STUDIES IN LOGIC

AND

THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS

VOLUME 137

S. ABRAMSKY I S. ARTEMOV I R.A. SHORE I A.S. TROELSTRA

EDITORS

HANDBOOK
OF
PROOF THEORY

SAMUEL R. BUSS (Editor)

ELSEVIER

AMSTERDAM' LAUSANNE' NEW YORK, OXFORD' SHANNON' SINGAPORE' TOKYU

 HANDBOOK
HANDBOOK
OF
OF
PROOF THEORY
PROOF THEORY
 STUDIES
STUDIES IN
IN LOGIC
LOGIC
AND
AND
THE FOUNDATIONS OF
THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
MATHEMATICS

VOLUME
VOLUME 137
137

Honorary
H o n o r a r y Editor:
Editor:

P. SUPPES
P. SUPPES

Editors:
Editors"

S. ABRAMSKY,
S. A BRAMSKY, London
London
S. A R T E M O V , Moscow
S. ARTEMOV, Moscow
R.A. S H O R E , Ithaca
R . A . SHORE, Ithaca
A.S. T R O E L S T R A , Amsterdam
A . S . TROELSTRA, Amsterdam

ELSEVIER
ELSEVIER

AMSTERDAM.9LAUSANNE
AMSTERDAM LAUSANNE·9NEW
NEW YORK
YORK·~ OXFORD
OXFORD·~ SHANNON
SHANNON·9SINGAPORE
SINGAPORE·~ TOKYO
TOKYO
 ELSEVIER SCIENCE B.V.
Sara Burgerhartstraat 25
P.O.
P.O. Box 211, 1000
1000 AE Amsterdam
The Netherlands

Library of Congress
Library of Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Handbook of proof theory // edited by Samuel R. Buss.
Buss.
p. cm. -- (Studies in logic and the foundations of
mathematics;
mathematics ; v. 137)
137)
Includes bibliographic references and indexes.
ISBN 0-444-89840-9 (alk. paper)
I.
1. Proof theory. I. Buss, Samuel R. II. Series.
QA9.54.H35
QA9.54.H35 1998
1998
51l .3--dc21
511.3--dc21 98-18922
CIP

ISBN: 0-444-89840-9

©
9 1998
1998 Elsevier Science B. V. All rights reserved.
B.V.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without
without the
the prior
prior written
written permission
permission of
of the
the publisher,
publisher, Elsevier
Elsevier Science
Science B.V.,
Copyright && Permissions Department, P.O. Box 521, 10001000 AM Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Netherlands.

Special regulations for readers in the U.S.A.

U.S.A. This publication has been registered with the
Copyright Clearance Center Inc. (Ccq,
(CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923.
01923.
Information can be obtained from the CCC about conditions under which photocopies of
parts of this publication may be made in the U.S.A. All other copyright questions,
including photocopying outside of the U.S.A., should be referred to the copyright owner,
Elsevier Science B.V., unless otherwise specified.

No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or
property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or
operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein.

9
O The
The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of ANSIINISO
ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992
(Permanence of Paper).
Paper).

Printed in The Netherlands

 Preface
P reface

Proof theory
Proof theory is is the
the study
study of of proofs
proofs as as formal
formal objects
objects andand isis concerned
concerned with with aa
broad range
broad range ofof related
related topics.
topics. ItIt isis one
one ofof the
the central
central topics
topics ofof mathematical
mathematical logic logic and
and
has applications
has applications in in many
many areas
areas ofof mathematics,
mathematics, philosophy,
philosophy, and and computer
computer science.
science.
Historically, proof
Historically, proof theory
theory was developed by
was developed mathematicians and
by mathematicians and philosophers
philosophers as as
aa formalization
formalization for for mathematical
mathematical reasoning;reasoning; however,
however, proofproof theory
theory has has gradually
gradually
become increasingly
become increasingly important
important for for computer
computer science,
science, and
and nowadays
nowadays proofproof theory
theory and and
theoretical computer
theoretical computer science are recognized
science are recognized as being very
as being very closely connected.
closely connected.
This volume
This volume contains articles covering
contains articles covering aa broad
broad spectrum
spectrum of proof theory,
of proof theory, with
with anan
emphasis
emphasis on on its
its mathematical
mathematical aspects.aspects. The The articles
articles should
should notnot only
only be interesting
be interesting
to specialists
to specialists inin proof theory, but
proof theory, but should
should also
also be be accessible
accessible to to aa diverse
diverse audience,
audience,
including logicians,
including logicians, mathematicians,
mathematicians, computer computer scientists
scientists andand philosophers.
philosophers. We We
have attempted
have attempted to to include
include many
many of of the
the central topics in
central topics in proof theory; but
proof theory; but have
have
opted
opted toto have
have self-contained
self-contained expository
expository articles,
articles, rather
rather than
than toto have
have encyclopedic
encyclopedic
coverage.
coverage. Thus,
Thus, aa number
number of of important
important topics topics havehave been
been largely
largely omitted,
omitted, but but with
with
the
the advantage
advantage that that the
the included
included material
material is is covered
covered in in more
more detail
detail andand atat greater
greater
depth.
depth.
The
The chapters
chapters are are arranged
arranged so so that the two
that the two introductory
introductory articles
articles come
come first;
first; these
these
are
are then
then followed
followed by by articles
articles from
from the the core
core classical
classical areas
areas ofof proof
proof theory;
theory; finally
finally the
the
handbook
handbook ends ends with
with articles
articles that
that dealdeal with
with topics
topics closely related to
closely related to computer
computer science.
science.
This handbook
This handbook was was initiated
initiated at at the
the suggestion
suggestion of of the
the publisher,
publisher, as as aa partial
partial
successor
successor toto the
the very successful Handbook of Mathematical Logic, edited
very successful edited byby J.
J. Barwise.
Barwise.
Only
Only one
one quarter
quarter of the 1977
of the 1977 Handbook
Handbook of Mathematical Logic Logic was
was devoted
devoted to to proof
proof
theory,
theory, andand since
since then
then there
there has
has been been considerable
considerable progress
progress in in this
this area;
area; as as aa
result,
result, there
there isis remarkably
remarkably littlelittle overlap
overlap between
between the the contents
contents of of the
the Handbook of
Mathematical Logic Logic and
and thethe present
present volume.
volume.

Sam
Sam Buss
Buss
La
La Jolla,
Jolla, California
California
November 1997
November 1997
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
 List
List of
of Contributors
Contributors

J. Avigad, Carnegie University ((Ch.

Carnegie Mellon University Ch. V)
S.R.
S.R. Buss,
Buss, University of California, Diego ((Ch.
California, San Diego Ch. I and
and II)
R.L. Constable, Cornell
R.L. Constable, University ((Ch.
Cornell University Ch. X)
M.
M. Fairtlough, University of Sheffield ((Ch.
Fairtlough, University Ch. III)
S. Feferman,
S. University ((Ch.
Feferman, Stanford University Ch. V)
G. Jager,
G. Universitiit Bern ((Ch.
J~ger, Universitiit Ch. IX)
G. Japaridze,
G. University of Pennsylvania ((Ch.
Japaridze, University Ch. VII)
D. de
D. de Jongh, University of Amsterdam ((Ch.
Jongh, University Ch. VII)
P. Pudhik,
P. Pudls Academy of Sciences
Sciences of the Czech Republic ((Ch.
Czech Republic Ch. VIII)
W. Pohlers, Westfiilische
W. Pohlers, Westf~lische Wilhelms- Universitiit ((Ch.
Wilhelms-Universit~t Ch. IV)
R.F. Stark,
St~rk, Universitiit Freiburg ((Ch.
UniversitSt Freiburg Ch. IX)
University of Amsterdam ((Ch.
A.S. Troelstra, University Ch. VI)
S.S.
S.S. Wainer,
Wainer, University Leeds ((Ch.
University of Leeds Ch. III)
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
 Table
Table of
of Contents
Contents

Preface .. . .. . .. . .. . ... ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Preface vv
List
List of
of Contributors
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
V ll

Chapter
Chapter I.I. An
An Introduction
Introduction to to Proof
Proof Theory Theory
Samuel
S a m u e l R. B u s s .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . .
R. Buss . . . . . . . . . 11
Chapter II. First-Order
Chapter II. First-Order ProofProof Theory
Theory of of Arithmetic
Arithmetic
Samuel
S a m u e l R. B u s s .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .
R. Buss . . . . . . . . . 79
79
Chapter
Chapter III.
III. Hierarchies
Hierarchies of of Provably
Provably Recursive Recursive FunctionsFunctions
Matt
M a t t Fairtlough
Fairtlough and
and Stanley
Stanley S. W a i n e r .. .. .. . . . . . . . ..
S. Wainer . . . . . . . . 149
149
Chapter
Chapter IV.IV. Subsystems
Subsystems of of Set
Set Theory
Theory and and Second
Second Order Order Number Number Theory Theory
Wolfram Pohlers .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 209
W o l f r a m Pohlers 209
Chapter
Chapter V. V. Godel's
G5del's Functional
Functional (("Dialectica")
"Dialectica") Interpretation
Interpretation
JJeremy
e r e m y Avigad
A vigad and
and Solomon F e # r m a n .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . 337
S o l o m o n Feferman 337
Chapter VI.
Chapter VI. Realizability
Realizability
A nnne
A n e S. Troelstra .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 407
S. Troelstra 407
Chapter
Chapter VII.
VII. TheThe Logic
Logic of
of Provability
Provability
Giorgi
Giorgi Japaridze
Japaridze and
and Dick
D i c k de
de Jongh
Jongh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
475
Chapter
Chapter VIII.
VIII. The
The Lengths
Lengths of
of Proofs
Proofs
Pavel
Pavel Pudltik . . .. .. ..
P u d l d k .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547
547
Chapter
Chapter IX.
IX. A
A Proof-Theoretic
Proof-Theoretic Framework
Framework for
for Logic
Logic Programming
Programming
Gerhard
Gerhard Jager
J @ e r and
and Robert
Robert F. StSrk .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. ..
F. Stark . . . . . . 639
639
Chapter
Chapter X.
X. Types
Types in
in Logic,
Logic, Mathematics
Mathematics and
and Programming
Programming
Robert
Robert L.
L. Constable
Constable .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683
683

Name Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Name Index 787
787
Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subject Index 797
797
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
 CHAPTER
C H A P T E R II

An
An Introduction
Introduction to
to Proof
P r o o f Theory
Theory

Samuel
Samuel R. R. Buss
Buss
Departments of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of California,
California, San Diego
La Jolla, 92093-0112, USA
Jolla, California 92093-0112,

Contents
Contents
1.
1. Proof
P r o o f theory
theory of of propositional
propositional logiclogic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.1.
1.1. Frege
Frege proof
p r o o f systems
systems .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
1.2.
1.2. The T h e propositional
propositional sequent sequent calculus
calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10
1.3.
1.3. Propositional
P r o p o s i t i o n a l resolution
resolution refutations
refutations .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
18
2. Proof
2. P r o o f theory
theory of of first-order
first-order logic
logic .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
26
2.1. Syntax
2.1. S y n t a x and semantics .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
and semantics 26
26
2.2.
2.2. Hilbert-style
Hilbert-style proof proof systems
systems .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
29
2.3.
2.3. The T h e first-order
first-order sequent sequent calculus
calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
31
2.4.
2.4. Cut elimination .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cut elimination 36
36
2.5.
2.5. Herbrand's
H e r b r a n d ' s theorem,
theorem, interpolation
interpolation andand definability
definability theorems theorems . . . . . . . . 48
48
2.6.
2.6. First-order
First-order logic logic and
and resolution
resolution refutations
refutations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
59
3.
3. Proof
P r o o f theory
theory for for other
other logics
logics .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
64
3.1.
3.1. Intuitionistic
Intuitionistic logic logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
64
3.2.
3.2. Linear
Linear logic logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
70
References .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References 74
74

HANDBOOK
HANDBOOK O OF F PPROOF
R O O F THEORY
THEORY
Edited
Edited by S. R.
by S. R. Buss
Buss
© 1998
1998 Elsevier
Elsevier Science
Science B.V.
B.V. All
All rights
rights reserved
reserved
22 s. Buss
S. Buss

Proof Theory
Proof Theory is is the
the area
area of of mathematics
mathematics which which studies
studies thethe concepts
concepts of of mathemat-
mathemat­
ical proof
ical proof and and mathematical
mathematical provability.provability. Since Since the the notion
notion of of "proof"
"proof" plays
plays aa central
central
role in
role in mathematics
mathematics as as thethe means
means by by which
which the the truth
truth or or falsity
falsity of of mathematical
mathematical
propositions is
propositions is established;
established; Proof Proof Theory
Theory is, is, inin principle
principle at at least,
least, the the study
study of of
the foundations
the foundations of of allall of
of mathematics.
mathematics. Of Of course,
course, the the use
use of of Proof
Proof Theory
Theory as as aa
foundation for
foundation for mathematics
mathematics is is of
of necessity
necessity somewhat
somewhat circular,circular, since
since Proof
Proof Theory
Theory is is
itself aa subfield
itself subfield of of mathematics.
mathematics.
There are
There are two
two distinct
distinct viewpoints
viewpoints of of what
what aa mathematical
mathematical proof proof is.is. The
The first
first view
view
is that
is that proofs
proofs areare social
social conventions
conventions by by which
which mathematicians
mathematicians convince convince one one another
another
of the
of the truth
truth of of theorems.
theorems. That That is is to
to say,
say, aa proof
proof is is expressed
expressed in in natural
natural language
language
plus possibly
plus possibly symbols
symbols and and figures,
figures, and and is is sufficient
sufficient to to convince
convince an an expert
expert of of the
the
correctness of
correctness of aa theorem.
theorem. Examples Examples of of social
social proofs
proofs include
include the the kinds
kinds of of proofs
proofs thatthat
are presented
are presented in in conversations
conversations or or published
published in in articles.
articles. Of Of course,
course, itit isis impossible
impossible to to
precisely define
precisely define what
what constitutes
constitutes aa valid valid proof
proof in in this
this social
social sense;
sense; and,
and, thethe standards
standards
for valid
for proofs may
valid proofs may varyvary withwith thethe audience
audience and and over time. The
over time. The second
second viewview of of proofs
proofs
is more
is more narrow
narrow in in scope:
scope: in in this view, aa proof
this view, proof consists
consists of of aa string
string of of symbols
symbols which which
satisfy some precisely
satisfy some stated set
precisely stated set ofof rules
rules and
and which
which prove prove a a theorem,
theorem, which which itself
itself must
must
also
also be expressed as
be expressed as aa string
string of of symbols.
symbols. According
According to this view,
to this view, mathematics
mathematics can can
be regarded
be regarded as as a 'game ' played
a 'game' played with with strings
strings of of symbols
symbols according
according to to some
some precisely
precisely
defined
defined rules.
rules. Proofs
Proofs of of the
the latter
latter kind
kind are
are called
called "formal"
"formal" proofs
proofs to to distinguish
distinguish them them
from
from "social"
"social" proofs.
proofs.
In practice,
In practice, social
social proofs
proofs and formal proofs
and formal proofs are very closely
are very closely related.
related. Firstly,
Firstly,
aa formal
formal proofproof cancan serve
serve as as aa social
social proof
proof (although
(although it it may
may be be very tedious and
very tedious and
unintuitive) provided
unintuitive) provided it it isis formalized
formalized in in a a proof
proof system
system whosewhose validity
validity is is trusted.
trusted.
Secondly, the
Secondly, the standards
standards for for social
social proofs
proofs are are sufficiently
sufficiently high high that,
that, in in order
order for for a a
proof
proof to to be socially accepted,
be socially accepted, it it should
should be be possible
possible (in (in principle!)
principle!) to to generate
generate aa formalformal
proof corresponding to
proof corresponding to the
the social
social proof. Indeed, this
proof. Indeed, this offers
offers an
an explanation
explanation for for the
the fact
fact
that there
that there areare generally
generally acceptedaccepted standards
standards for for social
social proofs;
proofs; namely,
namely, the the implicit
implicit
requirement
requirement that that proofs
proofs can can bebe expressed,
expressed, in in principle,
principle, in in aa formal
formal proofproof system
system
enforces
enforces and and determines
determines the the generally
generally accepted
accepted standards
standards for for social
social proofs.
proofs.
Proof Theory
Proof Theory is is concerned
concerned almost almost exclusively
exclusively with with thethe study
study of of formal
formal proofs:
proofs:
this
this is
is justified,
justified, in in part,
part, by by the
the close
close connection
connection between between social
social andand formal
formal proofs,
proofs,
and
and itit is necessitated by
is necessitated by the
the fact
fact that only formal
that only formal proofsproofs areare subject
subject to to mathematical
mathematical
analysis.
analysis. The The principal
principal tasks tasks of of Proof
Proof Theory
Theory can can be be summarized
summarized as as follows.
follows. First,
First, to to
formulate
formulate systems
systems of of logic
logic and and sets
sets ofof axioms
axioms which which are are appropriate
appropriate for for formalizing
formalizing
mathematical
mathematical proofs proofs and and to to characterize
characterize what what results
results of of mathematics
mathematics follow follow from from
certain
certain axioms;
axioms; or, or, in in other
other words,
words, to to investigate
investigate the the proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic strength strength of of
particular
particular formal
formal systems.
systems. Second, Second, to to study
study the the structure
structure of of formal
formal proofs;
proofs; for for
instance,
instance, to to find
find normal
normal forms forms for for proofs
proofs and and to to establish
establish syntactic
syntactic facts facts about
about
proofs. This
proofs. This is
is the
the study
study of of proofs
proofs as as objects
objects of of independent
independent interest.
interest. Third,
Third, to to study
study
what
what kind
kind of of additional
additional information
information can can be be extracted
extracted from from proofs
proofs beyond
beyond the the truth
truth
of
of the
the theorem
theorem being being proved.
proved. In In certain
certain cases,
cases, proofs
proofs may may contain
contain computational
computational or or
constructive
constructive information.
information. Fourth, Fourth, to to study
study how how bestbest to to construct
construct formal
formal proofs;
proofs; e.g.,e.g.,
what
what kinds
kinds of of proofs
proofs can can be be efficiently
efficiently generated
generated by by computers?
computers?
 Introduction to
to Proof Theory 3

The
The study
study ofof Proof
Proof Theory
Theory isis traditionally
traditionally motivated
motivated by by the
the problem
problem of of formaliz­
formaliz-
ing
ing mathematical
mathematical proofs;
proofs; the
the original
original formulation
formulation ofof first-order
first-order logic
logic by Frege [1879]
by Frege [1879]
was
was the
the first
first successful
successful step
step in
in this
this direction.
direction. Increasingly,
Increasingly, there
there have
have been
been attempts
attempts
to
to extend
extend Mathematical
Mathematical LogicLogic toto be
be applicable
applicable toto other domains; for
other domains; for example,
example,
intuitionistic
intuitionistic logic
logic deals
deals with
with the
the formalization
formalization of of constructive
constructive proofs,
proofs, and
and logic
logic
programming
programming is is aa widely
widely used
used tool
tool for
for artificial
artificial intelligence.
intelligence. InIn these
these and
and other
other
domains,
domains, Proof
Proof Theory
Theory is
is of
of central
central importance
importance because
because ofof the
the possibility
possibility of
of computer
computer
generation
generation and
and manipulation
manipulation of of formal
formal proofs.
proofs.

This
This handbook
handbook coverscovers thethe central
central areas
areas of
of Proof
Proof Theory,
Theory, especially
especially thethe math­
math-
ematical
ematical aspects
aspects of of Proof
Proof Theory,
Theory, but but largely
largely omits
omits the
the philosophical
philosophical aspects
aspects ofof
proof theory.
proof theory. This
This first chapter is
first chapter intended to
is intended to be
be an
an overview
overview and and introduction
introduction to to
mathematical
mathematical proofproof theory.
theory. It It concentrates
concentrates on on the proof theory
the proof theory of of classical logic,
logic,
especially
especially propositional
propositional logic
logic and
and first-order
first-order logic.
logic. This
This isis for
for two
two reasons:
reasons: firstly,
firstly,
classical first-order
classical first-order logic
logic isis by
by far
far the
the most
most widely
widely used
used framework
framework for for mathematical
mathematical
reasoning,
reasoning, and and secondly,
secondly, many many results
results andand techniques
techniques ofof classical
classical first-order
first-order logic
logic
frequently
frequently carryover
carryover with
with relatively
relatively minor
minor modifications
modifications to to other
other logics.
logics.
This
This introductory
introductory chapter
chapter will
will deal
deal primarily
primarily with
with the
the sequent
sequent calculus,
calculus, and
and
resolution,
resolution, andand toto lesser
lesser extent,
extent, thethe Hilbert-style
Hilbert-style proof
proof systems
systems and and the
the natural
natural
deduction proof
deduction system. We
proof system. We fi rst examine
first examine proof
proof systems
systems for propositional logic,
for propositional logic,
then
then proof
proof systems
systems forfor first-order
first-order logic.
logic. Next
Next we we consider
consider some
some applications
applications of of cut
cut
elimination,
elimination, which
which isis arguably
arguably the the central
central theorem
theorem ofof proof
proof theory.
theory. Finally,
Finally, wewe review
review
the
the proof
proof theory
theory ofof some
some non-classical
non-classical logics,
logics, including
including intuitionistic logic and
intuitionistic logic and linear
linear
logic.
logic.

1
1.. Proof
P r o o f ttheory
h e o r y of
o f propositional
propositional logic
logic

Classical
Classical propositional logic, also
propositional logic, also called
called sentential
sentential logic,
logic, dealsdeals withwith sentences
sentences and and
propositions as
propositions as abstract
abstract units
units which
which taketake on distinct True
on distinct True/False/False values.
values. The The basic
basic
syntactic
syntactic units
units of
of propositional
propositional logic
logic areare variables which
which represent
represent atomic
atomic propo­
propo-
sitions
sitions which
which maymay have
have value
value either
either True True or False. Propositional
or False. Propositional variables variables are are
combined
combined with with Boolean functions ((also
Boolean functions also called
called connectives
connectives): ) : aa kk-ary
-ary Boolean function
is
is aa mapping
mapping from
from {{T,T, F}k
F} k to T, F} where
to {{T,F} where we we use
use T and F
T and F toto represent
represent True and and
False. The
The most
most frequently
frequently used
used examples
examples of of Boolean
Boolean functions
functions are are the connectives T
the connectives T
and ..L
and _L which
which areare the
the O-ary
0-ary functions
functions with with values
values T and F,
T and respectively; the
F , respectively; the binary
binary
connectives 1\.,
connectives A, V,V, ::)
D,, t-+ and ED
++ and @ forfor "and"
"and",, "or"
"or",, "if-then"
"if-then",, "if-and-only-if"
"if-and-only-if" and and
"parity"
"parity";; and
and the
the unary
unary connective
connective -, -~ for negation. Note
for negation. Note that that V is is the
the inclusive-or
inclusive-or
and ED
and @ is
is the
the exclusive-or.
exclusive-or.
We
We shall
shall henceforth
henceforth letlet the
the set
set of
of propositional
propositional variables
variables be be V V= (pl,, P2
- {PI p2,, P3 , . . .} ;
p3,...};
however,
however, our our theorems
theorems below hold also
below hold also for
for uncountable
uncountable sets sets of of propositional
propositional variables.
variables.
The
The setset of
of formulas
formulas is is inductively
inductively defined
defined by by stating
stating that
that every
every propositional
propositional variablevariable
is
is aa formula,
formula, and
and that
that if
if A and
and B areare formulas,
formulas, then
then ((~A),
-,A) , (AI\.B
(AAB), ) , (AV
(AVB),B ) , (A ::)
DB B),),
etc.,
etc., are
are formulas.
formulas. A A truth assignment consistsconsists ofof an
an assignment
assignment of of True / False values
True/False values
to
to the
the propositional
propositional variables,
variables, i.e.,
i.e., aa truth
truth assignment
assignment is mapping T
is aa mapping V�
T :: V T, F}
--+ {(T, F}..
44 s.
S. Buss

A truth assignment
A truth assignment can
can be
be extended
extended to
to have domain the
have domain the set
set of
of all
all formulas
formulas in
in the
the
obvious
obvious way, according to
way, according to Table 1; we
Table 1; we write or(A) for
write ~(A) for the
the truth
truth value
value of
of the
the formula
formula AA
induced by
induced by the
the truth
truth assignment
assignment T.T.

