The first attempt at a systematic approach to axiomatic theories of truth was undertaken by Friedman and Sheard (Ann Pure Appl Log 33:1–21, 1987). There twelve principles consisting of axioms, axiom schemata and rules of inference, each embodying a reasonable property of truth were isolated for study. Working with a base theory of truth conservative over PA, Friedman and Sheard raised the following questions. Which subsets of the Optional Axioms are consistent over the base theory? What are the proof-theoretic strengths (...) of the consistent theories? The first question was answered completely by Friedman and Sheard; all subsets of the Optional Axioms were classified as either consistent or inconsistent giving rise to nine maximal consistent theories of truth.They also determined the proof-theoretic strength of two subsets of the Optional Axioms. The aim of this paper is to continue the work begun by Friedman and Sheard. We will establish the proof-theoretic strength of all the remaining seven theories and relate their arithmetic part to well-known theories ranging from PA to the theory of ${\Sigma^1_1}$ dependent choice. (shrink)

The starting point of this article is an old question asked by Feferman in his paper on Hancock's conjecture [6] about the strength of ${\rm ID}_{1}^{\ast}$. This theory is obtained from the well-known theory ID₁ by restricting fixed point induction to formulas that contain fixed point constants only positively. The techniques used to perform the proof-theoretic analysis of ${\rm ID}_{1}^{\ast}$ also permit to analyze its transfinitely iterated variants ${\rm ID}_{\alpha}^{\ast}$. Thus, we eventually know that $|\widehat{{\rm ID}}_{\alpha}|=|{\rm ID}_{\alpha}^{\ast}|$.

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.

Stephen George Simpson. with definition 1.2.3 and the discussion following it. For example, taking 90(n) to be the formula n §E Y, we have an instance of comprehension, VYEIXVn(n€X<—>n¢Y), asserting that for any given set Y there exists a ...

We give a new elementary proof of the comparison theorem relating $\sum^1_{n + 1}-\mathrm{AC}\uparrow$ and $\Pi^1_n -\mathrm{CA}\uparrow$ ; the proof does not use Skolem theories. By the same method we prove: a) $\sum^1_{n + 1}-\mathrm{DC} \uparrow \equiv (\Pi^1_n -CA)_{ , for suitable classes of sentences; b) $\sum^1_{n+1}-DC \uparrow$ proves the consistency of (Π 1 n -CA) ω k, for finite k, and hence is stronger than $\sum^1_{n+1}-AC \uparrow$ . a) and b) answer a question of Feferman and Sieg.