Multi-sorted version of second order arithmetic

We develop measure theory in the context of subsystems of second order arithmetic with restricted induction. We introduce a combinatorial principleWWKL (weak-weak Konig's lemma) and prove that it is strictly weaker thanWKL (weak Konig's lemma). We show thatWWKL is equivalent to a formal version of the statement that Lebesgue measure is countably additive on open sets. We also show thatWWKL is equivalent to a formal version of the statement that any Borel measure on a compact metric space is countably additive on open sets.

We introduce a notion ofsyntactical truth predicate(s.t.p.) for the second order arithmeticPA2. An s.t.p. is a setTof closed formulas such that:(i)T(t=u) if and only if the closed first order termstanduare convertible, i.e., have the same value in the standard interpretation(ii)T(A→B) if and only if (T(A) ⇒T(B))(iii)T(∀xA) if and only if (T(A[x←t]) for any closed first order termt)(iv)T(∀X A) if and only if (T(A[X← ∆]) for any closed set definition ∆ = {x∣D(x)}).S.t.p.'s can be seen as a counterpart to Tarski's notion of (model-theoretical)validityand have main model properties. In particular, their existence is equivalent to the existence of anω-model ofPA2, this fact being provable inPA2with arithmetical comprehension only.

The contribution of Mostowski to the foundations of second order arithmetic

This paper is a contribution to the project of determining which set existence axioms are needed to prove various theorems of analysis. For more on this project and its history we refer the reader to [1] and [2].We work in a weak subsystem of second order arithmetic. The language of second order arithmetic includes the symbols 0, 1, =, <, +, ·, and ∈, together with number variables x, y, z, … (which are intended to stand for natural numbers), set variables X, Y, Z, … (which are intended to stand for sets of natural numbers), and the usual quantifiers (which can be applied to both kinds of variables) and logical connectives. We write ∀x < t φ and ∃x < t φ as abbreviations for ∀x(x < t → φ) and ∃x{x < t ∧ φ) respectively; these are called bounded quantifiers. A formula is said to be if it has no quantifiers applied to set variables, and all quantifiers applied to number variables are bounded. It is if it has the form ∃xθ and it is if it has the form ∀xθ, where in both cases θ is .The theory RCA0 has as axioms the usual Peano axioms, with the induction scheme restricted to formulas, and in addition the comprehension scheme, which consists of all formulas of the formwhere φ is , ψ is , and X does not occur free in φ(n). (“RCA” stands for “Recursive Comprehension Axiom.” The reason for the name is that the comprehension scheme is only strong enough to prove the existence of recursive sets.) It is known that this theory is strong enough to allow the development of many of the basic properties of the real numbers, but that certain theorems of elementary analysis are not provable in this theory. Most relevant for our purposes is the fact that it is impossible to prove in RCA0 that every continuous function on the closed interval [0, 1] attains maximum and minimum values (see [1]).Since the most common proof of the Mean Value Theorem makes use of this theorem, it might be thought that the Mean Value Theorem would also not be provable in RCA0. However, we show in this paper that the Mean Value Theorem can be proven in RCA0. All theorems stated in this paper are theorems of RCA0, and all of our reasoning will take place in RCA0.

We introduce a tool for analysing models of$\text {CT}^-$, the compositional truth theory over Peano Arithmetic. We present a new proof of Lachlan’s theorem that the arithmetical part of models of$\text {CT}^-$are recursively saturated. We also use this tool to provide a new proof of theorem from [8] that all models of$\text {CT}^-$carry a partial inductive truth predicate. Finally, we construct a partial truth predicate defined for a set of formulae whose syntactic depth forms a nonstandard cut which cannot be extended to a full truth predicate satisfying$\text {CT}^-$.

The uniform content of partial and linear orders

This paper investigates the determinacy and the complete determinacy of infinite games, following reverse mathematics program whose purpose is to find the set comprehension axioms that are necessary and sufficient for these statements in the frame of second order arithmetic. In some sense, this research clarifies how complex oracles we need to obtain the algorithms which give a winning strategies and which determine the winning positions for the players. It will be shown that, depending on the complexity of the rules of games, the complexity of the oracles changes drastically and that determinacy and complete determinacy statements are not always equivalent.

