Results 1  10
of
19
On the strength of Ramsey’s Theorem for pairs
 Journal of Symbolic Logic
, 2001
"... Abstract. We study the proof–theoretic strength and effective content denote Ramof the infinite form of Ramsey’s theorem for pairs. Let RT n k sey’s theorem for k–colorings of n–element sets, and let RT n < ∞ denote (∀k)RTn k. Our main result on computability is: For any n ≥ 2 and any computable (r ..."
Abstract

Cited by 41 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We study the proof–theoretic strength and effective content denote Ramof the infinite form of Ramsey’s theorem for pairs. Let RT n k sey’s theorem for k–colorings of n–element sets, and let RT n < ∞ denote (∀k)RTn k. Our main result on computability is: For any n ≥ 2 and any computable (recursive) k–coloring of the n–element sets of natural numbers, there is an infinite homogeneous set X with X ′ ′ ≤T 0 (n). Let I�n and B�n denote the �n induction and bounding schemes, respectively. Adapting the case n = 2 of the above result (where X is low2) to models is conservative of arithmetic enables us to show that RCA0 + I �2 + RT2 2 over RCA0 + I �2 for �1 1 statements and that RCA0 + I �3 + RT2 < ∞ is �1 1conservative over RCA0 + I �3. It follows that RCA0 + RT2 2 does not imply B �3. In contrast, J. Hirst showed that RCA0 + RT2 < ∞ does imply B �3, and we include a proof of a slightly strengthened version of this result. It follows that RT2 < ∞ is strictly stronger than RT2 2 over RC A0. 1.
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
Revisiting Ackermannhardness for lossy counter machines and reset Petri nets
 Procs. MFCS2010, volume 6281 of LNCS
, 2010
"... www.lsv.enscachan.fr/~phs Abstract. We prove that coverability and termination are not primitiverecursive for lossy counter machines and for Reset Petri nets. 1 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
www.lsv.enscachan.fr/~phs Abstract. We prove that coverability and termination are not primitiverecursive for lossy counter machines and for Reset Petri nets. 1
Proof Theoretic Complexity
 IN PROOF AND SYSTEM RELIABILITY, H. SCHWICHTENBERG AND R. STEINBRÜGGEN, EDS. NATO SCIENCE SERIES
, 2002
"... A weak formal theory of arithmetic is developed, entirely analogous to classical arithmetic but with two separate kinds of variables: induction variables and quantifier variables. The point is that the provably recursive functions are now more feasibly computable than in the classical case, lying be ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A weak formal theory of arithmetic is developed, entirely analogous to classical arithmetic but with two separate kinds of variables: induction variables and quantifier variables. The point is that the provably recursive functions are now more feasibly computable than in the classical case, lying between Grzegorczyk's E² and E³, and their computational complexity can be characterized in terms of the logical complexity of their termination proofs. Previous results of Leivant are reworked and extended in this new setting, with quite di#erent proof theoretic methods.
Things that can and things that can't be done in PRA
, 1998
"... It is wellknown by now that large parts of (nonconstructive) mathematical reasoning can be carried out in systems T which are conservative over primitive recursive arithmetic PRA (and even much weaker systems). On the other hand there are principles S of elementary analysis (like the BolzanoW ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
It is wellknown by now that large parts of (nonconstructive) mathematical reasoning can be carried out in systems T which are conservative over primitive recursive arithmetic PRA (and even much weaker systems). On the other hand there are principles S of elementary analysis (like the BolzanoWeierstra principle, the existence of a limit superior for bounded sequences etc.) which are known to be equivalent to arithmetical comprehension (relative to T ) and therefore go far beyond the strength of PRA (when added to T ). In this paper
Accessible Recursive Functions
 Bulletin of Symbolic Logic
, 1999
"... . The class of all recursive functions fails to possess a natural hierarchical structure, generated predicatively from "within". On the other hand, many (prooftheoretically significant) subrecursive classes do. This paper attempts to measure the limit of predicative generation in this context, by ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. The class of all recursive functions fails to possess a natural hierarchical structure, generated predicatively from "within". On the other hand, many (prooftheoretically significant) subrecursive classes do. This paper attempts to measure the limit of predicative generation in this context, by classifying and characterizing those (predictably terminating) recursive functions which can be successively defined according to an autonomy condition of the form: allow recursions only over wellorderings which have already been "coded" at previous levels. The question is: how can a recursion code a wellordering? The answer lies in Girard's theory of dilators, but is reworked here in a quite di#erent and simplified framework specific to our purpose. The "accessible" recursive functions thus generated turn out to be those provably recursive in (# 1 1  CA) 0 . Introduction. Before one accepts a computable function as being recursive, a proof of totality is required. This will generally ...
Elementary arithmetic
 Annals of Pure and Applied Logic
, 2001
"... There is a quite natural way in which the safe/normal variable discipline of BellantoniCook recursion (1992) can be imposed on arithmetical theories like PA: quantify over safes and induct on normals. This weakens the theory severely, so that the provably recursive functions become more realistical ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
There is a quite natural way in which the safe/normal variable discipline of BellantoniCook recursion (1992) can be imposed on arithmetical theories like PA: quantify over safes and induct on normals. This weakens the theory severely, so that the provably recursive functions become more realistically computable (slow growing rather than fast growing). Earlier results of Leivant (1995) are reworked and extended in this new context, giving prooftheoretic characterizations (according to the levels of induction used) of complexity classes between Grzegorczyk’s E 2 and E 3. This is a contribution to the search for “natural ” theories, without explicitlyimposed bounds on quantifiers as in Buss [3], whose provably recursive functions form “more feasible ” complexity classes (than for example the primitive recursive functions). We develop a quite different, alternative treatment of Leivant’s results in [6], where ramified inductions over N are cleverly used to obtain prooftheoretic characterizations of PTIME and Grzegorczyk’s classes E2 and E3; and we further extend the characterization
Brief introduction to unprovability
"... Abstract The article starts with a brief survey of Unprovability Theory as of autumn 2006. Then, as an illustration of the subject's modeltheoretic methods, we reprove exact versions of unprovability results for the ParisHarrington Principle and the KanamoriMcAloon Principle using indiscernibles. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract The article starts with a brief survey of Unprovability Theory as of autumn 2006. Then, as an illustration of the subject's modeltheoretic methods, we reprove exact versions of unprovability results for the ParisHarrington Principle and the KanamoriMcAloon Principle using indiscernibles. In addition, we obtain a short accessible proof of unprovability of the ParisHarrington Principle. The proof employs old ideas but uses only one colouring and directly extracts the set of indiscernibles from its homogeneous set. We also present modified, abridged statements whose unprovability proofs are especially simple. These proofs were tailored for teaching purposes. The article is intended to be accessible to the widest possible audience of mathematicians, philosophers and computer scientists as a brief survey of the subject, a guide through the literature in the field, an introduction to its modeltheoretic techniques and, finally, a modeltheoretic proof of a modern theorem in the subject. However, some understanding of logic is assumed on the part of the readers. The intended audience of this paper consists of logicians, logicaware mathematicians andthinkers of other backgrounds who are interested in unprovable mathematical statements.