On the Reflection Calculus with Partial Conservativity Operators

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10388)

Abstract

Strictly positive logics recently attracted attention both in the description logic and in the provability logic communities for their combination of efficiency and sufficient expressivity. The language of Reflection Calculus RC consists of implications between formulas built up from propositional variables and the constant ‘true’ using only conjunction and the diamond modalities which are interpreted in Peano arithmetic as restricted uniform reflection principles.

We extend the language of \(\mathrm {RC}\) by another series of modalities representing the operators associating with a given arithmetical theory T its fragment axiomatized by all theorems of T of arithmetical complexity \(\varPi ^0_n\), for all \(n>0\). We note that such operators, in a precise sense, cannot be represented in the full language of modal logic.

We formulate a formal system extending \(\mathrm {RC}\) that is sound and, as we conjecture, complete under this interpretation. We show that in this system one is able to express iterations of reflection principles up to any ordinal \(<\varepsilon _0\). On the other hand, we provide normal forms for its variable-free fragment. Thereby, the variable-free fragment is shown to be algorithmically decidable and complete w.r.t. its natural arithmetical semantics.

Keywords

Strictly positive logics Reflection principle Provability GLP 

References

  1. 1.
    Beklemishev, L.: A note on strictly positive logics and word rewriting systems. Preprint ArXiv:1509.00666 [math.LO] (2015)
  2. 2.
    Beklemishev, L.D., Onoprienko, A.A.: On some slowly terminating term rewriting systems. Sbornik: Math. 206, 1173–1190 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beklemishev, L.D.: Reflection calculus and conservativity spectra. ArXiv:1703.09314 [math.LO], March 2017
  4. 4.
    Beklemishev, L.D.: Proof-theoretic analysis by iterated reflection. Arch. Math. Logic 42, 515–552 (2003). doi:10.1007/s00153-002-0158-7 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beklemishev, L.D.: Provability algebras and proof-theoretic ordinals, I. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 128, 103–123 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beklemishev, L.D.: Reflection principles and provability algebras in formal arithmetic. Russ. Math. Surv. 60(2), 197–268 (2005). Russian original. Uspekhi Matematicheskikh Nauk 60(2), 3–78 (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beklemishev, L.D.: The Worm principle. In: Chatzidakis, Z., Koepke, P., Pohlers, W. (eds.) Lecture Notes in Logic 27. Logic Colloquium 2002, pp. 75–95. AK Peters (2006). Preprint: Logic Group Preprint Series 219, Utrecht University, March 2003Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beklemishev, L.D.: Calibrating provability logic: from modal logic to reflection calculus. In: Bolander, T., Braüner, T., Ghilardi, S., Moss, L. (eds.) Advances in Modal Logic, vol. 9, pp. 89–94. College Publications, London (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beklemishev, L.D.: Positive provability logic for uniform reflection principles. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 165(1), 82–105 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beklemishev, L.D.: On the reduction property for GLP-algebras. Doklady: Math. 95(1), 50–54 (2017)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beklemishev, L.D., Joosten, J., Vervoort, M.: A finitary treatment of the closed fragment of Japaridze’s provability logic. J. Logic Comput. 15(4), 447–463 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boolos, G.: The Logic of Provability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dashkov, E.V.: On the positive fragment of the polymodal provability logic GLP. Matematicheskie Zametki 91(3), 331–346 (2012). English translation. Math. Notes 91(3), 318–333 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Jongh, D., Japaridze, G.: The Logic of Provability. In: Buss, S.R. (ed.) Handbook of Proof Theory. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 137, pp. 475–546. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feferman, S.: Arithmetization of metamathematics in a general setting. Fundamenta Math. 49, 35–92 (1960)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goris, E., Joosten, J.J.: A new principle in the interpretability logic of all reasonable arithmetical theories. Logic J. IGPL 19(1), 1–17 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ignatiev, K.N.: On strong provability predicates and the associated modal logics. J. Symbolic Logic 58, 249–290 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Japaridze, G.K.: The modal logical means of investigation of provability. Thesis in Philosophy, in Russian, Moscow (1986)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Joosten, J., Reyes, E.H.: Turing Schmerl logic for graded Turing progressions. ArXiv:1604.08705v1 [math.LO] (2016)
  20. 20.
    Joosten, J.J.: Turing-Taylor expansions of arithmetical theories. Stud. Log. 104, 1225–1243 (2015). doi:10.1007/s11225-016-9674-z CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kikot, S., Kurucz, A., Tanaka, Y., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: On the completeness of EL-equiations: first results. In: 11th International Conference on Advances in Modal Logic, Short Papers (Budapest, 30 August–2 September 2016), pp. 82–87 (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pakhomov, F.: On the complexity of the closed fragment of Japaridze’s provability logic. Arch. Math. Logic 53(7), 949–967 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pakhomov, F.: On elementary theories of ordinal notation systems based on reflection principles. Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 289, 194–212 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shamkanov, D.: Nested sequents for provability logic GLP. Logic J. IGPL 23(5), 789–815 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shapirovsky, I.: PSPACE-decidability of Japaridze’s polymodal logic. In: Areces, C., Goldblatt, R. (eds.) Advances in Modal Logic, vol. 7, pp. 289–304. King’s College Publications (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Turing, A.M.: System of logics based on ordinals. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 45, 161–228 (1939)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Visser, A.: An overview of interpretability logic. In: Kracht, M., de Rijke, M., Wansing, H., Zakhariaschev, M. (eds.) Advances in Modal Logic, CSLI Lecture Notes, vol. 1, no. 87, pp. 307–359. CSLI Publications, Stanford (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Steklov Mathematical Institute of the Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations