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)

The foundations of mathematics are divided into proof theory and set theory. Proof theory tries to justify the world of infinite mind from the standpoint of finite mind. Set theory tries to know more and more of the world of the infinite mind. The development of two subjects are discussed including a new proof of the accessibility of ordinal diagrams. Finally the world of large cardinals appears when we go slightly beyond girard's categorical approach to proof theory.

In [10] Friedman showed that is a conservative extension of <ε0for-sentences wherei= min, i.e.,i= 2, 3, 4 forn= 0, 1, 2 +m. Feferman [5], [7] and Tait [11], [12] reobtained this result forn= 0, 1 and even with instead of. Feferman and Sieg established in [9] the conservativeness of over <ε0for-sentences for alln. In each paper, different methods of proof have been used. In particular, Feferman and Sieg showed how to apply familiar proof-theoretical techniques by passing through languages with Skolem (...) functionals.In this paper we study the same choice principles in the presence of theBar Rule, which permits one to infer the scheme of transfinite induction on a primitive recursive relation ≺ when it has been proved that ≺ is wellfounded. The main result characterizes + as a conservative extension of a system of the autonomously iterated-comprehension axiom for-sentences. Forn= 0 this has been proved by Feferman in the form that + is a conservative extension of <Γ0; this was first done in [8] by use of the Gödel functional interpretation for the stronger systemZω+μ+ + and then more recently by the simpler methods of [9]. Jäger showed how the latter methods could also be used to obtain the general result of Theorem 1 below. (shrink)