Tiered Arithmetics

  • Helmut Schwichtenberg
  • Stanley S. Wainer
Part of the Outstanding Contributions to Logic book series (OCTR, volume 13)


In his paper “Logics for Termination and Correctness of Functional Programs, II. Logics of Strength PRA” [5] Feferman was concerned with the problem of how to guarantee the feasibility (or at least the subrecursive complexity) of functions definable in certain logical systems. His ideas have influenced much subsequent work, for instance the final chapter of [13]. There, linear two-sorted systems \(\mathrm {LT({;})}\) (a version of Gödel’s T) and \(\mathrm {LA({;})}\) (a corresponding arithmetical theory) of polynomial-time strength were introduced. Here we extend \(\mathrm {LT({;})}\) and \(\mathrm {LA({;})}\) in such a way that some forms of non-linearity are covered as well. This is important when one wants to deal on the proof level with particular algorithms, not only with the functions they compute. Examples are divide-and-conquer approaches as in treesort, and the first of two main sections here gives a detailed analysis of this. The second topic treated heads in a quite different direction, though again its roots lie in the final chapter of [13]. Instead of just two sorts we consider transfinite ramified sequences of them, or “tiers”; ordinally labelled copies of the natural numbers, respecting certain pointwise orderings. A hierarchy of infinitary arithmetical theories \(\mathrm {EA}(I_\alpha )\) is devised, \(I_\alpha \) designating the top tier. These are weak numerical analogues of the iterated inductive definitions underpinning much of Feferman’s fundamental work over decades; see for example his survey [6] and the technical classic [3]. The computational strength of \(\mathrm {EA}(I_\alpha )\) is summarized thus: it proves the totality of all functions elementary in the Fast-Growing \(F_\alpha \). A “pointwise” concept of transfinite induction then provides an ordinal measure of strength, but this is a weak, finitistic analogue of the usual notions, related to the Slow-Growing hierarchy.


Polynomial time Linear two-sorted arithmetic Program extraction Tiered arithmetic Fast and slow-growing hierarchies Pointwise transfinite induction. 

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification

03D20 03D15 03F05 


  1. 1.
    Bellantoni, S., Cook, S.: A new recursion-theoretic characterization of the polytime functions. Comput. Complex. 2, 97–110 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchholz, W.: An independence result for \({\Pi }^1_1\)-CA+BI. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 33(2), 131–155 (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buchholz, W., Feferman, S., Pohlers, W., Sieg, W.: Iterated Inductive Definitions and Subsystems of Analysis: Recent Proof-Theoretical Studies. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin (1981)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cantini, A.: Polytime, combinatory logic and positive safe induction. Arch. Math. Log. 41(2), 169–189 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feferman, S.: Logics for termination and correctness of functional programs, II. logics of strength PRA. In Aczel, P., Simmons, H., Wainer, S. (eds.) Proof Theory. A selection of papers from the Leeds Proof Theory Programme 1990, pp. 195–225. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feferman, S.: The proof theory of classical and constructive inductive definitions. a forty year saga 1968-2008. In Schindler, R. (ed.) Ways of Proof Theory: Festschrift for W. Pohlers, pp. 7–30. Ontos Verlag (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kolmogorov, A.N.: Zur Deutung der intuitionistischen Logik. Math. Zeitschr. 35, 58–65 (1932)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leivant, D.: Intrinsic theories and computational complexity. In: Leivant, D. (ed.) Logic and Computational Complexity. International Workshop LCC ’94, Indianapolis, IN, USA, October 1994, LNCS, vol. 960, pp. 177–194. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leivant, D.: Ramified recurrence and computational complexity I: word recurrence and poly-time. In: Clote, P., Remmel, J. (eds.) Feasible Mathematics II, pp. 320–343. Birkhäuser, Boston (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mints, G.: Finite investigations of transfinite derivations. J. Sov. Math. 10:548–596, 1978. Translated from: Zap. Nauchn. Semin. LOMI. 49 (1975)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nelson, E.: Predicative Arithmetic. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1986)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmerl, U.: A proof theoretical fine structure in systems of ramified analysis. Archiv für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung 22, 167–186 (1982)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwichtenberg, H., Wainer, S.S.: Proofs and Computations. Perspectives in Logic. Association for Symbolic Logic and Cambridge University Press (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simmons, H.: The realm of primitive recursion. Arch. Math. Log. 27, 177–188 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wainer, S.S.: Pointwise transfinite induction and a miniaturized predicativity. In: Kahle, R., Strahm, T., Studer, T. (eds.) Advances in Proof Theory, pp. 409–425. Birkhäuser, Basel (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weiermann, A.: What makes a (pointwise) subrecursive hierarchy slow growing? In: Cooper, S., Truss, J. (eds) Sets and Proofs: Logic Colloquium ’97, London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes, vol. 258, pp. 403–423. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematisches Institut der Universität MünchenMünchenGermany
  2. 2.School of Mathematics, University of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations