ZusammenfassungP. Bernays hat darauf hingewiesen, dass man, um die Widerspruchs freiheit der klassischen Zahlentheorie zu beweisen, den Hilbertschen flniter Standpunkt dadurch erweitern muss, dass man neben den auf Symbole sich beziehenden kombinatorischen Begriffen gewisse abstrakte Begriffe zulässt, Die abstrakten Begriffe, die bisher für diesen Zweck verwendet wurden, sinc die der konstruktiven Ordinalzahltheorie und die der intuitionistischer. Logik. Es wird gezeigt, dass man statt deesen den Begriff einer berechenbaren Funktion endlichen einfachen Typs über den natürlichen Zahler benutzen kann, wobei keine anderen (...) Konstruktionsverfahren für solche Funktionen nötig sind, als einfache Rekursion nach einer Zahlvariablen und Einsetzung von Funktionen ineinander .P. Bernays has pointed out that, in order to prove the consistency of classical number theory, it is necessary to extend Hilbert's finitary stand‐point by admitting certain abstract concepts in addition to the combinatorial concepts referring to symbols. The abstract concepts that so far have been used for this purpose are those of the constructive theory of ordinals and those of intuitionistic logic. It is shown that the concept of a computable function of finite simple type over the integers can be used instead, where no other procedures of constructing such functions are necessary except simple recursion by an integral variable and substitution of functions in each other. (shrink)

In [15], [16] G. Kreisel introduced the no-counterexample interpretation (n.c.i.) of Peano arithmetic. In particular he proved, using a complicated ε-substitution method (due to W. Ackermann), that for every theoremA(Aprenex) of first-order Peano arithmeticPAone can find ordinal recursive functionalsof order type < ε0which realize the Herbrand normal formAHofA.Subsequently more perspicuous proofs of this fact via functional interpretation (combined with normalization) and cut-elimination were found. These proofs however do not carry out the no-counterexample interpretation as alocalproof interpretation and don't respect the (...) modus ponens on the level of the nocounterexample interpretation of formulasAandA → B. Closely related to this phenomenon is the fact that both proofs do not establish the condition (δ) and—at least not constructively—(γ) which are part of the definition of an ‘interpretation of a formal system’ as formulated in [15]. (shrink)

In [15], [16] G. Kreisel introduced the no-counterexample interpretation (n.c.i.) of Peano arithmetic. In particular he proved, using a complicated ε-substitution method (due to W. Ackermann), that for every theorem A (A prenex) of first-order Peano arithmetic PA one can find ordinal recursive functionals Φ A of order type 0 which realize the Herbrand normal form A H of A. Subsequently more perspicuous proofs of this fact via functional interpretation (combined with normalization) and cut-elimination were found. These proofs however do (...) not carry out the no-counterexample interpretation as a local proof interpretation and don't respect the modus ponens on the level of the no-counterexample interpretation of formulas A and A → B. Closely related to this phenomenon is the fact that both proofs do not establish the condition (δ) and--at least not constructively-- (γ) which are part of the definition of an 'interpretation of a formal system' as formulated in [15]. In this paper we determine the complexity of the no-counterexample interpretation of the modus ponens rule for (i) PA-provable sentences, (ii) for arbitrary sentences A, B ∈ L(PA) uniformly in functionals satisfying the no-counterexample interpretation of (prenex normal forms of) A and A → B, and (iii) for arbitrary A, B ∈ L(PA) pointwise in given α( 0 ) -recursive functionals satisfying the no-counterexample interpretation of A and A → B. This yields in particular perspicuous proofs of new uniform versions of the conditions (γ), (δ). Finally we discuss a variant of the concept of an interpretation presented in [17] and show that it is incomparable with the concept studied in [15], [16]. In particular we show that the no-counterexample interpretation of PA n by α( n (ω))-recursive functionals (n ≥ 1) is an interpretation in the sense of [17] but not in the sense of [15] since it violates the condition (δ). (shrink)