Table
Table 11
Values
Values of
of aa truth
truth assignment
assignment or
A B
A B (...,
(-~A) (A 1\
A) (A A B)
B) (A V
(A V B)
B) (A:)
(A D B)
B) (A ++
(A ~ B)
B) (AEBB)
(A @ B)
T
T T
T F
F T
T T
T T
T T
T F
F
T
T F
F F
F F
F T
T F
F F
F T
T
F
F T
T T
T F
F T
T T
T F
F T
T
F
F F
F T
T F
F F
F T
T T
T F
F

A
A formula
formula A A involving
involving only only variables
variables among among PI P l ,, .. ... ., P,Pk
k defines
defines aa k-aryk-cry Boolean
Boolean
function
function f A , by
fA, by letting
letting f A (xl , . . . , xk ) equal
fA(Xl,...,Xk) equal thethe truth
truth value value or(A) ~(A) where
where T( Pi ) =
T(pi) = Xi
for
for all
all ii.. A A language is is aa set
set of
of connectives
connectives which which may may be be used
used in in the
the formation
formation of of
L -formulas. A
L-formulas. A language
language L L isis complete if if and
and only
only ifif every
every Boolean Boolean function
function cancan be be
defined
defined by by anan L-formula.
L-formula. Propositional
Propositional logic logic can
can bebe formulated
formulated with with anyany complete
complete
((usually finite)) language
usually finite language L L -- - for
for the time being,
the time being, we we shallshall use use the language -'
the language 9,, 1\,
A, V
and
and :J D..
A
A propositional
propositional formula formula A A isis said
said toto bebe aa tautology or or toto be
be (classically) valid if if
A is
A is assigned
assigned the the value
value T T by by every
every truth truth assignment.
assignment. We We writewrite 1= ~A A to
to denote
denote that
that
A is
A is a
a tautology.
tautology. The The formula
formula A A is is satisfiable if if there
there is is somesome truth
truth assignment
assignment that that
gives
gives it it value
value T T.. If
If rF isis aa set
set of
of propositional
propositional formulas,formulas, then then r F isis satisfiable if if there
there
is
is some
some truth
truth assignment
assignment that that simultaneously
simultaneously satisfies satisfies all all members
members of F.. We
of r We say say
rF tautologically implies A, A, or or rF 1=~ A, A, ifif every
every truth
truth assignment
assignment which which satisfies
satisfies r F also
also
satisfies
satisfies A A..
One
One of of the
the central
central problems
problems of of propositional
propositional logic logic is is toto find
find useful
useful methods
methods for for
recognizing tautologies; since
recognizing tautologies; since A A is is aa tautology
tautology if if and
and only
only if if -,
~A A is
is not satisfiable, this
not satisfiable, this
is essentially the
is essentially the same
same as as the
the problem
problem of finding methods
of finding methods for for recognizing
recognizing satisfiable
satisfiable
formulas.
formulas. Of Of course,
course, the the set
set of
of tautologies
tautologies is decidable, since
is decidable, since to to verify
verify that
that a a formula
formula A A
with n
with distinct propositional
n distinct propositional variables
variables is is aa tautology,
tautology, one one need
need merely
merely check
check that
that
the 22nn distinct
the distinct truthtruth assignments
assignments to these variables
to these variables all all givegive A A the
the value
value T T.. This
This
brute-force
brute-force 'method
'method of truth-tables'' is
of truth-tables is not
not entirely
entirely satisfactory;
satisfactory; firstly, firstly, because
because it it can
can
involve
involve an an exorbitant
exorbitant amount amount of of computation,
computation, and and secondly,
secondly, because because it it provides
provides no no
intuition
intuition as as to
to why the the formula
formula is, is, or or is
is not,
not, aa tautology.
tautology.
For
For these
these reasons,
reasons, it it is
is often
often advantageous
advantageous to to prove that that A A isis aa tautology
tautology instead
instead
of
of using
using thethe method
method of of truth-tables.
truth-tables. The The next
next three
three sections
sections discuss discuss three
three commonly
commonly
used
used propositional
propositional proof proof systems.
systems. The The so-called
so-called Frege
Frege proof proof systems
systems are are perhaps
perhaps the the
most widely used
most widely used and and areare based
based on on modus ponens. The
modus ponens. The sequentsequent calculus
calculus systems
systems
provide
provide an an elegant
elegant proof
proof system
system whichwhich combines
combines both both the possibility of
the possibility of elegant
elegant proofs
proofs
and
and thethe advantage
advantage of of an
an extremely
extremely useful useful normal
normal formform for for proofs.
proofs. The The resolution
resolution
refutation
refutation proof proof systems
systems are are designed
designed to to allow
allow forfor efficient
efficient computerized
computerized search search for for
proofs. Later, we
proofs. Later, we will
will extend
extend thesethese three three systems
systems to to first-order
first-order logic. logic.
 Introduction
Introduction to
to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 55

1.1. Frege
1.1. Frege proof
p r o o f systems
systems

The
The mostly commonly used
mostly commonly propositional proof
used propositional proof systems
systems areare based
based on on the
the use
use of
of
ponens as
modus ponens
modus as the sole rule
the sole rule of
of inference.
inference. Modus
Modus ponens
ponens is the inference
is the inference rule,
rule, which
which
allows,
allows, for
for arbitrary
arbitrary A A and
and BB,, the
the formula
formula B B to
to be
be inferred
inferred from
from the
the two
two hypotheses
hypotheses
A 3 B
A ::> B and A; this
and A; this is pictorially represented
is pictorially represented as as
A
A A
AD::>BB
B
B
In addition to
In addition to this
this rule
rule of
of inference,
inference, wewe need
need logical axioms that
logical axioms that allow
allow the
the inference
inference
of 'self-evident'' tautologies
of 'self-evident tautologies from
from nono hypotheses.
hypotheses. There
There are
are many
many possible choices for
possible choices for
sets of
sets of axioms:
axioms: obviously,
obviously, we we wish
wish toto have
have aa sufficiently
sufficiently strong
strong set
set of
of axioms
axioms soso that
that
every
every tautology
tautology can be derived
can be derived from
from the
the axioms
axioms byby use
use of
of modus ponens. In
modus ponens. In addition,
addition,
we
we wish
wish toto specify
specify the
the axioms
axioms by
by a a finite
finite set
set of
of schemes.
schemes.

1.1.1. Definition. A
1.1.1. Definition. substitution a
A substitution a is
is aa mapping
mapping fromfrom the
the set
set of
of propositional
propositional
variables
variables to
to the
the set
set of
of propositional formulas. If
propositional formulas. If AA is
is a
a propositional
propositional formula,
formula, then
then
the
the result
result of applying a
of applying a to A is
to A is denoted
denoted AaAa and
and is
is equal
equal to
to the
the formula
formula obtained
obtained by
by
simultaneously replacing each
simultaneously replacing each variable
variable appearing
appearing in A by
in A by its
its image
image under
under aa..

An
An example
example of of aa set
set of
of axiom
axiom schemes
schemes over
over the language -'
the language ~,, 1\,
A, V and::>
and D isis given
given in
in
the
the next
next definition.
definition. We We adopt
adopt conventions
conventions for for omitting
omitting parentheses
parentheses from
from descriptions
descriptions
of
of formulas
formulas by by specifying
specifying that
that unary
unary operators
operators have
have the
the highest
highest precedence,
precedence, thethe
connectives
connectives 1\ A and
and V havehave second
second highest
highest precedence,
precedence, and that ::>
and that and +-*
D and ~ have
have
lowest
lowest precedence.
precedence. All All connectives
connectives of of the same precedence
the same are to
precedence are be associated
to be associated from
from
right
right to
to left;
left; for
for example,
example, A D-
A ::> ,B ::>
-~B DC is aa shorthand
C is shorthand representation
representation for the formula
for the formula
(A::>
(A D ((-,B) D C))
((-~B) ::> C))..

1.1.2. Definition.
1.1.2. Definition. Consider
Consider the
the following
following set
set of
of axiom
axiom schemes:
schemes:

Pl ::>
PI :) ((P2
P2 ::> PI )
:)Pl) ((Pl
PI ::> P2 ) ::>
:)P2) (PI ::>
:)(Pl -'P2 ) ::>
:)~P2) --PI
:)~Pl
((Pl
PI ::>
~P2) :) ((Pl
P2 ) ::> PI ::> (P2 ::>
:)(P2 P3)) ::>
~P3)) (PI ::>
:)(Pl P3)
~P3) ((~Pl)
-'-'PI ) ::> PI
:)Pl
PI
Pl ::> V
D pPIl V pP22 PI
plA 1\pP22 ::>
D PPIl
P2
P2 ::>
D PlPI VVp2P2 Pl 1\
PI Ap2P2 ::>
D P2
P2
((p~
PI ::>
DP3) P2 ::> P3) ::>
D ((P2Dp3)
P3) ::> D ((p~VP2DP3)
PI V P2 ::> P3) PI
p~ ::> P2 ::> PI 1\ P2
Dp~.Dp~Ap2

The
The propositional
propositional proof system :F
proof system jc is
is defined
defined toto have
have as its axioms
as its axioms every
every substitution
substitution
instance
instance of the above formulas and to have modus ponens as its only
of the above formulas and to have modus ponens as its only rule.
rule. An
An
:F -proof of
~'-proof of a
a formula
formula A A is
is aa sequence
sequence of of formulas,
formulas, eacheach of
of which
which is
is either
either an
an F -axiom
~-axiom
or
or is is inferred
inferred by by modus
modus ponens
ponens from
from twotwo earlier
earlier formulas
formulas in in the
the proof,
proof, such
such that
that the
the
fifinal
nal formula
formula in in the
the proof
proof isis A.
We
We write
write � ~ A,A, or just I-
or just A, to
~- A, to say
say that
that A A has
has an
an F-proof.
~'-proof. WeWe write
write rF �~ AA,,
or
or just
just r A, to
k- A,
F f- to say
say that
that A has aa proof
A has proof inin which
which each
each formula
formula either
either is
is deduced
deduced
according
according the the axioms
axioms oror inference
inference rule ~" or
of :F
rule of or is
is in F.. In
in r In this
this case,
case, we
we say
say that A is
that A is
proved
proved from from the
the extra-logical
extra-logical hypotheses
hypotheses r F;; note
note that
that r F may
may contain
contain formulas
formulas which
which
are
are notnot tautologies.
tautologies.
66 S.
S. Buss
Buss

1.1.3. Soundness
1.1.3. Soundness and
and completeness of :F.
completeness of ~'. ItIt isis easy
easy to
to prove
prove that
that every
every
:F -provable formula
~'-provable formula is
is aa tautology,
tautology, by
by noting
noting that
that all
all axioms
axioms of ~" are
of :F are valid
valid and
and that
that
modus
modus ponensponens preserves
preserves the
the property
property of of being
being valid.
valid. Similarly, whenever rF f:1'
Similarly, whenever ~ AA,,
then
then rF tautologically
tautologically implies
implies AA.. In
In other
other words, ~ is
words, :F is {implicationally} sound; which
(implicationally) sound; which
means
means that that all
all provable
provable formulas
formulas are
are valid
valid (or,
(or, are
are consequences
consequences of of the
the extra-logical
extra-logical
hypotheses
hypotheses r). F).
Of
Of course,
course, anyany useful
useful proof
proof system
system ought
ought to
to be
be sound,
sound, since
since the
the purpose
purpose of
of creating
creating
proofs
proofs is is to
to establish
establish the
the validity
validity of
of aa sentence.
sentence. Remarkably,
Remarkably, the the system
system :F ~" is
is also
also
complete in
complete in that
that itit can
can prove
prove any
any valid
valid formula.
formula. Thus
Thus the
the semantic
semantic notion
notion ofof validity
validity
and
and the the syntactic
syntactic notion
notion of
of provability
provability coincide,
coincide, and
and aa formula
formula isis valid
valid if
if and
and only
only if
if
itit is
is provable
provable in in :F.
~'.

T h e o r e m . The propositional proof system :F

Theorem. ~ is
is complete and is implicationally
complete; namely,
(1) IfIf AA is a tautology, then f:1'
~ AA ..
(2) IfIf r FF A, then r
~ A, F f:1'
~ A A..

The
The philosophical
philosophical significance
significance of of the
the completeness
completeness theorem
theorem isis that
that aa finite
finite set
set of
of
(schematic)
(schematic) axioms
axioms and
and rules
rules ofof inference
inference are
are sufficient
sufficient toto establish
establish the
the validity
validity of
of
any tautology.
any tautology. In
In hindsight,
hindsight, it
it is
is not
not surprising
surprising that
that this
this holds,
holds, since
since the
the method
method ofof
truth-tables already provides
truth-tables already provides anan algorithmic
algorithmic way
way of
of recognizing
recognizing tautologies.
tautologies. Indeed,
Indeed,
the
the proof
proof of
of the
the completeness
completeness theorem
theorem given
given below,
below, can
can be
be viewed
viewed as
as showing
showing that
that
the
the method
method ofof truth
truth tables
tables can
can bebe formalized
formalized within
within the
the system
system :F.
~'.

1.1.4. Proof.
1.1.4. Proof. We
We first
first observe
observe that that partpart (2)(2) of
of the
the completeness
completeness theorem
theorem cancan be
be
reduced to
reduced to part (1) by
part (1) by aa two
two step
step process.
process. Firstly,
Firstly, note
note that
that the compactness theorem
the compactness theorem
propositional logic
for propositional
for logic states
states thatthat if if Fr ~F A A then
then there
there is
is a finite subset
a finite subset F0ra of r which
of F which
also tautologically
also tautologically implies
implies A. A. A A topological
topological proof proof ofof the
the compactness
compactness theorem
theorem forfor
propositional
propositional logic
logic is sketched in
is sketched in 1.1.5 below. Thus
1.1.5 below. Thus F r may, without loss
may, without of generality,
loss of generality,
be assumed
be assumed toto be
be aa finite
finite set
set of of formulas,
formulas, say say r F= Bb . . . , B
- {{B1,..., d. Secondly,
Bk}. note that
Secondly, note that
r ~F A
F A implies that B1
implies that B1 D :::> B2
B2 D :::> ... D :::> A is aa tautology.
A is
• • •
tautology. So, So, byby part the latter
(1), the
part (1), latter
formula has
formula has an
an JC-proof,
:F-proof, andand by by kk additional
additional modus modus ponens
ponens inferences,
inferences, Fr k-
f- A. (To
A . (To
simplify notation,
simplify notation, we we write
write k- instead of
f- instead of ~f:1'.).)
It remains
It remains toto prove
prove part
part (1).(1). We begin by
We begin by establishing
establishing aa series
series of
of special
special cases,
cases,
(a)-(k) , of
(a)-(k), of the
the completeness
completeness theorem,theorem, in in order
order to to "bootstrap"
"bootstrap" the the propositional
propositional
system :F . We
system ~'. We use symbols r¢J , r'Ij;, X
use symbols X for
for arbitrary
arbitrary formulas
formulas and II to
and II to represent
represent any
any
set of
set of formulas.
formulas.
(a) ef- r¢J ~:::> r¢J .
(a)
Combine the
Proof: Combine
Proof: three axioms
the three axioms ((r¢J D :::> r¢J D
:::> ¢Jr ) D ( ¢J D
:::> (r ( ¢J D
:::> (r :::> r¢J) D
:::> ¢Jr ) D :::> (r :::> r¢J) ,
( ¢J D
:::> (r
r¢J D (¢J D and r¢J D
:::> r¢J) and :::> (r
(¢J D
:::> r¢J) D
:::> r¢J with
with two
two uses
uses of modus ponens.
of modus ponens.
(b) Deduction
(b) Deduction Theorem:
Theorem: F, r, r¢J ~-
f- r'Ij; ifif and
and only f- r¢J D
only ifif Fr k- :::> r'Ij;.
The reverse
Proof: The
Proof: reverse implication
implication isis trivial.
trivial. To To prove
prove the
the forward
forward implication,
implication, suppose
suppose
C2 , , Ck
C1, C2,...,
C1, Ck isis an
• • . an ~'-proof
:F-proof of
of r'Ij; from
from F, r, r¢J. This
This means
means that that CkCk isis r'Ij; and
and that
that each
each
 Introduction to Proof Theory 7

Ci is r¢J , is
6'/is is in
in F, is an
r , is an axiom,
axiom, or or isis inferred
inferred byby modus
modus ponens.
ponens. ItIt is
is straightforward
straightforward to
to
prove, by
prove, by induction
induction on on i,i , that
that Fr ~-f- r¢J J Ci for
D Ci for each
each Ci.
Ci .
( c) r¢J J
(c) ~ r'ljJ ~-
f- --,'ljJ
r J -,¢J .
~ -r
Proof: By By the the deduction
deduction theorem,
theorem, itit suffices
suffices toto prove that ¢Jr J
prove that D 'ljJ,
r --r -,'ljJ F- -,¢J . To
f- --r prove
To prove
this, use
this, use the
the twotwo axioms
axioms -,'ljJ
--r J (¢J J
D (r D 9r and (r
-,'ljJ) and (¢J J
D r'ljJ) J (¢J J
D (r -,'ljJ) J
D --r D -,¢J
9r andand three
three
uses of
uses of modus
modus ponens.
ponens.
(d) r¢J , 9r
(d) -'¢Jf-'ljJ.
F- r
Proof: FromFrom the axiom ¢Jr J
the axiom (-,'ljJJ
D (-~r D ¢Jr ) , we have ¢Jr F-
we have f- -,'ljJ
-~r J Thus, by
D ¢Jr . Thus, (c) we
by (c) get
we get
r¢J f--,¢J
F- 9r J and by
-,-,'ljJ , and
D ----r by (b),
(b) , r162 f- -~-~r
¢J , -,¢J F-
-,-, . Finally modus
'ljJ Finally modus ponens
ponens with
with the
the axiom
axiom
----r'ljJJ
-,-, gives the
D r'ljJ gives the desired
desired result.
result.
(e) -,¢J
(e) 6 2'ljJ1 6and
9 r 1f-6 2¢J1J 2 'ljJ f- ¢J J'ljJ .
This former
Proof: This former follows
follows from
from (d)
(d) and
and the
the deduction
deduction theorem,
theorem, and
and the
the latter
latter follows
follows
from the axiom
from the axiom 'ljJ rJ (¢J J
D (r D 'ljJ)
r .

(f) ~r f-
(f) ¢Jr , -,'ljJ -,(¢J J
~ ~(r ~ 'ljJ)
r .
Proof: It suffices to
It suffices to prove f- -,'ljJ
prove ¢Jr ~ J --(r
--r D -,(¢J J r . Thus,
D 'ljJ) by (c)
Thus, by (c) and
and the
the deduction
deduction
theorem, itit suffices
theorem, suffices toto prove
prove r¢J, ¢Jr JD 'ljJ
r F- f- r'ljJ. The
The latter
latter assertion is immediate
assertion is immediate from
from
modus
modus ponens.
ponens.

(g) 6 2f- ¢Jr 11\6 2'ljJ .

(g) ¢Jr 1, 'ljJ
Proof: Two Two uses uses of of modus
modus ponens
ponens with the axiom
with the axiom ¢Jr J
D 'ljJ
rJ D (¢J
(r A r .
1\ 'ljJ)
(h) -,¢J
(h) f- -,(r
--r F- -,(¢J A
1\ 'ljJ)
r and and -,'ljJ
--r f--,(¢J
F- 9(r A1\ r'ljJ) .
Proof: For
For the
the first
first part,
part, it it suffices
suffices toto showshow I- 9r J
F- -,¢J (¢J 1\
D --(r
-, r , and
A 'ljJ) and thus,
thus, by by (c),
(c), itit
suffices
suffices to
to show
show f- ~ (¢J A 'ljJ)
(r 1\ r J D ¢Jr , which
which is is an
an axiom.
axiom. The
The proof
proof that
that -,'ljJ
--r f- A 'ljJ)
9(r¢J 1\
F- -,( r is is
similar.
similar.

f- ¢J V 'ljJ and
(i) ¢JCF-r162
(i) 'ljJ f- ¢J V 'ljJ .
andCF-r162
Proof: ¢Jr J (r V
D (¢J r and
V 'ljJ) and 'ljJ
rJD (¢J (r V r are
V 'ljJ) are axioms.
axioms.

(j) -'¢J ~r f-
~r , -,'ljJ e -(r-,(¢J Vv 'ljJ)
r .
Proof: It It suffices
suffices to to prove
prove -,¢J --r f-
F- -,'ljJ
9r J 9(r V
D -,(¢J r , and
V 'ljJ) this, by
and this, by (c),
(c), follows
follows from
from
-,¢J
9r f- (r V
~ (¢J V 'ljJ)
r J r . For
D 'ljJ For this,
this, we we combine
combine
(i)
(i) -,¢J
--r f- F- ¢Jr J r , by
D 'ljJ by (e)(e),,
r D r , by
(ii) f-F- 'ljJJ'ljJ by (a)(a),,
(iii) f-F- (¢J
(r J D 'ljJ)
r J D ('ljJ
(r J D 'ljJ)
r J (¢J VV 'ljJ)
D (((r r J r , an
D 'ljJ) an axiom,
axiom,
with
with two
two uses
uses of
of modus
modus ponens.
ponens.

(k)
(k) ¢Jr f-
F- -,-,¢J
-,9r .
Proof: By By (d)
(d),, ¢Jr , -,¢J
9r f- ----r¢J , and
F- -'-' and obviously,
obviously, ¢Jr162 9-,r . So
, -,-,¢J f-F- -,-,¢J 9-,r follows
So ¢Jr f-F- -,-,¢J follows
from
from the
the next
next lemma.
lemma.

1.1.4.1.
1.1.4.1. Lemma.
Lemma. IIff r,
F, ¢Jr f-F-'ljJ
r and rF,, -,¢J
9r f-~ 'ljJ,
r then rF f-F-'ljJ
r.
88 S. Buss

P r o o f . By
Proof. By (b)
(b) and
and (c),
(c), the
the two
two hypotheses
hypotheses imply
imply that
that r 9 r :::>
~- .'IjJ
F f- D .</J
9 r and and r 9 r :::>
t- .'IjJ
F f- D
••
9-~r</J . These
These plus
plus the
the two
two axioms ( 9 r :::>
axioms (.'IjJ 9r :::>
D .</J) ( 9 r :::>
D (.'IjJ D •• -~9r</J) :::>
D •• and ••
9 9 r'IjJ and 9 9 r'IjJ :::>
D 'IjJ
r
give r f- 'IjJ.
give F F- r 0[:]

1.1.4.2. Lemma.
1.1.4.2. formula A
L e m m a . Let the formula A involve only the propositional
propositional variables among
p l ,, .. ... ., p, Pnn. · For 11 ::;
PI < i ::;
~ n n,, suppose that Bi is either Pii or 'P
either P i . Then, either
9pi.

B 1 , . . . , B~ F- A or
or B 1 , . . . , B~ t- 9A.

P r o o f . Define
Proof. Define rT to to be
be aa truth
truth assignment
assignment that that makes makes each each Bi true. true. ByBy the the soundness
soundness
theorem,
theorem, A A (respectively,
(respectively, .A) 9A),, can can be be proved
proved from from thethe hypotheses
hypotheses B Bn only
ll . . . ,,Bn
B1,... only
if
if 7'(A)
y(A) = - T (respectively
(respectively 7'(A) ~(A) = - F). F). Lemma Lemma 1.1.4.2 1.1.4.2 asserts
asserts that that the
the converse
converse holds holds
too.
too.
The
The lemma
lemma is is proved
proved by by induction
induction on on thethe complexity
complexity of A. In
of A. In thethe base base case,case,
A is
A is just
just P i : this
pi" this case
case is
is trivial
trivial to to prove prove since
since Bi is is either
either P Pii or
or 'P9pi.i ' NowNow supposesuppose
A is
A is aa formula
formula Al A1 V A 2 . If
A2. If o-(A)
a(A) = - TT,, then
then we we must
must have have r(Ai)
T(Ai) =-- T for
T for some
some
i E I, 2 } ; the
e {{1,2}; the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis implies implies that that B B 1ll, . . ..,,BBn
n f-F- Ai andand thus,thus, by by (i)(i)
above,
above, B B 1ll, .. .... , , Bn
B~ f- A. On
F- A. On the the other
other hand, hand, if if r(A)
T(A) = - - F,F, thenthen r(AT(A1) I) = = r(A - - F,
T ( A 2 )2 ) = F,
so
so the
the induction
induction hypothesis hypothesis implies
implies that that B B ~I ,, . . .., , Bn 9Ai for
F- .Ai
B~ f- for both
both i = - 11 and and i = = 2.
2.
From
From this,this, (j) (j) implies
implies that
that B B 1I ,, .. .. .., ,BBn ~ .A.
~ f- 9A. The The cases
cases wherewhere A A has has outermost
outermost
connective
connective 1\, A, :::> D oror •9 are
are proved
proved similarly.
similarly. D [::]..

We
We are
are now
now ready
ready to
to complete
complete the
the proof
proof of
of the
the Completeness
Completeness Theorem
Theorem 1.1.3.
1.1.3.
Suppose A
Suppose A is
is a
a tautology.
tautology. We
We claim
claim that Lemma 1.1.4.2
that Lemma 1.1.4.2 can
can be
be strengthened
strengthened to
to have
have

B1,...,B~ b A

where,
where, as before each
as before each Bi is is either
either Pi or 'P
Pi or 9pi,i , but but nownow 0 ::; _ kk ::;< n is is permitted.
permitted.
We
We prove
prove this this by
by induction
induction on on kk = = n n,, nn- -
1 , .1,. .... O. For
, 1 ,, 1,0. For k = = nn,, this
this is
is just
just
Lemma 1.1.4.2.
Lemma 1.1.4.2. ForFor the
the induction
induction step, step, note
note that that B B 1ll, .. .. .., ,BBkk kf- A follows from
A follows from
B ll . . . , Bk, Pk+ l F-
B1,...,Bk,pk+l f- A and BB1ll, .. ...., B, B~k,
A and 'Pk+ 1 f-
, 9p~+1 F- A A byby Lemma
Lemma 1.1.4.1. When k =
1.1.4.1. When 0,
- O,
we have that
we have that bf- A, which proves
A, which proves the the Completeness
Completeness Theorem. Theorem.
Q.E.D. Theorem
Q.E.D. Theorem 1.1.3
1.1.3

1.1.5.
1.1.5. It still
It still remains
remains to
to prove the compactness
prove the theorem for
compactness theorem propositional logic.
for propositional logic.
This
This theorem states:
theorem states:

Compactness
C ompactness T Theorem.
h e o r e m . Let F set of
r be a set propositional formulas.
of propositional formulas.
(1) Fr is
(1) is satisfiable
satisfiable if and only
if and only ifif every finite subset
every finite subset of
of F is satisfiable.
r is satisfiable.
(2) Fr ~FAA ifif and
(2) and only
only if if there
there is
is aa finite subset F0
finite subset roof r such
of F such that r0 ~FA.
that F0 A.

Since Fr ~FA
Since is equivalent
A is equivalent to U {gA}
to Fr U being unsatisfiable,
{.A} being (2) is
unsatisfiable, (2) is implied
implied by (1) . It
by (1). It is
is
fairly easy
fairly easy to
to prove
prove the
the compactness
compactness theorem
theorem directly,
directly, and
and most
most introductory
introductory books
books
mathematical logic
in mathematical
in logic present
present such
such aa proof.
proof. Here,
Here, we
we shall
shall instead, give aa proof
instead, give proof based
based
on the
on the Tychonoff
Tychonoff theorem;
theorem; obviously
obviously this
this connection
connection to
to topology
topology is is the
the reason
reason for
for the
the
name 'compactness
name 'compactness theorem.'
theorem.'
 Introduction to
Introduction to Proof
Proof Theory 99

Proof. Let
Proof. Let V V bebe the
the set
set of
of propositional
propositional variables
variables used
used inin r; the sets
F; the sets r and V
F and V
need not
need not necessarily
necessarily be be countable.
countable. LetLet 22yv denote
denote thethe set
set of
of truth
truth assignments
assignments on on VV
and endow 22yv with
and endow with the
the product
product topology
topology by by viewing
viewing itit as
as the
the product
product of IVI copies
of IV] copies
the two
of the
of two element
element space
space with
with the
the discrete
discrete topology.
topology. ThatThat isis toto say,
say, the
the subbasis
subbasis
elements of
elements of 22yv are
are the
the sets
sets Bp,i {T : 7"(p)
B p,i -= (T: T(p) -- for pp EE Y
i} for
= i} V and
and ii EE (T,{T, F}. Note
F } . Note
that these
that these subbasis
subbasis elements
elements are
are both
both open
open and and closed.
closed. Recall
Recall thatthat the
the Tychonoff
Tychonoff
theorem states
theorem states that
that an
an arbitrary
arbitrary product
product of of compact
compact spaces
spaces isis compact;
compact; in in particular,
particular,
22yv is
is compact.
compact. (See ( See Munkres
Munkres [1975]
[1975] for
for background
background material
material on topology. )
on topology.)
For r¢ EE r,
For define De
F, define {T EE 22yv :: TT ~1= r¢}. Since
Dq, == (T Since r¢ only
only involves
involves finitely
finitely many
many
variables, each
variables, each Dq,
De isis both
both open
open and
and closed.
closed. Now Now Fr is is satisfiable
satisfiable ifif and
and only nq,EfDq,
only ifif McerDr
is non-empty.
is non-empty. By By the
the compactness
compactness of v , the
of 22V, the latter
latter condition
condition is is equivalent
equivalent to to the
the
sets nq,EfoDq, being
sets MCeroDr being non-empty
non-empty for all finite
for all finite ro F0 CCr. This, in
F. This, in turn
turn isis equivalent
equivalent to to
each finite subset
each finite subset ro of Fr being
F0 of being satisfiable.
satisfiable. [] 0

The
The compactness theorem for
compactness theorem for first-order
first-order logic is more
logic is more difficult;
difficult; aa purely
purely model-
model­
theoretic proof
theoretic proof can
can be given with
be given ultrafilters ((see,
with ultrafilters see, e.g.,
e.g., Eklof [1977]). We
Eklof [1977]). include aa
We include
proof-theoretic proof
proof-theoretic proof of
of the
the compactness
compactness theorem
theorem forfor first-order logic for
first-order logic for countable
countable
languages in
languages in section
section 2.3.7
2.3.7 below.
below.

1.1.6.
1.1.6. Remarks.
Remarks. There
There are are of of course
course aa large
large number
number of of possible
possible waysways toto give
give
sound and
sound complete proof
and complete proof systems
systems for for propositional
propositional logic.logic. The The particular
particular proof
proof
system
system F ~ used
used above
above is is adapted
adapted from from Kleene
Kleene [1952].
[1952]. A A more
more detailed
detailed proof
proof ofof the
the
completeness
completeness theorem theorem for for F ~" and
and forfor related
related systems
systems can can be be found
found in in the
the textbook
textbook
of
of Mendelson
Mendelson [1987] [1987].. The
The system
system F 9r is
is an
an example
example of of aa class
class ofof proof
proof systems
systems called
called
Frege
Frege proof systems: aa Frege
proof systems: Frege proof
proof system
system is is any
any proof
proof system
system in in which
which allall axioms
axioms andand
rules
rules are
are schematic
schematic and and which
which is is implication
implicationally ally sound
sound andand implicationally
implicationally complete.
complete.
Most
Most of of the
the commonly
commonly used used proof
proof systems
systems similar
similar toto F~" are
are based
based on on modus
modus ponens
ponens
as
as the
the only
only rulerule ofof inference;
inference; however,
however, some some ((non-Frege)
non-Frege) systems
systems also also incorporate
incorporate aa
version
version of of the deduction theorem
the deduction theorem as as aa rule
rule ofof inference.
inference. In In these
these systems,
systems, if B has
if B has
been
been inferred
inferred from from A, A, then
then the
the formula
formula A A ::>
DB B maymay also
also bebe inferred.
inferred. An An example
example
of
of such
such aa system
system is is the
the propositional
propositional fragment
fragment of of the
the natural
natural deduction
deduction proof proof system
system
described
described in in section
section 2.4.8
2.4.8 below.
below.
Other
Other rules
rules ofof inference
inference thatthat are
are commonly
commonly allowed
allowed in in propositional
propositional proof proof systems
systems
include
include thethe substitution
substitution rule rule which
which allows
allows any
any instance
instance of of ¢r to
to be
be inferred from ¢,
inferred from r and
and
the
the extension
extension rule rule which
which permits
permits the the introduction
introduction of of abbreviations
abbreviations for for long
long formulas.
formulas.
These
These two systems appear to
two systems to be
be more
more powerful
powerful than
than Frege
Frege systems
systems in in that
that they
they seem
seem
to
to allow
allow substantially
substantially shorter
shorter proofs
proofs of of certain
certain tautologies.
tautologies. However,
However, whether
whether theythey
actually
actually are are significantly
significantly more more powerful
powerful than than Frege
Frege systems
systems is is an
an open
open problem.
problem. ThisThis
issues
issues are
are discussed
discussed more more fully
fully by
by Pudllik
Pudls in in Chapter
Chapter VIII.
VIII.
There
There are are several
several currently
currently active
active areas
areas ofof research
research in in the
the proof
proof theory
theory ofof propo­
propo-
sitional
sitional logic.
logic. Of Of course,
course, the
the central
central openopen problem
problem is is the
the P P versus
versus N N P question
question of of
whether
whether therethere exists
exists aa polynomial
polynomial time time method
method of of recognizing
recognizing tautologies.
tautologies. Research
Research
on
on the
the proof
proof theory
theory of of propositional
propositional logic logic can
can be,
be, roughly
roughly speaking,
speaking, separated
separated intointo
three
three problem
problem areas. areas. Firstly,
Firstly, thethe problem
problem of of "proof-search"
"proof-search" is is the
the question
question of of
10
10 s
S.. Buss
Buss

what
what areare the
the best
best algorithmic
algorithmic methods
methods forfor searching
searching for
for propositional
propositional proofs.
proofs. The
The
proof-search
proof-search problem
problem is is important
important forfor artificial
artificial intelligence,
intelligence, forfor automated
automated theorem
theorem
proving
proving andand for
for logic programming. The
logic programming. The most
most common propositional proof
common propositional proof systems
systems
used
used for
for proof-search algorithms are
proof-search algorithms are variations
variations of of the resolution system
the resolution system discussed
discussed
in
in 11.3
.3 below.
below. A second, related
A second, related research
research area
area is
is the
the question
question of of proof
proof lengths.
lengths. InIn
this
this area,
area, the
the central
central questions
questions concern
concern thethe minimum
minimum lengths
lengths ofof proofs
proofs needed
needed for
for
tautologies
tautologies in in particular
particular proof systems. This
proof systems. This topic
topic isis treated
treated inin more
more depth
depth inin
Chapter
Chapter VInVIII inin this
this volume.
volume.
A
A third
third research
research area
area concerns
concerns the
the investigation
investigation of of fragments
fragments of of the
the propositional
propositional
proof
proof system
system F. ~'. For
For example,
example, propositional
propositional intuitionist
intuitionist logic
logic is
is the
the logic
logic which
which
is axiomatized
is axiomatized by by the
the system
system F ~" without
without the
the axiom
axiom scheme
scheme -,-,A
-~--AJ D AA.. Another
Another
important
important example
example is is linear
linear logic.
logic. Brief
Brief discussions
discussions of of these
these twotwo logics
logics can
can be
be found
found
in
in section
section 3.3.

1.2. The
1.2. T h e propositional
p r o p o s i t i o n a l sequent
sequent calculus
calculus

The
The sequent
sequent calculus,
calculus, first introduced by
first introduced by Gentzen
Gentzen [1935)
[1935] as
as an
an extension
extension ofof his
his earlier
earlier
natural deduction proof
natural deduction proof systems,
systems, isis arguably
arguably the
the most
most elegant
elegant and
and flexible
flexible system
system for
for
writing
writing proofs. In this
proofs. In this section, the propositional
section, the propositional sequent
sequent calculus
calculus for
for classical
classical logic
logic
is
is developed;
developed; the
the extension
extension toto first-order
first-order logic
logic is
is treated
treated in 2.3 below.
in 2.3 below.

1.2.1. Sequents
1.2.1. Sequents and
and Cedents.
Cedents. In
In the
the Hilbert-style
Hilbert-style systems,
systems, each
each line
line in
in aa proof
proof
is
is aa formula;
formula; however,
however, inin sequent
sequent calculus
calculus proofs,
proofs, each
each line
line in
in aa proof
proof is sequent: a
is aa sequent: a
sequent
sequent isis written
written in
in the
the form
form

A1, . . . , A~----~ B1, . . . , B t

where
where the symbol �
the symbol ~ isis aa new
new symbol
symbol called
called the
the sequent
sequent arrow
arrow (not
(not to
to be
be confused
confused
with the
with the implication symbolJ)
implication symbol D ) and
and where
where each
each Ai
Ai and
and Bj
B j is
is aa formula.
formula. The
The intuitive
intuitive
meaning
meaning of the sequent
of the sequent is that the
is that the conjunction
conjunction of the Ai
of the ' S implies
Ai's the disjunction
implies the disjunction of
of
the B j ''s.
the Bj s. Thus,
Thus, aa sequent
sequent isis equivalent
equivalent in
in meaning
meaning toto the
the formula
formula
kk l
1\
t

AA, Ai J V
VBBj..
i =1
i=1 j=1 j=l

The
The symbols
symbols A and 1\
and V represent
Vrepresent conjunctions
conjunctions and and disjunctions,
disjunctions, respectively,
respectively, ofof
multiple
multiple formulas.
formulas. We We adopt
adopt the convention that
the convention that an an empty
empty conjunction
conjunction (say, (say, when
when
- 00 above)
k = above) hashas value
value "True"
"True",, and
and that that an an empty
empty disjunction
disjunction (say, when £~ =
(say, when = 00
above)
above) has
has value
value "False"
"False".. Thus Thus the
the sequent
sequent � --~ A A hashas the
the samesame meaning
meaning as as the
the
formula
formula AA,, and
and the
the empty sequent �
e m p t y sequent ~ is false.
is false. A A sequent
sequent is is defined
defined to to be
be valid
valid or
or aa
tautology
tautology if
if and only if
and only if its corresponding formula
its corresponding formula is. is.
The
The sequence
sequence of of formulas
formulas A I ' . . . ' Ak is
A1,...,Ak called the
is called a n t e c e d e n t of
the antecedent of the
the sequent
sequent
displayed
displayed above;
above; Bl, ...,B
B1,..., Btl is called its
is called s u c c e d e n t . . They
its succedent They are are bothboth referred
referred to
to as
as
cedents.
cedents.
 Introduction to Proof Theory 1111

1.2.2. Inferences
1.2.2. Inferences and proofs. We
and proofs. We now
now define
define the
the propositional
propositional sequent
sequent calculus
calculus
proof
proof system
system PK. PK. A A sequent
sequent calculus
calculus proof
proof consists
consists ofof aa rooted
rooted tree
tree (or
(or sometimes
sometimes aa
directed
directed acyclic
acyclic graph)
graph) inin which
which the nodes are
the nodes are sequents.
sequents. TheThe root
root ofof the tree, written
the tree, written
at
at the
the bottom,
bottom, is is called the endsequent and
called the and is
is the
the sequent
sequent proved
proved by by the
the proof.
proof. The
The
leaves,
leaves, atat the
the top
top ofof the tree, are
the tree, called initial sequents or
are called or axioms. Usually,
Usually, thethe only
only
initial sequents
initial sequents allowed
allowed areare the
the logical
logical axioms
axioms ofof the
the form
form A A,, where
---+ A
A---F where we we further
further
require
require that
that A A bebe atomic.
atomic.
Other
Other than than the
the initial
initial sequents,
sequents, each
each sequent
sequent in in aa PK-proof
PK-proof mustmust be be inferred
inferred by
by
one
one of
of the
the rules
rules ofof inference
inference given below. A
given below. A rule
rule ofof inference
inference isis denoted
denoted by by aa figure
figure
�
-~
S
or Ssl) S S2
or s~ indicating
indicating that
S $2.. The
that the
the sequent
sequent 8 S may
may be be inferred
inferred from
from 81 $1 oror from the
from the
pair $1 and
pair 81 and 8 conclusion, 8,
2 The conclusion, is called
S, is called the
the lower sequent of of the
the inference;
inference; each
each
hypotheses is
hypotheses is an
an upper sequent of the inference.
of the inference. The
The valid rules of
valid rules of inference
inference forfor PK
PK
are
are as
as follows;
follows; theythey are essentially schematic,
are essentially schematic, in in that
that A A and
and B denote arbitrary
B denote arbitrary
formulas
formulas and and r F,, � etc. denote
A,, etc. denote arbitrary
arbitrary cedents.
cedents.

Weak Structural Rules

Weak Structural Rules
A,, B
rF, A B,, II---+
II---FA� r---+� , A, B, A
xchange:right F---+A, A, B, A
Exchange:left ' E
Exchange:right
r, B,
F, B, A,
A, II---+
II--FA � r---+ � , B,
F---FA, A, A
B, A, A

Contraction:left A, A,
Contraction:left A, A, r---+
F"-F �A Contraction:right r---+
Contraction:right � , A,
F----FA, A, A
A
A, r---+
A, �
F----FA r---+ �, A
F---FA, A

Weakening:left r---+
F-"} �
A Weakening:right r---+
F---} �
A
Weakening:left A, r---+
A, F ---}�A F--~ �
r---+ A,, A
A

The
The weak structural rules
weak structural rules are
are also
also referred to as
referred to as just
just weak inference rules. The
inference rules. The rest
rest
of
of the rules are
the rules called strong inference
are called rules. The
inference rules. rules consist
The structural rules consist of
of the
the weak
weak
structural rules and
structural rules and the
the cut
cut rule.
rule.

The
The Cut
Cut Rule
Rule
rF---F
---+ �,
A,AA A, rF----F
A, ---+ �
A
r ---+ �
F----F A

The
T h e Propositional
P r o p o s i t i o n a l Rules
l
Rules 1

-1d:left r---+
F ---+�
A,, A
A -~:right A,
A, r---+
F---} �
A
- eft ...,.Tight
...,-~A,
A , r---+
F---+A� r---+ � , ...,-~A
F---+A, A
A:left A,
A, B,
B, r---+
F---}A� A:right r---+
F - + A�, , A
A r---+ �, B
F---~A, B
A:right
A:left A
AA B, r---+
A B, �
F----~A r---+
F---+A,�, A
AAABB

V:lefl A,
V:left A, r---+
F---+ �
A B, r---+
B, �
F----FA V :right
V:right r---+
F---} �
A,, A,
A, B
B
A
A VB B, r---+
F---FA� r---+ �, A
F---+A, A VB B

:J:left
r---+ �, A
F---FA, A B, r---+
B, F---FA� D :right A,
A, r---+
F~ � A,, BB
D :left :J:right
A :J B, r---+
A D B, P--+A � r---+
F - + A�, , A DB
A :J B
have stated the 1\
11 We have :left and the V:right
A:left V:right rules
rules differently
differently than the traditional form.
form. The
traditional definitions following two V:right
definitions use the following V:right rules
rules of inference
inference
12
12 s . Buss
S. Buss

The above
The above completes
completes the the definition
definition of
of PK.
PK. We
We write
write PK PK ~-
I- r --+ A
F--+ to denote
b.. to denote thatthat
the sequent
the sequent r--+
F--~ A has aa PK-proof.
b.. has PK-proof. When When A is aa formula,
A is formula, wewe write
write PKPK F- to
I- AA to
mean that
mean that PKPK F-I- --+
~ A. A.
The cut
The cut rule
rule plays
plays aa special
special role
role in
in the
the sequent
sequent calculus,
calculus, since,
since, asas isis shown
shown inin
section 1.2.8,
section 1 .2.8, the
the system
system PK PK isis complete
complete even without the
even without the cut
cut rule;
rule; however,
however, the the use
use
of the
of the cut
cut rule
rule can
can significantly
significantly shorten
shorten proofs.
proofs. A
A proof
proof is
is said
said to
to be
be cut-free
cut-free ifif does
does
not contain
not contain any
any cut
cut inferences.
inferences.

1.2.3. A
1.2.3. Ancestors,
n c e s t o r s , ddescendents
e s c e n d e n t s aandn d tthe
h e ssubformula
u b f o r m u l a pproperty.
roperty. All of
All of the
the
inferences of
inferences of PK,
PK, withwith the the exception
exception of of the
the cut
cut rule,
rule, have
have aa principal
principal formula which
formula which
is, by
is, by definition,
definition, the the formula
formula occurring
occurring in in the
the lower
lower sequent
sequent of of the
the inference
inference which
which is is
not in
not in the
the cedents
cedents Fr or or A (or H
b.. (or II or A). The
or A). The exchange
exchange inferences
inferences have have twotwo principal
principal
formulas. Every
formulas. inference, except
Every inference, except weakenings,
weakenings, has has oneone or or more
more auxiliary
auxiliary formulas
formulas
which are
which are the
the formulas
formulas A A andand B, occurring in
B , occurring in the
the upper sequent (s ) of
upper sequent(s) of the
the inference.
inference.
The formulas which
The formulas which occur occur in in the
the cedents
cedents r, F, A,b.. , II or A
II or A are called side formulas
are called formulas of of the
the
inference.
inference. The The two two auxiliary
auxiliary formulas
formulas of of aa cut inference are
cut inference are called the cut
called the cut formulas.
formulas.
We
We now define the
now define the notions
notions of of descendents
descendents and and ancestors
ancestors of of formulas
formulas occurring
occurring in in
aa sequent
sequent calculus
calculus proof.proof. FirstFirst we we define
define immediate
immediate descendents
descendents as as follows:
follows: If If C
C is is
aa side
side formula
formula in in anan upper
upper sequent
sequent of of anan inference,
inference, say say C C is is the
the i-th
i-th subformula
subformula of of
aa cedent
cedent r, F, II,H, b..A or A , then
or A, then C C's's only
only immediate
immediate descendent
descendent is the corresponding
is the corresponding
occurrence
occurrence of of thethe samesame formula
formula in in the
the same
same position
position in in the same cedent
the same cedent in in the
the
lower sequent
lower sequent of of the
the inference.
inference. If If CC isis an
an auxiliary
auxiliary formula
formula of of any inference except
any inference except an an
exchange
exchange or or cut
cut inference,
inference, then then the
the principal
principal formula
formula of the inference
of the inference is is the
the immediate
immediate
descendent of
descendent of C C.. For For anan exchange inference, the
exchange inference, the immediate
immediate descendent
descendent of of the
the A A
oror B B inin the upper sequent
the upper sequent is is the
the A A or or B B,, respectively,
respectively, in in the
the lower
lower sequent.
sequent. The The
cut
cut formulas
formulas of of a a cutcut inference
inference do do notnot have
have immediate
immediate descendents.
descendents. We We say
say that
that
C
C isis an
an immediate ancestor of of DD if if and
and onlyonly if if DD is is an
an immediate
immediate descendent
descendent of of CC..
Note
Note that
that the
the only
only formulas
formulas iinn a a proof
proof that
that do do notnot have
have immediate
immediate ancestors
ancestors are are the
the
formulas
formulas in in initial
initial sequents
sequents and and thethe principal
principal formulas
formulas of of weakening
weakening inferences.
inferences.
The
The ancestor relation relation is is defined
defined to to bebe thethe reflexive,
reflexive, transitive
transitive closure
closure of of the
the
immediate
immediate ancestor relation; thus,
ancestor relation; thus, C C is is an
an ancestor
ancestor of of D D if if and
and only
only ifif there
there isis a a
chain
chain of of zero
zero oror more
more immediate
immediate ancestors
ancestors from from D D to to C.C. A ancestor of
A direct ancestor of D
D isis an
an
ancestor
ancestor C C ofof D such that
D such that C C is the same
is the same formula
formula as as D.D. The
The concepts
concepts of of descendent
descendent
and
and direct descendent are are defined
defined similarly
similarly as as the
the converses
converses of of the
the ancestor
ancestor and and direct
direct
ancestor
ancestor relations.
relations.
A
A simple,
simple, butbut important,
important, observation
observation is is that
that if if CC isis an
an ancestor
ancestor of of D,
D, then
then C C isis
aa subformula
subformula of of D. D. This
This immediately
immediately gives gives thethe following
following subformula
subformula property:
property:

F----} A,A and r--+

F----} Il,
A,A A
and
r=t
F---} Il,
A,AAVB r=t
F---} Il,
A, BBVVA
and two dual rules inference for A
rules of inference A:left.
:left. Our method has the advantage of reducing
reducing the number
of
of rules
rules of
of inference,
inference, and
and also
also simplifying
simplifying somewhat
somewhat the
the upper
upper bounds
bounds on
on cut-free
cut-free proof
proof length
length we
we
obtain
obtain below.
below.
 Introduction to Proof Theory 13
13

1.2.4. Proposition.
1.2.4. Proposition. (The
(The Subformula
Subformula Property)
Property) IfIf P
P is
is aa cut-free
cut-free PK-proof,
PK-proof, then
then
every
every formula
formula occurring
occurring in
in P
P is
is aa subformula
subformula of
of aa formula
formula inin the
the endsequent
endsequent of
of P
P. .

1.2.5. Lengths
1.2.5. L e n g t h s ofof proofs.
proofs. There
There are are aa number
number of of ways
ways to to measure
measure the the length
length
of
of a a sequent
sequent calculus
calculus proof
proof P; P; most
most notably,
notably, one
one can can measure
measure eithereither the the number
number of of
symbols
symbols or or the
the number
number of of sequents
sequents occurring
occurring in in P P . . Furthermore,
Furthermore, one one cancan require
require
P to
P to be
be tree-like
tree-like or or to
to be dag-like; in
be dag-like; the case
in the case of
of dag-like
dag-like proofsproofs no no sequent
sequent needsneeds toto
be
be derived,
derived, or or counted,
counted, twice.twice. (('bag'
'Dag' abbreviates
abbreviates 'directed
'directed acyclic graph',' , another
acyclic graph another
name
name for for such
such proofs
proofs is is 'sequence-like
'sequence-like'.) '.)
For this chapter,
For this chapter, we we adopt
adopt the the following
following conventions
conventions for for measuring
measuring lengths lengths ofof
sequent
sequent calculus
calculus proofs:proofs: proofs
proofs are are always
always presumed
presumed to to bebe tree-like,
tree-like, unless
unless wewe
explicitly
explicitly state
state otherwise,
otherwise, and and we we letlet IIPII
IIPII denote
denote the the number
number of s t r o n g inferences
of strong inferences
in
in aa tree-like
tree-like proof
proof P P . . The value IIIPII
The value IPI] is
is polynomially
polynomially related related to to the the number
number of of
sequents
sequents in in P If P
P . . If P has sequents, then,
has n sequents, then, of course, IIPII
of course, IIPII < < nn.. On
On the the other
other hand,
hand,
it
it is
is not hard to
not hard to prove
prove that
that for
for anyany tree-like
tree-like proof
proof P P of of aa sequent
sequent r F--~ A, there
--t �, there isis
aa ((still tree-like)) proof
still tree-like proof of of an
an endsequent
endsequent r' --t�'
F'---~ A' with
with at most IIIPI1
at most
2 sequents and
IPII 2 sequents and
with
with r' F' �C_r F and
and �' A' �c_ �.A. The
The reason
reason we use IIIIPII
we use PII instead
instead of of merely
merely counting
counting the
the
actual
actual number
number of of sequents
sequents in in PP , , is
is that using lIP
that using IIPIIII often
often makes bounds on
makes bounds on proof
proof size
size
signifi cantly more
significantly more elegant
elegant to to state
state and and prove.
prove.
Occasionally,
Occasionally, we use 1IIIPIIdag
we use PI I dag to to denote
denote thethe number
number of of strong
strong inferences
inferences in in aa
dag-like
dag-like proof
proof P P ..

1.2.6. Soundness
1.2.6. S o u n d n e s s Theorem.
Theorem. The
The propositional
propositional sequent
sequent calculus
calculus PK
P K is
is sound.
sound.
That
That is
is to
to say,
say, any
any PK-provable
PK-provable sequent
sequent or
or formula
formula is
is aa tautology.
tautology.

The
The soundness
soundness theorem
theorem is is proved
proved byby observing
observing that
that the
the rules
rules ofof inference
inference of of PK
PK
preserve
preserve the
the property
property ofof sequents
sequents being
being tautologies.
tautologies.
The
The implicational
implicational formform of
of the
the soundness
soundness theorem
theorem also holds. If
also holds. If 6
| isis aa set
set of
of
sequents, let
sequents, let an
an 6-proof
| be
be any
any sequent calculus proof
sequent calculus proof in which sequents
in which sequents fromfrom 6 | are
are
permitted
permitted asas initial sequents ((in
initial sequents in addition
addition to
to the
the logical
logical axioms
axioms). ) . The
The implicational
implicational
soundness
soundness theorem
theorem states
states that
that if
if aa sequent
sequent r--t A has
F---~ � has an
an 6-proof,
| then
then r--t
F--~ � A is
is
made
made true
true byby every
every truth
truth assignment
assignment which
which satisfies
satisfies 6.
|

1.2.7. The
1.2.7. T h e inversion
inversion theorem.
theorem. The
The inversion
inversion theorem
theorem isis aa kind
kind of
of inverse
inverse toto
the
the implicational
implicational soundness
soundness theorem,
theorem, since
since it
it says
says that,
that, for
for any
any inference
inference except
except
weakening
weakening inferences,
inferences, if
if the
the conclusion
conclusion of
of the
the inference
inference is valid, then
is valid, then so
so are
are all
all of
of its
its
hypotheses.
hypotheses.

Theorem.
T h e o r e m . Let
Let I
I be
be aa propositional
propositional inference,
inference, aa cut
cut inference,
inference, an
an exchange
exchange inference
inference
or
or aa contraction
contraction inference.
inference. If If II ' s's lower
lower sequent
sequent is
is valid,
valid, then
then so
so are
are are
are all
all of
of I
I ' s's
upper
upper sequents.
sequents. Likewise,
Likewise, if if I
I ' s's lower
lower sequent
sequent is
is true
true under
under aa truth
truth assignment
assignment r, T,
then
then so are are all ofof II ' 's
s upper sequents.

The
The inversion
inversion theorem
theorem is
is easily
easily proved
proved by
by checking
checking the
the eight
eight propositional
propositional inference
inference
rules;
rules; it
it is
is obvious
obvious for
for exchange
exchange and
and contraction
contraction inferences.
inferences.
1144 S . Buss
S.

Note
Note that
that the
the inversion
inversion theorem
theorem can
can fail
fail for
for weakening
weakening inferences.
inferences. Most
Most authors
authors
defi ne the
define A :left and
the 1\ and VV :right rules
rules of
of inference
inference differently
differently than
than we
we defi ned them
defined them
for
for PK,
PK, and
and the
the inversion
inversion theorem
theorem can
can fail
fail for
for these
these alternative
alternative formulations see the
formulations ((see the
footnote
footnote onon page
page 111).
1).

1.2.8. The
1.2.8. T h e completeness
c o m p l e t e n e s s theorem.
theorem. The
The completeness
completeness theorem
theorem for
for PK
P K states
states
that
that every
every valid
valid sequent tautology) can
sequent ((tautology) can be
be proved
proved in
in the
the propositional
propositional sequent
sequent
calculus. This, together
calculus. This, together with with thethe soundness theorem, shows
soundness theorem, shows that
that the
the PK-provable
PK-provable
sequents
sequents are precisely the
are precisely the valid
valid sequents.
sequents.

Theorem.
T Iff r
heorem. I F -+.6-
~ A isis aa tautology,
tautology, then
then it has aa P
it has K-proof in
PK-proof in which
which no
no cuts
cuts appear.
appear.

1.2.9.
1.2.9. In order to
In order to prove
prove Theorem .2.8 we
Theorem 11.2.8 we prove
prove the
the following stronger lemma
following stronger lemma
which
which includes
includes bounds
bounds on
on the
the size
size of
of the
the PK-proof.
PK-proof.

L e m m a . Let r-+.6-
Lemma. F--~ A be a valid sequent
sequent in which there are mm occurrences
occurrences of
of logical
logical
connectives.
connectives. Then
Then there
there is
is aa tree-like,
tree-like, cut free PK
cut free -proof P
PK-proof of r
P of F -+.6-
- + A containing
containing
fewer
fewer than
than 22'n
m strong
strong inferences.
inferences.

P r o o f . The
Proof. The proof
proof is
is by induction on
by induction on m.m. In In the
the base
base case,
case, m m = - 00,, the
the sequent
sequent
r -+.6-
F---+ A contains
contains no logical connectives
no logical connectives and and thus
thus every
every formula
formula in in the
the sequent
sequent is is a
a
propositional
propositional variable. Since the
variable. Since the sequent
sequent is is valid,
valid, there
there must
must be be some
some variable,
variable, p p,,
which
which occursoccurs bothboth inin r F and
and in in .6-.
A. ThusThus r -+.6-
F---+ A can
can be
be proved
proved with
with zero
zero strong
strong
inferences
inferences from from thethe initial
initial sequent
sequent p -+ p.
p----} p.
The
The induction
induction step,
step, m m > > 00,, is
is handled
handled by by cases
cases according
according to to which
which connectives
connectives
are
are used
used as as outermost
outermost connectives
connectives of of formulas
formulas in in the
the cedents
cedents r F and A. First
and .6-. First suppose
suppose
there
there is is aa formula
formula of of the
the form
form (-,A)
(-~A) in in r.
F. Letting
Letting r' F' be
be the
the cedent
cedent obtained
obtained fromfrom r F
by removing
by occurrences of
removing occurrences -~A, we
of -,A, we can can infer
infer r -+.6-
F---+ A by:
by:
r'-+
F' ---F .6-,
A,A A
-,A,
-~A,r' -+ .6-
F'---~ A
r-+
F---~ .6-
A
where
where the double line
the double line indicates
indicates a a series
series of of weak
weak inferences.
inferences. By By the
the inversion
inversion theorem,
theorem,
r' -+.6-,
F'---~ A, A A isis valid,
valid, and
and hence,
hence, since
since it it has
has at at most
most m m -- 11 logical
logical connectives,
connectives, the the
induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis implies
implies that
that it it has
has a a cut-free
cut-free proof
proof with
with fewer
fewer than 2m-11 strong
than 2m- strong
inferences.
inferences. This This gives
gives r -+.6-
F--~ A a a cut-free
cut-free proof
proof with
with fewer
fewer than
than 2m-2m-11 +
+ 11 �
<_ 22mm strong
strong
inferences.
inferences. The The case
case where
where a a formula
formula (-,A) (~A) occurs
occurs in A is
in .6- is handled
handled similarly.
similarly.
Second, consider
Second, consider thethe case
case where
where a a formula
formula of of the
the form
form A A 1\
ABB appears
appears in F. Then,
in r. Then,
letting
letting r' F' be
be the
the cedent
cedent r F minus
minus the the formula
formula A A 1\ABB,, we
we can
can infer
infer r -+.6-
F---> A by:
by:
A, B, r'-+ .6-
A,B,F'---> A
A
A A1\BB,, r' -+ .6-
F'-"F A
r-+
P---F A.6-
By
By thethe inversion
inversion theorem
theorem and and the induction hypothesis,
the induction hypothesis, A, F' ~ A has
B, r'-+.6-
A, B, has a a cut-free
cut-free
proof with
proof with fewer than 2m
fewer than -1 strong
2m-1 strong inferences.
inferences. Thus Thus r -+.6-
F----F A has
has a a cut-free proof with
cut-free proof with
fewer
fewer than than 2m 2 m strong
strong inferences.
inferences. Third, Third, suppose
suppose therethere isis a
a formula
formula of of the
the A A 1\
AB B
 Introduction to
Introduction to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 15
15

appearing in
appearing in the
the succedent
succedent A. Letting A'
�. Letting be the
�' be the the
the succedent
succedent A minus the
� minus the formula
formula
AA
A we can
B , we
/\ B, can infer
infer
f-tA',A
F--> �', A f-tA
F---> �',
' , BB
f-tA',A
F---> �', A A B
/\ B
Ff-t�
-->A
By the
By the inversion
inversion theorem,
theorem, both
both of
of upper
upper sequents
sequents above
above are
are valid.
valid. Furthermore,
Furthermore, they
they
each have
each have fewer
fewer than
than m logical connectives,
m logical connectives, so so by
by the
the induction
induction hypothesis,
hypothesis, they
they
have cut-free
have cut-free proofs
proofs with
with fewer
fewer than
than 22m-1 strong inferences.
m-1 strong inferences. This
This gives
gives the
the sequent
sequent
f -tA
F--+ � aa cut-free
cut-free proof
proof with
with fewer
fewer than
than 22 m strong inferences.
m strong inferences.
The remaining
The remaining cases
cases are
are when
when aa formula
formula inin the
the sequent f -tA
sequent F---> has outermost
� has outermost
connective V or
connective orJ. These are
~. These are handled
handled with
with the
the inversion theorem and
inversion theorem and the
the induction
induction
hypothesis similarly to
hypothesis similarly to the
the above
above cases.
cases. []
0

1.2.10.
1.2.10. The bounds
The bounds on on the
the proof
proof size
size in
in Lemma
Lemma 1.2.9 can can be
be improved
improved somewhat
somewhat
by counting only
by counting only thethe occurrences
occurrences of distinct subformulas
of distinct subformulas in in f F -t
~ A. � . To make
To make
this precise,
this precise, we
we needneed to
to define
define thethe concepts
concepts of positively and
of positively and negatively
negatively occurring
occurring
subformulas.
subformulas. Given Given a formula A
a formula A,, an
an occurrence
occurrence of of a
a subformula
subformula B B of and aa
A , and
of A,
occurrence of
occurrence of aa logical
logical connective
connective c~ a in A , we
in A, we say
say that
that B is negatively
B is bound by
negatively bound by a if
~ if
either (1) a
either (1) is aa negation
~ is negation sign,
sign, .-~,
." and
and B is in
B is in its
its scope, or (2) ~a is
scope, or is an implication sign,
an implication sign,
J, and
~, and B B is
is aa subformula
subformula of of its
its first
first argument.
argument. Then,
Then, B B isis said
said toto occur
occur negatively
(respectively,
(respectively, positively) in in AA if
if BB isis negatively bound by
negatively bound by an odd (respectively,
an odd (respectively, even)
even)
number
number of of connectives
connectives in in AA.. AA subformula
subformula occurring
occurring inin aa sequent
sequent F f-t~ � A is
is said
said to
to
be positively
be positively occurring
occurring if if it
it occurs
occurs positively
positively in in �A or negatively in
or negatively in fF;; otherwise,
otherwise, it
it
occurs negatively
occurs negatively in in the
the sequent.
sequent.

Lemma.
L e m m a . Let f F -t
~ �A be a valid sequent. Let m m'' equal the number of of distinct
il
subformulas
subformulas occurring
occurring positively
positively in
in the
the sequent and m
sequent and m" equal
equal the
the number
number ofof distinct
distinct
subformulas
subformulas occurring
occurring negatively
negatively in
in the
the sequent. Let m
sequent. Let m = m '~+
=- m +m
i Then there
m".l . Then there is
is aa
tree-like,
tree-like, cut free P
cut free K -proof P
PK-proof P containing
containing fewer
fewer than
than 2 m strong
strong inferences.
inferences.

P r o o f . (Sketch)
Proof. (Sketch) Recall
Recall that
that the
the proof
proof of
of Lemma .2.9 built
Lemma 11.2.9 built aa prooffrom
proof from the
the bottom­
bottom-
up,
up, byby choosing
choosing aa formula
formula inin the
the endsequent
endsequent to to eliminate
eliminate (i.e.,
(i.e., to
to be
be inferred)
inferred) andand
thereby
thereby reducing
reducing thethe total
total number
number of of logical
logical connectives
connectives and and then
then appealing
appealing toto the
the
induction
induction hypothesis.
hypothesis. The
The construction
construction forfor the
the proof
proof of
of the
the present
present lemma
lemma isis exactly
exactly
the
the same,
same, except
except that
that now
now care
care must
must be
be taken
taken to
to reduce
reduce the
the total
total number
number ofof distinct
distinct
positively
positively or or negatively
negatively occurring
occurring subformulas,
subformulas, instead
instead ofof just
just reducing
reducing the
the total
total
number
number of of connectives.
connectives. This
This isis easily
easily accomplished
accomplished by by always
always choosing
choosing aa formula
formula
from
from the the endsequent
endsequent which
which contains
contains aa maximal
maximal number
number of of connectives
connectives andand which
which isis
therefore
therefore not not aa proper
proper subformula
subformula of of any
any other
other subformula
subformula in in the
the endsequent.
endsequent. 0 []

1.2.11. The
1.2.11. The cut
cut elimination
elimination theorem
theorem states
states that
that if
if aa sequent
sequent has
has aa PK-proof,
PK-proof,
then
then it
it has
has aa cut-free
cut-free proof.
proof. This
This isis an
an immediate
immediate consequence
consequence of of the
the soundness
soundness
and
and completeness
completeness theorems,
theorems, since
since any
any PK-provable
PK-provable sequent
sequent must
must be
be valid,
valid, by
by the
the
soundness
soundness theorem,
theorem, and
and hence
hence has
has aa cut-free
cut-free proof,
proof, by
by the
the completeness
completeness theorem.
theorem.
16
16 s . Buss
S. Buss

This is
This is aa rather
rather slick
slick method
method of of proving
proving the
the cut
cut elimination
elimination theorem,
theorem, butbut unfor-
unfor­
tunately, does
tunately, does not
not shed
shed any
any light
light on
on how
how aa given
given PK-proof
PK-proof can can be
be constructively
constructively
transformed into
transformed into aa cut-free
cut-free proof.
proof. In
In section
section 2.3.7
2.3.7 below,
below, we
we shall
shall give
give aa step-by-step
step-by-step
procedure for
procedure for converting
converting first-order
first-order sequent
sequent calculus
calculus proofs
proofs into
into cut-free
cut-free proofs;
proofs; the
the
same methods
same methods workwork also
also for
for propositional
propositional sequent
sequent calculus
calculus proofs.
proofs. We shall not,
We shall not,
however, describe
however, this constructive
describe this constructive proof
proof transformation
transformation procedure
procedure here;here; instead, we
instead, we
will only
will only state, without proof,
state, without proof, the
the following
following upper
upper bound
bound on on the
the increase
increase inin proof
proof
length which
length which cancan occur
occur when
when aa proof
proof isis transformed
transformed into
into aa cut-free
cut-free proof. (A proof
proof. (A proof
can be
can be given using the
given using the methods
methods ofof Sections
Sections 2.4.2
2.4.2 and
and 2.4.3.)
2.4.3.)
Cut-Elimination
C ut-Elimination T Theorem. Suppose P
h e o r e m . Suppose P be a (possibly dag-like) PK-proof
PK-proof of
of
r ~--t A.
F � . Then Then F r ~--t A� has a cut-free, PK -proof with less than
cut-free, tree-like PK-proo] than or equal
to 2211P l idag strong
IIPIIdag strong inferences.
inferences.

1.2.12. FFree-cut
1.2.12. r e e - c u t eelimination.
l i m i n a t i o n . LetLet G<5 be
be aa set
set of
of sequents
sequents and, and, asas above, define
above, define
an G-proof
an <5-proof to to bebe aa sequent calculus proof
sequent calculus which may
proof which contain sequents
may contain sequents from
from G <5 as
as
initial sequents,
initial sequents, in addition to
in addition to the logical sequents.
the logical sequents. If If II is is aa cut
cut inference
inference occurring
occurring
in an
in an G-proof
<5-proof P then we
P , , then say II' 'ss cut
we say cut formulas
formulas are
are directly descended from from G <5 if
if they
they
have at
have at least
least one
one direct
direct ancestor
ancestor which which occurs
occurs as
as a
a formula
formula in in an initial sequent
an initial sequent which
which
is in
is in <5
| . A cut II is
A cut said to
is said to be be free ifif neither of II ' 'ss auxiliary
neither of auxiliary formulas
formulas is directly
is directly
descended from
descended from |<5 . A proof is
A proof is free-cut if and
free-cut free if only if
and only if itit contains
contains no no free ( See
cuts. (See
free cuts.
Definition 2.4.4.1 for
Definition 2.4.4.1 for aa better definition of
better definition of free cuts.)) The
free cuts. The cut cut elimination
elimination theorem
theorem
can
can bebe generalized
generalized to show that
to show that thethe free-cut
free-cut free fragment of
free fragment of the sequent calculus
the sequent calculus is is
implicationally complete:
implicationally complete:

Free-cut
F r e e - c u t Elimination
E l i m i n a t i o n Theorem. S be a sequent and <5
T h e o r e m . Let S G a set of
of sequents. If
If
<5
G F ~ <5G,, then there is a free-cut free-cut free <5 -proof of S
G-proof S..

We
We shall
shall not
not prove
prove this
this theorem
theorem here;
here; instead,
instead, we
we prove
prove the
the generalization
generalization of
of this
this
for
for first-order
first-order logic
logic in
in 2.4.4
2.4.4 below.
below. This
This theorem
theorem is
is essentially
essentially due
due to
to Takeuti
Takeuti [1987]
[1987]
based
based onon the
the cut
cut elimination
elimination method
method of of Gentzen
Gentzen [1935]
[1935]..

1.2.13. Some
1.2.13. e m a r k s . We
S o m e rremarks. We have
have developed
developed the
the sequent
sequent calculus
calculus only
only for
for classical
classical
propositional logic; however,
propositional logic; however, one one ofof the
the advantages
advantages of of the
the sequent calculus is
sequent calculus is its
its
flexibility
flexibility in
in being
being adapted
adapted for for non-classical
non-classical logics.
logics. ForFor instance,
instance, propositional
propositional
intuitionistic
intuitionistic logic
logic can
can be be formalized
formalized by by aa sequent
sequent calculus
calculus P PJ
J which
which isis defined
defined
exactly
exactly like
like PPKK except
except that that succedents
succedents in in the
the lower
lower sequents
sequents ofof strong inferences
inferences
are restricted
are restricted toto contain
contain at at most
most oneone formula.
formula. As As another
another example, minimal logic
example, minimal logic
is formalized
is formalized likelike PP J,
J, except
except with
with the
the restriction
restriction that
that every
every succedent
succedent contain
contain
exactly
exactly one
one formula.
formula. Linear logic, relevant
Linear logic, logic, modal
relevant logic, modal logics
logics and
and others
others can
can also
also be
be
formulated
formulated elegantly
elegantly with
with the the sequent
sequent calculus.
calculus.

1.2.14. The
1.2.14. T h e Tait calculus. Tait
Tait calculus. Tait [1968]
[1968] gave
gave aa proof
proof system
system similar
similar in
in spirit
spirit to
to the
the
sequent
sequent calculus.
calculus. Tait's
Tait's proof
proof system
system incorporates
incorporates aa number
number of
of simplifications
simplifications with
with
regard
regard to
to the
the sequent
sequent calculus;
calculus; namely,
namely, it
it uses
uses sets
sets of
of formulas
formulas in
in place
place of
of sequents,
sequents,
 Introduction to
Introduction to Proof Theory 17

it allows
it allows only
only propositional
propositional formulas
formulas to to bebe negated,
negated, andand there
there are
are nono weak
weak structural
structural
rules at
rules at all.
all.
Since the
Since the Tait
Tait calculus
calculus isis often
often used
used for for analyzing
analyzing fragments
fragments of of arithmetic,
arithmetic, es-es­
pecially in
pecially in the
the framework
framework of of infinitary
infinitary logic,
logic, wewe briefly
briefly describe
describe itit here.
here. Formulas
Formulas
are built
are built upup from
from atomic
atomic formulas
formulas p, p, from
from negated
negated atomic
atomic formulas
formulas -~p,-'p, and
and with
with
the connectives
the connectives A and V. A
1\ and A negated
negated atomicatomic formula
formula is is usually
usually denoted
denoted ~; p; and
and
the negation
the negation operator
operator is is extended
extended to to allall formulas
formulas by defining ~p to
by defining to be
be just p, and
just p, and
inductively defining
inductively A
defining A V BB and A
and A A 1\ BB toto be A
be A A 1\ BB and A
and A V B, B , respectively.
respectively.
Frequently, the the Tait
Tait calculus
calculus is is used
used for for infinitary
infinitary logic.
logic. InIn this
this case,
case, formulas
formulas
1\
Frequently,
are defined
are defined so so that
that whenever
whenever Fr is is aa set
set ofof formulas,
formulas, then
then so V
are V Fr and
so are and A F. r . The
The
intended meaning
intended meaning of of these
these formulas
formulas is is the
the disjunction,
disjunction, or or conjunction,
conjunction, respectively,
respectively,
of all
of all the
the formulas
formulas in in F.
r.
Each line
Each line in
in aa Tait
Tait calculus
calcuIus proof
proof isis aa set
set Fr of
of formulas
formulas with with the
the intended
intended meaning
meaning
of Fr being
of being thethe disjunction
disjunction of of the
the formulas
formulas in in F.
r. AA Tait
Tait calculus
calculus proof
proof can
can bebe tree-like
tree-like
or dag-like. The
or dag-like. The initial
initial sets, or logical
sets, or logical axioms,
axioms, of of a proof are
a proof sets of
are sets of the form ru
the form FU{p, { }
p, p
~}..
In the
In the infinitary
infinitary setting,
setting, there
there are three rules
are three rules ofof inference; namely,
inference; namely,

F U {Aj } where jj EE I,
where I,
ru {ViEIAi}
F U {{Aj:
rU Aj'j j E e II}
}
(there
(there are ]II many
are III many hypotheses),
hypotheses), and
and
U {l\
rF u { A jj~EIAAj}
j}

U {A}
rF u {A} F U {A}
ru {A} the
the cut
cut rule.
rule.
rF
In
In thethe finitary
finitary setting,
setting, the
the same
same rules
rules of of inference
inference may may also
also bebe used.
used. ItIt is
is evident
evident
that
that thethe Tait calculus is
Tait calculus is practically isomorphic to
practically isomorphic to the
the sequent calculus. This
sequent calculus. This is is
because
because aa sequent
sequent r -+ b.
F---+ A may may be be transformed
transformed into into thethe equivalent
equivalent set set of
of formulas
formulas
containing
containing the the formulas
formulas fromfrom b. A andand thethe negations
negations of of the
the formulas
formulas from
from r F.. The
The
exchange
exchange and and contraction
contraction rulesrules are
are superfluous
superfluous onceonce one one works
works with
with sets
sets of
of formulas,
formulas,
the
the weakening
weakening rulerule of
of the
the sequent
sequent calculus
calculus is is replaced
replaced by by allowing
allowing axioms
axioms toto contain
contain
extra
extra side
side formulas
formulas (this,
(this, in in essence,
essence, means
means thatthat weakenings
weakenings are are pushed
pushed up up to to the
the
initial
initial sequents
sequents of of the
the proof)
proof).. TheThe strong
strong rules
rules of
of inference
inference for for the
the sequent
sequent calculus
calculus
translate,
translate, by by this
this means,
means, to to the
the rules
rules ofof the
the Tait
Tait calculus.
calculus.
Recall
Recall that
that we
we adopted
adopted the the convention
convention that that the
the length
length ofof aa sequent
sequent calculus
calculus proof
proof
isis equal
equal to
to the
the number
number of of strong
strong inferences
inferences in in the
the proof.
proof. When
When we we work
work with
with tree-like
tree-like
proofs,
proofs, thisthis corresponds
corresponds exactly
exactly to to the
the number
number of of inferences
inferences in in the
the corresponding
corresponding
Tait-style
Tait-style proof.
proof.
The
The cut
cut elimination
elimination theorem
theorem for for the
the (finitary)
(finitary) sequent
sequent calculus
calculus immediately
immediately
implies
implies the the cut
cut elimination
elimination theorem
theorem for for the
the Tait
Tait calculus
calculus forfor finitary
finitary logic;
logic; this
this
isis commonly
commonly called
called the
the normalization
normalization theorem theorem for for Tait-style
Tait-style systems.
systems. ForFor general
general
infinitary
infinitary logics,
logics, the
the cut
cut elimination/normalization
elimination/normalization theorems theorems may may not
not hold;
hold; however,
however,
Lopez-Escobar
Lopez-Escobar [1965] [1965] has
has shown
shown that that thethe cut
cut elimination
elimination theorem
theorem doesdoes hold
hold forfor
infinitary
infinitary logic
logic with
with formulas
formulas of of count ably infinite
countably infinite length.
length. Also,
Also, Chapters
Chapters IIIIII and
and IVIV
18
18 S.
S. Buss
Buss

of
of this
this volume
volume discuss
discuss cut
cut elimination
elimination in
in some
some infinitary
infinitary logics
logics corresponding
corresponding to
to
theories
theories of
of arithmetic.
arithmetic.

