Ordinal analysis

Last updated

In proof theory, ordinal analysis assigns ordinals (often large countable ordinals) to mathematical theories as a measure of their strength. If theories have the same proof-theoretic ordinal they are often equiconsistent, and if one theory has a larger proof-theoretic ordinal than another it can often prove the consistency of the second theory.

Contents

In addition to obtaining the proof-theoretic ordinal of a theory, in practice ordinal analysis usually also yields various other pieces of information about the theory being analyzed, for example characterizations of the classes of provably recursive, hyperarithmetical, or functions of the theory. [1]

History

The field of ordinal analysis was formed when Gerhard Gentzen in 1934 used cut elimination to prove, in modern terms, that the proof-theoretic ordinal of Peano arithmetic is ε0. See Gentzen's consistency proof.

Definition

Ordinal analysis concerns true, effective (recursive) theories that can interpret a sufficient portion of arithmetic to make statements about ordinal notations.

The proof-theoretic ordinal of such a theory is the supremum of the order types of all ordinal notations (necessarily recursive, see next section) that the theory can prove are well founded the supremum of all ordinals for which there exists a notation in Kleene's sense such that proves that is an ordinal notation. Equivalently, it is the supremum of all ordinals such that there exists a recursive relation on (the set of natural numbers) that well-orders it with ordinal and such that proves transfinite induction of arithmetical statements for .

Ordinal notations

Some theories, such as subsystems of second-order arithmetic, have no conceptualization or way to make arguments about transfinite ordinals. For example, to formalize what it means for a subsystem of Z2 to "prove well-ordered", we instead construct an ordinal notation with order type . can now work with various transfinite induction principles along , which substitute for reasoning about set-theoretic ordinals.

However, some pathological notation systems exist that are unexpectedly difficult to work with. For example, Rathjen gives a primitive recursive notation system that is well-founded iff PA is consistent, [2] p. 3 despite having order type - including such a notation in the ordinal analysis of PA would result in the false equality .

Upper bound

Since an ordinal notation must be recursive, the proof-theoretic ordinal of any theory is less than or equal to the Church–Kleene ordinal . In particular, the proof-theoretic ordinal of an inconsistent theory is equal to , because an inconsistent theory trivially proves that all ordinal notations are well-founded.

For any theory that's both -axiomatizable and -sound, the existence of a recursive ordering that the theory fails to prove is well-ordered follows from the bounding theorem, and said provably well-founded ordinal notations are in fact well-founded by -soundness. Thus the proof-theoretic ordinal of a -sound theory that has a axiomatization will always be a (countable) recursive ordinal, that is, strictly less than . [2] Theorem 2.21

Examples

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ω

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ω2

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ω3

Friedman's grand conjecture suggests that much "ordinary" mathematics can be proved in weak systems having this as their proof-theoretic ordinal.

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ωn (for n = 2, 3, ... ω)

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ωω

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ε0

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal the Feferman–Schütte ordinal Γ0

This ordinal is sometimes considered to be the upper limit for "predicative" theories.

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal the Bachmann–Howard ordinal

The Kripke-Platek or CZF set theories are weak set theories without axioms for the full powerset given as set of all subsets. Instead, they tend to either have axioms of restricted separation and formation of new sets, or they grant existence of certain function spaces (exponentiation) instead of carving them out from bigger relations.

Theories with larger proof-theoretic ordinals

Unsolved problem in mathematics:
What is the proof-theoretic ordinal of full second-order arithmetic? [4]

Most theories capable of describing the power set of the natural numbers have proof-theoretic ordinals that are so large that no explicit combinatorial description has yet been given. This includes , full second-order arithmetic () and set theories with powersets including ZF and ZFC. The strength of intuitionistic ZF (IZF) equals that of ZF.

