Logic, Algebra, and Computation pp 237-264 | Cite as

# Computability — Logical and Recursive Complexity

## Abstract

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.

## Keywords

Induction Hypothesis Turing Machine Recursive Function Accumulation Rule Proof Theory## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- [1952], G. Kreisel
*On the interpretation of non-finitist proofs II*, Journ. of Symbolic Logic 17, 43–58.Google Scholar - [1953] A. Grzegorczyk,
*Some classes of recursive functions*, Rozprawy Matem. IV, Warsaw.Google Scholar - [1961] W.W. Tait,
*Nested Recursion*, Math. Annalen 143, 236–250.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - [1962] S. Feferman,
*Classification of recursive functions by means of hierarchies*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 104, 101–122.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - [1965] J.W. Robbin,
*Subrecursive hierarchies*, Ph.D. Princeton.72, 204–236Google Scholar - [1968] W.W. Tait,
*Normal derivability in classical logic*, in J. Barwise Ed., Springer Lecture Notes in Math. 72, 204–236.Google Scholar - [1968] R.L. Constable,
*Extending and refining hierarchies of computable functions*, T.R.25, Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin.Google Scholar - [1970] S.S. Wainer,
*A classification of the ordinal recursive functions*, Archiv, f. math. Logik 13, 136–153.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - [1971] H. Schwichtenberg,
*Eine klassifikation der ε*_{0}—*rekursiven funktionen*, Zeitschrift f. math. Logik 17, 61–74.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - [1972] C. Parsons,
*On n-quantifier induction*, Journ. of Symbolic Logic 37, 466–482.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - [1972] S.S. Wainer,
*Ordinal recursion, and a refinement of the extended Grzegorczyk hierarchy*, Journ. of Symbolic Logic 37, 281–292.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - [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 - [1977] K. Schütte,
*Proof theory*, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar - [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 - [1977] J. Paris and L. Harrington,
*A mathematical incompleteness in Peano arithmetic*, ibid 1133–1142.Google Scholar - [1981] J. Ketonen and R. Solovay,
*Rapidly growing Ramsey functions*, Annals of Math. 113, 267–314.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - [1982] L. Kirby and J. Paris,
*Accessible independence results for Peano arithmetic*, Bull. London Math. Soc. 14, 285–293.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - [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 - [1984] H.E. Rose,
*Subrecursion: functions and hierarchies*, Oxford Logic Guides 9, Oxford Univ. Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - [1985] W. Sieg,
*Fragments of arithmetic*, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 28, 33–71.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - [1987] G. Takeuti,
*Proof theory*, (2nd. edition) Studies in Logic 81, North Holland, Amsterdam.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - [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 - [1987] J.-Y. Girard,
*Proof theory and logical complexity*, Bibliopolis, Naples.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - [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 - [1989] S.S. Wainer,
*Slow growing versus fast growing*, Journ. of Symbolic Logic 54, 608–614.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - [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