The program of reverse mathematics has usually been to find which parts of set theory, often used as a base for other mathematics, are actually necessary for some particular mathematical theory. In recent years, Slaman, Groszek, et al, have given the approach a new twist. The priority arguments of recursion theory do not naturally or necessarily lead to a foundation involving any set theory; rather, Peano Arithmetic (PA) in the language of arithmetic suffices. From this point, the appropriate subsystems to consider are fragments of PA with limited induction. A theorem in this area would then have the form that certain induction axioms are independent of, necessary for, or even equivalent to a theorem about the Turing degrees. (See, for examples, [C], [GS], [M], [MS], and [SW].)As go the integers so go the ordinals. One motivation of α-recursion theory (recursion on admissible ordinals) is to generalize classical recursion theory. Since induction in arithmetic is meant to capture the well-foundedness of ω, the corresponding axiom in set theory is foundation. So reverse mathematics, even in the context of a set theory (admissibility), can be changed by the influence of reverse recursion theory. We ask not which set existence axioms, but which foundation axioms, are necessary for the theorems of α-recursion theory.When working in the theory KP – Foundation Schema (hereinafter called KP−), one should really not call it α-recursion theory, which refers implicitly to the full set of axioms KP. Just as the name β-recursion theory refers to what would be α-recursion theory only it includes also inadmissible ordinals, we call the subject of study here γ-recursion theory. This answers a question by Sacks and S. Friedman, “What is γ-recursion theory?”

In 2007, Terence Tao wrote on his blog an essay about soft analysis, hard analysis and the finitization of soft analysis statements into hard analysis statements. One of his main examples was a quasi-finitization of the infinite pigeonhole principle IPP, arriving at the “finitary” infinite pigeonhole principle FIPP1. That turned out to not be the proper formulation and so we proposed an alternative version FIPP2. Tao himself formulated yet another version FIPP3 in a revised version of his essay.We give a counterexample to FIPP1 and discuss for both of the versions FIPP2 and FIPP3 the faithfulness of their respective finitization of IPP by studying the equivalences IPP ↔ FIPP2 and IPP ↔ FIPP3 in the context of reverse mathematics ([9]). In the process of doing this we also introduce a continuous uniform boundedness principle CUB as a formalization of Tao's notion of a correspondence principle and study the strength of this principle and various restrictions thereof in terms of reverse mathematics, i.e., in terms of the “big five” subsystems of second order arithmetic.

We examine the Dual Ramsey Theorem and two related combinatorial principles VW(k,l) and OVW(k,l) from the perspectives of reverse mathematics and effective mathematics. We give a statement of the Dual Ramsey Theorem for open colorings in second order arithmetic and formalize work of Carlson and Simpson [1] to show that this statement implies ACA 0 over RCA 0 . We show that neither VW(2,2) nor OVW(2,2) is provable in WKL 0 . These results give partial answers to questions posed by Friedman and Simpson [3].

We prove that interactive learning based classical realizability (introduced by Aschieri and Berardi for first order arithmetic) is sound with respect to Coquand game semantics. In particular, any realizer of an implication-and-negation-free arithmetical formula embodies a winning recursive strategy for the 1-Backtracking version of Tarski games. We also give examples of realizer and winning strategy extraction for some classical proofs. We also sketch some ongoing work about how to extend our notion of realizability in order to obtain completeness with respect to Coquand semantics, when it is restricted to 1-Backtracking games.

Fixed points in Peano arithmetic with ordinals

A number of authors (including Field in Saving Truth From Paradox. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008; Shapiro in Philos Q 61:320–342, 2010; Whittle in Analysis 64:318–326, 2004; Beall and Murzi in J Philos 110:143–165, 2013) have argued that Peano Arithmetic (PA) supplemented with a logical validity predicate is inconsistent in much the same manner as is PA supplemented with an unrestricted truth predicate. In this paper I show that, on the contrary, there is no genuine paradox of logical validity—a completely general logical validity predicate can be coherently added to PA, and the resulting (classical) system is consistent. In addition, this observation (and the constructions required to make it) lead to a number of novel, and important, insights into the nature of logical validity itself.

<p>This thesis establishes new results concerning the proof-theoretic strength of two classic theorems of Ring Theory relating to factorization in integral domains.<br></p><p>The first theorem asserts that if every irreducible is a prime, then every element has at most one decomposition into irreducibles; the second states that well-foundedness of divisibility implies the existence of an irreducible factorization for each element.<br></p><p>After introductions to the Algebra framework used and Reverse Mathematics, we show that the first theorem is provable in the base system of Second Order Arithmetic RCA0, while the other is equivalent over RCA0 to the system ACA0.</p>

A constructive analysis of learning in Peano Arithmetic