Table of ordinal analyses

Table of proof-theoretic ordinals
OrdinalFirst-order arithmeticSecond-order arithmeticKripke-Platek set theoryType theoryConstructive set theoryExplicit mathematics
,
,
, ,
,
, [7] p. 13 [7] p. 13, [7] p. 13
[8] [7] p. 13 [9] :40
[7] p. 13 [7] p. 13, , [7] p. 13, [10] p. 8 [11] p. 869
, [12] [13] :8
[14] p. 959
, [15] [13] , [16] :7 [15] p. 17, [15] p. 5
, [15] p. 52
, [17]
, [18] p. 17, [18] p. 17 [19] p. 140, [19] p. 140, [19] p. 140, [10] p. 8 [11] p. 870
[10] p. 27, [10] p. 27
[20] p.9
, [21] , [18] p. 22, [18] p. 22, [22] , , , [23] [24] p. 26 [11] p. 878, [11] p. 878,
[25] p.13
[26]
[16] :7
[16] :7
, [27] [28] p.1167, [28] p.1167
[27] [28] p.1167, [28] p.1167
[27] :11
[29] p.233, [29] p.233 [30] p.276 [30] p.276
[29] p.233, [16] [30] p.277 [30] p.277
[16] :7
, [31] [16] :7
[16] :7
[10] p. 8, [2] , [11] p. 869
[10] p. 31, [10] p. 31, [10] p. 31
[32]
[10] p. 33, [10] p. 33, [10] p. 33
, [24] p. 26, [24] p. 26, [24] p. 26, [24] p. 26, [24] p. 26 [24] p. 26, [24] p. 26
[4] p. 28 [4] p. 28,
[33]
[34] p. 14
[35]
[33]
[33]
[4] p. 28
[4] p. 28,
, , [36] ,
, , ,,, [36] :72, [36] :72, [36] :72

, [36] :72

, , [36] :72 [36] :72
, , [36] :72 [36] :72
, [36] :72 [36] :72
, , [36] :72, [36] :72
, , [36] :72, [36] :72
[4] p. 28,
[37] :38
[38]
[39] [39]
[40]
[41]
[41]
[42] , [42] [43]
[42] ,
[44] ,
? [44] , [45]

Key

This is a list of symbols used in this table:

This is a list of the abbreviations used in this table:

In general, a subscript 0 means that the induction scheme is restricted to a single set induction axiom.

A superscript zero indicates that -induction is removed (making the theory significantly weaker).

See also

Notes

1. ^ For
2. ^ The Veblen function with countably infinitely iterated least fixed points.[ clarification needed ]
3. ^ Can also be commonly written as in Madore's ψ.
4. ^ Uses Madore's ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.
5. ^ Can also be commonly written as in Madore's ψ.
6. ^ represents the first recursively weakly compact ordinal. Uses Arai's ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.
7. ^ Also the proof-theoretic ordinal of , as the amount of weakening given by the W-types is not enough.
8. ^ represents the first inaccessible cardinal. Uses Jäger's ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.
9. ^ represents the limit of the -inaccessible cardinals. Uses (presumably) Jäger's ψ.
10. ^ represents the limit of the -inaccessible cardinals. Uses (presumably) Jäger's ψ.
11. ^ represents the first Mahlo cardinal. Uses Rathjen's ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.
12. ^ represents the first weakly compact cardinal. Uses Rathjen's Ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.
13. ^ represents the first -indescribable cardinal. Uses Stegert's Ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.
14. ^ is the smallest such that ' is -indescribable') and ' is -indescribable '). Uses Stegert's Ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.
15. ^ represents the first Mahlo cardinal. Uses (presumably) Rathjen's ψ.

