This paper contains a completeness proof for the system ILW, a rather bewildering axiom system belonging to the family of interpretability logics. We have treasured this little proof for a considerable time, keeping it just for ourselves. Johan’s ftieth birthday appears to be the right occasion to get it out of our wine cellar.

This paper contains a completeness proof for the system ILW, a rather bewildering axiom system belonging to the family of interpretability logics. We have treasured this little proof for a considerable time, keeping it just for ourselves. Johan’s ftieth birthday appears to be the right occasion to get it out of our wine cellar.

PA is Peano arithmetic. The formula $\operatorname{Interp}_\mathrm{PA}(\alpha, \beta)$ is a formalization of the assertion that the theory PA + α interprets the theory PA + β (the variables α and β are intended to range over codes of sentences of PA). We extend Solovay's modal analysis of the formalized provability predicate of PA, Pr PA (x), to the case of the formalized interpretability relation $\operatorname{Interp}_\mathrm{PA}(x, y)$ . The relevant modal logic, in addition to the usual provability operator `□', has a (...) binary operator ` $\triangleright$ ' to be interpreted as the formalized interpretability relation. We give an axiomatization and a decision procedure for the class of those modal formulas that express valid interpretability principles (for every assignment of the atomic modal formulas to sentences of PA). Our results continue to hold if we replace the base theory PA with Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, but not with Gödel-Bernays set theory. This sensitivity to the base theory shows that the language is quite expressive. Our proof uses in an essential way earlier work done by A. Visser, D. de Jongh, and F. Veltman on this problem. (shrink)

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)

Progressions of iterated reflection principles can be used as a tool for the ordinal analysis of formal systems. We discuss various notions of proof-theoretic ordinals and compare the information obtained by means of the reflection principles with the results obtained by the more usual proof-theoretic techniques. In some cases we obtain sharper results, e.g., we define proof-theoretic ordinals relevant to logical complexity Π1 0 and, similarly, for any class Π n 0 . We provide a more general version of the (...) fine structure relationships for iterated reflection principles (due to U. Schmerl [25]). This allows us, in a uniform manner, to analyze main fragments of arithmetic axiomatized by restricted forms of induction, including IΣ n , IΣ n − , IΠ n − and their combinations. We also obtain new conservation results relating the hierarchies of uniform and local reflection principles. In particular, we show that (for a sufficiently broad class of theories T) the uniform Σ1-reflection principle for T is Σ2-conservative over the corresponding local reflection principle. This bears some corollaries on the hierarchies of restricted induction schemata in arithmetic and provides a key tool for our generalization of Schmerl's theorem. (shrink)