§1. Introduction. The purpose of this paper is, in general, to report the state of the art of ordinal analysis and, in particular, the recent success in obtaining an ordinal analysis for the system of-analysis, which is the subsystem of formal second order arithmetic, Z2, with comprehension confined to-formulae. The same techniques can be used to provide ordinal analyses for theories that are reducible to iterated-comprehension, e.g.,-comprehension. The details will be laid out in [28].Ordinal-theoretic proof theory came into existence in (...) 1936, springing forth from Gentzen's head in the course of his consistency proof of arithmetic. Gentzen fostered hopes that with sufficiently large constructive ordinals one could establish the consistency of analysis, i.e., Z2. Considerable progress has been made in proof theory since Gentzen's tragic death on August 4th, 1945, but an ordinal analysis of Z2is still something to be sought. However, for reasons that cannot be explained here,-comprehension appears to be the main stumbling block on the road to understanding full comprehension, giving hope for an ordinal analysis of Z2in the foreseeable future.Roughly speaking,ordinally informativeproof theory attaches ordinals in a recursive representation system to proofs in a given formal system; transformations on proofs to certain canonical forms are then partially mirrored by operations on the associated ordinals. Among other things, ordinal analysis of a formal system serves to characterize its provably recursive ordinals, functions and functionals and can yield both conservation and combinatorial independence results. (shrink)

How do ordinals measure the strength and computational power of formal theories? This paper is concerned with the connection between ordinal representation systems and theories established in ordinal analyses. It focusses on results which explain the nature of this connection in terms of semantical and computational notions from model theory, set theory, and generalized recursion theory.

The paper contains proof-theoretic investigation on extensions of Kripke-Platek set theory, KP, which accommodate first-order reflection. Ordinal analyses for such theories are obtained by devising cut elimination procedures for infinitary calculi of ramified set theory with Пn reflection rules. This leads to consistency proofs for the theories KP+Пn reflection using a small amount of arithmetic and the well-foundedness of a certain ordinal system with respect to primitive decending sequences. Regarding future work, we intend to avail ourselves of these new cut (...) elimination techniques to attain an ordinal analysis of П12 comprehension by approaching П12 comprehension through transfinite levels of reflection. (shrink)

§1. Introduction. The purpose of this paper is, in general, to report the state of the art of ordinal analysis and, in particular, the recent success in obtaining an ordinal analysis for the system of -analysis, which is the subsystem of formal second order arithmetic, Z2, with comprehension confined to -formulae. The same techniques can be used to provide ordinal analyses for theories that are reducible to iterated -comprehension, e.g., -comprehension. The details will be laid out in [28].Ordinal-theoretic proof theory (...) came into existence in 1936, springing forth from Gentzen's head in the course of his consistency proof of arithmetic. Gentzen fostered hopes that with sufficiently large constructive ordinals one could establish the consistency of analysis, i.e., Z2. Considerable progress has been made in proof theory since Gentzen's tragic death on August 4th, 1945, but an ordinal analysis of Z2 is still something to be sought. However, for reasons that cannot be explained here, -comprehension appears to be the main stumbling block on the road to understanding full comprehension, giving hope for an ordinal analysis of Z2 in the foreseeable future.Roughly speaking, ordinally informative proof theory attaches ordinals in a recursive representation system to proofs in a given formal system; transformations on proofs to certain canonical forms are then partially mirrored by operations on the associated ordinals. Among other things, ordinal analysis of a formal system serves to characterize its provably recursive ordinals, functions and functionals and can yield both conservation and combinatorial independence results. (shrink)