Citations

  1. M. Rathjen, "Admissible Proof Theory and Beyond". In Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 134 (1995), pp.123--147.
  2. 1 2 3 Rathjen, The Realm of Ordinal Analysis. Accessed 2021 September 29.
  3. Krajicek, Jan (1995). Bounded Arithmetic, Propositional Logic and Complexity Theory. Cambridge University Press. pp.  18–20. ISBN   9780521452052. defines the rudimentary sets and rudimentary functions, and proves them equivalent to the Δ0-predicates on the naturals. An ordinal analysis of the system can be found in Rose, H. E. (1984). Subrecursion: functions and hierarchies. University of Michigan: Clarendon Press. ISBN   9780198531890.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 M. Rathjen, Proof Theory: From Arithmetic to Set Theory (p.28). Accessed 14 August 2022.
  5. Rathjen, Michael (2006), "The art of ordinal analysis" (PDF), International Congress of Mathematicians, vol. II, Zürich: Eur. Math. Soc., pp. 45–69, MR   2275588, archived from the original on 2009-12-22{{citation}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  6. D. Madore, A Zoo of Ordinals (2017, p.2). Accessed 12 August 2022.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 J. Avigad, R. Sommer, "A Model-Theoretic Approach to Ordinal Analysis" (1997).
  8. M. Rathjen, W. Carnielli, "Hydrae and subsystems of arithmetic" (1991)
  9. Jeroen Van der Meeren; Rathjen, Michael; Weiermann, Andreas (2014). "An order-theoretic characterization of the Howard-Bachmann-hierarchy". arXiv: 1411.4481 [math.LO].
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "Second order theories with ordinals and elementary comprehension".
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 G. Jäger, "The Strength of Admissibility Without Foundation". Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 49, no. 3 (1984).
  12. B. Afshari, M. Rathjen, "Ordinal Analysis and the Infinite Ramsey Theorem" (2012)
  13. 1 2 Marcone, Alberto; Montalbán, Antonio (2011). "The Veblen functions for computability theorists". The Journal of Symbolic Logic. 76 (2): 575–602. arXiv: 0910.5442 . doi:10.2178/jsl/1305810765. S2CID   675632.
  14. S. Feferman, "Theories of finite type related to mathematical practice". In Handbook of Mathematical Logic, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 90 (1977), ed. J. Barwise, pub. North Holland.
  15. 1 2 3 4 M. Heissenbüttel, "Theories of ordinal strength and " (2001)
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D. Probst, "A modular ordinal analysis of metapredicative subsystems of second-order arithmetic" (2017)
  17. A. Cantini, "On the relation between choice and comprehension principles in second order arithmetic", Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 51 (1986), pp. 360--373.
  18. 1 2 3 4 Fischer, Martin; Nicolai, Carlo; Pablo Dopico Fernandez (2020). "Nonclassical truth with classical strength. A proof-theoretic analysis of compositional truth over HYPE". arXiv: 2007.07188 [math.LO].
  19. 1 2 3 S. G. Simpson, "Friedman's Research on Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic". In Harvey Friedman's Research on the Foundations of Mathematics, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 117 (1985), ed. L. Harrington, M. Morley, A. Šcedrov, S. G. Simpson, pub. North-Holland.
  20. J. Avigad, "An ordinal analysis of admissible set theory using recursion on ordinal notations". Journal of Mathematical Logic vol. 2, no. 1, pp.91--112 (2002).
  21. S. Feferman, "Iterated inductive fixed-point theories: application fo Hancock's conjecture". In Patras Logic Symposion, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 109 (1982).
  22. S. Feferman, T. Strahm, "The unfolding of non-finitist arithmetic", Annals of Pure and Applied Logic vol. 104, no.1--3 (2000), pp.75--96.
  23. S. Feferman, G. Jäger, "Choice principles, the bar rule and autonomously iterated comprehension schemes in analysis", Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 48, no. (1983), pp.63--70.
  24. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 U. Buchholtz, G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "Theories of proof-theoretic strength ". In Concepts of Proof in Mathematics, Philosophy, and Computer Science (2016), ed. D. Probst, P. Schuster. DOI 10.1515/9781501502620-007.
  25. T. Strahm, "Autonomous fixed point progressions and fixed point transfinite recursion" (2000). In Logic Colloquium '98, ed. S. R. Buss, P. Hájek, and P. Pudlák . DOI 10.1017/9781316756140.031
  26. G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "Fixed point theories and dependent choice". Archive for Mathematical Logic vol. 39 (2000), pp.493--508.
  27. 1 2 3 T. Strahm, "Autonomous fixed point progressions and fixed point transfinite recursion" (2000)
  28. 1 2 3 4 C. Rüede, "Transfinite dependent choice and ω-model reflection". Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 67, no. 3 (2002).
  29. 1 2 3 C. Rüede, "The proof-theoretic analysis of Σ11 transfinite dependent choice". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic vol. 122 (2003).
  30. 1 2 3 4 T. Strahm, "Wellordering Proofs for Metapredicative Mahlo". Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 67, no. 1 (2002)
  31. F. Ranzi, T. Strahm, "A flexible type system for the small Veblen ordinal" (2019). Archive for Mathematical Logic 58: 711–751.
  32. K. Fujimoto, "Notes on some second-order systems of iterated inductive definitions and -comprehensions and relevant subsystems of set theory". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 166 (2015), pp. 409--463.
  33. 1 2 3 Krombholz, Martin; Rathjen, Michael (2019). "Upper bounds on the graph minor theorem". arXiv: 1907.00412 [math.LO].
  34. W. Buchholz, S. Feferman, W. Pohlers, W. Sieg, Iterated Inductive Definitions and Subsystems of Analysis: Recent Proof-Theoretical Studies
  35. W. Buchholz, Proof Theory of Impredicative Subsystems of Analysis (Studies in Proof Theory, Monographs, Vol 2 (1988)
  36. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 M. Rathjen, "Investigations of Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic and Set Theory in Strength between and : Part I". Accessed 21 September 2023.
  37. M. Rathjen, "The Strength of Some Martin-Löf Type Theories"
  38. See conservativity result in Rathjen (1996), "The Recursively Mahlo Property in Second Order Arithmetic", Math. Log. Quart., 42 giving same ordinal as
  39. 1 2 A. Setzer, "A Model for a type theory with Mahlo universe" (1996).
  40. M. Rathjen, "Proof Theory of Reflection". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic vol. 68, iss. 2 (1994), pp.181--224.
  41. 1 2 Stegert, Jan-Carl, "Ordinal Proof Theory of Kripke-Platek Set Theory Augmented by Strong Reflection Principles" (2010).
  42. 1 2 3 Arai, Toshiyasu (2023-04-01). "Lectures on Ordinal Analysis". arXiv: 2304.00246 [math.LO].
  43. Arai, Toshiyasu (2023-04-07). "Well-foundedness proof for -reflection". arXiv: 2304.03851 [math.LO].
  44. 1 2 Arai, Toshiyasu (2024-02-12). "An ordinal analysis of -Collection". arXiv: 2311.12459 [math.LO].
  45. Valentin Blot. "A direct computational interpretation of second-order arithmetic via update recursion" (2022).

