Computability — Logical and Recursive Complexity

  • Stanley S. Wainer
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 79)


The basis of this short course is the strong analogy between programs and proofs (of their specifications). The main theme is the classification of computable number-theoretic functions according to the logical complexity of their formal specification or termination proofs. A significant sub-branch of mathematical logic has grown around this theme since the 1950’s and new ideas are presently giving rise to further developments. The methods employed are chiefly those from proof theory, particularly “normalization” as presented in the accompanying lectures of Helmut Schwichtenberg, and “ordinal assignments”. Since program-termination corresponds to well-foundedness of computation trees, it is hardly surprising that transfinite ordinals and their constructive representations play a crucial role, measuring the logical complexity of programs and of the functions which they compute.


Induction Hypothesis Turing Machine Recursive Function Accumulation Rule Proof Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1952], G. KreiselOn the interpretation of non-finitist proofs II, Journ. of Symbolic Logic 17, 43–58.Google Scholar
  2. [1953] A. Grzegorczyk, Some classes of recursive functions, Rozprawy Matem. IV, Warsaw.Google Scholar
  3. [1961] W.W. Tait, Nested Recursion, Math. Annalen 143, 236–250.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [1962] S. Feferman, Classification of recursive functions by means of hierarchies, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 104, 101–122.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [1965] J.W. Robbin, Subrecursive hierarchies, Ph.D. Princeton.72, 204–236Google Scholar
  6. [1968] W.W. Tait, Normal derivability in classical logic, in J. Barwise Ed., Springer Lecture Notes in Math. 72, 204–236.Google Scholar
  7. [1968] R.L. Constable, Extending and refining hierarchies of computable functions, T.R.25, Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  8. [1970] S.S. Wainer, A classification of the ordinal recursive functions, Archiv, f. math. Logik 13, 136–153.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [1971] H. Schwichtenberg, Eine klassifikation der ε 0rekursiven funktionen, Zeitschrift f. math. Logik 17, 61–74.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [1972] C. Parsons, On n-quantifier induction, Journ. of Symbolic Logic 37, 466–482.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [1972] S.S. Wainer, Ordinal recursion, and a refinement of the extended Grzegorczyk hierarchy, Journ. of Symbolic Logic 37, 281–292.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. [1973] G.E. Mints, Quantifier-free and one-quantifier systems, Jour. of Soviet Math. 1, 71–84 (Translation of original paper in Russian which appeared in 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [1977] K. Schütte, Proof theory, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  14. [1977] H. Schwichtenberg, Proof theory: some applications of cut-elimimation in J. Barwise Ed., “Handbook of Mathematical Logic”, North Holland, Amsterdam, 867–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [1977] J. Paris and L. Harrington, A mathematical incompleteness in Peano arithmetic, ibid 1133–1142.Google Scholar
  16. [1981] J. Ketonen and R. Solovay, Rapidly growing Ramsey functions, Annals of Math. 113, 267–314.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. [1982] L. Kirby and J. Paris, Accessible independence results for Peano arithmetic, Bull. London Math. Soc. 14, 285–293.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. [1983] E.A. Cichon, A short proof of two recently discovered independence results using recursion theoretic methods, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 87 (4), 704–706.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [1984] H.E. Rose, Subrecursion: functions and hierarchies, Oxford Logic Guides 9, Oxford Univ. Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [1985] W. Sieg, Fragments of arithmetic, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 28, 33–71.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. [1987] G. Takeuti, Proof theory, (2nd. edition) Studies in Logic 81, North Holland, Amsterdam.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. [1987] W. Buchholz and S.S. Wainer, Provably computable functions and the fast growing hierarchy, in S. G. Simpson Ed., “Logic and Combinatorics”, AMS Contemporary Math. 65, 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [1987] J.-Y. Girard, Proof theory and logical complexity, Bibliopolis, Naples.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. [1988] C.S. Copestake and S.S. Wainer, A proof theoretic approach to the termination of computer programs, Report 26.88, Centre for Theoretical Computer Science, Leeds University.Google Scholar
  25. [1989] S.S. Wainer, Slow growing versus fast growing, Journ. of Symbolic Logic 54, 608–614.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. [1989] M.V. Eairtlough and S.S. Wainer, Ordinal complexity of recursive definitions, Report 28.89, Centre for Theoretical Computer Science, Leeds University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stanley S. Wainer
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Mathematics and Centre for Theoretical Computer ScienceUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations