Gupta-Belnap-style circular definitions use all real numbers as possible starting points of revision sequences. In that sense they are boldface definitions. We discuss lightface versions of circular definitions and boldface versions of inductive definitions.

Gupta-Belnap-style circular definitions use all real numbers as possible starting points of revision sequences. In that sense they are boldface definitions. We discuss lightface versions of circular definitions and boldface versions of inductive definitions.

We locate winning strategies for various ${\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{3}^{0}$ -games in the L-hierarchy in order to prove the following: Theorem 1. KP+Σ₂-Comprehension $\vdash \exists \alpha L_{\alpha}\ models"\Sigma _{2}-{\bf KP}+\Sigma _{3}^{0}-\text{Determinacy}."$ Alternatively: ${\mathrm{\Pi }}_{3}^{1}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}-{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{A}}_{0}\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}$ "there is a β-model of ${\mathrm{\Delta }}_{3}^{1}-{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{A}}_{0}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}+\text{\hspace{0.17 em}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{3}^{0}$ -Determinacy." The implication is not reversible. (The antecedent here may be replaced with ${\mathrm{\Pi }}_{3}^{1}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\left({\mathrm{\Pi }}_{3}^{1}\right)-{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{A}}_{0}:\text{\hspace{0.17em}}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{3}^{1}$ instances of Comprehension with only ${\mathrm{\Pi }}_{3}^{1}$ -lightface definable parameters—or even weaker theories.) Theorem 2. KP +Δ₂-Comprehension +Σ₂-Replacement + ${\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{3}^{0}\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}$ -Determinacy. (Here AQI (...) is the assertion that every arithmetical quasi-inductive definition converges.) Alternatively: $\Delta _{3}^{1}{\rm CA}_{0}+{\rm AQI}\nvdash \Sigma _{3}^{0}$ -Determinacy. Hence the theories: ${\mathrm{\Pi }}_{3}^{1}-{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{A}}_{0},\text{\hspace{0.17em}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{3}^{1}-{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{A}}_{0}+\text{\hspace{0.17em}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{3}^{0}-\mathrm{D}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}$ -Det, ${\mathrm{\Delta }}_{3}^{1}-{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{A}}_{0}+\mathrm{A}\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{I}$ , and ${\mathrm{\Delta }}_{3}^{1}-{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{A}}_{0}\phantom{\rule{0ex}{0ex}}$ are in strictly descending order of strength. (shrink)

This paper is essentially the author's Gödel Lecture at the ASL Logic Colloquium '09 in Sofia extended and supplemented by material from some other papers. After a brief description of traditional reverse mathematics, a computational approach to is presented. There are then discussions of some interactions between reverse mathematics and the major branches of mathematical logic in terms of the techniques they supply as well as theorems for analysis. The emphasis here is on ones that lie outside the usual main (...) systems of reverse mathematics. While retaining the usual base theory and working still within second order arithmetic, theorems are described that range from those far below the usual systems to ones far above. (shrink)

In this paper we study the logical strength of the determinacy of infinite binary games in terms of second order arithmetic. We define new determinacy schemata inspired by the Wadge classes of Polish spaces and show the following equivalences over the system RCA0*, which consists of the axioms of discrete ordered semi‐rings with exponentiation, Δ10 comprehension and Π00 induction, and which is known as a weaker system than the popularbase theory RCA0: 1. Bisep(Δ10, Σ10)‐Det* ↔ WKL0, 2. Bisep(Δ10, Σ20)‐Det* ↔ (...) ATR0 + Σ11 induction, 3. Bisep(Σ10, Σ20)‐Det* ↔ Sep(Σ10, Σ20)‐Det* ↔ Π11‐CA0, 4. Bisep(Δ20, Σ20)‐Det* ↔ Π11‐TR0, where Det* stands for the determinacy of infinite games in the Cantor space (© 2009 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim). (shrink)

We show that each of Δ13-CA0 + Σ13-IND and Π12-CA0 + Π13-TI proves Δ03-Det and that neither Σ31-IND nor Π13-TI can be dropped. We also show that neither Δ13-CA0 + Σ1∞-IND nor Π12-CA0 + Π1∞-TI proves Σ03-Det. Moreover, we prove that none of Δ21-CA0, Σ31-IND and Π21-TI is provable in Δ11-Det0 = ACA0 + Δ11-Det.

We study the provability in subsystems of second-order arithmetic of two theorems of Harrington and Shelah [6] about Borel quasi-orderings of the reals. These theorems turn out to be provable in ATR0, thus giving further evidence to the observation that ATR0 is the minimal subsystem of second-order arithmetic in which significant portion of descriptive set theory can be developed. As in [6] considering the lightface versions of the theorems will be instrumental in their proof and the main techniques employed will (...) be the reflection principles and Gandy forcing. (shrink)

We analyze the set-theoretic strength of determinacy for levels of the Borel hierarchy of the form$\Sigma _{1 + \alpha + 3}^0 $, forα<ω1. Well-known results of H. Friedman and D.A. Martin have shown this determinacy to requireα+ 1 iterations of the Power Set Axiom, but we ask what additional ambient set theory is strictly necessary. To this end, we isolate a family of weak reflection principles, Π1-RAPα, whose consistency strength corresponds exactly to the logical strength of${\rm{\Sigma }}_{1 + \alpha + (...) 3}^0 $determinacy, for$\alpha < \omega _1^{CK} $. This yields a characterization of the levels ofLby or at which winning strategies in these games must be constructed. Whenα= 0, we have the following concise result: The leastθso that all winning strategies in${\rm{\Sigma }}_4^0 $games belong toLθ+1is the least so that$L_\theta \models {\rm{``}}{\cal P}\left$exists, and all wellfounded trees are ranked”. (shrink)

We characterize the determinacy of $F_\sigma $ games of length $\omega ^2$ in terms of determinacy assertions for short games. Specifically, we show that $F_\sigma $ games of length $\omega ^2$ are determined if, and only if, there is a transitive model of ${\mathsf {KP}}+{\mathsf {AD}}$ containing $\mathbb {R}$ and reflecting $\Pi _1$ facts about the next admissible set.As a consequence, one obtains that, over the base theory ${\mathsf {KP}} + {\mathsf {DC}} + ``\mathbb {R}$ exists,” determinacy for $F_\sigma $ (...) games of length $\omega ^2$ is stronger than ${\mathsf {AD}}$, but weaker than ${\mathsf {AD}} + \Sigma _1$ -separation. (shrink)