1.3. Propositional
1.3. Propositional resolution
resolution refutations
refutations

The
The Hilbert-style
Hilbert-style and and sequent
sequent calculus
calculus proofproof systems
systems described
described earlier earlier areare quite
quite
powerful;
powerful; however,
however, they they havehave the the disadvantage
disadvantage that that it it has
has so so far
far proved
proved to to bebe
very
very difficult
difficult to to implement
implement computerized
computerized procedures procedures to to search
search for for propositional
propositional
Hilbert-style
Hilbert-style or or sequent
sequent calculus
calculus proofs.
proofs. Typically,
Typically, aa computerized
computerized procedure procedure for for
proof
proof search
search will will start
start with formula A for
with aa formula for which
which aa proofproof is is desired,
desired, and and will
will
then
then construct
construct possible
possible proofs
proofs of of A A by by working
working backwards
backwards from from the the conclusion
conclusion A A
towards initial axioms.
towards initial axioms. When When cut-free
cut-free proofsproofs are are being
being constructed
constructed this this is is fairly
fairly
straightforward,
straightforward, but but cut-free
cut-free proofs
proofs may may be be much
much longer
longer than
than necessary
necessary and and maymay
even
even be too long
be too long to to be
be feasibly
feasibly constructed
constructed by by aa computer.
computer. General, General, non-cut-free,
non-cut-free,
proofs
proofs maymay be be quite short; however,
quite short; however, the the difficulty
difficulty with
with proof
proof search
search arises
arises from
from thethe
need
need to to determine
determine what what formulas
formulas make make suitable
suitable cut cut formulas.
formulas. For For example,
example, when when
trying to
trying to construct
construct aa proof proof of of rF--~ A that
--+ .0. that ends
ends with
with aa cutcut inference;
inference; one one has has toto
consider
consider all all formulas
formulas C C andand trytry toto construct
construct proofsproofs of of the
the sequents
sequents r--+ F ~ .0.,A, C C and
and
C,
C, r--+ A. In
F--~ .0.. practice, it
In practice, it has
has been
been impossible
impossible to to choose
choose cut cut formulas
formulas C C effectively
effectively
enough to
enough to effectively
effectively generate
generate general
general proofs.
proofs. A similar difficulty
A similar difficulty arises
arises inin trying
trying to to
construct
construct Hilbert-style
Hilbert-style proofs proofs which
which must must end end with
with aa modus
modus ponensponens inference.
inference.
Thus
Thus to to have
have aa propositional
propositional proof proof system
system whichwhich would
would be be amenable
amenable to to comput­
comput-
erized
erized proof
proof search,
search, it it is
is desirable
desirable to to have
have aa proof
proof system
system in in which
which (1) (1) proof
proof search
search
is efficient and
is efficient does not
and does not require
require too too many 'arbitrary'' choices,
many 'arbitrary choices, and and (2) proofproof lengths
lengths
are not excessively
are not excessively long. long. Of course, the
Of course, the latter requirement is
latter requirement is intended
intended to to reflect
reflect thethe
amount
amount of of available
available computer
computer memory memory and time; thus
and time; proofs of
thus proofs of many millions of
many millions of
steps might
steps might wellwell be acceptable. Indeed,
be acceptable. Indeed, for for computerized
computerized proof proof search,
search, having
having an an
easy-to-find
easy-to-find proof proof which
which is millions of
is millions steps long
of steps long may
may wellwell bebe preferable
preferable to to having
having aa
hard-to-find proof
hard-to-find proof which
which has has only
only hundreds
hundreds of of steps.
steps.
The principal propositional
The principal propositional proof proof system
system which meets the
which meets the above requirements is
above requirements is
based on
based on resolution.
resolution. As As wewe shall
shall see,
see, thethe expressive
expressive powerpower and and implicational
implicational power power of of
resolution is
resolution is weaker
weaker than than thatthat of of the
the full
full propositional
propositional logic;logic; in in particular,
particular, resolution
resolution
is, in
is, in essence,
essence, restricted
restricted to to formulas
formulas in in conjunctive
conjunctive normalnormal form. However, resolution
form. However, resolution
has the
has the advantage
advantage of of being
being amenable
amenable to to efficient
efficient proof search.
proof search.
Propositional and
Propositional and first-order
first-order resolution
resolution were introduced in
were introduced in thethe influential
influential work work
of Robinson
of Robinson [1965b][ 1965b] andand Davis
Davis and and Putnam
Putnam [1960].[ 1960] . Propositional
Propositional resolutionresolution proof proof
systems are
systems are discussed
discussed immediately
immediately below. below. A A large
large part
part ofof the
the importance
importance of of proposi-
proposi­
tional resolution
tional resolution lies lies in
in the
the fact that itit leads
fact that leads to to efficient
efficient proof
proof methods
methods in in first-order
first-order
logic: first-order
logic: first-order resolution
resolution is is discussed
discussed in in section
section 2.6 2.6 below.
below.

1.3.1. Definition. A
1.3.1. Definition. A literal is defined
literal is defined to
to be
be either
either aa propositional
propositional variable or
variable Pi or
the negation
the negation of
of aa propositional
propositional variable The literal
"'Pi ' The
variable -~Pi. literal "'Pi is also
~Pi is also denoted
denoted ~Pi;; and
and ifif
is the
x is
x the literal then 5x denotes
literal ~Pi, , then denotes the
the unnegated
unnegated literal
literal Pi. literal 5x is
The literal
Pi . The is called
called the
the
 Introduction to Proof Theory 19

complement of
complement x. A
of x. A positive literal
literal isis one
one which
which is is an
an un negated variable;
unnegated variable; a a negative
literal
literal isis one
one which
which is is a
a negated
negated variable.
variable.
A
A clause C C is
is a
a finite
finite set
set of
of literals.
literals. TheThe intended
intended meaning
meaning of C is
of C is the
the disjunction
disjunction
of its
of its members;
members; thus, thus, forfor aa aa truth
truth assignment,
assignment, a( C) equals
a(C) equals True if if and
and only
only if
if
a(x) = True for
a(x) for some
some x x E C. Note
E C. Note that
that the
the empty
empty clause,
clause, 00,, always
always has
has value
value False.
Since
Since clauses
clauses that
that contain both xx and
contain both and x 5 are
are always true, it
always true, it is
is often
often assumed
assumed w.l.o.g.
w.l.o.g.
that
that nono clause
clause contains
contains bothboth x x and
and x.5. A A clause
clause is is defined
defined toto be
be positive (respectively,
(respectively,
negative) if if it
it contains
contains onlyonly positive
positive (resp.,
(resp., only
only negative)
negative) literals.
literals. The
The empty
empty clause
clause
is
is the
the only
only clause
clause which
which is both positive
is both positive and and negative.
negative. A A clause
clause which
which is is neither
neither
positive
positive nor nor negative
negative is is said
said to
to be
be mixed.
A non-empty set
A non-empty set rF of clauses is
of clauses is used
used to represent the
to represent the conjunction
conjunction of of its
its members.
members.
Thus
Thus a(r)a(F) is is True ifif and
and only
only if a(C) is
if a(C) is True forfor all
all C
C E F. Obviously,
E r. Obviously, thethe meaning
meaning
of
of rF is
is the
the same
same as as the
the conjunctive
conjunctive normal
normal formform formula
formula consisting
consisting ofof the
the conjunction
conjunction
of
of the
the disjunctions
disjunctions of of the
the clauses
clauses in F. A
in r. A set
set ofof clauses
clauses isis said
said to
to be
be satisfiable ifif there
there
is
is at
at least
least one
one truth
truth assignment
assignment that that makes
makes it it true.
true.

Resolution
Resolution proofs
proofs are
are used
used to
to prove
prove that
that aa set
set rF of
of clauses
clauses is
is unsatisfi able: this
unsatisfiable: this
is
is done
done byby using
using the
the resolution
resolution rule
rule (defi ned below)
(defined below) to to derive
derive the
the empty
empty clause
clause
from F. Since
from r. Since the
the empty
empty clause
clause is
is unsatisfiable
unsatisfiable this
this will
will be
be sufficient
sufficient to
to show
show that
that r F
is
is unsatisfiable.
unsatisfiable.

Definition. Suppose
1.3.2. Definition.
1.3.2. Suppose that
that C C and D are
and D are clauses
clauses and
and that
that x
x E
ECC and
and x
5 E
EDD
are literals. The
are literals. The resolution rule applied
applied to C and
to C and D D is
is the
the inference
inference
C
C D
D
(C
(C \\ {x})U
{x}) U (D
(D \\ {x})
{5})
The
The conclusion
conclusion (C
( C \\ {x})
{x}) U
U (D {5}) is
(D \\ {x}) is called
called the
the resolvent of C
resolventof C and D (with
and D (with respect
respect
to
to x ) .2
x).2

Since
Since the
the resolvent
resolvent of C and
of C and D D isis satisfied
satisfied by
by any
any truth
truth assignment
assignment thatthat satisfies
satisfies
both C
both C and
and DD,, the resolution rule
the resolution rule is
is sound inin the
the following
following sense:
sense: if F is
if r is satisfiable
satisfiable
and
and BB is
is the
the resolvent
resolvent of
of two
two clauses
clauses in F, then
in r, then rFU (B} is
U {B} satisfiable. Since
is satisfiable. Since the
the
empty
empty clause
clause is
is not
not satisfiable,
satisfiable, this
this yields
yields the
the following
following definition
definition of
of the
the resolution
resolution
proof
proof system.
system.

Definition. A
Definition. refutation of
A resolution refutation F is
of r is aa sequence
sequence C}, C 22,, . . . ,, Ck
C1, C Ck of
of clauses
. • • clauses such
such
that
that each Ci is
each Ci is either
either in F or
in r or is
is inferred
inferred from
from earlier
earlier member
member of of the the sequence
sequence byby the
the
resolution
resolution rule,
rule, and
and such
such that
that CkC~ is
is the
the empty
empty clause.
clause.

1.3.3. Resolution
1.3.3. Resolution isis defined
defined to
to be
be aa refutation
refutation procedure
procedure which
which refutes
refutes the
the satis­
satis-
fiability
fiability of
of aa set
set of
of clauses,
clauses, but
but it
it also
also functions
functions as
as aa proof procedure for
proof procedure for proving
proving
the
the validity
validity of propositional formulas;
of propositional formulas; namely,
namely, to
to prove
prove aa formula
formula A A,, one
one forms
forms aa
set
set r
FAA of
of clauses
clauses such
such that A is
that A is a tautology if
a tautology if and
and only
only if
if rA is
FA is unsatisfiable.
unsatisfiable. Then
Then
2Note that xx is uniquely
2Note we adopt the ((optional)
uniquely determined by C and D if we optional) convention
convention that
clauses never
never contain
contain any literal and its complement.
complement.
20
20 Buss
S. Buss

aa resolution
resolution proof
proof ofof A
A is,
is, by
by definition,
definition, aa resolution
resolution refutation
refutation of of FA. There are
rA . There are two
two
principal means
principal means ofof forming
forming r FA from A.
A from A . The
The first
first method
method is is to
to express
express the
the negation
negation
ofof AA in
in conjunctive
conjunctive normal
normal form
form and
and letlet FA be the
rA be the set
set of
of clauses
clauses which
which express
express that
that
conjunctive normal
conjunctive normal form
form formula.
formula. TheThe principal
principal drawback
drawback of of this
this definition
definition ofof FA is
r A is
that the
that the conjunctive
conjunctive normal
normal form
form of of -~A
-,A may
may be be exponentially
exponentially longerlonger than
than A,A , and
and
FA may have
r A may have exponentially
exponentially manymany clauses.
clauses.
The second
The second method
method is is the
the method
method of of extension, introduced by
extension, introduced by Tsejtin
Tsejtin [1968],
[1968] ,
which involves
which involves introducing
introducing new new propositional
propositional variables
variables in in addition
addition to to the
the variables
variables
occurring in
occurring in the
the formula
formula A. A . The
The newnew propositional
propositional variables
variables are are called
called extension
extension
variables and
variables and allow
allow each distinct subformula
each distinct subformula B in A
B in A to to be
be assigned
assigned aa literal
literal XxsB
by the
by the following
following definition:
definition: (1)(1) for
for propositional
propositional variables
variables appearing
appearing in in A, xp is
A , xp p;
is p;
(2) for
(2) negated subformulas
for negated subformulas -~B, X�B is
-,B , X-~S is ~--6; (3) for
XB ; (3) any other
for any other subformula
subformula B, B , Xs
XB isis
new propositional
aa new propositional variable.
variable. We then define
We then define r FA to contain
A to contain the the following
following clauses:
clauses:
(1) the
(1) the singleton
singleton clause
clause {~-X},
{x A } , (2)
(2) for
for each
each subformula
subformula of of the
the form
form SB A C in
/\ C in A,
A , the
the
clauses
clauses
{XB AC , XB},
{XBAC, {XBAC , Xc
XB}, {XBAC, Xc}} and and {XB{~--6,, x--6,
XC , XBA
XBAC};C };
and
and (3) for each
(3) for each subformula
subformula of
of the
the form
form B C in
BVC A , the
in A, the clauses
clauses

{XBvc,-2"-6}, {XBvC, X--6} and {XB, Xc, XBvC}.

there are
If there
If are additional
additional logical
logical connectives
connectives in in AA then
then similar
similar sets of clauses
sets of clauses can be
can be
used. It
used. It is
is easy
easy to check that
to check that the
the set
set of
of three
three clauses
clauses for
for B B /\
ACC (respectively,
(respectively, B B VC C))
iiss satisfied
satisfied byby exactly
exactly those
those truth
truth assignments
assignments thatthat assign
assign XBA
XB^CC (respectively,
(respectively, XB VC )
XBvC)
the
the same truth value
same truth value as
as XB
xB /\ (resp., xB
Xc (resp.,
A xe XB V x c ) . Thus,
xc). Thus, a truth assignment
a truth assignment satisfi es
satisfies
r
FA A only
only ifif it
it falsifies
falsifies A and, conversely,
A and, conversely, if
if aa truth
truth assignment
assignment falsifies
falsifies AA then
then there
there
is
is aa unique
unique assignment
assignment of of truth
truth values
values to
to the
the extension
extension variables
variables ofof AA which
which lets
lets
it
it satisfy
satisfy r FAA.. The
The primary
primary advantage
advantage of of forming
forming r F AA by
by the
the method
method of of extension
extension
is
is that
that r FAA isis linear-size
linear-size in
in the
the size
size of A . The
of A. The disadvantage,
disadvantage, of of course,
course, isis that
that the
the
introduction of
introduction of additional
additional variables
variables changes
changes thethe meaning
meaning and and structure
structure ofof AA..

1.3.4.
1.3.4. Completeness
C o m p l e t e n e s s Theorem
T h e o r e m for
for Propositional
P r o p o s i t i o n a l Resolution.
Resolution. If r
If F is an
unsatisfiable
unsatisfiable set of of clauses, then there is a resolution refutation of r
refutation of F..

Proof. We
Proof. We shall
shall briefly
briefly sketch
sketch two
two proofs
proofs ofof this
this theorem.
theorem. The The first,
first, and usual,
and usual,
proof is based on the Davis-Putnam procedure. First note, that
proof is based on the Davis-Putnam procedure. First note, that by the Compactness by the Compactness
Theorem
Theorem we we may
may assume
assume w.l.o.g. that r
w.l.o.g, that F is
is finite.
finite. Therefore,
Therefore, we we may
may use
use induction
induction on
on
the
the number
number of of distinct
distinct variables
variables appearing
appearing in F.. The
in r The base
base case,
case, where
where no no variables
variables
appear
appear in in rF is
is trivial,
trivial, since
since r F must
must contain
contain just
just the
the empty
empty clause.
clause. For
For the
the induction
induction
step, let p
step, let p be
be aa fixed
fixed variable
variable in
in r F and
and define
define r' F' to
to be
be the
the set
set of
of clauses
clauses containing
containing
the
the following
following clauses:
clauses:
a. For
a. For all
all clauses
clauses C C and
and D D inin rF such that p
such that p EEC C and
and p ~ E D, the
E D, the resolvent
resolvent of
of
CC and
and D w.r.t, p
D w.r.t. p is
is in F',, and
in r' and
b.
b. Every
Every clause
clause C C in
in rF which
which contains neither p
contains neither p nor
nor p~ is
is in
in r'.
F'.
 Introduction to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 21
21

Assuming,
Assuming, without
without lossloss of
of generality,
generality, that that no no clause
clause in F contained
in f contained both both P p and
and p ~,, it
it
is
is clear
clear that
that the
the variable
variable P p does
does not
not occur
occur in U.. Now,
in f' Now, itit is
is not
not hard
hard to to show
show that that f'F'
is
is satisfi able if
satisfiable if and
and only
only if if f F is,
is, from
from whence
whence the the theorem
theorem follows
follows by by the
the induction
induction
hypothesis.
hypothesis.
The second
The second proof
proof reduces
reduces resolution
resolution to to the
the free-cut
free-cut free
free sequent
sequent calculus.
calculus. For For this,
this,
if C is
if C is aa clause,
clause, let Ac be
let t1e be the
the cedent
cedent containing
containing the the variables
variables which
which occur
occur positively
positively
in
in CC and
and ITe He be be the
the variables
variables which which occuroccur negatively
negatively in in C.C. ThenThen the the sequent
sequent
ITe Ac is
---t t1e
He--~ is aa sequent
sequent withwith no no non-logical
non-logical symbolssymbols which
which is is identical
identical in in meaning
meaning
to
to CC.. For
For example,
example, if if C
C = - {Pl(pl,, P2 p3},, then
p-2,, P3} then the the associated
associated sequent
sequent is is P2 ---t Pb P3
p2--~pl, P3.'
Clearly,
Clearly, if if CC and
and D D areare clauses
clauses with with aa resolvent
resolvent E E,, then
then thethe sequent
sequent ITE liE ---t E is
~ / kt1E is
obtained
obtained from from lIe Ac and
--~ t1e
1-Iv---t and lID D with
~ / kt1D
liD ---t with aa single
single cut
cut onon the
the resolution
resolution variable.
variable.
Now
Now suppose
suppose f F is
is unsatisfiable.
unsatisfiable. By By the the completeness
completeness theoremtheorem for for the
the free-cut
free-cut freefree
sequent
sequent calculus,
calculus, there
there isis aa free-cut
free-cut freefree proof
proof of of the empty sequent
the empty sequent fromfrom the
the sequents
sequents
ITe Ac with
---t t1e
Hc--~ with C C EEf F.. Since
Since the the proof
proof is is free-cut
free-cut free
free and
and there
there areare nono non-logical
non-logical
symbols
symbols appearing
appearing in in any
any initial
initial sequents,
sequents, every every cutcut formula
formula in in the
the proof
proof must
must be be
atomic. Therefore
atomic. Therefore no no non-logical
non-logical symbol symbol appear
appear anywhere
anywhere in in the
the proof
proof and,and, by by
identifying
identifying the the sequents
sequents in in the
the free-cut
free-cut freefree proof
proof with
with clauses
clauses and and replacing
replacing eacheach cutcut
inference
inference withwith thethe corresponding
corresponding resolution
resolution inference,
inference, aa resolution
resolution refutation
refutation of of the
the
empty
empty clause
clause is obtained. 0
is obtained. [:]

1.3.5.
1.3.5. R Restricted
e s t r i c t e d forms
forms of of rresolution.
esolution. One
One of of the principal advantages
the principal advantages of of
resolution
resolution is is that
that it it is
is easier
easier for for computers
computers to to search
search forfor resolution
resolution refutations
refutations thanthan
to
to search
search forfor arbitrary
arbitrary Hilbert-style
Hilbert-style or or sequent
sequent calculus
calculus proofs.
proofs. The The reason
reason for
for this
this
is
is that
that resolution
resolution proofs proofs are are less
less powerful
powerful and and more
more restricted
restricted thanthan Hilbert-style
Hilbert-style and and
sequent
sequent calculus
calculus proofs proofs and,and, in particular, there
in particular, there are
are fewer
fewer options
options on on how
how toto form
form
resolution proofs.
resolution proofs. This This explains
explains the the paradoxical
paradoxical situation
situation that that aa less-powerful
less-powerful proof
proof
system
system can can be preferable to
be preferable to aa more
more powerful powerful system.
system. ThusThus it it makes sense to
makes sense to consider
consider
further restrictions on
further restrictions on resolution
resolution which which may reduce the
may reduce the proof
proof search
search space
space even more.
even more.
Of course there
Of course there is is aa tradeoff
tradeoff involved
involved in in using
using more restricted forms
more restricted forms of of resolution,
resolution,
since
since oneone may
may find find that
that although
although restricted restricted proofs
proofs areare easier
easier to to search for, they
search for, they are
are
aa lot less plentiful.
lot less plentiful. Often, Often, however,
however, the the ease
ease ofof proof search is
proof search more important
is more important than than
the existence
the existence of of short
short proofs;
proofs; in in fact,fact, itit isis sometimes
sometimes even even preferable
preferable to to use
use aa proof
proof
system
system whichwhich is is not
not complete,
complete, provided provided its its proofs are easy
proofs are easy to to find.
find.
Although we
Although we do do not
not discuss
discuss this this until section 2.6, the
until section second main
the second main advantage
advantage of of
resolution
resolution is is that propositional refutations
that propositional refutations can can be 'lifted ' to
be 'lifted' to first-order
first-order refutations
refutations ofof
first-order formulas.
first-order formulas. It It is
is important
important that that thethe restricted
restricted forms
forms of of resolution
resolution discussed
discussed
next also
next also apply
apply to to first-order
first-order resolution
resolution refutations.
refutations.
One example
One example of of aa restricted
restricted form form of of resolution
resolution is is implicit
implicit in in the
the first proof of
first proof of the
the
Completeness Theorem
Completeness Theorem 1.3.4 1.3.4 based
based on on the
the Davis-Putnam
Davis-Putnam procedure;
procedure; namely,
namely, forfor any
any
ordering of
ordering of the
the variables
variables PPl, l , ..... ,. P, Pm it can
m , , it can bebe required
required that that aa resolution
resolution refutation
refutation
has first
has first resolutions
resolutions with with respect
respect to to Pl, then resolutions
Pl , then resolutions with with respect
respect to to p2, etc.,
P2 , etc.,
concluding witti
concluding witli resolutions
resolutions with with respect respect to Pm . This
to Pro. This particular
particular strategy
strategy is not
is not
particularly useful
particularly useful sincesince itit does
does not not reduce
reduce the the search
search space
space sufficiently.
sufficiently. We consider
We consider
next several
next several strategies
strategies that that have
have been been somewhat
somewhat more more useful.
useful.
22
22 Buss
S. Buss

1.3.5.1. SSubsumption.
1.3.5.1. ubsumption. A clause
A clause CC isis said
said to
to subsume
subsume aa clause
clause DD ifif and
and only
only ifif
C C_
C The subsumption
D . The
� D. subsumption principle
principle states
states that
that ifif two
two clauses
clauses CC and
and D have been
D have been
derived such
derived such that subsumes D,
that CC subsumes then D
D , then should be
D should be discarded
discarded and
and not
not used
used further
further
in the
in the refutation.
refutation. The
The subsumption
subsumption principle
principle isis supported
supported by by the
the following
following theorem:
theorem:

Theorem.
T If Fr is unsatisfiable
h e o r e m . If unsatisfiable and
and if
if C
C cc D,
D , then
then F' (r \\ {D})
r' = (F {D}) U {C} is also
U {C}
unsatisfiable. Furthermore,
unsatisfiable. Furthermore, F'r' has
has a resolution
resolution refutation
refutation which is no longer than
than the
shortest refutation
shortest refutation of r.
of F.

