Results 1  10
of
17
Higher Order Logic
 In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming
, 1994
"... Contents 1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2 2 The expressive power of second order Logic : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.1 The language of second order logic : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.2 Expressing size : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4 2.3 Definin ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Contents 1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2 2 The expressive power of second order Logic : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.1 The language of second order logic : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.2 Expressing size : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4 2.3 Defining data types : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 6 2.4 Describing processes : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 8 2.5 Expressing convergence using second order validity : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 9 2.6 Truth definitions: the analytical hierarchy : : : : : : : : 10 2.7 Inductive definitions : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 13 3 Canonical semantics of higher order logic : : : : : : : : : : : : 15 3.1 Tarskian semantics of second order logic : : : : : : : : : 15 3.2 Function and re
On the NoCounterexample Interpretation
 J. SYMBOLIC LOGIC
, 1997
"... In [15],[16] Kreisel introduced the nocounterexample interpretation (n.c.i.) of Peano arithmetic. In particular he proved, using a complicated "substitution method (due to W. Ackermann), that for every theorem A (A prenex) of firstorder Peano arithmetic PA one can find ordinal recursive functi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In [15],[16] Kreisel introduced the nocounterexample interpretation (n.c.i.) of Peano arithmetic. In particular he proved, using a complicated "substitution method (due to W. Ackermann), that for every theorem A (A prenex) of firstorder Peano arithmetic PA one can find ordinal recursive functionals \Phi A of order type ! " 0 which realize the Herbrand normal form A of A. Subsequently more
Lectures on proof theory
 in Proc. Summer School in Logic, Leeds 67
, 1968
"... This is a survey of some of the principal developments in proof theory from its inception in the 1920s, at the hands of David Hilbert, up to the 1960s. Hilbert's aim was to use this as a tool in his nitary consistency program to eliminate the \actual in nite " in mathematics from proofs of purely ni ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This is a survey of some of the principal developments in proof theory from its inception in the 1920s, at the hands of David Hilbert, up to the 1960s. Hilbert's aim was to use this as a tool in his nitary consistency program to eliminate the \actual in nite " in mathematics from proofs of purely nitary statements. One of the main approaches that turned out to be the most useful in pursuit of this program was that due to Gerhard Gentzen, in the 1930s, via his calculi of \sequents" and his CutElimination Theorem for them. Following that we trace how and why prima facie in nitary concepts, such as ordinals, and in nitary methods, such as the use of in nitely long proofs, gradually came to dominate prooftheoretical developments. In this rst lecture I will give anoverview of the developments in proof theory since Hilbert's initiative in establishing the subject in the 1920s. For this purpose I am following the rst part of a series of expository lectures that I gave for the Logic Colloquium `94 held in ClermontFerrand 2123 July 1994, but haven't published. The theme of my lectures there was that although Hilbert established his theory of proofs as a part of his foundational program and, for philosophical reasons whichwe shall get into, aimed to have it developed in a completely nitistic way, the actual work in proof theory This is the rst of three lectures that I delivered at the conference, Proof Theory: History
"Clarifying the Nature of the Infinite": the development of metamathematics and proof theory
, 2001
"... We discuss the development of metamathematics in the Hilbert school, and Hilbert's prooftheoretic program in particular. We place this program in a broader historical and philosophical context, especially with respect to nineteenth century developments in mathematics and logic. Finally, we show how ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We discuss the development of metamathematics in the Hilbert school, and Hilbert's prooftheoretic program in particular. We place this program in a broader historical and philosophical context, especially with respect to nineteenth century developments in mathematics and logic. Finally, we show how these considerations help frame our understanding of metamathematics and proof theory today.
Hilbert’s Program Then and Now
, 2005
"... Hilbert’s program is, in the first instance, a proposal and a research program in the philosophy and foundations of mathematics. It was formulated in the early 1920s by German mathematician David Hilbert (1862–1943), and was pursued by him and his collaborators at the University of Göttingen and els ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Hilbert’s program is, in the first instance, a proposal and a research program in the philosophy and foundations of mathematics. It was formulated in the early 1920s by German mathematician David Hilbert (1862–1943), and was pursued by him and his collaborators at the University of Göttingen and elsewhere in the 1920s
The Specialization and Transformation of Constructive Existence Proofs
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTI INTELLIGENCE
, 1989
"... The transformation of constructive program synthesis proofs is discussed and compared with the more traditional approaches to program transformation. An example system for adapting programs to special situations by transforming constructive synthesis proofs has been reconstructed and is compared wit ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The transformation of constructive program synthesis proofs is discussed and compared with the more traditional approaches to program transformation. An example system for adapting programs to special situations by transforming constructive synthesis proofs has been reconstructed and is compared with the original implementation [Goad 80]. A brief account of more general proof transformation applications is also presented. The overall moral is that constructiveexistence proofs contain more information over and above that required for simple execution and that this can be exploited by a proof transformation system.
Hilbert’s “Verunglückter Beweis,” the first epsilon theorem and consistency proofs. History and Philosophy of Logic
"... Abstract. On the face of it, Hilbert’s Program was concerned with proving consistency of mathematical systems in a finitary way. This was to be accomplished by showing that that these systems are conservative over finitistically interpretable and obviously sound quantifierfree subsystems. One propo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. On the face of it, Hilbert’s Program was concerned with proving consistency of mathematical systems in a finitary way. This was to be accomplished by showing that that these systems are conservative over finitistically interpretable and obviously sound quantifierfree subsystems. One proposed method of giving such proofs is Hilbert’s epsilonsubstitution method. There was, however, a second approach which was not refelected in the publications of the Hilbert school in the 1920s, and which is a direct precursor of Hilbert’s first epsilon theorem and a certain “general consistency result. ” An analysis of this socalled “failed proof ” lends further support to an interpretation of Hilbert according to which he was expressly concerned with conservatitvity proofs, even though his publications only mention consistency as the main question. §1. Introduction. The aim of Hilbert’s program for consistency proofs in the 1920s is well known: to formalize mathematics, and to give finitistic consistency proofs of these systems and thus to put mathematics on a “secure foundation.” What is perhaps less well known is exactly how Hilbert thought this should be carried out. Over ten years before Gentzen developed sequent calculus formalizations