We will apply the methods developed in the field of ‘proof mining’ to the Bolzano-Weierstraß theorem BW and calibrate the computational contribution of using this theorem in proofs of combinatorial statements. We provide an explicit solution of the Gödel functional interpretation as well as the monotone functional interpretation of BW for the product space Πi ∈ℕ[–ki, ki] . This results in optimal program and bound extraction theorems for proofs based on fixed instances of BW, i.e. for BW applied to fixed (...) sequences in Πi ∈ℕ[–ki, ki]. (shrink)

We show that Spector's “restricted” form of bar recursion is sufficient (over system T) to define Spector's search functional. This new result is then used to show that Spector's restricted form of bar recursion is in fact as general as the supposedly more general form of bar recursion. Given that these two forms of bar recursion correspond to the (explicitly controlled) iterated products of selection function and quantifiers, it follows that this iterated product of selection functions is T‐equivalent to the (...) corresponding iterated product of quantifiers. (shrink)

Schwichtenberg showed that the System T definable functionals are closed under a rule-like version Spector’s bar recursion of lowest type levels 0 and 1. More precisely, if the functional Y which controls the stopping condition of Spector’s bar recursor is T-definable, then the corresponding bar recursion of type levels 0 and 1 is already T-definable. Schwichtenberg’s original proof, however, relies on a detour through Tait’s infinitary terms and the correspondence between ordinal recursion for α < ε₀ and primitive recursion over (...) finite types. This detour makes it hard to calculate on given concrete system T input, what the corresponding system T output would look like. In this paper we present an alternative (more direct) proof based on an explicit construction which we prove correct via a suitably defined logical relation. We show through an example how this gives a straightforward mechanism for converting bar recursive definitions into T-definitions under the conditions of Schwichtenberg’s theorem. Finally, with the explicit construction we can also easily state a sharper result: if Y is in the fragment Tᵢ then terms built from BR^ℕ,σ for this particular Y are definable in the fragment T_i+max{1,level(σ)}+2. (shrink)

Let the chain antichain principle (CAC) be the statement that each partial order on $\mathbb{N}$ possesses an infinite chain or an infinite antichain. Chong, Slaman, and Yang recently proved using forcing over nonstandard models of arithmetic that CAC is $\Pi^1_1$-conservative over $\text{RCA}_0+\Pi^0_1\text{-CP}$ and so in particular that CAC does not imply $\Sigma^0_2$-induction. We provide here a different purely syntactical and constructive proof of the statement that CAC (even together with WKL) does not imply $\Sigma^0_2$-induction. In detail we show using a (...) refinement of Howard's ordinal analysis of bar recursion that $\text{WKL}_0^\omega+\text{CAC}$ is $\Pi^0_2$-conservative over PRA and that one can extract primitive recursive realizers for such statements. Moreover, our proof is finitary in the sense of Hilbert's program. CAC implies that every sequence of $\mathbb{R}$ has a monotone subsequence. This Bolzano-Weierstraß}-like principle is commonly used in proofs. Our result makes it possible to extract primitive recursive terms from such proofs. We also discuss the Erdős-Moser principle, which—taken together with CAC—is equivalent to $\text{RT}^2_2$. (shrink)

In [15], [16] G. Kreisel introduced the no-counterexample interpretation (n.c.i.) of Peano arithmetic. In particular he proved, using a complicated ε-substitution method (due to W. Ackermann), that for every theorem A (A prenex) of first-order Peano arithmetic PA one can find ordinal recursive functionals Φ A of order type 0 which realize the Herbrand normal form A H of A. Subsequently more perspicuous proofs of this fact via functional interpretation (combined with normalization) and cut-elimination were found. These proofs however do (...) not carry out the no-counterexample interpretation as a local proof interpretation and don't respect the modus ponens on the level of the no-counterexample interpretation of formulas A and A → B. Closely related to this phenomenon is the fact that both proofs do not establish the condition (δ) and--at least not constructively-- (γ) which are part of the definition of an 'interpretation of a formal system' as formulated in [15]. In this paper we determine the complexity of the no-counterexample interpretation of the modus ponens rule for (i) PA-provable sentences, (ii) for arbitrary sentences A, B ∈ L(PA) uniformly in functionals satisfying the no-counterexample interpretation of (prenex normal forms of) A and A → B, and (iii) for arbitrary A, B ∈ L(PA) pointwise in given α( 0 ) -recursive functionals satisfying the no-counterexample interpretation of A and A → B. This yields in particular perspicuous proofs of new uniform versions of the conditions (γ), (δ). Finally we discuss a variant of the concept of an interpretation presented in [17] and show that it is incomparable with the concept studied in [15], [16]. In particular we show that the no-counterexample interpretation of PA n by α( n (ω))-recursive functionals (n ≥ 1) is an interpretation in the sense of [17] but not in the sense of [15] since it violates the condition (δ). (shrink)

In recent years, proof theoretic transformations that are based on extensions of monotone forms of Gödel’s famous functional interpretation have been used systematically to extract new content from proofs in abstract nonlinear analysis. This content consists both in effective quantitative bounds as well as in qualitative uniformity results. One of the main ineffective tools in abstract functional analysis is the use of sequential forms of weak compactness. As we recently verified, the sequential form of weak compactness for bounded closed and (...) convex subsets of an abstract Hilbert space can be carried out in suitable formal systems that are covered by existing metatheorems developed in the course of the proof mining program. In particular, it follows that the monotone functional interpretation of this weak compactness principle can be realized by a functional Ω∗ definable from bar recursion of lowest type. While a case study on the analysis of strong convergence results that are based on weak compactness indicates that the use of the latter seems to be eliminable, things apparently are different for weak convergence theorems such as the famous Baillon nonlinear ergodic theorem. For this theorem we recently extracted an explicit bound on a metastable version of this theorem that is primitive recursive relative to Ω∗.In the current paper we for the first time give the construction of Ω∗ . As a corollary to the fine analysis of the use of bar recursion in this construction we obtain that Ω∗ elevates arguments in Tn at most to resulting functionals in Tn+2 . In particular, one can conclude from this that our bound on Baillon’s theorem is at least definable in T4. (shrink)

We prove a result relating the author's monotone functional interpretation to the bounded functional interpretation due to Ferreira and Oliva. More precisely we show that largely a solution for the bounded interpretation also is a solution for the monotone functional interpretation although the latter uses the existence of an underlying precise witness. This makes it possible to focus on the extraction of bounds while using the conceptual benefit of having precise realizers at the same time without having to construct them.