1.3.5.2. PPositive
1.3.5.2. o s i t i v e rresolution
e s o l u t i o n aand
n d hhyperresolution.
yperresolution. Robinson [1965a]
Robinson [1965a] intro-
intro­
duced positive
duced positive resolution
resolution and and hyperresolution.
hyperresolution. A A positive resolution inference
positive resolution inference is
is one
one
in which
in which one
one of of thethe hypotheses
hypotheses is is aa positive clause.9 The
positive clause The completeness
completeness ofof positive
positive
resolution is
resolution is shown
shown by: by:

Theorem.
T (Robinson [1965a])
h e o r e m . (Robinson [1965a]) If
If r r has a refutation
F is unsatisfiable, then F refutation contain­
contain-
ing only positive
positive resolution
resolution inferences.
inferences.

r o o f . (Sketch)
Proof.
P (Sketch) It It will
will suffice
suffice to
to show
show that
that itit is
is impossible
impossible forfor an unsatisfiable Fr to
an unsatisfiable to
be closed under
be closed under positive
positive resolution inferences and
resolution inferences and not contain the
not contain the empty
empty clause. Let
clause. Let
A be
A be the
the set
set of
of positive clauses in
positive clauses r; A
in F; must be
A must be non-empty since Fr is
non-empty since unsatisfiable.
is unsatisfiable.
Pick aa truth
Pick truth assignment
assignment T T that
that satisfi es all
satisfies all clauses
clauses inin A and assigns
A and assigns the
the minimum
minimum
possible number of
possible number of "true"
"true" values.
values. Pick
Pick aa clause
clause L L in
in Fr \\ A which is
A which is falsified
falsified by
by rT
and has
and has the minimum number
the minimum number of of negative
negative literals;
literals; and
and let
let ~ be one
p be one ofof the
the negative
negative
literals in
literals in L. Note that
L . Note that LL exists
exists since
since Fr is
is unsatisfiable
unsatisfiable and that T(p)
and that T(p) -- Pick
= True. Pick
clause JJ EE A
aa clause A that contains pp and
that contains and has the rest
has the rest of its members
of its members assigned
assigned false by TT;;
false by
such clause J
such aa clause J exists
exists by
by the
the choice
choice of T.. Considering
of T Considering the the resolvent
resolvent ofof JJ and
and L L,, we
we
obtain
obtain aa contradiction.
contradiction. D []

Positive resolution is
Positive resolution is nice
nice in
in that
that it
it restricts
restricts the
the kinds
kinds of
of resolution
resolution refutations
refutations that
that
need
need to
to be
be attempted;
attempted; however,
however, it
it is
is particularly
particularly important
important as as the
the basis
basis for
for hyperres­
hyperres-
olution. The basic idea
The basic idea behind
behind hyperresolution
hyperresolution is is that
that multiple
multiple positive
positive resolution
resolution
inferences
inferences can
can be
be combined
combined into
into aa single
single inference
inference with
with aa positive conclusion. To
positive conclusion. To
justify
justify hyperresolution,
hyperresolution, note that ifif R
note that is aa positive
R is positive resolution
resolution refutation
refutation then
then the
the
inferences
inferences in
in RR can
can be
be uniquely
uniquely partitioned
partitioned intointo subproofs
subproofs of of the
the form
form
A
A1l B
BII
A
A22 B
B22
A3
Aa B3
Ba
B4
B4

A
Ann B
Bnn
A n+!
An+l
where
where each
each of
of the
the clauses
clauses AI,
A 1 ,.. .. ..,, A n+ ! are
An+l are positive
positive (and
(and hence
hence the
the clauses
clauses B
B l1,,.. .. ..,, B
Bnn
are
are not
not positive)
positive).. These
These n + + 11 positive
positive resolution
resolution inferences
inferences are
are combined
combined intointo the the
single hyperresolution inference
single inference
 Introduction to Proof Theory 23
23

A1 A2 A3 "" An B1
An+l

((This
This construction
construction is is the
the definition
definition of
of hyperresolution inferences.))
hyperresolution inferences.
It
It follows immediately from
follows immediately from the
the above
above theorem
theorem that
that hyperresolution
hyperresolution isis complete.
complete.
The
The importance
importance of of hyperresolution
hyperresolution lieslies in
in the
the fact
fact that
that one
one can
can search
search for
for refutations
refutations
containing
containing only
only positive
positive resolutions
resolutions and
and that
that as
as clauses
clauses are
are derived,
derived, only
only the
the positive
positive
clauses
clauses need
need to
to be
be saved
saved for
for possible
possible future
future use
use as
as hypotheses.
hypotheses.
resolution is
Negative resolution is defined
defined similarly
similarly to to positive
positive resolution
resolution and
and isis likewise
likewise
complete.
complete.

1.3.5.3. Semantic
1.3.5.3. S e m a n t i c resolution.
resolution. Semantic
Semantic resolution,
resolution, independently
independently introduced
introduced
by
by Slagle [1967] and
Slagle [1967] and Luckham
Luckham [1970],[1970], can
can be
be viewed
viewed as as aa generalization
generalization of of positive
positive
resolution.
resolution. ForFor semantic
semantic resolution,
resolution, oneone uses
uses aa fixed
fixed truth assignment ((interpreta-
truth assignment interpreta­
tion)) T
tion T to
to restrict
restrict the permissible resolution
the permissible resolution inferences.
inferences. A A resolution
resolution inference
inference is is said
said
to
to be
be T-supported
T-supported if if one
one of its hypotheses
of its hypotheses isis given value False by
given value by T T.. Note
Note that
that atat most
most
one
one hypothesis
hypothesis can can have value False, since
have value since the
the hypotheses
hypotheses contain
contain complementary
complementary
occurrences
occurrences of of the
the resolvent
resolvent variable.
variable.
A
A resolution
resolution refutation
refutation is is said
said to
to be
be T-supported
T-supported if if each
each ofof its
its resolution
resolution inferences
inferences
are
are T-supported.
~--supported. If If TTFF is
is the truth assignment
the truth assignment which
which assigns
assigns every
every variable
variable thethe value
value
False, then
then a a TF-supported
Tf-supported resolutionresolution refutation
refutation is is definition ally the
definitionally the same
same as as aa
positive resolution refutation.
positive resolution refutation. Conversely,
Conversely, ifif r
F is
is aa set
set of
of clauses
clauses and
and ifif T
T is
is any
any truth
truth
assignment,
assignment, thenthen one
one can can form
form aa set
set r'
F' by
by complementing
complementing every every variable
variable in in rF which
which
has T-value True: clearly,
has T-value clearly, aa T-supported
T-supported resolution
resolution refutation
refutation of of rF is
is isomorphic
isomorphic to to
aa positive
positive resolution
resolution refutation
refutation of of r'
U.. Thus, Theorem 1.3.5.2 is
Thus, Theorem is equivalent
equivalent to to the
the
following
following Completeness
Completeness Theorem Theorem for for semantic
semantic resolution:
resolution:

Theorem. For any TT and r

T h e o r e m . For F,, r
F is unsatisfiable
unsatisfiable if if r
if and only if F has a T -supported
T-supported
resolution
resolution refutation.
refutation.

It is
It is possible
possible to
to define
define semantic-hyperresolution
semantic-hyperresolution inin terms
terms of
of semantic
semantic resolution,
resolution, just
just
as
as hyperresolution
hyperresolution was
was defined
defined in
in terms
terms of
of positive
positive resolution.
resolution.

1.3.5.4. Set-of-support
1.3.5.4. S e t - o f - s u p p o r t resolution.
resolution. Wos,
Wos, Robinson
Robinson and and Carson [1965] intro­
Carson [1965] intro-
duced
duced set-oj-support resolution as
set-of-support resolution as another principle for
another principle guiding aa search
for guiding search for
for resolution
resolution
refutations.
refutations. Formally,
Formally, set set ofof support
support isis defined
defined as as follows:
follows: ifif rF is
is aa set
set of
of clauses
clauses and
and
if II c
if II C rF and
and r II is
F \\ II satisfiable, then
is satisfiable, then II is aa set
II is set of support for
of support for rF;; a
a refutation
refutation R R of
of r
F
is said
is said to
to be supported by II
be supported H if
if every
every inference
inference in in RR is derived ((possibly
is derived indirectly))
possibly indirectly
from
from atat least
least oneone clause
clause in II. ((An
in II. An alternative,
alternative, almost
almost equivalent,
equivalent, definition
definition would
would
be to
be to require
require that
that no no two
two members
members of of r II are
F \\ II are resolved together.)) The
resolved together. The intuitive
intuitive
idea
idea behind
behind set set of of support
support resolution
resolution isis that
that when
when trying
trying to to refute
refute r F,, one
one should
should
concentrate
concentrate on on trying
trying to to derive
derive aa contradiction
contradiction from from the
the part
part II II of
of r
F which
which is is not
not
known
known to to be
be consistent.
consistent. For For example,
example, r II might
F \\ II might be be aa database
database of of facts
facts which
which isis
presumed
presumed to to be consistent, and
be consistent, II a
and II a clause
clause which
which we we are trying to
are trying to refute.
refute.
24
24 S. Buss

Theorem. If r
T h e o r e m . If unsatisfiable and II
F is unsatisfiable .for r
II is a set of support for F,, then r has a
F has
refutation supported by II
refutation II..

This
This theorem
theorem is is immediate
immediate from from Theorem
Theorem 1.3.5.3.
1.3.5.3. Let
Let TT be
be any
any truth
truth assignment
assignment
which
which satisfies
satisfies r II,, then
F \\ II then aa T-supported
T-supported refutation
refutation is
is also supported by
also supported by II
II..
The
The main
main advantage
advantage of of set
set of
of support
support resolution
resolution over
over semantic
semantic resolution
resolution isis that
that
it does not
it does not require
require knowing
knowing or or using
using aa satisfying
satisfying assignment
assignment for
for r
F \\ II.
II.

1.3.5.5. Unit
1.3.5.5. Unit and inputinput resolution.
resolution. A unit clause
A unit clause is
is defined
defined to
to be
be aa clause
clause
containing aa single
containing literal; aa unit
single literal; unit resolution inference is
is an
an inference
inference in
in at
at least
least one
one
of
of the
the hypotheses
hypotheses is is a
a unit
unit clause.
clause. As As aa general
general rule,
rule, it
it is
is desirable
desirable to
to perform
perform unit
unit
resolutions
resolutions whenever
whenever possible.
possible. If If rF contains
contains aa unit
unit clause
clause {x}{x},, then
then byby combining
combining
unit
unit resolutions
resolutions with
with thethe subsumption
subsumption principle,
principle, one
one can
can remove
remove from
from r F every
every clause
clause
which contains x
which contains x and
and also
also every
every occurrence
occurrence ofof x9 from
from the
the rest
rest of
of the
the clauses
clauses inin r
F..
(The
(The situation
situation isis aa little
little more
more difficult
difficult when
when working
working in in first-order
first-order logic,
logic, however.)
however.)
This
This completely
completely eliminates
eliminates the the literal
literal xx and
and reduces
reduces the the number
number of of and
and sizes
sizes of
of
clauses
clauses to to consider.
consider.
A
A unit
unit resolution
resolution refutation
refutation is is a
a refutation
refutation which
which contains
contains only
only unit
unit resolutions.
resolutions.
Unfortunately,
Unfortunately, unit unit resolution
resolution is is not
not complete:
complete: forfor example,
example, an an unsatisfiable
unsatisfiable setset rF
with
with nono unit
unit clauses
clauses cannot
cannot have
have aa unit
unit resolution
resolution refutation.
refutation.
An input resolution
An input resolution refutation
refutation of F is
of r is defined
defined to
to be
be aa refutation
refutation ofof r
F in
in which
which every
every
resolution
resolution inference
inference has has atat least
least oneone of
of its
its hypotheses
hypotheses in in r Obviously, aa minimal
F.. Obviously, minimal
length
length input
input refutation
refutation willwill be
be tree-like.
tree-like. Input
Input resolution
resolution is is also
also not
not complete;
complete; in in
fact,
fact, it
it can
can refute
refute exactly
exactly thethe same
same sets
sets as
as unit
unit resolution:
resolution:

T h e o r e m . (Chang
Theorem. (Chang [1970])
[1970]) A
A set
set of
of clauses
clauses has
has aa unit
unit refutation
refutation if
if and
and only
only if
if it
it has
has
a input
input refutation.
refutation.

1.3.5.6. Linear
1.3.5.6. r e s o l u t i o n . Linear
L i n e a r resolution. Linear resolution
resolution is
is aa generalization
generalization ofof input
input resolu­
resolu-
tion
tion which
which has
has thethe advantage
advantage of being complete:
of being complete: aa linear resolution refutation
refutation of F is
of r is
aa refutation
refutation Al A1,, AA 22,,.. .. ..,, An -b A
A,-1, = 0
A,n = 0 such
such that
that each
each Ai Ai is either in
is either F or
in r or is
is obtained
obtained
by
by resolution
resolution from
from Ai-l Ai-1 and Aj for
and Aj for some
some jj <
< ii -- I1.. Thus
Thus a a linear
linear refutation
refutation has
has
the
the same
same linear
linear structure
structure as
as an
an input
input resolution,
resolution, but
but is
is allowed
allowed to
to reuse
reuse intermediate
intermediate
clauses
clauses which
which are
are not
not in
in r
F..

T h e o r e m . (Loveland
Theorem. (Loveland [1970]
[1970] and
and Luckham
Luckham [1970]) If r
[1970]) If r is unsatisfiable, then r
r has
a linear resolution refutation.
refutation.

Linear
Linear and
and input
input resolution
resolution both
both lend
lend themselves
themselves well
well to
to depth-fi rst proof
depth-first proof search
search
strategies. Linear
strategies. Linear resolution
resolution is still complete
is still complete when
when used
used in conjunction with
in conjunction with set-of­
set-of-
support resolution.
support resolution.

Further r e a d i n g . We
F u r t h e r reading. We have
have only
only covered
covered some
some of
of the
the basic
basic strategies
strategies for
for proposition
proposition
resolution
resolution proof proof search.
search. The
The original
original paper
paper of
of Robinson
Robinson [1965b]
[1965b] still
still provides
provides an
an
excellent
excellent introduction
introduction to to resolution; this and
resolution; this and many
many other
other foundational
foundational papers
papers on
on
 Introduction
Introduction to
to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 25
25

this
this topic
topic have
have been
been reprinted
reprinted in
in Siekmann
Siekmann and
and Wrightson [1983]. In
Wrightson [1983]. In addition,
addition, the
the
textbooks
textbooks by
by Chang
Chang and
and Lee [1973], Loveland
Lee [1973], Loveland [1978], and
and Wos
Wos et
et al. [1992] give
al. [1992] give aa
more
more complete description of
complete description of various
various forms
forms of resolution than
of resolution than we
we have
have given
given above.
above.

clauses. A
H o r n clauses.
Horn A Horn clause is
Horn clause is a
a clause
clause which
which contains
contains at at most
most one
one positive
positive literal.
literal.
Thus
Thus aa Horn
Horn clause
clause must
must bebe of
of the
the form
form {p, qn } or
ql , . . . , q-~}
(p, q7,..., or of
of the
the form Qn }
form {( ~Ql, ,. ." . ," ~-g~}
with n
with n �_> O0.. If
If aa Horn
Horn clause
clause isis rewritten
rewritten as
as sequents
sequents of of atomic
atomic variables,
variables, it it will
will
have
have atat most
most oneone variable
variable in
in the
the antecedent;
antecedent; typically,
typically, Horn Horn clauses
clauses are
are written
written in in
reverse-sequent
reverse-sequent format
format so,
so, for
for example,
example, the
the two
two Horn
Horn clauses
clauses above
above would
would bebe written
written
as
as implications
implications
p~ ql,...,qn
and
and
r ql, . . . , qn"
In
In this
this reverse-sequent
reverse-sequent notation,
notation, thethe antecedent
antecedent is is written
written after the �
after the r , and
and thethe
commas
commas areare interpreted
interpreted as conjunctions ((A's).
as conjunctions /\ 's) . Horn
Horn clauses
clauses are
are of
of particular
particular interest
interest
both because
both because they
they are are expressive
expressive enough
enough to handle many
to handle situations and
many situations and because
because
deciding
deciding the
the satisfiability
satisfiability of of sets
sets of Horn clauses
of Horn clauses is is more
more feasible
feasible than
than deciding
deciding thethe
satisfiability
satisfiability of arbitrary sets
of arbitrary sets of clauses. For
of clauses. For these reasons, many
these reasons, logic programming
many logic programming
environments
environments such such as PROLOG are
as PROLOG are based
based partly
partly onon Horn
Horn clause
clause logic.
logic.
In
In propositional
propositional logic,logic, it
it is
is an
an easy
easy matter
matter to to decide
decide thethe satisfiability
satisfiability of
of aa set
set
of Horn clauses;
of Horn clauses; the the most
most straightforward
straightforward method
method is is to
to restrict
restrict oneself
oneself to
to positive
positive
unit
unit resolution.
resolution. A A positive unit inference
positive unit inference isis aa resolution
resolution inference
inference inin which
which oneone ofof
the hypotheses
the hypotheses is is aa unit
unit clause
clause containing
containing aa positive
positive literal
literal only.
only. A A positive
positive unit
unit
refutation
refutation isis a
a refutation
refutation containing
containing only
only positive
positive unitunit resolution
resolution inferences.
inferences.

Theorem.
T heorem. A A set
set of
of Horn
Horn clauses
clauses is
is unsatisfiable
unsatisfiable if
if and
and only
only if
if it
it has
has aa positive
positive unit
unit
resolution
resolution refutation
refutation..

P r o o f . Let
Proof. Let rF be
be an unsatisfiable set
an unsatisfiable set of
of Horn clauses. rF must
Horn clauses. must contain
contain at
at least
least one
one
positive
positive unit
unit clause {p},, since
clause {p} since otherwise
otherwise the
the truth
truth assignment
assignment that
that assigned False to
assigned False to
all
all variables
variables would
would satisfy
satisfy rF.. By
By resolving {p} against
resolving {p} against all
all clauses
clauses containing
containing p ~,, and
and
then
then discarding
discarding all
all clauses
clauses which
which contain
contain p p or p, one
or ~, one obtains
obtains aa smaller
smaller unsatisfiable
unsatisfiable
set
set of
of Horn
Horn clauses.
clauses. Iterating
Iterating this
this yields
yields the
the desired
desired positive
positive unit
unit refutation.
refutation. 0 [:]

Positive
Positive unit resolutions are
unit resolutions are quite
quite adequate
adequate inin propositional
propositional logic,
logic, however,
however, they
they
do
do not
not lift
lift well
well to
to applications
applications in
in first-order
first-order logic
logic and
and logic
logic programming.
programming. For For
this,
this, aa more
more useful
useful method
method ofof search
search for
for refutations
refutations is
is based
based on
on combining
combining semantic
semantic
resolution, linear
resolution, linear resolution
resolution and
and set-of-support
set-of-support resolution:
resolution:

1.3.5.7. Theorem.
1.3.5.7. Theorem. Henschen
Henschen andand Wos [1974]. Suppose
Wos [1974]. Suppose r F is
is an
an unsatisfiable
unsatisfiable set
set
of
of Horn
Horn clauses
clauses with
with IT
H �C_ r
F aa set
set of
of support
support for
for r
F,, and
and suppose
suppose that
that every
every clause
clause
in
in rF \\ IT
H contains
contains aa positive
positive literal.
literal. Then
Then r F has
has aa refutation
refutation which
which isis simultaneously
simultaneously
aa negative
negative resolution
resolution refutation
refutation and
and aa linear
linear refutation
refutation and
and which
which is
is supported by IT
supported by II..
26 s. Buss
S.

Note that
Note that thethe condition
condition that that every
every clause
clause in
in Fr \\ II contains
contains aa positive
positive literal
literal means
means
that the
that the truth
truth assignment
assignment rr that that assigns to every
True to
assigns True every variable satisfies Fr \\ H.
variable satisfies Thus
II . Thus
aa negative
negative resolution
resolution refutation
refutation isis the
the same
same as
as aa T-supported
r-supported refutation
refutation andand hence
hence isis
supported by
supported by H.
II .
The theorem
The theorem is is fairly
fairly straightforward
straightforward to to prove,
prove, and
and we we leave
leave the
the details
details to to the
the
reader. However,
reader. However, note note that
that since
since every clause in
every clause in Fr \\ H is presumed
II is presumed to to contain
contain aa
positive literal,
positive literal, itit is
is impossible
impossible to to get
get rid
rid of
of all
all positive
positive literals
literals only
only byby resolving
resolving
against clauses
against clauses inin Fr \\ H. Therefore, H
II . Therefore, II must contain aa negative
must contain clause C
negative clause such that
C such that
there is
there is aa linear
linear derivation
derivation that that begins
begins with
with C, always resolves
C , always resolves against clauses in
against clauses in Fr\II
\ II
yielding negative
yielding negative clauses
clauses only,
only, and
and ending
ending with
with thethe empty
empty clause.
clause. The
The resolution
resolution
refutations of
refutations of Theorem
Theorem 1.3.5.7, or rather
1.3.5.7, or rather the
the lifting
lifting of
of these
these toto Horn
Horn clauses
clauses described
described
in section
in section 2.6.5, can can bebe combined
combined withwith restrictions
restrictions on on the
the order
order in in which
which literals
literals are
are
resolved
resolved to to give what is
give what is commonly
commonly called
called SLD-resolution.
SLD-resolution.