Related Research Articles

Proof theory is a major branch of mathematical logic and theoretical computer science within which proofs are treated as formal mathematical objects, facilitating their analysis by mathematical techniques. Proofs are typically presented as inductively-defined data structures such as lists, boxed lists, or trees, which are constructed according to the axioms and rules of inference of a given logical system. Consequently, proof theory is syntactic in nature, in contrast to model theory, which is semantic in nature.

Reverse mathematics is a program in mathematical logic that seeks to determine which axioms are required to prove theorems of mathematics. Its defining method can briefly be described as "going backwards from the theorems to the axioms", in contrast to the ordinary mathematical practice of deriving theorems from axioms. It can be conceptualized as sculpting out necessary conditions from sufficient ones.

In mathematical logic, Heyting arithmetic is an axiomatization of arithmetic in accordance with the philosophy of intuitionism. It is named after Arend Heyting, who first proposed it.

In set theory, a branch of mathematics, a reflection principle says that it is possible to find sets that, with respect to any given property, resemble the class of all sets. There are several different forms of the reflection principle depending on exactly what is meant by "resemble". Weak forms of the reflection principle are theorems of ZF set theory due to Montague (1961), while stronger forms can be new and very powerful axioms for set theory.

In mathematical logic, second-order arithmetic is a collection of axiomatic systems that formalize the natural numbers and their subsets. It is an alternative to axiomatic set theory as a foundation for much, but not all, of mathematics.

Gentzen's consistency proof is a result of proof theory in mathematical logic, published by Gerhard Gentzen in 1936. It shows that the Peano axioms of first-order arithmetic do not contain a contradiction, as long as a certain other system used in the proof does not contain any contradictions either. This other system, today called "primitive recursive arithmetic with the additional principle of quantifier-free transfinite induction up to the ordinal ε0", is neither weaker nor stronger than the system of Peano axioms. Gentzen argued that it avoids the questionable modes of inference contained in Peano arithmetic and that its consistency is therefore less controversial.

In the mathematical discipline of set theory, there are many ways of describing specific countable ordinals. The smallest ones can be usefully and non-circularly expressed in terms of their Cantor normal forms. Beyond that, many ordinals of relevance to proof theory still have computable ordinal notations. However, it is not possible to decide effectively whether a given putative ordinal notation is a notation or not ; various more-concrete ways of defining ordinals that definitely have notations are available.

