A central theme running through all the main areas of Mathematical Logic is the classification of sets, functions or theories, by means of transfinite hierarchies whose ordinal levels measure their `rank' or `complexity' in some sense appropriate to the underlying context. In Proof Theory this is manifest in the assignment of `proof theoretic ordinals' to theories, gauging their `consistency strength' and `computational power'. Ordinal-theoretic proof theory came into existence in 1936, springing forth from Gentzen's head in the course of his consistency proof of arithmetic. To put it roughly, ordinal analyses attach ordinals in a given representation system to formal theories. Though this area of mathematical logic has is roots in Hilbert's "Beweistheorie " - the aim of which was to lay to rest all worries about the foundations of mathematics once and for all by securing mathematics via an absolute proof of consistency - technical results in pro...

The unfolding of schematic formal systems is a novel concept which was initiated in Feferman [6]. This paper is mainly concerned with the proof-theoretic analysis of various unfolding systems for non-nitist arithmetic NFA. In particular, we examine two restricted unfoldings U 0 (NFA) and U 1 (NFA), as well as a full unfolding, U(NFA). The principal results then state: (i) U 0 (NFA) is equivalent to PA; (ii) U 1 (NFA) is equivalent to RA<! ; (iii) U(NFA) is equivalent to RA< 0 . Thus U(NFA) is proof-theoretically equivalent to predicative analysis.

this paper. The exposition here diverges from the presentation given at the conference in two regards. Firstly, the talk began with a broad introduction, explaining the current rationale and goals of ordinal-theoretic proof theory, which take the place of the original Hilbert Program. Since this part of the talk is now incorporated in the first two sections of the BSL-paper [48] there is no point in reproducing it here. Secondly, we shall omit those parts of the talk concerned with infinitary proof systems of ramified set theory as they can also be found in [48] and even more detailed in [45]. Thirdly, thanks to the aforementioned omissions, the advantage of present paper over the talk is to allow for a much more detailed account of the actual information furnished by ordinal analyses and the role of large cardinal hypotheses in devising ordinal representation systems. 2 Observations on ordinal analyses

We study the computability-theoretic complexity and proof-theoretic strength of the following statements: (1) “If X is a well-ordering, then so is εX”, and (2) “If X is a well-ordering, then so is ϕ(α, X)”, where α is a fixed computable ordinal and ϕ represents the two-placed Veblen function. For the former statement, we show that ω iterations of the Turing jump are necessary in the proof and that the statement is equivalent to ACA + 0 over RCA0. To prove the latter statement we need to use ωα iterations of the Turing jump, and we show that the statement is equivalent to Π0 ωα-CA0. Our proofs are purely computability-theoretic. We also give a new proof of a result of Friedman: the statement “if X is a well-ordering, then so is ϕ(X, 0)” is equivalent to ATR0 over RCA0.

Abstract not found

Abstract not found