2. Proof
2. P r o o f theory
t h e o r y oof
f ffirst-order
i r s t - o r d e r logic
logic

2.1. Syntax
2.1. Syntax and
and semantics
semantics

2.1.1.
2.1.1. Syntax S y n t a x of of first-order
first-order logic. First-order logic
logic. First-order logic is is aa substantial
substantial extension
extension
of propositional
of propositional logic, logic, and and allows
allows reasoning
reasoning about
about individuals
individuals using using functions
functions and and
predicates that
predicates that act act on on individuals.
individuals. The The symbols
symbols allowed
allowed in in first-order
first-order formulas
formulas
include the
include the propositional
propositional connectives, quantifiers, variables,
connectives, quantifiers, variables, function function symbols,symbols, con­con-
stant symbols
stant symbols and and relation
relation symbols.
symbols. We We take
take -~, 1\,
..." A, V V and and D :J as the allowed
as the allowed
propositional connectives.
propositional connectives. There There is is an
an infinite
infinite set
set of of variable
variable symbols; symbols; we use
we use
x,
x , yy,, zz,, . .., . and
. and a,b,c,.., a, b, c, . . . as metasymbols for
as metasymbols variables. The
for variables. The quantifiers
quantifiers are are the
the
existential
existential quantifi quantifiers, (3x),, and
ers, (3x) and thethe universal
universal quantifiers,
quantifiers, (V'x) (Vx),, which which meanmean "there
"there
exists
exists x" x" and and "for "for all all x ". A
x". A given
given first-order
first-order language
language containscontains aa set set of
of function
function
symbols
symbols of of specified
specified arities, arities, denoted
denoted by by metasymbols
metasymbols j g, h,
f,, g, h , .. ... . and
and aa setset of
of relation
relation
symbols
symbols of of specified
specified arities, arities, denoted
denoted by by metasymbols
metasymbols P, P, Q,Q, R, ..... . . . Function
Function symbols
symbols
of
of arity
arity zero zero are are called constant symbols. Sometimes
called constant Sometimes the the first-order
first-order language language contains
contains
aa distinguished
distinguished two-place two-place relationrelation symbol
symbol = = for
for equality.
equality.
The
The formulas
formulas of first-order logic
of first-order logic are
are defined
defined as as follows. Firstly, terms
follows. Firstly, terms are built up
are built up
from
from function
function symbols, symbols, constant constant symbols
symbols and and variables.
variables. Thus, Thus, any any variable
variable x x is
is aa
term, and
term, and if if tt lI ,, ..... . ,,tk
tk are
are terms
terms and and j f is
is k-ary,
k-cry, then
then j( t I , . . . ,,tk)
f(tl,... tk) is is aa term.
term. Second,
Second,
atomic formulasformulas are are defined
defined to to bebe of
of the
the form
form P(t I , . . . , tk) for
P(tl,..., for P P aa k-ary
k-cry relation
relation
symbol.
symbol. Finally, Finally, formulas formulas are are inductively
inductively to to be
be built
built up up fromfrom atomic atomic formulas
formulas and and
logical
logical connectives;
connectives; namely, namely, any any atomic
atomic formula
formula is is aa formula,
formula, and and if if AA and
and B B are
are
formulas,
formulas, then then so so are are (..., A ) , (A
(~A), I\ B) , (AV
(AAB), (A V E)
B),, (A(A :J
D B)
S),, (V'x)A
(Vx)A and and (3x)A
(3x)A.. To To avoid
avoid
writing
writing too too manymany parentheses,parentheses, we we adopt
adopt thethe conventions
conventions on on omitting
omitting parenthesesparentheses in in
propositional
propositional logic logic with with the
the additional
additional convention
convention that that quantifiers
quantifiers bind bind more
more tightly
tightly
than
than binary
binary propositional
propositional connectives. connectives. In In addition,
addition, binary
binary predicate
predicate symbols, symbols, suchsuch
as
as = - and
and < <,, areare frequently
frequently writtenwritten in in infix
infix notation.
notation.
Consider
Consider the the formulaformula (x (x = = 0V V (V'x)
(Yx)(x(x =1=
~- ff (x)))
(x))).. (We
(We use use x x =1= -~ ff (x) to to abbreviate
abbreviate
(...,x
(-~x = = ff (x)) (x)).).) This This formula
formula usesuses thethe variable
variable x x in
in two
two different
different ways: ways: on on one
one hand,
hand, it it
 Introduction
Introduction to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 27
27

asserts
asserts something
something about about an an object
object x x;; and
and on on the
the other
other hand,
hand, it it (re )uses the
(re)uses the variable
variable x
to
to state
state aa general
general property
property about about all all objects.
objects. Obviously
Obviously it it would
would be be less
less confusing
confusing to to
write
write instead
instead (x = = 0V (Vy)(y f=
V (\ly)(y f(y)));; however,
~= f(y))) however, there
there is is nothing
nothing wrong,
wrong, formally
formally
speaking,
speaking, with with using
using x in in two
two waysways in in the
the same
same formula.
formula. To To keep
keep track
track of of this,
this, we we
need
need to to define
define free
free andand boundbound occurrences
occurrences of of variables.
variables. An occurrence of
An occurrence of aa variable
variable x
in
in aa formula
formula A is is defined
defined to to bebe anyany place
place thatthat the
the symbol
symbol x occurs occurs inin A A,, except
except in in
quantifer
quantifer symbols
symbols (Qx) (Qx).. (We (We write
write (Qx) to to mean
mean either (Vx) or
either (\Ix) (3x).).) If
or (3x) If (Qx) (- . . )
(Qx)(...)
is
is aa subformula
subformula of of A A,, thenthen the scope of
the scope of this
this occurrence
occurrence of of (Qx) is is defi ned to
defined to be
be thethe
subformula
subformula denoted denoted ((...). . . . ) . An
An occurrence
occurrence of of x in
in A is is said
said to to be bound if
be bound if and
and only
only if if
it
it is
is in
in the
the scope
scope of of aa quantifier
quantifier (Qx) (Qx);; otherwise
otherwise the the occurrence
occurrence of of x is
is called free. If
called free. If
x is
is aa bound
bound occurrence,
occurrence, it it is bound by the
is bound the rightmost
rightmost quantifier
quantifier (Qx) which which it it is
is in
in
the
the scope
scope of. of. AA formula
formula in in which
which no no variables
variables appear
appear freely
freely is is called
called aa sentence.
The
The intuitive
intuitive ideaidea of of free
free occurrences
occurrences of of variables
variables in in AA is is that
that A A says
says something
something
about
about the the free
free variables.
variables. If If tt is
is a a term,
term, we we define
define the
the substitution of t for x in A A,,
denoted
denoted A(t/x)A(t/x) to to bebe the the formula
formula obtained
obtained from from A by by replacing
replacing each each free
free occurrence
occurrence
of x in
of in A by by the
the termterm tt.. To To avoid
avoid unwanted
unwanted effects,
effects, we we generally
generally wantwant t to to bebe
freely substitutable for for x x,, which
which means means that that nono free
free variable
variable in in t becomes
becomes bound bound
in A as
in as a a result
result of of this
this substitution;
substitution; formally formally defi ned, this
defined, this means
means that that no no free
free
occurrence
occurrence of of x in in A occurs occurs in in the
the scope
scope of of aa quantifier
quantifier (Qy) with with y a a variable
variable
occurring in
occurring in tt.. The The simultaneous substitution of tl, . . . , tk for Xl,
tl,...,tk . . . , Xk in A
Xl,...,Xk A,,
denoted
denoted A(ttfXI
A(tl/Xl,..., tk/Xk),, is
, . . . , tk/Xk) is defined
defined similarly
similarly in in the
the obvious
obvious way. way.
To
To simplify
simplify notation,
notation, we we adopt
adopt some some conventions
conventions for for denoting
denoting substitution.
substitution.
Firstly,
Firstly, if if we
we write
write A(x) and and A(t) in in the
the same
same context,
context, this this indicates
indicates that
that A A= = A(x)
is
is aa formula,
formula, and and thatthat A(t) is A(t/x).. Secondly,
is A(t/x) Secondly, if if we
we write
write A(s) and and A(t) in in the
the
same
same context,
context, thisthis is is to
to mean
mean that that A is is formula,
formula, x is is some
some variable,
variable, and and that
that A(s) is is
A(s/x)
A(s/x) and and A(t) is is A(t/x)
A(t/x). .
The sequent
The calculus, discussed
sequent calculus, discussed in 2.3, has
in 2.3, has different conventions on
different conventions on variables
variables than than
the Hilbert-style
the Hilbert-style systems systems discussed discussed in 2.2; most
in 2.2; most notably,
notably, itit has distinct classes
has distinct classes of of
symbols for
symbols for free variables and
free variables and bound
bound variables.
variables. See See section
section 2.3.12.3.1 for the discussion
for the discussion of of
the usage
the usage of of variables
variables in in thethe sequent
sequent calculus.
calculus.

2.1.2. Semantics
2.1.2. of first-order
S e m a n t i c s of In
In this
logic.
f i r s t - o r d e r logic. this section,
section, we define the
we define semantics,
the semantics,
or 'meaning',
or 'meaning', of first-order formulas.
of first-order formulas. Since this is
Since this is really
really model theory instead
model theory instead ofof proof
proof
theory,
theory, and since the
and since the semantics
semantics ofof first-order
first-order logic
logic is
is well-covered
well-covered in
in any
any introductory
introductory
textbook on
textbook mathematical logic,
on mathematical logic, wewe give
give only
only a a very
very concise
concise description
description of of the
the
notation
notation andand conventions
conventions used in this
used in this chapter.
chapter.
In order
In order toto ascribe
ascribe aa truth
truth value
value toto aa formula,
formula, itit isis necessary
necessary to
to give
give anan interpre-
interpre­
tation of
tation of the
the non-logical
non-logical symbols
symbols appearing
appearing in in it;
it; namely,
namely, we we must
must specify
specify aa domain
or universe of
or of objects,
objects, and
and wewe must
must assign
assign meanings
meanings to to each variable occurring
each variable occurring
freely and
freely and toto each function symbol
each function symbol andand relation symbol appearing
relation symbol appearing inin the
the formula.
formula. A A
structure ~4 (also called
M (also called an
an interpretation), for for aa given
given language
language L,L , consists
consists of
of the
the
following:
following:
(1) A
(1) A non-empty
non-empty universe
universe M of objects,
M of objects, intended
intended to to be
be the
the universe of objects
universe of objects over
over
which variables
which variables and
and terms
terms range;
range;
28 s.
S. Buss

(2) For
(2) For each
each k-ary
k-cry function f of
function f of the
the language,
language, an
an interpretation
interpretation fM M kk H
f ~ : 9M ~ M
M;;
and
and
(3) For
(3) For each
each k-ary
k-cry relation
relation symbol P of
symbol P of the
the language,
language, anan interpretation
interpretation pMP~ � M kk
C_ M
containing all
containing all k-tuples
k-tuples for
for which
which P P is
is intended
intended to hold. If
to hold. If the
the first-order
first-order
language
language contains
contains the
the symbol
symbol for
for equality,
equality, then - ~M must
then = must be
be the
the true
true equality
equality
predicate on
predicate on MM..
We
We shall
shall next next define
define the the true/false
true/false value value of of a
a sentence
sentence in in a a structure.
structure. This This is is possible
possible
since
since the the structure
structure specifies
specifies the the meaning
meaning of of all all the
the function
function symbols symbols and and relation
relation
symbols
symbols in in the
the formula,
formula, and and the the quantifiers
quantifiers and and propositional
propositional connectivesconnectives take take their
their
usual
usual meanings.
meanings. For For A A a a sentence
sentence and and Ad M aa structure,
structure, we we write
write M j~4 F ~ A ,4 to
to denote
denote
A being
A being true true in in the
the structure
structure M .h4.. In In this
this case,
case, we we say
say thatthat M A/[ is is aa model
model of of AA,, or or
that
that A A is satisfied by
is satisfied by M Ad.. Often,
Often, we we wish
wish to to talktalk about
about the the meaning
meaning of of a a formula
formula A A
in
in which
which free free variables
variables occur. occur. For this, we
For this, we needneed not not only
only a structure, but
a structure, but also
also an an
object assignment, which which is is a mapping 0'
a mapping a from
from the the set
set ofof variables
variables (at (at least
least thethe ones
ones
free
free inin A A)) toto the
the universe
universe M M. . The The object
object assignment
assignment 0' a gives
gives meanings
meanings to to the
the freely
freely
occurring
occurring variables,
variables, and and it it is
is straightforward
straightforward to to define
define the the property
property of of A being true
A being true
in
in aa given
given structure
structure M J~4 under
under a a given
given object
object assignment
assignment 0' a,, denoted
denoted M Ad F ~ A[a]
A[a]..
To
To give give the the formal definition of
formal definition of M .M F ~ A A[a],[a] , we
we first
first need
need to to define
define the the interpre­
interpre-
tation
tation of terms, i.e,
of terms, i.e, we
we need
need to to formally
formally defi define ne thethe manner
manner in in which
which arbitrary
arbitrary terms terms
represent
represent objects objects in in the
the universe
universe M M.. To To this
this end, end, we we defidefine ne tM t~[a][0'] by induction on
by induction on
the
the complexity
complexity of of tt.. ForFor x x a a variable,
variable, xM x~[a][0'] is is just a(x).. For
just a(x) For tt a a term
term of of the
the form
form
f(tl tk),, we
, . . . , tk)
f(tl,..., define t~[a]
we define tM [a] to equal fM
to equal (t{'f [0'], . . . , tt~[a]).
f~(tl~[a],..., ;' [a]) . If If tt is is aa closed
closed term,
term,
i.e., contains no
i.e., contains no variables,
variables, then then tM t~[a][a] is independent of
is independent of 0' a and
and is denoted by
is denoted just tM
by just t ~ ..
If
If 0'a is is an
an object
object assignment
assignment and and m m E EM M,, then a(m/x) is
then a(m/x) is the
the object
object assignment
assignment
which
which is identical to
is identical to 0' a except
except that that it it maps
maps x x toto m m.. We We are are now
now ready ready to to define
define
the
the truth
truth of of A A in
in M AJ withwith respect
respect to to 0'a,, by induction on
by induction on thethe complexity
complexity of of A A.. ForFor
A an
A atomic formula
an atomic formula P(tl' P ( t l , ..... ., , tk),
tk) , then
then M ,h4 F ~ A[a] holds if
A[a] holds if and
and only only if if the
the k-tuple
k-tuple
(t{'f[a],
(tl~[a],..., . . . , t;' [a]) is
tk~[a]) is in
in pMP ~ . . Also,Also, M Ad ~ A [a] holds
F ...,-~A[a] holds if if and
and onlyonly M j~4 jt ~ A [a] , where
A[a], where
jt is
is the
the negation
negation of of F ~.. Likewise,
Likewise, the the value
value of of M .M F~ A A0 | B B[a] with 0
[a] with | oneone of of the
the
binary
binary propositional
propositional connectivesconnectives depends depends only only on on thethe truthtruth values
values of of M M F ~ A[a]
A[a]
and
and M A/[ F ~ B[a]
B[a],, in in the obvious way
the obvious way according
according to to Table
Table 11 above. above. If If A A isis (Qx)B
(Qx)B
with
with Q denoting either
Q denoting either :3 3 or or V, Y, then
then M M F ~ A A[a][a] holds
holds if if and
and onlyonly if if the
the property
property
M
.M F~ B [a(m/x)] holds
B[a(m/x)] holds for for some
some (respectively,
(respectively, for for all)
all) m m E EM M..
We
We say say thatthat a a formula
formula A A is is valid
valid in in M A4,, if if MA/[ F A[a] holds
~ A[a] holds for for allall appropriate
appropriate
object
object assignments.
assignments. A A formula
formula is is defi ned to
defined to be valid if
be valid if and
and onlyonly if if itit is
is valid
valid in in allall
structures.
structures. If If rF isis aa set
set ofof formulas,
formulas, we we saysay r F isis valid
valid in in M A/I,, written
written M Ad F ~ rF,, if
if and
and
only
only if if every
every formula
formula in in r F is is valid
valid in in M M. . When
When M J~4 F ~ r F,, wewe saysay that
that r F isis satisfied
satisfied
by M . The set r is satisfiable if and only if
by A/[. The set F is satisfiable if and only if it is satisfied by some model. it is satisfied by some model.
For
For r F a a set
set of
of formulas
formulas and and A A a a formula,
formula, we we define
define r F logically
logically implies
implies A A,, r F F~ A,A,
to hold if
to hold if AA isis valid
valid in in every
every structure
structure in which rF is
in which is valid.
valid. If If r F is
is the
the empty
empty set, set, wewe
write
write justjust F which means
A , which
~ A, means of of course
course that that A A is valid, 3a
is valid.

definition of r
3This definition F FI=A
A has the slightly unexpected result that free variables appearing in r
free variables F
are treated as if they are universally
universally quantified.
quantified. For example,
example, according to our definition,
definition, we have
 Introduction to Proof Theory 29
29

2.1.3.
2.1.3. For
For languages
languages which
which contain
contain the
the equality
equality symbol,
symbol, = - , , the
the interpretation
interpretation of
of
= ~ in
=M in any
any structure A/[ must
structure M must be
be true
true equality.
equality. Of
Of course,
course, this
this restriction
restriction influences
influences
the
the definition
definition of
of r A in
~ A
F F in languages
languages which
which contain
contain equality.
equality. Let
Let F'~ indicate
indicate logical
logical
implication
implication defined
defined with
with respect
respect to
to all
all structures,
structures, including
including structures
structures in
in which
which
equality
equality is
is not
not interpreted
interpreted by
by true
true equality.
equality. It
It is
is an
an elementary,
elementary, but important, fact
but important, fact
that ~ can
that F can be defined in
be defined terms of
in terms Namely, let
F'. Namely,
of P~. let EQ
EQ bebe the
the set
set of equality axioms
of equality axioms
defined in
defined in section
section 2.2.1 below; then rF FP A
below; then A holds
holds ifif and only if
and only F, EQ
if r, EQ F' A holds.
~ A holds.

2.1.4. Definition.
2.1.4. Definition. A
A fi rst-order theory
first-order theory is
is a
a set T of
set T of sentences
sentences closed
closed under
under logical
logical
implication; i.e.,
implication; i.e., if
if T
T F
PAA then
then A A EETT.. An axiomatization of
An axiomatization T is
of T is a
a set F of
set r of sentences
sentences
such
such that T is
that T is precisely
precisely the
the set
set of
of sentences logically implied
sentences logically implied by
by r.
F.

2.2. Hilbert-style
2.2. H i l b e r t - s t y l e proof
p r o o f systems
systems

2.2.1. A
2.2.1. A proof
p r o o f system.
system. We
We give
give here
here an
an example
example of of a
a proof
proof system
system FF O for
:FRO for
fifirst-order
rst-order logic,
logic, which
which is
is an
an extension
extension of
of F
$" to
to first-order logic. In
first-order logic. addition to
In addition to the
the
axioms
axioms of of F
$" and
and the
the rule
rule modus
modus ponens,
ponens, there
there are
are two
two axiom
axiom schemes:
schemes:

A(t) J
A(t) D (3x)A(x)
(3x)A(x) and
and (Vx)A(x) J
(\fx)A(x) D A(t)
A(t)

where A
where A may may bebe any
any formula
formula and
and tt any
any term.
term. There
There are
are also
also two
two quantifier
quantifier rules
rules of
of
inference:
inference:
C J
C D A(x)
A(x) and
and A(x) J
A(x) DCC
C
CJ D (\fx)A(x)
(Vx)A(x) (3x)A(x)
(3x)A(x) J DC C
where,
where, in both inferences,
in both inferences, xx may
may not
not appear
appear freely
freely in
in C
C..
If
If the
the first-order
first-order language
language under
under consideration
consideration contains
contains the
the distinguished
distinguished equality
equality
sign (( =
sign = )), , then
then the
the equality axioms must
equality axioms must also
also be
be included;
included; namely,
namely,

(\fx)
( W ) ((x x == x)
~)
(\fX)
( v ~ ) ((\f ) ( (Xl
v ~i!) ~l =- Yl A . .. .. . 1\
v, 1\ ^ Xk
xk = y~ J
= Yk ~ / (f~ (x)
) b )i!) )
= / (f(
=
(\fX) (\fi!) (Xl =
(v~)(v~7)(Xl = Yl . .
A . . . 1\
y, 1\ . A Xk
xk = Yk
= A P(x)
y~ 1\ J P(
P ( ~ ) D p(y-*))i!) )
where
where ff and
and PP are
are arbitrary
arbitrary function
function and
and predicate
predicate symbols
symbols and k is
and k their arity.
is their arity.
We
We leave
leave it
it to
to the
the reader
reader to
to check
check that
that the
the symmetry
symmetry and
and transitivity
transitivity ofof equality
equality
follow
follow from
from these
these axioms,
axioms, since
since in
in the third equality
the third axiom, P
equality axiom, P may
may bebe the
the equality
equality
sign. We
sign. We write
write FFO A to
~- A
$'FO f- to denote
denote A A having
having an
an FFO-proof.
JcFO-proof.

A(x) F~ (Vx)A(x)
(Vx)A(x),, and thus A(x) F~ A(y)
and thus A(y).. An
An alternative
alternative definition
definition of
of logical
logical implication
implication isis often
often
used (but not
used (but not in this chapter!)
in this chapter!) in which free
in which free variables
variables occurring in r
occurring in F are treated as
are treated as syntactically
syntactically
as definition A(x) F~ (Vx)A(x)
as constants; under this definition (Vx)A(x) does
does not hold
hold in general.
The advantage our choice definition of F~,, is that it yields
choice for the definition yields a simpler and more elegant
proof-theory.
proof-theory. This
This choice
choice does
does not
not involve
involve any
any loss
loss of
of expressive
expressive power since, instead
power since, instead ofof free
free
variables in r,
variables in one can
F, one can use
use new
new constant
constant symbols,
symbols, and thus obtain
and thus obtain the
the same effect as
same effect as the
the
alternative
alternative definition of F~.. In
definition of In any
any event,
event, the
the two
two definitions of F~ coincide
definitions of when r
coincide when F is
is aa set
set of
of
sentences.
30
30 s.
S. Buss
Buss

2.2.2.
2.2.2. The
T h e Soundness
S o u n d n e s s Theorem.
Theorem.
(1)
(1) If
If FFO
$'FO I-
k- A
A,, then
then F~AA..
(2) Let r
(2) Let F be
be aa set
set of
of sentences.
sentences. If
If there
there is
is an
an FFO -proof of
~'FO-proof of A
A using
using sentences
sentences from
from
rF as
as additional
additional axioms, then r
axioms, then FF~AA..

The Soundness Theorem

The Soundness Theorem states
states that $'FO proves
that FFO proves only
only valid
valid formulas.
formulas. Both
Both parts
parts
of
of the
the soundness
soundness theorem
theorem are
are readily
readily proved
proved by induction on
by induction on the
the number
number of
of lines
lines in
in
aa proof.
proof.

2.2.3.
2.2.3. The
T h e Completeness
C o m p l e t e n e s s Theorem.
Theorem.
(1)
(1) If
If F
~A A,, then
then FFO
.T'FO I-
~AA..
(2) Let r
(2) Let F be
be aa set
set of
of formulas.
formulas. IfIf r
F F
~ AA,, then
then there
there is
is an
an FFO -proof of
~FO-proof of A
A using
using
sentences from r
sentences from F as
as additional
additional axioms.
axioms.

The
The completeness
completeness theorem
theorem and
and soundness
soundness theorem
theorem together
together show
show that JcFO is
that FFO is an
an
adequate
adequate system
system for
for formalizing
formalizing first-order logic. The
first-order logic. The completeness theorem was
completeness theorem was
proved originally by
proved originally G5del [1930];
by GSdel [1930]; the
the now-standard textbook proof
now-standard textbook proof is
is due
due to
to Henkin
Henkin
[1949].. We
[1949] We shall
shall not
not give
give a
a proof
proof for
for the
the completeness
completeness of $'FO here;
of FFO here; instead,
instead, wewe
shall
shall prove
prove the
the completeness
completeness of of the
the cut-free
cut-free fragment
fragment of
of L K in
LK 2.3.7 below.
in 2.3.7 below. It It is
is
straightforward
straightforward to to see
see that $'FO can
that FFO can simulate
simulate the L K proof
the LK proof system,
system, and
and this
this gives
gives
an indirect proof
an indirect proof of
of the
the completeness
completeness of of FFO
9vFO..

2.2.4.
2.2.4. A set r
A set F of
of sentences
sentences is consistent if
is consistent if and
and only
only if
if there
there is
is no
no sentence
sentence AA such
such
that both A
that both A and
and ...,
-~A A are
are provable from r
provable from and, equivalently,
F and, equivalently, ifif and
and only
only if
if there
there
is
is some
some formula
formula AA such
such that
that there
there is
is no
no proof
proof of A from
of A from r F.. The
The soundness
soundness and
and
completeness
completeness theorems
theorems immediately
immediately imply that r
imply that F is
is consistent
consistent ifif and
and only if r
only if F is
is
satisfiable.
satisfiable.

2.2.5. Historical
2.2.5. Historical remarks.
remarks. Frege [1879] gave
Frege [1879] gave the
the first
first full
full formulation
formulation of of first­
first-
order
order logic.
logic. Frege
Frege used
used aa pictorial
pictorial representation
representation of of propositional
propositional connectives
connectives and and
quantifiers;
quantifiers; one
one remnant
remnant ofof his
his notation
notation that
that is
is still
still in
in use
use is A",, which
"I- A"
is "k- which was
was Frege's
Frege's
notation
notation for
for "A
"A isis asserted
asserted to
to be
be true"
true".. Frege
Frege used
used the
the pictorial notation ~ A
pictorial notation -- A
to
to express
express aa proposition
proposition A A;; whereas
whereas he he used
used the notation I--
the notation I A
A to
to express
express the
the
assertion
assertion that
that the
the proposition
proposition A A is true ((or
is true or has
has been
been proved
proved).) . Negation,
Negation, implication,
implication,
and
and universal
universal quantification
quantification were
were represented
represented by by Frege
Frege with
with pictures
pictures such
such asas

--,- A,
i A,
L� L BA and
and --&-
~ A
A,,

which
which represent
represent the
the propositions
propositions ..., A, B
~A, B :::>
D A A,, and
and (V'x)
(Vx)A,A , respectively.
respectively. These
These
constructions
constructions can
can be
be iterated
iterated to
to form
form arbitrary
arbitrary first-order
first-order expression;
expression; that
that is
is to
to say,
say,
in the
in the pictures
pictures above,
above, A A and
and BB may be replaced
may be replaced byby arbitrary
arbitrary pictorial
pictorial propositions.
propositions.
The
The addition
addition of
of aa vertical
vertical line
line to
to the
the left
left end
end ofof aa proposition
proposition indicates
indicates that
that the
the
proposition
proposition has
has been
been established
established toto be true ((e.g.,
be true e.g., proved
proved).) . Thus,
Thus, for
for instance
instance
 Introduction
Introduction to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 31
31

i i ~-v--A and
and I i , ,~r-- A
B I B
denote
denote the
the proposition
proposition B B :J (3x)A and
D (3x)A and the
the assertion
assertion thatthat this
this proposition
proposition has has been
been
established,
established, respectively.
respectively.
Frege
Frege also
also developed
developed extensions
extensions to to his
his first-order
first-order logic
logic to
to include
include functionals
functionals and and
predicates;
predicates; however,
however, these
these extensions
extensions were
were later
later discovered
discovered by by Russell
Russell toto introduce
introduce
set-theoretic
set-theoretic paradoxes.
paradoxes.
Peano [1889] introduced,
Peano [1889] introduced, independently
independently of of Frege,
Frege, aa fragment
fragment of first-order logic
of first-order logic
for
for reasoning
reasoning aboutabout integers.
integers. BasedBased onon the
the work
work of of Frege
Frege and
and Peano,
Peano, Whitehead
Whitehead
and
and Russell [1910] gave
Russell [1910] gave aa consistent
consistent framework
framework for for formalizing
formalizing mathematics
mathematics based based
on
on first-order
first-order logic,
logic, using
using universal
universal and
and existential
existential quantifiers
quantifiers denoted
denoted (x) (x) and
and (3x)
(3x)..
The 'Hilbert-style'' system
The 'Hilbert-style system given
given above
above isis apparently
apparently so-named
so-named because
because it it is
is closely
closely
related
related toto aa system
system used
used by Hilbert and
by Hilbert and Ackermann
Ackermann [1928] [1928],' which
which is is based
based on on earlier
earlier
lectures
lectures of of Hilbert.
Hilbert. The The later
later work
work ofof Hilbert
Hilbert and and Bernays
Bernays [1934-39]
[1934-39],' however,
however,
used
used the
the f-calculus instead of
e-calculus instead of a 'Hilbert-style'' system.
a 'Hilbert-style system. The The f-calculus
e-calculus contains
contains no no
quantifiers,
quantifiers, but but in
in their
their place
place uses symbols fex(A(x))
uses symbols x (A(x)) which
which are
are intended
intended to
to denote
denote
an
an object
object x x such
such that A(x) holds,
that A(x) holds, if
if there
there isis such
such an object. Note
an object. Note that
that other
other free
free
variables
variables and and other
other uses
uses of of fe symbols
symbols may
may appear
appear in A(x).. The
in A(x) f-symbol can
The e-symbol can bebe
used
used toto express
express quantifiers
quantifiers by by the
the informal
informal equivalences (3x)A(x) {:}
equivalences (3x)A(x) 4:~ A(f x (A(x)))
A(ex(A(x)))
and (Vx)A(x) {:}
and ('v'x)A(x) ~ A(f x (..,A(x))) .
A(e~(~A(x))).
The
The Hilbert-style
Hilbert-style system
system we we used
used above
above isis essentially
essentially that
that of
of Kleene
Kleene [1952]
[1952]..

