The relative strengths of first-order theories axiomatized by transfinite induction, for ordinals less-than 0, and formulas restricted in quantifier complexity, is determined. This is done, in part, by describing the provably recursive functions of such theories. Upper bounds for the provably recursive functions are obtained using model-theoretic techniques. A variety of additional results that come as an application of such techniques are mentioned.

Ratajczyk, Z., Subsystems of true arithmetic and hierarchies of functions, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 64 95–152. The combinatorial method coming from the study of combinatorial sentences independent of PA is developed. Basing on this method we present the detailed analysis of provably recursive functions associated with higher levels of transfinite induction, I, and analyze combinatorial sentences independent of I. Our treatment of combinatorial sentences differs from the one given by McAloon [18] and gives more natural sentences. The same (...) method give also a combinatorial technique with no use of the cut-elimination theorem which is appropriate to study proof-theoretic strength of subsystems of first order arithmetic and some of their expansions. It was used to analyze iterated reflection principle and system of transfinite induction with a satisfaction class. (shrink)

In this paper we prove some results about the complexity of proofs. We consider proofs in Hilbert-style formal systems such as in [17]. Thus a proof is a sequence offormulas satisfying certain conditions. We can view the formulas as being strings of symbols; hence the whole proof is a string too. We consider the following measures of complexity of proofs: length , depth and number of steps For a particular formal system and a given formula A we consider the shortest (...) length of a proof of A , the minimal depth of a proof of A and the minimal number of steps in a proof of A . The main results are the following: a bound on the depth in terms of the number of steps: Theorem 2.2, a bound on the depth in terms of the length: Theorem 2.3, a bound on the length in terms of the number of steps for restricted systems: Theorem 3.1. These results are applied to obtain several corollaries. In particular we show: a bound on the number of steps in a cut-free proof, some speed-up results, bounds on the number of steps in proofs of Paris-Harrington sentences. Some papers related to our research are listed in the references. We were especially influenced by Parikh's paper [17] on the famous conjecture of Kreisel . Many important problems in this field remain open. We hope that our paper will contribute to progress in this area. It should be noted that some results of this paper can be equally well obtained using unification theory , by translating a complexity-of-proof problem into a unification problem. A unification algorithm solving the unification problem can then be constructed and the complexity of the unification algorithm analyzed. As pointed out by the referee this method can be used to solve the problem stated in Section 3 for some non-simple schematic systems. (shrink)

In this paper we prove some results about the complexity of proofs. We consider proofs in Hilbert-style formal systems such as in [17]. Thus a proof is a sequence offormulas satisfying certain conditions. We can view the formulas as being strings of symbols; hence the whole proof is a string too. We consider the following measures of complexity of proofs: length , depth and number of steps For a particular formal system and a given formula A we consider the shortest (...) length of a proof of A , the minimal depth of a proof of A and the minimal number of steps in a proof of A . The main results are the following: a bound on the depth in terms of the number of steps: Theorem 2.2, a bound on the depth in terms of the length: Theorem 2.3, a bound on the length in terms of the number of steps for restricted systems: Theorem 3.1. These results are applied to obtain several corollaries. In particular we show: a bound on the number of steps in a cut-free proof, some speed-up results, bounds on the number of steps in proofs of Paris-Harrington sentences. Some papers related to our research are listed in the references. We were especially influenced by Parikh's paper [17] on the famous conjecture of Kreisel . Many important problems in this field remain open. We hope that our paper will contribute to progress in this area. It should be noted that some results of this paper can be equally well obtained using unification theory , by translating a complexity-of-proof problem into a unification problem. A unification algorithm solving the unification problem can then be constructed and the complexity of the unification algorithm analyzed. As pointed out by the referee this method can be used to solve the problem stated in Section 3 for some non-simple schematic systems. (shrink)

The fact that “natural” theories, i.e. theories which have something like an “idea” to them, are almost always linearly ordered with regard to logical strength has been called one of the great mysteries of the foundation of mathematics. However, one easily establishes the existence of theories with incomparable logical strengths using self-reference . As a result, PA+Con is not the least theory whose strength is greater than that of PA. But still we can ask: is there a sense in which (...) PA+Con is the least “natural” theory whose strength is greater than that of PA? In this paper we exhibit natural theories in strength strictly between PA and PA+Con by introducing a notion of slow consistency. (shrink)

Let Con↾x denote the finite consistency statement “there are no proofs of contradiction in T with ≤x symbols.” For a large class of natural theories T, Pudlák has shown that the lengths of the shortest proofs of Con↾n in the theory T itself are bounded by a polynomial in n. At the same time he conjectures that T does not have polynomial proofs of the finite consistency statements Con)↾n. In contrast, we show that Peano arithmetic has polynomial proofs of Con)↾n, (...) where Con∗ is the slow consistency statement for Peano arithmetic, introduced by S.-D. Friedman, Rathjen, and Weiermann. We also obtain a new proof of the result that the usual consistency statement Con is equivalent to ε0 iterations of slow consistency. Our argument is proof-theoretic, whereas previous investigations of slow consistency relied on nonstandard models of arithmetic. (shrink)

A generalization is given of McAloon's result on initial segments ofmodels of GlΔ0, the fragment of Peano Arithmetic where the induction scheme is restricted to formulas with bounded quantifiers.

Biró, B. and I. Sain, Peano arithmetic as axiomatization of the time frame in logics of programs and in dynamic logics, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 63 201-225. We show that one can prove the partial correctness of more programs using Peano's axioms for the time frames of three-sorted time models than using only Presburger's axioms, that is it is useful to allow multiplication of time points at program verification and in dynamic and temporal logics. We organized the paper (...) as follows: 1. Preliminaries, 2. The main result, 3. Peano arithmetic with bounded multiplication, 4. Connections with temporal logics and dynamic logics, Acknowledgements, References. (shrink)

We describe a model-theoretic approach to ordinal analysis via the finite combinatorial notion of an α-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.