Well-Ordering Principles in Proof Theory and Reverse Mathematics

Computability is one of the fundamental notions of mathematics and computer science, trying to capture the effective content of mathematics and its applications. Computability Theory explores the frontiers and limits of effectiveness and algorithmic methods. It has its origins in Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and the formalization of computability by Turing and others, which later led to the emergence of computer science as we know it today. Computability Theory is strongly connected to other areas of mathematics and theoretical computer science. The core of this theory is the analysis of relative computability and the induced degrees of unsolvability; its applications are mainly to Kolmogorov complexity and randomness as well as mathematical logic, analysis and algebra. Current research in computability theory stresses these applications and focuses on algorithmic randomness, computable analysis, computable model theory, and reverse mathematics (proof theory). Recent advances in these research directions have revealed some deep interactions not only among these areas but also with the core parts of computability theory. The goal of this Dagstuhl Seminar is to bring together researchers from all parts of computability theory and related areas in order to discuss advances in the individual areas and the interactions among those.

We design a proof system for propositional classical logic that integrates two languages for Boolean functions: standard conjunction-disjunction-negation and binary decision trees. We give two reasons to do so. The first is proof-theoretical naturalness: The system consists of all and only the inference rules generated by the single, simple, linear scheme of the recently introduced subatomic logic. Thanks to this regularity, cuts are eliminated via a natural construction. The second reason is that the system generates efficient proofs. Indeed, we show that a certain class of tautologies due to Statman, which cannot have better than exponential cut-free proofs in the sequent calculus, have polynomial cut-free proofs in our system. We achieve this by using the same construction that we use for cut elimination. In summary, by expanding the language of propositional logic, we make its proof theory more regular and generate more proofs, some of which are very efficient. That design is made possible by considering atoms as superpositions of their truth values, which are connected by self-dual, non-commutative connectives. A proof can then be projected via each atom into two proofs, one for each truth value, without a need for cuts. Those projections are semantically natural and are at the heart of the constructions in this article. To accommodate self-dual non-commutativity, we compose proofs in deep inference.

By Gentzen's famous Hauptsatz the cut-elimination theorem every proof in sequent calculus for first-order logic with cuts can be transformed into a cut-free proof; cut-free proofs are analytic and consist entirely of syntactic material of the end-sequent the proven theorem. But in systems with induction rules, cut-elimination is either impossible or does not produce proofs with the subformula property. One way to overcome this problem is to formulate induction proofs as infinite sequences of proofs in a uniform way and to develop a method, which yields a uniform description of the corresponding cut-free proofs. We present such a formalism, as an alternative to systems with induction rules, and define a corresponding cut-elimination method based on the CERES-method for first-order logic. The basic tools of proof theory, such as sequent- and resolution calculi are enriched with inductive definitions and schemata of terms, formulas, proofs, etc. We define a class of inductive proofs which can be transformed into this formalism and subjected to schematic cut-elimination.

We describe in full detail a solution to the problem of proving the cut elimination theorem for FILL, a variant of (multiplicative and exponential-free) Linear Logic<br />introduced by Hyland and de Paiva. Hyland and de Paiva's work used a term assignment<br />system to describe FILL and barely sketched the proof of cut elimination. In this paper, as well as correcting a small mistake in their paper and extending the<br />system to deal with exponentials, we introduce a different formal system describing the intuitionistic character of FILL and we provide a full proof of the cut elimination<br />theorem. The formal system is based on a notion of dependence between formulae within a given proof and seems of independent interest. The procedure for<br />cut elimination applies to (classical) multiplicative Linear Logic, and we can (with care) restrict our attention to the subsystem FILL. The proof, as usual with cut<br />elimination proofs, is a little involved and we have not seen it published anywhere.

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?”

Suppose we are given a computably enumerable object. We are interested in the strength of oracles that can compute an object that approximates this c.e. object. It turns out that in many cases arising from algorithmic randomness or computable analysis, the resulting highness property is either close to, or equivalent to being PA complete. We examine, for example, majorizing a c.e. martingale by an oracle-computable martingale, computing lower bounds for two variants of Kolmogorov complexity, and computing a subtree of positive measure with no dead-ends of a given $$\prod _1^0$$ ∏ 1 0 tree of positive measure. We separate PA completeness from the latter property, called the continuous covering property. We also separate the corresponding principles in reverse mathematics.

We examine a number of results of infinite combinatorics using the techniques of reverse mathematics. Our results are inspired by similar results in recursive combinatorics. Theorems included concern colorings of graphs and bounded graphs, Euler paths, and Hamilton paths.

Investigation on dynamic recrystallization using a modified cellular automaton

Regular Ordinals and Normal Forms

In this paper, we investigate what kind of modal logics can be constructed into the Gentzen-type formulation which enjoys the Cut elimination theorem. We treat normal, regular and monotonic modal logics. A normal modal logic is the modal logic with the Rule of Necessitation and the axiom K:□(A⊃B)⊃(□A⊃□B), a regular modal logic with the rule of inference RR :A,Г→B□A,□Г→□B and a monotonic modal logic with the rule of inference RM :A→B□A→□B. We provide Gentzen-type formulation and prove the cut elimination theorem for the following modal logics: RT4 (a regular modal logic with the axioms T:□A⊃A and 4:□A⊃□□A), MT4 (a monotonic modal logic with the axioms T and 4), MNT4 (a monotonic modal logic with the Rule of Necessitation and the axioms T and 4), RT (a regular modal logic with the axiom T), MT (a monotonic modal logic with the axiom T), MNT (a monotonic modal logic with the Rule of Necessitation and the axiom T), KL (a normal modal logic with the axiom L:□A⊃(A∨□B)) and RTA (a regular modal logic with axioms T and A:□A&B⊃□B).

A well established technique toward developing the proof theory of a Hilbert-style modal logic is to introduce a Gentzen-style equivalent (a Gentzenisation), then develop the proof theory of the latter, and finally transfer the metatheoretical results to the original logic (e.g., [1, 6, 8, 18, 10, 12]). In the first-order modal case, on one hand we know that the Gentzenisation of the straightforward first-order extension of GL, the logic QGL, admits no cut elimination (if the rule is included as primitive; or, if not included, then the rule is not admissible [1]). On the other hand the (cut-free) Gentzenisations of the first-order modal logics M3 and ML3 of [10, 12] do have cut as an admissible rule. The syntactic cut admissibility proof given in [18] for the Gentzenisation of the propositional provability logic GL is extremely complex, and it was the basis of the proofs of cut admissibility of the Gentzenisations of M3 and ML3, where the presence of quantifiers and quantifier rules added to the complexity and length of the proof. A recent proof of cut admissibility in a cut-free Gentzenisation of GL is given in [5] and is quite short and easy to read. We adapt it here to revisit the proofs for the cases of M3 and ML3, resulting to similarly short and easy to read proofs, only slightly complicated by the presence of quantification and its relevant rules.

Uncomputability and undecidability in economic theory

Weak comparability of well orderings and reverse mathematics

Mathematical principle and engineering application of end-mining technology with non-pillar

The paper presents semantically complete Hilbert-style systems for some variants of common sense modal predicate logic proposed by van Benthem and further developed by Seligman. The paper also investigates frame definability in the logics and shows what axiom schema is canonical in the logics. In addition to these semantic investigations on the logics, the paper provides the sequent calculi for some of the logics which enjoy cut elimination theorem.