In this paper we calibrate the exact proof-theoretic strength of Kruskal's theorem, thereby giving, in some sense, the most elementary proof of Kruskal's theorem. Furthermore, these investigations give rise to ordinal analyses of restricted bar induction.

We study the computability-theoretic complexity and proof-theoretic strength of the following statements: (1) "If X is a well-ordering, then so is ε X ", and (2) "If X is a well-ordering, then so is φ(α, X)", where α is a fixed computable ordinal and φ represents the two-placed Veblen function. For the former statement, we show that ω iterations of the Turing jump are necessary in the proof and that the statement is equivalent to ${\mathrm{A}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{A}}_{0}^{+}$ over RCA₀. To prove the (...) latter statement we need to use ω α iterations of the Turing jump, and we show that the statement is equivalent to ${\mathrm{\Pi }}_{{\mathrm{\omega }}^{\mathrm{\alpha }}}^{0}{-\mathrm{C}\mathrm{A}}_{0}$ . Our proofs are purely computability-theoretic. We also give a new proof of a result of Friedman: the statement "if x is a well-ordering, then so is φ(x, 0)" is equivalent to ATR₀ over RCA₀. (shrink)

In this note the well-ordering principle for the derivative \ of normal functions \ on ordinals is shown to be equivalent to the existence of arbitrarily large countable coded \-models of the well-ordering principle for the function \.

We have previously established that [Formula: see text]-comprehension is equivalent to the statement that every dilator has a well-founded Bachmann–Howard fixed point, over [Formula: see text]. In this paper, we show that the base theory can be lowered to [Formula: see text]. We also show that the minimal Bachmann–Howard fixed point of a dilator [Formula: see text] can be represented by a notation system [Formula: see text], which is computable relative to [Formula: see text]. The statement that [Formula: see text] (...) is well founded for any dilator [Formula: see text] will still be equivalent to [Formula: see text]-comprehension. Thus, the latter is split into the computable transformation [Formula: see text] and a statement about the preservation of well-foundedness, over a system of computable mathematics. (shrink)

In a recent paper by M. Rathjen and the present author it has been shown that the statement “every normal function has a derivative” is equivalent to $\Pi ^1_1$ -bar induction. The equivalence was proved over $\mathbf {ACA_0}$, for a suitable representation of normal functions in terms of dilators. In the present paper, we show that the statement “every normal function has at least one fixed point” is equivalent to $\Pi ^1_1$ -induction along the natural numbers.

Michael Rathjen and the present author have shown that ‐bar induction is equivalent to (a suitable formalization of) the statement that every normal function has a derivative, provably in. In this note we show that the base theory can be weakened to. Our argument makes crucial use of a normal function f with and. We shall also exhibit a normal function g with and.