We will apply the methods developed in the field of ‘proof mining’ to the Bolzano-Weierstraß theorem BW and calibrate the computational contribution of using this theorem in proofs of combinatorial statements. We provide an explicit solution of the Gödel functional interpretation as well as the monotone functional interpretation of BW for the product space Πi ∈ℕ[–ki, ki] . This results in optimal program and bound extraction theorems for proofs based on fixed instances of BW, i.e. for BW applied to fixed (...) sequences in Πi ∈ℕ[–ki, ki]. (shrink)

This paper addresses the strength of Ramsey's theorem for pairs ($RT^2_2$) over a weak base theory from the perspective of 'proof mining'. Let $RT^{2-}_2$ denote Ramsey's theorem for pairs where the coloring is given by an explicit term involving only numeric variables. We add this principle to a weak base theory that includes weak König's Lemma and a substantial amount of $\Sigma^0_1$-induction (enough to prove the totality of all primitive recursive functions but not of all primitive recursive functionals). In the (...) resulting theory we show the extractability of primitive recursive programs and uniform bounds from proofs of $\forall\exists$-theorems. There are two components of this work. The first component is a general proof-theoretic result, due to the second author, that establishes conservation results for restricted principles of choice and comprehension over primitive recursive arithmetic PRA as well as a method for the extraction of primitive recursive bounds from proofs based on such principles. The second component is the main novelty of the paper: it is shown that a proof of Ramsey's theorem due to Erdős and Rado can be formalized using these restricted principles. So from the perspective of proof unwinding the computational content of concrete proofs based on $RT^2_2$ the computational complexity will, in most practical cases, not go beyond primitive recursive complexity. This even is the case when the theorem to be proved has function parameters f and the proof uses instances of $RT^2_2$ that are primitive recursive in f. (shrink)

In 2007. Terence Tao wrote on his blog an essay about soft analysis, hard analysis and the finitization of soft analysis statements into hard analysis statements. One of his main examples was a quasi-finitization of the infinite pigeonhole principle IPP, arriving at the "finitary" infinite pigeonhole principle FIPP₁. That turned out to not be the proper formulation and so we proposed an alternative version FIPP₂. Tao himself formulated yet another version FIPP₃ in a revised version of his essay. We give (...) a counterexample to FIPP₁ and discuss for both of the versions FIPP₂ and FIPP₃ the faithfulness of their respective finitization of IPP by studying the equivalences IPP ↔ FIPP₂ and IPP ↔ FIPP₃ in the context of reverse mathematics ([9]). In the process of doing this we also introduce a continuous uniform boundedness principle CUB as a formalization of Tao's notion of a correspondence principle and study the strength of this principle and various restrictions thereof in terms of reverse mathematics, i.e., in terms of the "big five" subsystems of second order arithmetic. (shrink)