The foundation scheme in set theory asserts that every nonempty class has an ∈\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\in $$\end{document}-minimal element. In this paper, we investigate the logical strength of the foundation principle in basic set theory and α\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\alpha $$\end{document}-recursion theory. We take KP set theory without foundation as the base theory. We show that KP-\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$^-$$\end{document} + Π1\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} (...) \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\Pi _1$$\end{document}-Foundation + V=L\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$V=L$$\end{document} is enough to carry out finite injury arguments in α\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\alpha $$\end{document}-recursion theory, proving both the Friedberg-Muchnik theorem and the Sacks splitting theorem in this theory. In addition, we compare the strengths of some fragments of KP. (shrink)

We have previously established that [Formula: see text]-comprehension is equivalent to the statement that every dilator has a well-founded Bachmann–Howard fixed point, over [Formula: see text]. In this paper, we show that the base theory can be lowered to [Formula: see text]. We also show that the minimal Bachmann–Howard fixed point of a dilator [Formula: see text] can be represented by a notation system [Formula: see text], which is computable relative to [Formula: see text]. The statement that [Formula: see text] (...) is well founded for any dilator [Formula: see text] will still be equivalent to [Formula: see text]-comprehension. Thus, the latter is split into the computable transformation [Formula: see text] and a statement about the preservation of well-foundedness, over a system of computable mathematics. (shrink)

Gödel interpreted Heyting arithmetic HA in a “logic-free” fragment T 0 of his theory T of primitive recursive functionals of finite types by his famous Dialectica-translation D . This works because the logic of HA is extremely simple. If the logic of the interpreted system is different—in particular more complicated—, it forces us to look for different and more complicated functional translations. We discuss the arising logical problems for arithmetical and set theoretical systems from HA to CZF . We want (...) to test the thesis: While the functionals take care of the proof theoretic strength of the interpreted system, it is the functional translation that has to cope with the logical complexities of the system. (shrink)

In the present paper we give a functional interpretation of Aczel's constructive set theories CZF − and CZF in systems T ∈ and T ∈ + of constructive set functionals of finite types. This interpretation is obtained by a translation × , a refinement of the ∧ -translation introduced by Diller and Nahm 49–66) which again is an extension of Gödel's Dialectica translation. The interpretation theorem gives characterizations of the definable set functions of CZF − and CZF in terms of (...) constructive set functionals. In a second part we introduce constructive set theories in all finite types. We expand the interpretation to these theories and give a characterization of the translation × . We further show that the simplest non-trivial axiom of extensionality is not interpretable by functionals of T ∈ and T ∈ + . We obtain this result by adapting Howard's notion of hereditarily majorizable functionals to set functionals. Subject of the last section is the translation ∨ that is defined in Burr for an interpretation of Kripke-Platek set theory with infinity. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to give an introduction to functional interpretations of set theory given by the authorin Burr (2000a). The first part starts with some general remarks on Gödel's functional interpretation with a focus on aspects related to problems that arise in the context of set theory. The second part gives an insight in the techniques needed to perform a functional interpretation of systems of set theory. However, the first part of this article is not intended to (...) be a complete survey of functional interpretations and here we recommend, for example, Avigad and Feferman (1998),Troelstra (1990) and Troelstra (1973). (shrink)

The notion of a function from ℕ to ℕ defined by recursion on ordinal notations is fundamental in proof theory. Here this notion is generalized to functions on the universe of sets, using notations for well orderings longer than the class of ordinals. The generalization is used to bound the rate of growth of any function on the universe of sets that is Σ1-definable in Kripke–Platek admissible set theory with an axiom of infinity. Formalizing the argument provides an ordinal analysis.

Inspired from a joint work by A. Beckmann, S. Buss and S. Friedman, we propose a class of set-theoretic functions, predicatively computable set functions. Each function in this class is polynomial time computable when we restrict to finite binary strings.