulate subsystems of higher-order arithmetic which allow to carry out very substantial parts of classical mathematics but are Π 2 0 -conservative over primitive recursive arithmetic PRA . In Kohlenbach 1239–1273) we established such conservation results relative to finite type extensions PRA ω of PRA . In this setting one can consider also a uniform (...) version UWKL of WKL which asserts the existence of a functional Φ which selects uniformly in a given infinite binary tree f an infinite path Φf of that tree. This uniform version of WKL is of interest in the context of explicit mathematics as developed by S. Feferman. The elimination process in Kohlenbach [10] actually can be used to eliminate even this uniform weak König's lemma provided that PRA ω only has a quantifier-free rule of extensionality QF-ER instead of the full axioms of extensionality for all finite types. In this paper we show that in the presence of , UWKL is much stronger than WKL: whereas WKL remains to be Π 2 0 -conservative over PRA, PRA ω ++ UWKL contains full Peano arithmetic PA. We also investigate the proof–theoretic as well as the computational strength of UWKL relative to the intuitionistic variant of PRA ω both with and without the Markov principle. (shrink)