Abstract
Let me begin with a few personal words of appreciation, since Gerhard Jäger is one of my most valued friends and long time collaborators.
For Gerhard Jäger, in honor of his 60th birthday.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Let me also take this opportunity to thank Thomas Strahm and Thomas Studer for organizing the December 2014 meeting in honor of Gerhard Jäger, and for arranging for me to participate via Skype since I was unable to attend in person.
- 2.
There are several possible formulations of the definition by cases operator. In the one originally taken in [23], sometimes called definition by cases on V, this takes the form d xyuv = (x if \(u=v\), else y). However, when added to the axioms for k and s, extensionality is inconsistent for operations. More restrictive versions have subsequently been used, mainly definition by cases on the natural numbers, allowing both extensionality and totality of operations; cf. [59].
- 3.
- 4.
In [25] I also examined T\(_{0}\) within intuitionistic logic.
- 5.
The scheme ECA can be finitely axiomatized by adding constants for the identity relation, the first-order logical operations for negation, conjunction, existential quantification, and inverse image of a class under an operation.
- 6.
There is a difference in terminology, though: Jäger used ‘types’ for our classes.
- 7.
In certain subsystems of T\(_{1}\) with restricted induction we need to add to the (\(\upmu )\) axiom that if \({\upmu }f \in \) N then\( f \in \) (N \(\rightarrow \) N).
- 8.
Parts of T\(_{0}\) relate to Aczel’s Frege structures and Martin-Löf’s constructive theory of types; cf. for example, Beeson [5], Chaps. XI and XVII. But neither of these approaches goes on to the adjunction of non-constructive functional operators like \(\mu \) (or E\(_{0})\) and E\(_{1}\).
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
In Sect. 4 below I conjecture that the unfolding of a suitable subsystem of T\(_{0}\) is equivalent in strength to predicative analysis.
- 12.
Recently, Sato [74] has shown how to establish the reduction of \(\Delta ^{1}_{2}\) − CA + BI to T\(_{0}\) without going through the ordinal notation system for \(\kappa \).
- 13.
Another interesting group of questions concerns the strength over T\(_{0}\) (or its restricted version \(\text {T}_0{\upharpoonright }\)) of the principle MID that I introduced in [27]. That expresses that if f is any monotone operation from classes to classes then f has a least fixed point. Takahashi [80] showed that \(\text {T}_0\) + MID is interpretable in \(\Pi ^1_2\) − CA + BI, and then Rathjen [69] showed that it is much stronger than T\(_{0}\). Next, exact strength of \(\text {T}_0{\upharpoonright }\) + MID was determined by Glass et al. [42]. A series of further results by Rathjen for the strength of \(\text {T}_0\) + MID and \(\text {T}_0\) + UMID, where UMID is a natural uniform version of the principle, are surveyed in the paper Rathjen [70].
- 14.
To explain some anomalies of the dates of subsequent work on this subject, it should be noted that my 2009 paper was submitted to the journal Information and Control in December 2006 and in revised form in April 2008. In the meantime, Jäger [50] had appeared and so I could refer to it in that revised version.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
An earlier such result for the system with a restricted form of set induction is due to Mathias [66].
- 18.
However, I did say that I had not checked the details. In fact, I hadn’t thought them through at all.
- 19.
Cf. Footnote 2.
- 20.
Since referred to as KF in the literature.
- 21.
This follows the proposed formulation of U(NFA) via a truth predicate in Feferman [31, p. 14].
- 22.
Ulrik Buchholtz originally thought that \(\uppsi (\Gamma _{\Omega +1})\) is the same as the ordinal H(1) of Bachmann [4]. This seemed to be supported by Aczel [1] who wrote (p. 36) that H(1) may have proof theoretical significance related to those of the ordinals \(\varepsilon \), \(\Gamma _{0}\) and \(\upvarphi \varepsilon _{\Omega +1}\)0. And Miller [67, p. 451] had conjectured that “H(1) [is] the proof-theoretic ordinal of ID\(_{1}\)* which is related to ID\(_{1}\) as predicative analysis ID\(_{0}\)* is to first-order arithmetic ID\(_{0}\).” However, Wilfried Buchholz recently found that the above representation of H(1) in terms of the \(\uppsi \) function is incorrect. This suggests one should revisit the bases of Aczel’s and Miller’s conjectures.
- 23.
Alternatively, one can of course work with the formulation of explicit mathematics in terms of the representation relation \(\mathfrak {R}(x\), X).
- 24.
This would provide another answer to the question of finding a system of explicit mathematics of the same strength as predicative analysis.
