Given sets and a regular cardinal μ, let be the statement that for any function, there are functions and such that for all,. In, the statement is false. However, we show the theory (which is implied by + “” + “ω1 is measurable”) implies that for every there is a such that in some inner model, κ is measurable with Mitchell order.

We prove that the statement “there is aksuch that for everyfthere is ak-bounded diagonally nonrecursive function relative tof” does not imply weak König’s lemma over${\rm{RC}}{{\rm{A}}_0} + {\rm{B\Sigma }}_2^0$. This answers a question posed by Simpson. A recursion-theoretic consequence is that the classic fact that everyk-bounded diagonally nonrecursive function computes a 2-bounded diagonally nonrecursive function may fail in the absence of${\rm{I\Sigma }}_2^0$.

The assertion that every definable set has a definable element is equivalent over to the principle, and indeed, we prove, so is the assertion merely that every Π2‐definable set has an ordinal‐definable element. Meanwhile, every model of has a forcing extension satisfying in which every Σ2‐definable set has an ordinal‐definable element. Similar results hold for and and other natural instances of.

We study the reverse mathematics of pigeonhole principles for finite powers of the ordinal $\omega$ . Four natural formulations are presented, and their relative strengths are compared. In the analysis of the pigeonhole principle for $\omega^{2}$ , we uncover two weak variants of Ramsey’s theorem for pairs.

We present and analyze \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${F_\sigma}$$\end{document}-Mathias forcing, which is similar but tamer than Mathias forcing. In particular, we show that this forcing preserves certain weak subsystems of second-order arithmetic such as \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathsf{ACA}_0}$$\end{document} and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathsf{WKL}_0 + \mathsf{I}\Sigma^0_2}$$\end{document}, whereas Mathias forcing does not. We also show that the needed reals for \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} (...) \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${F_\sigma}$$\end{document}-Mathias forcing (in the sense of Blass in Ann Pure Appl Logic 109(1–2):77–88, 2001) are just the computable reals, as opposed to the hyperarithmetic reals for Mathias forcing. (shrink)