Axiomatic constructive set theory is an approach to mathematical constructivism following the program of axiomatic set theory. The same first-order language with "" and "" of classical set theory is usually used, so this is not to be confused with a constructive types approach. On the other hand, some constructive theories are indeed motivated by their interpretability in type theories.

In mathematics, the Bachmann–Howard ordinal is a large countable ordinal. It is the proof-theoretic ordinal of several mathematical theories, such as Kripke–Platek set theory and the system CZF of constructive set theory. It was introduced by Heinz Bachmann and William Alvin Howard.

In mathematics, particularly set theory, non-recursive ordinals are large countable ordinals greater than all the recursive ordinals, and therefore can not be expressed using recursive ordinal notations.

In mathematics, the Feferman–Schütte ordinal (Γ0) is a large countable ordinal. It is the proof-theoretic ordinal of several mathematical theories, such as arithmetical transfinite recursion. It is named after Solomon Feferman and Kurt Schütte, the former of whom suggested the name Γ0.

In mathematical logic and set theory, an ordinal collapsing function is a technique for defining certain recursive large countable ordinals, whose principle is to give names to certain ordinals much larger than the one being defined, perhaps even large cardinals, and then "collapse" them down to a system of notations for the sought-after ordinal. For this reason, ordinal collapsing functions are described as an impredicative manner of naming ordinals.

In mathematics, ψ0ω), widely known as Buchholz's ordinal, is a large countable ordinal that is used to measure the proof-theoretic strength of some mathematical systems. In particular, it is the proof theoretic ordinal of the subsystem -CA0 of second-order arithmetic; this is one of the "big five" subsystems studied in reverse mathematics (Simpson 1999). It is also the proof-theoretic ordinal of , the theory of finitely iterated inductive definitions, and of , a fragment of Kripke-Platek set theory extended by an axiom stating every set is contained in an admissible set. Buchholz's ordinal is also the order type of the segment bounded by in Buchholz's ordinal notation . Lastly, it can be expressed as the limit of the sequence: , , , ...

In set theory and mathematical logic, the Lévy hierarchy, introduced by Azriel Lévy in 1965, is a hierarchy of formulas in the formal language of the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, which is typically called just the language of set theory. This is analogous to the arithmetical hierarchy, which provides a similar classification for sentences of the language of arithmetic.

In proof theory, a branch of mathematical logic, elementary function arithmetic (EFA), also called elementary arithmetic and exponential function arithmetic, is the system of arithmetic with the usual elementary properties of 0, 1, +, ×, , together with induction for formulas with bounded quantifiers.

In the mathematical fields of set theory and proof theory, the Takeuti–Feferman–Buchholz ordinal (TFBO) is a large countable ordinal, which acts as the limit of the range of Buchholz's psi function and Feferman's theta function. It was named by David Madore, after Gaisi Takeuti, Solomon Feferman and Wilfried Buchholz. It is written as using Buchholz's psi function, an ordinal collapsing function invented by Wilfried Buchholz, and in Feferman's theta function, an ordinal collapsing function invented by Solomon Feferman. It is the proof-theoretic ordinal of several formal theories:

In set theory and logic, Buchholz's ID hierarchy is a hierarchy of subsystems of first-order arithmetic. The systems/theories are referred to as "the formal theories of ν-times iterated inductive definitions". IDν extends PA by ν iterated least fixed points of monotone operators.

In mathematics, especially mathematical logic, graph theory and number theory, the Buchholz hydra game is a type of hydra game, which is a single-player game based on the idea of chopping pieces off a mathematical tree. The hydra game can be used to generate a rapidly growing function, , which eventually dominates all recursive functions that are provably total in "", and the termination of all hydra games is not provably total in .

In mathematics, Rathjen's  psi function is an ordinal collapsing function developed by Michael Rathjen. It collapses weakly Mahlo cardinals to generate large countable ordinals. A weakly Mahlo cardinal is a cardinal such that the set of regular cardinals below is closed under . Rathjen uses this to diagonalise over the weakly inaccessible hierarchy.

In model theory, a mathematical discipline, a β-model is a model which is correct about statements of the form "X is well-ordered". The term was introduced by Mostowski (1959) as a strengthening of the notion of ω-model. In contrast to the notation for set-theoretic properties named by ordinals, such as -indescribability, the letter β here is only denotational.

References