Abstract. We study the proof–theoretic strength and effective content denote Ram-of 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 1-conservative 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.

. We describe a model-theoretic approach to ordinal analysis via the finite combinatorial notion of an #-large set of natural numbers. In contrast to syntactic approaches that use cut elimination, this approach involves constructing finite sets of numbers with combinatorial properties that, in nonstandard instances, give rise to models of the theory being analyzed. This method is applied to obtain ordinal analyses of a number of interesting subsystems of first- and second-order arithmetic. x1. Introduction. Two of proof theory's defining goals are the justification of classical theories on constructive grounds, and the extraction of constructive information from classical proofs. Since Gentzen, ordinal analysis has been a major component in these pursuits, and the assignment of recursive ordinals to theories has proven to be an illuminating way of measuring their constructive strength. The traditional approach to ordinal analysis, which uses cut-elimination procedures to transfor...

Elementary arithmetic (also known as “elementary function arithmetic”) is a fragment of first-order arithmetic so weak that it cannot prove the totality of an iterated exponential function. Surprisingly, however, the theory turns out to be remarkably robust. I will discuss formal results that show that many theorems of number theory and combinatorics are derivable in elementary arithmetic, and try to place these results in a broader philosophical context. 1

A notion called Herbrand saturation is shown to provide the modeltheoretic analogue of a proof-theoretic method, Herbrand analysis, yielding uniform model-theoretic proofs of a number of important conservation theorems. A constructive, algebraic variation of the method is described, providing yet a third approach, which is finitary but retains the semantic flavor of the model-theoretic version. 1

By RCA0, we denote the system of second order arithmetic based on recursive com-prehension axioms and Σ 0 1 induction. WKL0 is defined to be RCA0 plus weak König’s lemma: every infinite tree of sequences of 0’s and 1’s has an infinite path. In this paper, we first show that for any countable model M of RCA0, there exists a countable model M ′ of WKL0 whose first order part is the same as that of M, and whose second order part consists of the M-recursive sets and sets not in the second order part of M. By combining this fact with a certain forcing argument over universal trees, we obtain the following result (which has been called Tanaka’s conjecture): if WKL0 proves ∀X∃!Yϕ(X, Y) with ϕ arithmetical, so does RCA0. We also discuss several improvements of this results.

Abstract. Paul Cohen's method of forcing, together with Saul Kripke's related semantics for modal and intuitionistic logic, has had profound effects on a number of branches of mathematical logic, from set theory and model theory to constructive and categorical logic. Here, I argue that forcing also has a place in traditional Hilbert-style proof theory, where the goal is to formalize portions of ordinary mathematics in restricted axiomatic theories, and study those theories in constructive or syntactic terms. I will discuss the aspects of forcing that are useful in this respect, and some sample applications. The latter include ways of obtaining conservation results for classical and intuitionistic theories, interpreting classical theories in constructive ones, and constructivizing model-theoretic arguments.?1. Introduction. In 1963, Paul Cohen introduced the method of forcing to prove the independence of both the axiom of choice and the continuum hypothesis from Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. It was not long before Saul Kripke noted a connection between forcing and his semantics for modal and

In this paper we devise some technical tools for dealing with problems connected with the philosophical view usually called mathematical instrumentalism. These tools are interesting in their own right, independently of their philosophical consequences. For example, we show that even though the fragment of Peano’s Arithmetic known as IΣ1 is a conservative extension of the equational theory of Primitive Recursive Arithmetic (P RA), IΣ1 has a super-exponential speed-up over P RA. On the other hand, theories studied in the Program of Reverse Mathematics that formalize powerful mathematical principles have only polynomial speed-up over IΣ1. 1