A well-known result states that, over basic Kalmar elementary arithmetic EA, the induction schema for ∑n formulas is equivalent to the uniform reflection principle for ∑n + 1 formulas . We show that fragments of arithmetic axiomatized by various forms of induction rules admit a precise axiomatization in terms of reflection principles as well. Thus, the closure of EA under the induction rule for ∑n formulas is equivalent to ω times iterated ∑n reflection principle. Moreover, for k < ω, k (...) times iterated ∑n reflection principle over EA precisely corresponds to the extension of EA by k nested applications of ∑n induction rule.The above relationship holds in greater generality than just stated. In fact, we give general formulas characterizing in terms of iterated reflection principles the extension of any given theory by k nested applications of ∑n or Πn induction rules. In particular, the closure of a theory T under just one application of ∑1 induction rule is equivalent to T together with ∑1 reflection principle for each finite Π2 axiomatized subtheory of T.These results have closely parallel ones in the theory of subrecursive function classes. The rules under study correspond, in a canonical way, to natural closure operators on the classes of provably recursive functions. Thus, ∑1 induction rule precisely corresponds to the primitive recursive closure operator, and ∑1 collection rule, introduced below, corresponds to the elementary closure operator. (shrink)

This paper is a presentation of astatus quæstionis, to wit of the problemof the interpretability logic of all reasonablearithmetical theories.We present both the arithmetical side and themodal side of the question.Dedicated to Dick de Jongh on the occasion of his 60th birthday.

This paper contains a careful derivation of principles of Interpretability Logic valid in extensions of I0+1.

Each closed (i.e. variable free) formula of interpretability logic is equivalent in ILF to a closed formula of the provability logic G, thus to a Boolean combination of formulas of the form n.

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 characterize the bimodal provability logics for certain natural (classes of) pairs of recursively enumerable theories, mostly related to fragments of arithmetic. For example, we shall give axiomatizations, decision procedures, and introduce natural Kripke semantics for the provability logics of (IΔ 0 + EXP, PRA); (PRA, IΣ 1 ); (IΣ m , IΣ n ) for $1 \leq m etc. For the case of finitely axiomatized extensions of theories these results are extended to modal logics with propositional constants.

In this paper I give a characterization of the closed fragment of the provability logic of $I \triangle_0 + \mathrm{EXP}$ with a propositional constant for $\mathrm{EXP}$. In three appendices many details on arithmetization are provided.