§1. Introduction. The purpose of this paper is, in general, to report the state of the art of ordinal analysis and, in particular, the recent success in obtaining an ordinal analysis for the system of-analysis, which is the subsystem of formal second order arithmetic, Z2, with comprehension confined to-formulae. The same techniques can be used to provide ordinal analyses for theories that are reducible to iterated-comprehension, e.g.,-comprehension. The details will be laid out in [28].Ordinal-theoretic proof theory came into existence in (...) 1936, springing forth from Gentzen's head in the course of his consistency proof of arithmetic. Gentzen fostered hopes that with sufficiently large constructive ordinals one could establish the consistency of analysis, i.e., Z2. Considerable progress has been made in proof theory since Gentzen's tragic death on August 4th, 1945, but an ordinal analysis of Z2is still something to be sought. However, for reasons that cannot be explained here,-comprehension appears to be the main stumbling block on the road to understanding full comprehension, giving hope for an ordinal analysis of Z2in the foreseeable future.Roughly speaking,ordinally informativeproof theory attaches ordinals in a recursive representation system to proofs in a given formal system; transformations on proofs to certain canonical forms are then partially mirrored by operations on the associated ordinals. Among other things, ordinal analysis of a formal system serves to characterize its provably recursive ordinals, functions and functionals and can yield both conservation and combinatorial independence results. (shrink)

The paper relativizes the method of ordinal analysis developed for Kripke–Platek set theory to theories which have the power set axiom. We show that it is possible to use this technique to extract information about Power Kripke–Platek set theory, KP.As an application it is shown that whenever KP+AC proves a ΠP2 statement then it holds true in the segment Vτ of the von Neumann hierarchy, where τ stands for the Bachmann–Howard ordinal.

Abstract.This paper is the second in a series of three culminating in an ordinal analysis of Π12-comprehension. Its objective is to present an ordinal analysis for the subsystem of second order arithmetic with Δ12-comprehension, bar induction and Π12-comprehension for formulae without set parameters. Couched in terms of Kripke-Platek set theory, KP, the latter system corresponds to KPi augmented by the assertion that there exists a stable ordinal, where KPi is KP with an additional axiom stating that every set is contained (...) in an admissible set. (shrink)

Abstract.This paper is the first in a series of three which culminates in an ordinal analysis of Π12-comprehension. On the set-theoretic side Π12-comprehension corresponds to Kripke-Platek set theory, KP, plus Σ1-separation. The strength of the latter theory is encapsulated in the fact that it proves the existence of ordinals π such that, for all β>π, π is β-stable, i.e. Lπ is a Σ1-elementary substructure of Lβ. The objective of this paper is to give an ordinal analysis of a scenario of (...) not too complicated stability relations as experience has shown that the understanding of the ordinal analysis of Π12-comprehension is greatly facilitated by explicating certain simpler cases first.This paper introduces an ordinal representation system based on ν-indescribable cardinals which is then employed for determining an upper bound for the proof–theoretic strength of the theory KPi+ ∀ρ ∃ππ is π+ρ-stable, where KPi is KP augmented by the axiom saying that every set is contained in an admissible set. (shrink)

Apologies. The purpose of the following talk is to give an overview of the present state of aims, methods and results in Pure Proof Theory. Shortage of time forces me to concentrate on my very personal views. This entails that I will emphasize the work which I know best, i.e., work that has been done in the triangle Stanford, Munich and Münster. I am of course well aware that there are as important results coming from outside this triangle and I (...) apologize for not displaying these results as well.Moreover the audience should be aware that in some points I have to oversimplify matters. Those who complain about that are invited to consult the original papers.1.1. General. Proof theory startedwithHilbert's Programme which aimed at a finitistic consistency proof for mathematics.By Gödel's Theorems, however, we know that we can neither formalize all mathematics nor even prove the consistency of formalized fragments by finitistic means. Inspite of this fact I want to give some reasons why I consider proof theory in the style of Gentzen's work still as an important and exciting field of Mathematical Logic. I will not go into applications of Gentzen's cut-elimination technique to computer science problems—this may be considered as applied proof theory—but want to concentrate on metamathematical problems and results. In this sense I am talking about Pure Proof Theory.Mathematicians are interested in structures. There is only one way to find the theorems of a structure. Start with an axiom system for the structure and deduce the theorems logically. These axiom systems are the objects of proof-theoretical research. Studying axiom systems there is a series of more or less obvious questions. (shrink)

Apologies. The purpose of the following talk is to give an overview of the present state of aims, methods and results in Pure Proof Theory. Shortage of time forces me to concentrate on my very personal views. This entails that I will emphasize the work which I know best, i.e., work that has been done in the triangle Stanford, Munich and Münster. I am of course well aware that there are as important results coming from outside this triangle and I (...) apologize for not displaying these results as well.Moreover the audience should be aware that in some points I have to oversimplify matters. Those who complain about that are invited to consult the original papers.1.1. General. Proof theory startedwithHilbert's Programme which aimed at a finitistic consistency proof for mathematics.By Gödel's Theorems, however, we know that we can neither formalize all mathematics nor even prove the consistency of formalized fragments by finitistic means. Inspite of this fact I want to give some reasons why I consider proof theory in the style of Gentzen's work still as an important and exciting field of Mathematical Logic. I will not go into applications of Gentzen's cut-elimination technique to computer science problems—this may be considered as applied proof theory—but want to concentrate on metamathematical problems and results. In this sense I am talking about Pure Proof Theory.Mathematicians are interested in structures. There is only one way to find the theorems of a structure. Start with an axiom system for the structure and deduce the theorems logically. These axiom systems are the objects of proof-theoretical research. Studying axiom systems there is a series of more or less obvious questions. (shrink)

In this article we introduce systems for metapredicative Mahlo in explicit mathematics and admissible set theory. The exact upper proof-theoretic bounds of these systems are established.

In this paper we discuss extensions of Feferman's theory T 0 for explicit mathematics by the so-called limit and Mahlo axioms and present a novel approach to constructing natural recursion-theoretic models for systems of explicit mathematics which is based on nonmonotone inductive definitions.

Induction–recursion is a powerful definition method in intuitionistic type theory. It extends inductive definitions and allows us to define all standard sets of Martin-Löf type theory as well as a large collection of commonly occurring inductive data structures. It also includes a variety of universes which are constructive analogues of inaccessibles and other large cardinals below the first Mahlo cardinal. In this article we give a new compact formalization of inductive–recursive definitions by modeling them as initial algebras in slice categories. (...) We give generic formation, introduction, elimination, and equality rules generalizing the usual rules of type theory. Moreover, we prove that the elimination and equality rules are equivalent to the principle of the existence of initial algebras for certain endofunctors. We also show the equivalence of the current formulation with the formulation of induction–recursion as a reflection principle given in Dybjer and Setzer 93). Finally, we discuss two type-theoretic analogues of Mahlo cardinals in set theory: an external Mahlo universe which is defined by induction–recursion and captured by our formalization, and an internal Mahlo universe, which goes beyond induction–recursion. We show that the external Mahlo universe, and therefore also the theory of inductive–recursive definitions, have proof-theoretical strength of at least Rathjen's theory KPM. (shrink)

In this article we show how to extract with the use of the Buchholz -Cichon-Weiermann approach to subrecursive hierarchies from Rathjen's 1991 ordinal analysis of KPM a characterization of the provably total number-theoretic functions of KPM and some of its subsystems in a uniform and direct way.

In this paper we introduce a recursive notation system $O(\mu)$ of ordinals. An element of the notation system is called an ordinal diagram following G. Takeuti [25]. The system is designed for proof theoretic study of theories of recursively Mahlo universes. We show that for each $\alpha<\Omega$ in $O(\mu)$ KPM proves that the initial segment of $O(\mu)$ determined by $\alpha$ is a well ordering. Proof theoretic study for such theories will be reported in [9].

In this article we provide wellordering proofs for metapredicative systems of explicit mathematics and admissible set theory featuring suitable axioms about the Mahloness of the underlying universe of discourse. In particular, it is shown that in the corresponding theories EMA of explicit mathematics and KPm 0 of admissible set theory, transfinite induction along initial segments of the ordinal φω00, for φ being a ternary Veblen function, is derivable. This reveals that the upper bounds given for these two systems in the (...) paper Jager and Strahm [11] are indeed sharp. (shrink)

In this paper first order theories for nonmonotone inductive definitions are introduced, and a proof-theoretic analysis for such theories based on combined operator forms a la Richter with recursively inaccessible and Mahlo closure ordinals is given.