References
P. Aczel, Describing ordinals using functionals of transfinite type. J. Symbolic Logic 37, 35–47 (1972)
P. Aczel, W. Richter, in Inductive definitions and analogues of large cardinals, Conference in Mathematical Logic, London ’70, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 255, ed by W. Hodges (1972), pp. 1–9
J. Avigad, On the relationship between ATR\(_{0}\) and \(\widehat{ID}_{<\omega }\), J. Symbolic Logic 61, 768–779 (1996)
H. Bachmann, Die Normalfunktionen und das Problem der ausgezeichneten Folgen von Ordnungszahlen. Vierteljschr. Naturforsch. Ges. Zürich 95, 115–147 (1950)
M.J. Beeson, Foundations of Constructive Mathematics. Metamathematical Studies (Springer, Berlin, 1985)
M.J. Beeson, Toward a computation system based on set theory. Theor. Comput. Sci. 60, 297–340 (1988)
E. Bishop, Foundations of Constructive Analysis (McGraw Hill, New York, 1967)
E. Bishop, D. Bridges, Constructive Analysis (Springer, Berlin, 1985)
U. Buchholtz, Unfolding of Systems of Inductive Definitions, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University (2013). http://math.stanford.edu/~utb/thesis.pdf
U. Buchholtz, G. Jäger, T. Strahm, Theories of Proof-Theoretic Strength \(\psi (\Gamma \) \(_{\Omega +1})\) (2014). In: Probst, D. and Schuster, P. Concepts of Proof in Mathematics, Philosophy, and ComputerScience. De Gruyter (In Press)
A. Cantini, Extending constructive operational set theory by impredicative principles. Math. Logic Q. 57, 299–322 (2011)
A. Cantini, L. Crosilla (2008), Constructive set theory with operations, in Logic Colloquium ed. by A. Andretta et al., Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 29 (2004), pp. 47–83
A. Cantini, L. Crosilla, Elementary constructive operational set theory, in Ways of Proof Theory, ed. by R. Schindler (Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt, 2010), pp. 199–240
A. Church, A set of postulates for the foundation of logic. Ann. Math. 33, 346–366 (1932)
A. Church, A set of postulates for the foundation of logic (second paper). Ann. Math. 34, 839–864 (1933)
S. Eberhard, T. Strahm, Towards the unfolding of feasible arithmetic (Abstract). Bull. Symbolic Logic 18, 474–475 (2012)
S. Eberhard, T. Strahm, Unfolding feasible arithmetic and weak truth, in Unifying the Philosopy of Truth, ed. by T. Achourioti, et al. (Springer, Berlin, 2015)
F.B. Fitch, The system C\(\Delta \) of combinatory logic. J. Symbolic Logic 28, 87–97 (1963)
S. Feferman, Systems of predicative analysis. J. Symbolic Logic 29, 1–30 (1964)
S. Feferman, Autonomous transfinite progressions and the extent of predicative mathematics, in Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science III, ed. by B. van Rootselaar, J.F. Staal (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1968), pp. 121–135
S. Feferman, Ordinals and functionals in proof theory, in Actes du Congrès International des Mathématiciens (Nice) 1970, vol. 1 (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, (1971) pp. 229–233
S. Feferman, Predicatively reducible systems of set theory, in Axiomatic Set Theory ed. by D. Scott, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics. XIII, Part 2 (American. Mathematical Society, Providence, 1974), pp. 11–32
S. Feferman, A language and axioms for explicit mathematics, in Algebra and Logic ed. by J. Crossley, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 450 (1975), pp. 87–139
S. Feferman, Theories of finite type related to mathematical practice, in Handbook of Mathematical Logic, ed. by J. Barwise (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977), pp. 913–971
S. Feferman, Constructive theories of functions and classes, in Logic Colloquium ’78, ed. by M. Boffa, et al. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979), pp. 159–224
S. Feferman, A more perspicuous formal system for predicativity, in Konstruktionen versus Positionen I, ed. by K. Lorenz (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1979), pp. 68–93
S. Feferman, Monotone inductive definitions, in The L. E. J. Brouwer Centenary Symposium, ed. by A.S. Troelstra, D. van Dalen (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982), pp. 77–89
S. Feferman, Weyl vindicated: Das Kontinuum 70 years later, in Temi e prospettive della logica e della filosofia della scienza contemporanee, vol. I (CLUEB, Bologna, 1988), pp. 59–93; reprinted in Feferman [32], pp. 249–283
S. Feferman, Reflecting on incompleteness. J. Symbolic Logic 56, 1–49 (1991)
S. Feferman, Why a little bit goes a long way: logical foundations of scientifically applicable mathematics, in PSA 1992, vol. II (1993), pp. 442–455; reprinted in Feferman [32], pp. 284–298
S. Feferman, Gödel’s program for new axioms: why, where, how and what?, in Gödel ’96, ed. by P. Hájek, Lecture Notes in Logic vol. 6 (1996), pp. 3–22
S. Feferman, In the Light of Logic (Oxford University Press, New York, 1998)
