Iterated reflection principles and the ω-rule

1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 721-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulf R. Schmerl

The ω-rule,with the meaning “if the formula A(n) is provable for all n, then the formula ∀xA(x) is provable”, has a certain formal similarity with a uniform reflection principle saying “if A(n) is provable for all n, then ∀xA(x) is true”. There are indeed some hints in the literature that uniform reflection has sometimes been understood as a “formalized ω-rule” (cf. for example S. Feferman [1], G. Kreisel [3], G. H. Müller [7]). This similarity has even another aspect: replacing the induction rule or scheme in Peano arithmetic PA by the ω-rule leads to a complete and sound system PA∞, where each true arithmetical statement is provable. In [2] Feferman showed that an equivalent system can be obtained by erecting on PA a transfinite progression of formal systems PAα based on iterations of the uniform reflection principle according to the following scheme:Then T = (∪dЄ, PAd, being Kleene's system of ordinal notations, is equivalent to PA∞. Of course, T cannot be an axiomatizable theory.

2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (02) ◽  
pp. 849-869 ◽  
Author(s):  
EVGENY KOLMAKOV ◽  
LEV BEKLEMISHEV

AbstractA formula φ is called n-provable in a formal arithmetical theory S if φ is provable in S together with all true arithmetical ${{\rm{\Pi }}_n}$-sentences taken as additional axioms. While in general the set of all n-provable formulas, for a fixed $n > 0$, is not recursively enumerable, the set of formulas φ whose n-provability is provable in a given r.e. metatheory T is r.e. This set is deductively closed and will be, in general, an extension of S. We prove that these theories can be naturally axiomatized in terms of progressions of iterated local reflection principles. In particular, the set of provably 1-provable sentences of Peano arithmetic $PA$ can be axiomatized by ${\varepsilon _0}$ times iterated local reflection schema over $PA$. Our characterizations yield additional information on the proof-theoretic strength of these theories (w.r.t. various measures of it) and on their axiomatizability. We also study the question of speed-up of proofs and show that in some cases a proof of n-provability of a sentence can be much shorter than its proof from iterated reflection principles.


1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 474-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Victoria Marshall R.

In [1] and [2] there is a development of a class theory, whose axioms were formulated by Bernays and based on a reflection principle. See [3]. These axioms are formulated in first order logic with ∈:(A1)Extensionality.(A2)Class specification. Ifϕis a formula andAis not free inϕ, thenNote that “xis a set“ can be written as “∃u(x∈u)”.(A3)Subsets.Note also that “B⊆A” can be written as “∀x(x∈B→x∈A)”.(A4)Reflection principle. Ifϕ(x)is a formula, thenwhere “uis a transitive set” is the formula “∃v(u∈v) ∧ ∀x∀y(x∈y∧y∈u→x∈u)” andϕPuis the formulaϕrelativized to subsets ofu.(A5)Foundation.(A6)Choice for sets.We denote byB1the theory with axioms (A1) to (A6).The existence of weakly compact and-indescribable cardinals for everynis established inB1by the method of defining all metamathematical concepts forB1in a weaker theory of classes where the natural numbers can be defined and using the reflection principle to reflect the satisfaction relation; see [1]. There is a proof of the consistency ofB1assuming the existence of a measurable cardinal; see [4] and [5]. In [6] several set and class theories with reflection principles are developed. In them, the existence of inaccessible cardinals and some kinds of indescribable cardinals can be proved; and also there is a generalization of indescribability for higher-order languages using only class parameters.The purpose of this work is to develop higher order reflection principles, including higher order parameters, in order to obtain other large cardinals.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
BARTOSZ WCISŁO ◽  
MATEUSZ ŁEŁYK

AbstractWe prove that the theory of the extensional compositional truth predicate for the language of arithmetic with Δ0-induction scheme for the truth predicate and the full arithmetical induction scheme is not conservative over Peano Arithmetic. In addition, we show that a slightly modified theory of truth actually proves the global reflection principle over the base theory.


2006 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 203-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ermek S. Nurkhaidarov

In this paper we study the automorphism groups of countable arithmetically saturated models of Peano Arithmetic. The automorphism groups of such structures form a rich class of permutation groups. When studying the automorphism group of a model, one is interested to what extent a model is recoverable from its automorphism group. Kossak-Schmerl [12] show that if M is a countable, arithmetically saturated model of Peano Arithmetic, then Aut(M) codes SSy(M). Using that result they prove:Let M1. M2 be countable arithmetically saturated models of Peano Arithmetic such that Aut(M1) ≅ Aut(M2). Then SSy(M1) = SSy(M2).We show that if M is a countable arithmetically saturated of Peano Arithmetic, then Aut(M) can recognize if some maximal open subgroup is a stabilizer of a nonstandard element, which is smaller than any nonstandard definable element. That fact is used to show the main theorem:Let M1, M2be countable arithmetically saturated models of Peano Arithmetic such that Aut(M1) ≅ Aut(M2). Then for every n < ωHere RT2n is Infinite Ramsey's Theorem stating that every 2-coloring of [ω]n has an infinite homogeneous set. Theorem 0.2 shows that for models of a false arithmetic the converse of Kossak-Schmerl Theorem 0.1 is not true. Using the results of Reverse Mathematics we obtain the following corollary:There exist four countable arithmetically saturated models of Peano Arithmetic such that they have the same standard system but their automorphism groups are pairwise non-isomorphic.


