We prove here that the intuitionistic theory $T_{0}\upharpoonright + UMID_{N}$ , or even $EEJ\upharpoonright + UMID_{N}$ , of Explicit Mathematics has the strength of $\prod_{2}^{1} - CA_{0}$ . In Section I we give a double-negation translation for the classical second-order $\mu-calculus$ , which was shown in [ $M\ddot{o}02$ ] to have the strength of $\prod_{2}^{1}-CA_{0}$ . In Section 2 we interpret the intuitionistic $\mu-calculus$ in the theory $EETJ\upharpoonright + UMID_{N}$ . The question about the strength of monotone inductive definitions in (...) $T_{0}$ was asked by S. Feferman in 1982, and - assuming classical logic - was addressed by M. Rathjen. (shrink)

The goals of reduction andreductionism in the natural sciences are mainly explanatoryin character, while those inmathematics are primarily foundational.In contrast to global reductionistprograms which aim to reduce all ofmathematics to one supposedly ``universal'' system or foundational scheme, reductive proof theory pursues local reductions of one formal system to another which is more justified in some sense. In this direction, two specific rationales have been proposed as aims for reductive proof theory, the constructive consistency-proof rationale and the foundational reduction rationale. However, (...) recent advances in proof theory force one to consider the viability of these rationales. Despite the genuine problems of foundational significance raised by that work, the paper concludes with a defense of reductive proof theory at a minimum as one of the principal means to lay out what rests on what in mathematics. In an extensive appendix to the paper,various reduction relations betweensystems are explained and compared, and arguments against proof-theoretic reduction as a ``good'' reducibilityrelation are taken up and rebutted. (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.

Constructive and intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel set theories are axiomatic theories of sets in the style of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF) which are based on intuitionistic logic. They were introduced in the 1970's and they represent a formal context within which to codify mathematics based on intuitionistic logic. They are formulated on the basis of the standard first order language of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and make no direct use of inherently constructive ideas. In working in constructive and intuitionistic ZF we can thus (...) to some extent rely on our familiarity with ZF and its heuristics. -/- Notwithstanding the similarities with classical set theory, the concepts of set defined by constructive and intuitionistic set theories differ considerably from that of the classical tradition; they also differ from each other. The techniques utilised to work within them, as well as to obtain metamathematical results about them, also diverge in some respects from the classical tradition because of their commitment to intuitionistic logic. In fact, as is common in intuitionistic settings, a plethora of semantic and proof-theoretic methods are available for the study of constructive and intuitionistic set theories. -/- The entry introduces the main features of Constructive and Intuitionistic ZF and offers links to the relevant bibliography. (shrink)