S. Feferman, Notes on operational set theory I. Generalizations of “small” large cardinals and admissible set theory (2001). http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/OperationalST-I.pdf
S. Feferman, Operational set theory and small large cardinals. Inf. Computat. 207, 971–979 (2009)
S. Feferman, How a little bit goes a long way: predicative foundations of analysis (2013). http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/pfa(1).pdf
S. Feferman, G. Jäger, Choice principles, the bar rule and autonomously iterated comprehension schemes in analysis. J. Symbolic Logic 48, 63–70 (1983)
S. Feferman, G. Jäger, Systems of explicit mathematics with non-constructive \(\mu \)-operator I. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 65, 243–263 (1993)
S. Feferman, G. Jäger, Systems of explicit mathematics with non-constructive \(\mu \)-operator II. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 79, 37–52 (1996)
S. Feferman, T. Strahm, The unfolding of non-finitist arithmetic. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 104, 75–96 (2000)
S. Feferman, T. Strahm, The unfolding of finitist arithmetic. Rev. Symbolic Logic 3, 665–689 (2010)
H. Friedman, K. McAloon, S.G. Simpson, A finite combinatorial principle which is equivalent to the 1-consistency of predicative analysis, in Patras Logic Symposion, ed. by G. Metakides (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982), pp. 197–230
T. Glass, M. Rathjen, A. Schlüter, On the proof-theoretic strength of monotone induction in explicit mathematics. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 85, 1–46 (1997)
T. Glass, T. Strahm, Systems of explicit mathematics with non-constructive \(\mu \)-operator and join. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 82, 193–219 (1996)
K. Gödel, What is Cantor’s continuum problem? Amer. Math. Monthly 54, 515–525 (1947); errata 55, 151; reprinted in Gödel (1990), 176–187
K. Gödel, in Collected Works, Vol. II. Publications 1938–1974, ed. by S. Feferman, et al. (Oxford University Press, New York, 1990)
G. Jäger, A well-ordering proof for Feferman’s theory T\(_{0}\). Archiv für mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung 23, 65–77 (1983)
G. Jäger, The strength of admissibility without foundation. J. Symbolic Logic 49, 867–879 (1984)
G. Jäger, Theories for admissible sets: a unifying approach to proof theory, in Studies in Proof Theory, vol. 2 (Bibliopolis, Naples, 1986)
G. Jäger, Induction in the elementary theory of types and names, in Computer Science Logic ’87, ed. by E. Börger, et al., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 329 (1988), pp. 118–128
G. Jäger, On Feferman’s operational set theory OST. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 150, 19–39 (2007)
G. Jäger, Full operational set theory with unbounded existential quantification and power set. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 160, 33–52 (2009)
G. Jäger, Operations, sets and classes, in Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress, ed. by C. Glymour et al. (College Publications, London, 2009), pp. 74–96
G. Jäger, Operational closure and stability. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 164, 813–821 (2013)
G. Jäger, Relativizing Operational Set Theory (2015). (In preparation)
G. Jäger, R. Kahle, T. Strahm, On applicative theories, in Logic and Foundations of Mathematics, ed. by A. Cantini, et al. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1999), pp. 83–92
G. Jäger, J. Krähenbuhl, \(\Sigma \) \(^{1}\) \(_{1 }\)choice in a theory of sets and classes, in Ways of Proof, ed. by R. Schindler (Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt, 2010), pp. 283–314
G. Jäger, W. Pohlers, Eine beweistheoretische Untersuchung von \(\Delta \) \(^{1}\) \(_{2}\)-CA + BI und verwandter Systeme in (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse (1982), pp. 1–28
G. Jäger, D. Probst, The Suslin operator in applicative theories: its proof-theoretic analysis via ordinal theories. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 162, 647–660 (2011)
G. Jäger, T. Strahm, Totality in applicative theories. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 74, 105–120 (1995)
G. Jäger, T. Strahm, The proof-theoretic analysis of the Suslin operator in applicative theories, in Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics: Essays in Honor of Solomon Feferman, ed. by W. Sieg, R. Sommer, C. Talcott (AK Peters Ltd, Natick, MA, 2002), pp. 270–292
G. Jäger, R. Zumbrunnen, About the strength of operational regularity, in Logic, Construction, Computation, ed. by U. Berger, et al. (Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt, 2012), pp. 305–324
G. Kreisel, Mathematical logic, in Lectures on Modern Mathematics, vol. III ed. by T.L. Saaty (Wiley, New York, 1965), pp. 95–195
