Thirty Five Years of Automating Mathematics pp 149-171

Part of the Applied Logic Series book series (APLS, volume 28) | Cite as

Transitive Closure and the Mechanization of Mathematics

  • Arnon Avron


We argue that the concept of transitive closure is the key for understanding finitary inductive definitions and reasoning, and we provide evidence for the thesis that logics which are based on it (in which induction is a logical rule) are the right logical framework for the formalization and mechanization of mathematics. We investigate the expressive power of languages with the most basic transitive closure operation TC. We show that with TC one can define all recursive predicates and functions from 0, the successor function and addition, yet with TC alone addition is not definable from 0 and the successor function. However, in the presence of a pairing function, TC does suffice for having all types of finitary inductive definitions of relations and functions. This result is used for presenting a simple version of Feferman’s framework FS0, demonstrating that TC-logics provide in general an excellent framework for mechanizing formal systems. An interesting side effect of these results is a simple characterization of recursive enumerability and a new, concise version of the Church thesis. We end with a use of TC for a formalization of set theory which is based on purely syntactical considerations, and reflects real mathematical practice.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Avron et al., 1992]
    A. Avron, F. A. Honsell, I. A. Mason, and R. Pollack. Using Typed Lambda Calculus to Implement Formal Systems on a Machine, Journal of Automated Deduction, 9, 309–354, 1992.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Avron, 1987]
    A. Avron. Theorems on Strong Constructibility with a Compass alone, Journal of Geometry, 30, 28–35, 1987.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [Avron, 1990]
    A. Avron. On Strict Strong Constructibility with a Compass Alone, Journal of Geometry, 38, 12–15, 1990.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [Avron, 1993]
    A. Avron. An Exercise in An Interactive Geometrical research, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 9, 239–252, 1993.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [Avron, to appear]
    A. Avron. Partial Safety of Formulas as a Unifying Foundational Principle, To appear.Google Scholar
  6. [Barwise, 1977]
    J. Barwise, ed. Handbook of Mathematical Logic, vol. 90 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, North-Holland, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. [Büchi, 1962]
    J. R. Biichi. On a Decision Method in Restricted Second Order Arithmetic. In Logic Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Proceedings of the 1960 Congress, pp. 1–11. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1962.Google Scholar
  8. [Ebbinghaus and Flum, 1995]
    H. D. Ebbinghaus and J. Flum. Finite Model Theory, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer, 1995.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [Feferman, 1989]
    S. Feferman. Finitary Inductively Presented Logics/ In Logic Colloquium 1988,pp. 191–220. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989. Reprinted in [Gabbay, 1994, pp. 297–328].Google Scholar
  10. [Gabbay, 1994]
    D. M. Gabbay, editor. What is a Logical System? Oxford Science Publications, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. [Gentzen, 1969]
    G. Gentzen. Neue Fassung des Widersprtschsfreiheitsbeweises für die reine Zahlentheorie, Forschungen zur Logik, N.S., No. 4, pp. 19–44, 1969. English translation in: The collected work of Gerhard Gentzen, M. E. Szabo, ed. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969.Google Scholar
  12. [Grädel, 1992]
    E. Grädel. On Transitive Closure Logic. In Computer Science Logic (Berne 1991), pp. 149–163, vol. 626 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. [Gurevich, 1988]
    Y. Gurevich. Logic and the Challenge of Computer Science. In E. Börger, ed. Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 1–58. Computer Science Press Inc., Rockville, MD, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. [Harper et al., 1993]
    R. Harper, F. Honsell and G. Plotkin. A Framework for Defining Logics, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 40, 143–184, 1993.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [Immerman, 1983]
    N. Immerman. Languages which Capture Complexity Classes. In 15th Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 347–354. Association for Computing Machinery, 1983.Google Scholar
  16. [Levesque et al., 1997]
    H. Levesque, R. Reiter, Y. Lesperance, F. Lin, and R. Scherl. Golog: A logic programming language for dynamic domains, Journal of Logic Programming, 31, 59–84, 1997.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [Matthews, 1994]
    S. Matthews. A Theory and Its Metatheory in FSv. In [Gabbay, 1994, pp. 329–352].Google Scholar
  18. [Matthews, 1996]
    S. Matthews. Implementing FS0 in Isabelle: Adding Structure at the Metalevel. In Proc. Disco’96, J. Calmet and C. Limongelli, eds. Springer, Berlin, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. [Moschovakis, 1984]
    Y. Moschovakis. Abstract Recursion as a Foundation for the Theory of Algorithms, pp. 289–364. Vol 1104 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer, 1984.Google Scholar
  20. [Matthews et al., 1993]
    S. Matthews, A. Smaill, and D. Basin. Experience with FS0 as a Framework Theory. In Logical Environments, G. Huet and G. Plotkin, eds., pp. 61–82. Cambridge University Press, 1993,.Google Scholar
  21. [Pfenning, 1996]
    F. Pfenning. The Practice of Logical Frameworks. In Proceedings of the Colloquium on Trees in Algebra and Programming, Linköping, Sweden, April 1996, H. Kirchner, ed. pp. 119–134. Vol 1059 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. [Post, 1943]
    E. Post. Formal Reductions of the General Combinatorial Decision Problem, American J. of Mathematics, 197–214, 1943.Google Scholar
  23. [Smullyan, 1961]
    R. Smullyan. Theory of Formal Systems, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1961.MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. [Tarski, 1999]
    A. Tarski and S. Givant. Tarski’s System of Geometry, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 5, 175–214, 1999.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnon Avron

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations