Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-plnhv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-08-29T21:02:04.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On power set in explicit mathematics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Thomas Glass
Thomas Glass*
Affiliation:
Siemens AG, Zentralabteilung Forschung und Entwicklung, D-81730 München, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the determination of the proof-strength of the power set axiom relative to axiom systems for Feferman's explicit mathematics. As conjectured by Feferman, we obtain that the presence of the power set axiom does not increase proof-strength.

Results are achieved by reducing the systems including the power set axiom to subsystems of classical analysis. In those cases where only the induction axiom is available, we make use of the technique of asymmetrical interpretations.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 468 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1]Cantini, A., On the relation between choice and comprehension principles in second order arithmetic, this Journal, vol. 51 (1986), pp. 360–373.Google Scholar
[2]Feferman, S., A language and axioms for explicit mathematics, Algebra and logic (Crossley, J. N., editor), Lect. Notes Math., vol. 450, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, New York, 1975, pp. 87–139.Google Scholar
[3]Feferman, S., Recursion theory and set theory: a marriage of convenience, Generalized recursion theory II (Fenstad, J. E.et al., editors), Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 94, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978, pp. 55–98.Google Scholar
[4]Feferman, S., Constructive theories of functions and classes, Logic colloquium '78 (Boffa, M.et al, editor), Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 97, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979, pp. 159–224.Google Scholar
[5]Feferman, S. and Jäger, G., Systems of explicit mathematics with non-constructive μ-operator. Part II, to appear in Annals of Pure and Applied Logic.Google Scholar
[6]Feferman, S. and Sieg, W., Inductive definitions and subsystems of analysis, Iterated inductive definitions and subsystems of analysis: Recent proof-theoretical studies (Buchholz, W.et al., editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 897, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, New York, 1981, pp. 16–77.Google Scholar
[7]Feferman, S., Proof-theoretic equivalence between classical and constructive theories for analysis, Iterated inductive definitions and subsystems of analysis: Recent proof-theoretical studies (Buchholz, W.et al., editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 897, Springer, Heidelberg, New York, 1981, pp. 78–142.Google Scholar
[8]Girard, J.-Y., A survey of Π12-logic, Logic, methodology and philosophy of science VI (Cohen, L. J.et al., editors), Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, no. 104, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 89–107.Google Scholar
[9]Glaß, T., Understanding uniformity in Feferman's explicit mathematics, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 75 (1995), pp. 83–106.Google Scholar
[10]Giaß, T. and Strahm, T., Systems of explicit mathematics with non-constructive μ-operator and join, to to appear in Annals of Pure and Applied Logic.Google Scholar
[11]Griffor, E. and Rathjen, M., The strength of some Martin-Löf type theories, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 33 (1994), pp. 347–385.Google Scholar
[12]Jäger, G., Theories for admissible sets. A unifying approach to proof theory, Studies in Proof Theory, vol. 2, Bibliopolis, Naples, 1986.Google Scholar
[13]Pohlers, W., Proof-theoretical analysis of IDv by the method of local predicativity, Iterated induetive definitions and subsystems of analysis: Recent proof-theoretical studies (Buchholz, W.et al., editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, New York, 1981, pp. 261–357.Google Scholar
[14]Pohlers, W., Proof theory. An introduction, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, no. 1407, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1989.Google Scholar
[15]Rathjen, M., Untersuchungen zu Teilsystemen der Zahlentheorie zweiter Stufe und der Mengenlehre mit einer zwischen Δ12-CA und Δ12-CA + BI liegenden Beweisstärke, Institut für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung, Münster (1989).Google Scholar
[16]Schütte, K., Proof theory, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 225, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
[17]Simpson, S. G., Subsystems of second order arithmetic, Pennsylvania State Univiversity, 1986.Google Scholar
[18]Takahashi, S., Monotone inductive definitions in a constructive theory of functions and classes, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 42 (1989), pp. 255–297.Google Scholar