G. Kreisel, Principles of proof and ordinals implicit in given concepts, in Intuitionism and Proof Theory, ed. by A. Kino, et al. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1970), pp. 489–516
S. Kripke, Outline of a theory of truth. J. Philos. 72, 690–716 (1975)
M. Marzetta, T. Strahm, The \(\mu \) quantification operator in explicit mathematics with universes and iterated fixed point theories with ordinals. Arch. Math. Logic 37, 391–413 (1988)
A.R.D. Mathias, The strength of Mac Lane set theory. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 110, 107–234 (2001)
L.W. Miller, Normal functions and constructive ordinal notations. J. Symbolic Logic 41, 439–459 (1976)
W. Pohlers, Subsystems of set theory and second order number theory, in Handbook of Proof Theory, ed. by S. Buss (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1998), pp. 209–335
M. Rathjen, Monotone inductive definitions in explicit mathematics, J. Symbolic Logic 61, 125–146 (1996)
M. Rathjen, Explicit mathematics with monotone inductive definitions: a survey, in Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics, ed. by W. Sieg, et al. (1998), pp. 329–346. Second printing, Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 15 (2002)
M. Rathjen, Relativized ordinal analysis, The case of Power Kripke-Platek set theory. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 165, 316–339 (2014)
M. Rathjen, Power Kripke-Platek and the Axiom of Choice (2014). http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~rathjen/PowerAC.pdf
W. Richter, P. Aczel, Inductive definitions and reflecting properties of admissible ordinals, in Generalized Recursion Theory, ed. by J.E. Fenstad, P.G. Hinman (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974), pp. 301–381
K. Sato, A new model construction by making a detour via intuitionistic theories II, in Interpretability lower bound of Feferman’s Explicit Mathematics T\(_{0}\) (t.a.) (2014)
K. Sato, R. Zumbrunnen, A New Model Construction by Making a Detour via Intuitionistic Theories I. Operational Set Theory Without Choice is \(\Pi \) \(_{1}\) Equivalent to KP (2014). http://www.iam.unibe.ch/ltgpub/2014/sz14.pdf
K. Schütte, Eine Grenze für die Beweisbarkeit der transfiniten Induktion in der verzweigten Typenlogik. Archiv für mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung 7, 45–60 (1965)
S.G. Simpson, Subsystems of second order arithmetic, in Perspectives in Logic, (Springer, Berlin, 1988) 2nd edn. 2009
S.G. Simpson, Predicativity: the outer limits, in Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics ed. by W. Sieg, et al. (1998), pp. 130–136; 2nd printing, Lecture Notes in Logic vol. 15 (2002)
S.G. Simpson, The Gödel hierarchy and reverse mathematics, in Kurt Gödel. Essays for his Centennial, ed. by S. Feferman, et al. Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 33 (2010) pp. 109–127
S. Takahashi, Monotone inductive definitions in a constructive theory of functions and classes. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 42, 255–297 (1989)
W.W. Tait, Constructive reasoning, in Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science III (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981), pp. 185–199; reprinted in Tait [82], pp. 21–42
W.W. Tait, The Provenance of Pure Reason (Oxford University Press, New York, 2005)
J. van Heijenoort (ed.), From Frege to Gödel, A source book in mathematical logic (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1967)
J. von Neumann, Eine Axiomatisierung derMengenlehre, J. für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 154, 219–240 (1925); English translation in van Heijenoort [83], pp. 393–413
H. Weyl, Das Kontinuum. Kritische Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Analysis (Veit, Leipzig, 1918)
E. Zermelo, Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre I, Mathematische Annalen 65, 261–281 (1908). English translation in van Heijenoort 1967, pp. 199–215
R. Zumbrunnen, Contributions to Operational Set Theory, Ph.D. thesis, University of Bern (2013). http://www.iam.unibe.ch/ltgpub/2013/zum13.pdf
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Ulrik Buchholtz, Gerhard Jäger, Dieter Probst, Michael Rathjen, and Thomas Strahm for their helpful comments on a draft of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Feferman, S. (2016). The Operational Perspective: Three Routes. In: Kahle, R., Strahm, T., Studer, T. (eds) Advances in Proof Theory. Progress in Computer Science and Applied Logic, vol 28. Birkhäuser, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29198-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29198-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Birkhäuser, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29196-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29198-7
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)