2013 ◽  
Vol 97 (538) ◽  
pp. 53-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerry Leversha

Many readers will be familiar with the sequence of Catalan numbers {Cn: n ≥ 0} and the formulawith its alternative formThese can be proved by using recurrence relations, generating functions or André's reflection principle. A good reference for all of these methods is Martin Griffiths' book [1].However, none of these approaches strikes me as being naturally combinatorial. A formula such as (1) is often derived by making a list of all the ways of doing something, and then subdividing this list into classes of equal size, so that either one class consists entirely of ‘valid’ cases or there is exactly one ‘valid’ case in each list.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 823-860 ◽  
Author(s):  
SAM ROBERTS

AbstractModal structuralism promises an interpretation of set theory that avoids commitment to abstracta. This article investigates its underlying assumptions. In the first part, I start by highlighting some shortcomings of the standard axiomatisation of modal structuralism, and propose a new axiomatisation I call MSST (for Modal Structural Set Theory). The main theorem is that MSST interprets exactly Zermelo set theory plus the claim that every set is in some inaccessible rank of the cumulative hierarchy. In the second part of the article, I look at the prospects for supplementing MSST with a modal structural reflection principle, as suggested in Hellman (2015). I show that Hellman’s principle is inconsistent (Theorem 5.32), and argue that modal structural reflection principles in general are either incompatible with modal structuralism or extremely weak.


2018 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 1229-1246
Author(s):  
TAISHI KURAHASHI

AbstractLet T and U be any consistent theories of arithmetic. If T is computably enumerable, then the provability predicate $P{r_\tau }\left( x \right)$ of T is naturally obtained from each ${{\rm{\Sigma }}_1}$ definition $\tau \left( v \right)$ of T. The provability logic $P{L_\tau }\left( U \right)$ of τ relative to U is the set of all modal formulas which are provable in U under all arithmetical interpretations where □ is interpreted by $P{r_\tau }\left( x \right)$. It was proved by Beklemishev based on the previous studies by Artemov, Visser, and Japaridze that every $P{L_\tau }\left( U \right)$ coincides with one of the logics $G{L_\alpha }$, ${D_\beta }$, ${S_\beta }$, and $GL_\beta ^ -$, where α and β are subsets of ω and β is cofinite.We prove that if U is a computably enumerable consistent extension of Peano Arithmetic and L is one of $G{L_\alpha }$, ${D_\beta }$, ${S_\beta }$, and $GL_\beta ^ -$, where α is computably enumerable and β is cofinite, then there exists a ${{\rm{\Sigma }}_1}$ definition $\tau \left( v \right)$ of some extension of $I{{\rm{\Sigma }}_1}$ such that $P{L_\tau }\left( U \right)$ is exactly L.


1967 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie H. Tharp

We are concerned here with the set theory given in [1], which we call BL (Bernays-Levy). This theory can be given an elegant syntactical presentation which allows most of the usual axioms to be deduced from the reflection principle. However, it is more convenient here to take the usual Von Neumann-Bernays set theory [3] as a starting point, and to regard BL as arising from the addition of the schema where S is the formal definition of satisfaction (with respect to models which are sets) and ┌φ┐ is the Gödel number of φ which has a single free variable X.


1956 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Myhill

We presuppose the terminology of [1], and we give a negative answer to the following problem ([1], p. 19): Does every essentially undecidable axiomatizable theory have an essentially undecidable finitely axiomatizable subtheory?We use the following theorem of Kleene ([2], p. 311). There exist two recursively enumerable sets α and β such that (1) α and β are disjoint (2) there is no recursive set η for which α ⊂ η, β ⊂ η′. By the definition of recursive enumerability, there are recursive predicates Φ and Ψ for whichWe now specify a theory T which will afford a counter-example to the given problem of Tarski. The only non-logical constants of T are two binary predicates P and Q, one unary operation symbol S, and one individual constant 0. As in ([1], p. 52) we defineThe only non-logical axioms of T are the formulae P(Δm, Δn) for all pairs of integers m, n satisfying Δ(m, n); the formulae Q(Δm, Δn) for all pairs of integers m, n satisfying Ψ(m, n); and the formulaT is consistent, since it has a model. It remains to show that (1) every consistent extension of T is undecidable (2) if T1 is a finitely axiomatizable subtheory of T, there exists a consistent and decidable extension of T1 which has the same constants as T1.


1958 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Shoenfield

In this paper we answer some of the questions left open in [2]. We use the terminology of [2]. In particular, a theory will be a formal system formulated within the first-order calculus with identity. A theory is identified with the set of Gödel numbers of the theorems of the theory. Thus Craig's theorem [1] asserts that a theory is axiomatizable if and only if it is recursively enumerable.In [2], Feferman showed that if A is any recursively enumerable set, then there is an axiomatizable theory T having the same degree of unsolvability as A. (This result was proved independently by D. B. Mumford.) We show in Theorem 2 that if A is not recursive, then T may be chosen essentially undecidable. This depends on Theorem 1, which is a result on recursively enumerable sets of some independent interest.Our second result, given in Theorem 3, gives sufficient conditions for a theory to be creative. These conditions are more general than those given by Feferman. In particular, they show that the system of Kreisel described in [2] is creative.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document