2.3.
2.3. The
T h e ffirst-order
i r s t - o r d e r sequent
s e q u e n t calculus
calculus

In this section,
In this section, the
the propositional
propositional sequent calculus, introduced
sequent calculus, introduced in
in section 1.2, is
section 1.2, is
enlarged to aa proof
enlarged to proof system for first-order
system for first-order logic.
logic.

2.3.1.
2.3.1. Free Free and a n d bbound variables.
o u n d variables. The
The first-order
first-order sequent sequent calculus has two
calculus has two
classes
classes of of variables,
variables, called
called free
free variables
variables and and bound
bound variables.
variables. There There are infinitely
are infinitely
many
many variablesvariables of of each
each type; free variables
type; free variables are are denoted
denoted by by the metavariables
the metavariables
b, cc,, .. ... ., , and
a, b, and bound
bound variables
variables byby the
the metavariables
metavariables z, z, y, . . . . The
x, ....
y, x, essential idea
The essential idea is
is
that free
that free variables
variables may not be
may not be quantified,
quantified, while
while bound
bound variablesvariables may may not occur freely
not occur freely
in
in formulas.
formulas. The syntactic distinction
The syntactic distinction between
between free free and and bound
bound variables necessitates
variables necessitates
aa change
change to to the definitions of
the definitions of terms
terms and and formulas.
formulas. Firstly, Firstly, terms
terms areare now
now defined
defined
as being
as being built built upup from free variables
from free variables andand function
function symbols;symbols; whereas,
whereas, the the semiterms
semiterms
are defined
are defined as as being
being built
built up
up from
from free and bound
free and bound variablesvariables and and function
function symbols.
symbols.
Secondly, only
Secondly, only bound
bound variables may ever
variables may ever bebe quantified.
quantified. The The setset of
of formulas
formulas isis now
now
redefined with
redefined with the
the additional
additional requirement
requirement that that only
only free free variables
variables may may occur
occur freely
freely
inin formulas.
formulas. Semi.formulasSemiformulas are are like
like formulas,
formulas, except
except that that bound
bound variables
variables may
may occur
occur
freely in
freely in semiformulas.
semiformulas. We henceforth use
We henceforth use r,r, s, tt,, ..... . as
as metavariables
metavariables for for terms,
terms, and
and
A, B, C C,, ... .. . as as metavariables
metavariables for for formulas.
formulas.
Note that
Note that inin general,
general, aa subformula
subformula of of aa formula
formula will will be
be aa semiformula
semiformula instead
instead of
of
aa formula.
formula.
32 s.
S. Buss
Buss

One
One advantage
advantage of of these
these conventions
conventions on
on free
free and
and bound bound variables,
variables, is is that
that it it avoids
avoids
some
some ofof the
the difficulties
difficulties involved
involved in defining A(t)
in defining A ( t ) , , since
since it it is
is always
always the the case case that
that
the
the term will be
term tt will be freely
freely substitutable
substitutable for
for bb in
in aa formula
formula A( b) . Also,
A(b). Also, without
without these these
conventions,
conventions, thethe cut
cut elimination
elimination theorem
theorem proved
proved below
below would would have have to to bebe reformulated
reformulated
slightly.
slightly. For
For example,
example, itit is
is not
not hard
hard to
to see that P(x,
see that P ( x , yy)
) - -�- + ((::Iy)
3 y ) ((::Ix)P(y,
3 x ) P ( y , x x)
) would
would
not
not have
have a a cut-free proof ((this
cut-free proof this example
example isis from
from Feferman
Feferman [1968]). [1968]).

2.3.2. Definition. The

2.3.2. Definition. The first-order
first-order sequent
sequent calculus
calculus LK
L K is
is defined
defined as
as an
an extension
extension
of
of the propositional system
the propositional system PK.
PK. LK L K contains
contains all
all the
the rules
rules of
of inference
inference of
of PK
P K plus
plus
the
the following
following additional
additional rules
rules of
of inference:
inference:

The
T h e Quantifier
Q u a n t i f i e r Rules
Rules

V:left A(t), r��

r-+A V:right r��,
r--+A, A(b)
A(b)
V:left V:right
(Vx)A(x), , r��
(Vx)A(x) F---+A r��, (Vx)A(x)
F---+A, (Vx)A(x)

::I:left
3:left A(b)
A(b),, r�� F---+A 3:right r��,
::I:right F---+A, A(t)
A(t)
( 3 x ) A ( x ) , , r��
(::Ix)A(x) F---~A r��, (::Ix)A(x)
F---~A, (3x)A(x)

In
In quantifier rules, A
quantifier rules, A may
may bebe anan arbitrary
arbitrary formula,
formula, tt anan arbitrary
arbitrary term,
term, and
and the
the
free
free variable
variable bb of of the
the V:right and ::I3 :left
V :right and :left inferences
inferences is is called
called the eigenvariable of
the eigenvariable of the
the
inference
inference and
and must must not
not appear
appear in in r,
F, � A.. The
The propositional
propositional rules
rules andand the
the quantifier
quantifier
rules
rules are
are collectively
collectively calledcalled logical
logical rules.
rules.
Most of the syntactic
Most of the syntactic definitionsdefi nitions of of PPKK carry
carry over
over to
to LK
L K . . For
For example,
example, thethe
notions
notions ofof ((direct)
direct ) descendents
descendents and and ancestors
ancestors are are identically
identically defined;
defined; andand proof
proof
lengths
lengths are
are still
still measured
measured in in terms
terms of of the
the number
number of of strong
strong inferences
inferences in in the
the proof.
proof.
The
The quantifier
quantifier inferences
inferences are,
are, of course, considered
of course, considered strong
strong rules
rules of
of inferences.
inferences.
If S
If S is
is a sequent r
a sequent F� ---} �
A,, then
then we
we letlet A A ss be
be the formula (/\
the formula (A r)F) :J (V �)
D (V A).. Taking
Taking
S
S to
to have
have thethe same
same meaning
meaning as as AA ss, , all
all the
the definitions
definitions of 'validity'' and
of 'validity and 'logical
'logical
implication'' of
implication of section
section 2.1.2 apply
apply alsoalso toto sequents.
sequents. Let Let the
the free
free variables
variables of of AA ss
be b,
be so A
b, so A ss = - A s (b) . We
As(b-'). let VS
We let VS denote
denote the the universal
universal closure,
closure, (Vi) As (X) , of
(V~)As(~), of the
the
formula A
formula A ss. .

2.3.3.
2.3.3. LK
L K is
is defined
defined toto allow
allow only initial sequents
only initial sequents of of the form A
the form �A
A----} with
A with
A atomic. However,
A atomic. However, itit is
is often
often convenient
convenient to to allow
allow other initial sequents;
other initial sequents; so so if
if <5
| is
is aa
set
set of
of sequents,
sequents, we
we define
define LKe;
LKG to to be
be the
the proof
proof system
system defined
defined like
like LK
L K , , but
but allowing
allowing
initial
initial sequents
sequents to
to be
be from
from <5| too.
too.
An
An important
important example
example is is the
the theory
theory LKe
LKe forfor fi rst-order logic
first-order logic with
with equality.
equality.
LKe
L K e is
is LK with the
L K with addition of
the addition of the
the following
following initial
initial sequents
sequents forfor equality:
equality:

�s
- - - ~ S=
= Ss

8
s~1 = it~,
= t , .. .. .. ,, Sk
sk =
= tk � f(
tk---~ 8) =
f (s-*) = f(i)
f (t-)

Sl =
Sl tl,, ·. .. .. ,, Sk
= tl sk = t~,, P(
= tk 8) � P(i)
P(s-)-'+P(t-)
 Introduction
Introduction to
to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 33
33

We
We say
say that
that aa set
set 6| is
is closed
closed under substitution, if
under substitution, if whenever
whenever r(a) ---t A(a)
F(a)--+ Ll(a) is
is
in
in 6 and tt is
| and is a term, then
a term, then r(t) ---t Ll(t)
F(t)---} A(t) is
is also
also in
in 6.
|

2.3.4.
2.3.4. When
When P P is
is aa proof,
proof, we
we write P(a) and
write P(a) P(t) to
and P(t) to indicate
indicate that P ( t ) i is
that P(t) s the
the
result
result of
of replacing
replacing every
every free
free occurrence
occurrence of
of aa in
in formulas
formulas of P with
of P with tt..

Theorem. Let 6
T h e o r e m . Let ~ bebe aa set
set of
of sequents
sequents which
which is
is closed
closed under
under substitution.
substitution. If
If P(b)
P(b)
is an LKs
is an -proof, and
LK~-proof, and ifif neither
neither bb nor
nor any
any variable
variable in
in tt is
is used
used as
as an
an eigenvariable
eigenvariable
in
in P(b)
P(b),, then
then P(t)
P(t) is valid LKs
is aa valid -proof.
LK~-proof.

2.3.5. Definition. A
2.3.5. Definition. A free
free variable
variable in
in the
the endsequent of aa proof
endsequent of is called
proof is called aa parameter
parameter
variable of
variable of the
the proof.
proof. A
A proof
proof PP isis said
said to
to be
be in
in free
free variable
variable normal form provided
normal form provided
that (1) no
that (1) no parameter
parameter variable
variable is
is used
used as
as an
an eigenvariable,
eigenvariable, and (2) every
and (2) every other
other free
free
variable
variable appearing in P
appearing in is used
P is used exactly once as
exactly once as an
an eigenvariable
eigenvariable andand appears
appears inin P
P
only
only in
in sequents
sequents above
above the
the inference
inference for
for which
which it
it is
is used
used as
as an
an eigenvariable.
eigenvariable.

In
In this
this chapter,
chapter, we
we consider
consider only
only tree-like
tree-like proofs
proofs and
and thus
thus any
any proof
proof may
may be
be put
put in
in
free
free variable
variable normal
normal form
form by
by merely
merely renaming
renaming variables.
variables.

2.3.6.
2.3.6. Soundness
S o u n d n e s s Theorem. Let r
T h e o r e m . Let F ---t
~ LlA be be an
an arbitrary
arbitrary sequent.
sequent.
(1) If r
(1) If F ---t
~ Ll A has
has anan LK then rF-----}
-proof, then
LK-proof, ---t Ll
A isis valid.
valid.
(2) Let 6
(2) Let | be be aa set
set of
of sequents.
sequents. If If r ---t Ll
F----} A has
has anan LKs
LK~ -proof, then 6
-proof, then | F~r
F ---t
~ Ll A..

The
The soundness
soundness theorem
theorem is
is readily
readily proved
proved by induction on
by induction on the
the number
number of
of inferences
inferences
in
in a
a proof.
proof.

2.3.7.
2.3.7. Completeness
C o m p l e t e n e s s of c u t - f r e e LK
of cut-free L K . . We
We next
next prove
prove the completeness of
the completeness of the
the
cut-free
cut-free fragment
fragment of of LK and, more
L K and, more generally,
generally, the
the completeness
completeness of
of LKs
L K ~ . . Since
Since our
our
proofs
proofs of completeness also
of completeness also give
give aa proof
proof of the ((countable)
of the countable) compactness
compactness theorem,
theorem, we we
include the compactness
include the compactness theorem theorem as part (2) of
as part the completeness
of the completeness theorem.
theorem.

Cut-free
C u t - f r e e Completeness T h e o r e m . Let
C o m p l e t e n e s s Theorem. Let r F ---t
~ Ll A be
be aa sequent
sequent inin aa first-order
first-order lan­
lan-
guage L
guage L which
which does does not
not contain
contain equality.
equality.
(1) If
(1) If r F ---t
~ Ll A isis valid,
valid, then
then it
it has cut-free LK
has aa cut-free -proof.
LK-proof.
(2) Let
(2) Let II be be aa set
set of sentences. If
of sentences. If II II logically implies r
logically implies ---t Ll
F----} A,, then
then there
there are
are
G
C 1l ,, .. .. .., , G
Ckk E
E II
II such that G
such that l , . . 9. , G
C1,. k . rF--'~
Ck, ---t Ll cut-free LK
has aa cut-free
A has -proof.
L K-proof.

Let 6
Corollary. Let
Corollary. be aa set
| be set of
of sequents. If 6
sequents. If | logically implies r
logically implies F ---t
~ Ll A,, then
then r
F ---t
~ Ll A
has an LKs
has an -proof,
LKG-proof.

Note
Note that
that in
in the
the corollary,
corollary, the
the LKs -proof may
LK6-proof may not not be
be cut-free.
cut-free. An
An important
important special
special
case
case of
of the
the corollary
corollary isis that
that LKe
LKe is complete. Although,
is complete. Although, in general, the
in general, the cut-free
cut-free
fragment
fragment ofof LKs
L K s may
may not
not be complete; we
be complete; shall see
we shall see later
later that
that it
it is
is always
always possible
possible
to
to get
get LKs
LK~ proofs
proofs which
which contain
contain no
no 'free cuts'.' .
'free cuts
34
34 s. Buss
S.

The corollary
The corollary isis an
an immediate
immediate consequence
consequence of of the
the cut-free
cut-free completeness
completeness theorem.
theorem.
This isis because,
This because, ifif |(5 ~1= Pr ~---+ A,
� , then
then part
part (2) of the
(2) of the theorem
theorem implies
implies that
that there
there are
are
$SI1 ,, .. ... ., , S~
Sk 6E |(5 so
so that VSI , . . . , VSk , F---~A
that VSx,...,VSk, r ---+ � has
has an
an LK-proof.
LK-proof. ButBut clearly
clearly each
each
---+ VSi has
--'+VSi has an
an LK6-proof,
LKs -proof, so so with
with kk further
further cut
cut inferences, r ---+ A
inferences, F---> � also
also has
has an
an
LKs -proof.
LK~ -proof.
Proof. Part
Proof. Part (2) of the
(2) of the cut-free
cut-free completeness
completeness theorem theorem clearly
clearly implies
implies part
part (1);
(1); wewe
shall prove
shall prove (2) only for
(2) only for the
the case
case where
where H II isis countable
countable (and (and hence
hence the the language
language LL is, is,
w.l.o.g., countable).
w.l.o.g., countable). Assume Assume II II logically implies Fr ~---+ A.
logically implies � . TheThe general
general idea
idea ofof the
the
argument is
argument is toto try
try to
to build
build anan LK-proof
LK -proof of r ---+ �
of P--~ from the
A from the bottom
bottom up, up, working
working
backwards from
backwards from F--+r ---+ A
� to to initial
initial sequents.
sequents. This This is,is, of
of course,
course, analogous
analogous to to the
the
procedure used
procedure used to to prove
prove Theorem
Theorem 1.2.8;1 .2.8; butbut because
because of of the
the presence
presence of of quantifiers,
quantifiers,
the process
the process of of searching
searching for for aa proof
proof of r ---+ A
of F--~ � isis no
no longer
longer finite.
finite. Thus,
Thus, wewe shall
shall
have
have toto show
show the the proof-search
proof-search process
process eventually
eventually tterminates
e r m i n a t e s- this will
- this will be
be done
done by by
showing that if
showing that if the
the proof-search
proof-search does does notnot yield
yield a a proof, then r
proof, then F ---+
~ A � is not valid.
is not valid.
Since
Since thethe language
language is is countable,
countable, we we may may enumerate
enumerate all L-formulas as
all L-formulas as
AI
A1,, A2,
A2 , Aa,...
A3 , • • •so that
so that every
every L-formula
L-formula occurs occurs infinitely
infinitely oftenoften in the enumeration.
in the enumeration.
Likewise, we
Likewise, enumerate all
we enumerate all L-terms
L-terms as as tl, t2 , ta,..,
t I , t2, h, . . . with
with each
each term repeated infinitely
term repeated infinitely
often. We
often. We shall
shall attempt
attempt to to construct
construct aa cut-free
cut-free proof proof PP of of r ---+ �
F---+ A.. The
The construction
construction
of P
of P will
will proceed
proceed in in stages: initially, PP consists
stages: initially, consists of of just
just thethe sequent
sequent F--->r ---+ A;
� ; at
at
each
each stage,
stage, P P will be modified
will be modified (we (we keep
keep the the same
same namename P P forfor the
the new
new partially
partially
constructed
constructed P P).) . A
A sequent
sequent in in PP isis said
said toto bebe active provided
provided it it is
is aa leaf
leaf sequent
sequent of of PP
and
and there
there isis no
no formula
formula thatthat occurs
occurs in in both
both its its antecedent
antecedent and and its its succedent.
succedent. NoteNote
that
that aa non-active
non-active leaf leaf sequent
sequent is is derivable
derivable with with aa cut-free
cut-free proof.
proof.
We
We enumerate
enumerate all pairs (Ai,
all pairs (Ai, tj)
tj) byby aa diagonal
diagonal enumeration;
enumeration; each each stage
stage of of the
the
construction
construction of of P P considers
considers one one such
such pair. Initially, P
pair. Initially, P isis the
the single sequent r
single sequent P ---+
~ � A..
At
At each
each stage
stage we we dodo the
the following:
following:
Loop: Let (Ai,
Loop: Let (Ai, tj)
tj) bebe the
the next
next pair
pair in
in the
the enumeration.
enumeration.
Step
Step (1): If Ai
(1): If Ai is
is in II,, then
in II then replace
replace every sequent r'
every sequent F' ---+
---} �'
A' in P with
in P with the
the sequent
sequent
r',
F', Ai
Ai ---+
'-} �'
A'..
If Ai
Step (2): If Ai isis atomic,
atomic, do do nothing
nothing and
and proceed
proceed to
to the
the next
next stage.
stage. Otherwise,
Otherwise,
we
we will
will modify
modify P P at at the
the active
active sequents
sequents which contain Ai
which contain Ai by
by doing
doing one
one of
of
the
the following:
following:
Case
Case (2a): If Ai
(2a): If Ai is is ...,
-~B,B , then
then every
every active
active sequent
sequent in P which
in P contains Ai
which contains Ai,, say
say
of form r',
of form F', ...,
-~B, B , r" ---+ �'
F"---> A',, is
is replaced
replaced by
by the
the derivation
derivation

r',
F', ...,
-~B, B , r"
F" ---+
---> �',
A', B
B
r', ...,B , r" ---+ �'
F', -~B, F"---+ A'

and
and similarly,
similarly, every
every active
active sequent
sequent in P of
in P of the form r'
the form ---+ �',
F'--+ A', ...,
~B, B , �"
A" is
is
replaced
replaced by
by the
the derivation
derivation

B,
B, r'
P' ---+
~ �',A', ...,~B,
B , �"
A"
r'
F' ---+
---} �',
A', ...,~B,
B , �"
A"
 Introduction to Proof Theory 35
35

Case (2b): IfIf A/

Case (2b): A i isis of
of the
the form
form BB V V C, then every
C , then every active
active sequent
sequent in
in PP of
of the
the
form F',
form fl, BB VV C,
G, F"--+ /:1' , isis replaced
f" -t A', replaced byby the
the derivation
derivation
B, F',
B, fl, BB VV C,
G, F"
f" --+
-t A'
/:1' G, F',
C, fl, BB VV C,
G, F"
f" --+
-t A'
/:1'
f', BB VV C,
F', G, F"
f" --t /:1'
+ A'

And, every
And, every active
active sequent in PP of
sequent in of the
the form
form F'
f' ---}
-t A',
/:1', BB VV C,
G, A" is replaced
/:1" is replaced
by the
by the derivation
derivation
fl -t A',
F'-+ /:1', BB Vv C,
G, A",
/:1", B,
B, CG
fl -t A',
F'--+ /:1', BB VV C,
G, A"
/:1"
Cases (2c)-(2d):
Cases (2c)-(2d): TheThe cases
cases where
where Ai has outermost
A i has outermost connective or A1\ are
connective D:J or are
similar ( dual) to
similar (dual) to case ( 2b) , and
case (2b), and are
are omitted
omitted here.
here.
Case (2e):
Case If Ai
(2e): If A i is
is of
of the
the form
form (3x)B(x), then every
(3x)B(x) , then every active sequent in
active sequent in PP of
of the
the
form F',
form fl, (3x)B(x), f" -t A'
(3x)B(x),F"---} is replaced
/:1' is replaced by
by the
the derivation
derivation

B(c), r',
B(~), fl, (3x)B(x)
(3~)B(~), , r"--+
f" -t /:1'
zx'
fl, (3z)B(x),
r', (3x)B(x), f" -t /:1'
r"--+ A,
where
where cc is
is a
a new
new free variable, not
free variable, used in
not used in PP yet.
yet. In addition, any
In addition, any active
active
sequent
sequent of
of the
the form
form f' -t A',
P'--+ /:1', (3x)B(x), A" is
(3x) B (x), /:1" is replaced
replaced by
by the
the derivation
derivation

fl -t A',
F'"-+ /:1', (3x)B(x)
(3x)B(x),, A",
/:1", B(tj)
B(tj)
f' -t /:1', (3x)B(x) ,
P'--+ A', (3x)S(x), A" /:1"
Note
Note that
that this,
this, and
and the
the dual
dual V :left case,
V :left case, are
are the
the only
only cases
cases where
where tj t3 is
is used.
used.
These
These twotwo cases
cases areare also
also the the only
only two
two cases
cases where
where itit is
is really
really necessary
necessary to to
keep
keep the
the formula
formula A Aii in
in the the new new active
active sequent;
sequent; we we have
have however,
however, always
always
kept
kept A since it
Aii since it makes
makes our our arguments
arguments aa little
little simpler.
simpler.
Case
Case (21):(2f): The
The case
case where
where A Aii begins
begins with
with aa universal
universal quantifier
quantifier isis dual
dual toto
case ((2e).
case 2e) .
Step (3):
Step (3): If
If there
there are are nono active
active sequents sequents remaining
remaining in in PP ,, exit
exit from
from thethe loop;
loop;
otherwise,
otherwise, continue
continue withwith the the nextnext loop
loop iteration.
iteration.
End loop.
End loop.
If
If the the algorithm
algorithm constructing
constructing P P ever
ever halts,
halts, then
then P P gives
gives aa cut-free
cut-free proof
proof ofof
Gl Ck, f
C 1, ,.. .. .. ,, Gk, -t /:1
F---} A for
for some
some Gl Ck E
C 1, ,.. .. .. ,, Gk I1.. This
6 II This isis since each ((non-active)
since each non-active) initial
initial
sequent
sequent has has aa formula
formula A A which
which appears
appears in in both
both its its antecedent
antecedent and and succedent
succedent and and
since,
since, by by induction
induction on on the
the complexity
complexity of A,, every
of A every sequent
sequent A -t AA isis derivable
A--+ derivable withwith
aa cut-free
cut-free proof. proof.
It
It remains
remains to to show
show thatthat if
if the
the above above construction
construction of P never
of P never halts,
halts, then
then the
the
sequent
sequent fF--+ -t /:1
A is is not
not logically
logically implied
implied by by III1.. So
So suppose
suppose the
the above
above construction
construction
of
of PP never never haltshalts and
and consider
consider thethe result result of of applying
applying the the entire
entire infinite
infinite construction
construction
process.
process. From From thethe details
details ofof the
the construction
construction of of PP ,, PP will
will be
be an
an infinite tree ((except
infinite tree except
in
in the
the exceptional
exceptional case case where
where fF---+
-t /:1 A contains
contains onlyonly atomic
atomic formulas
formulas andand IIII is
is empty,
empty,
36
36 s.S. Buss
Buss

inin which
which casecase P P isis aa single
single sequent)
sequent).. If II isis empty,
If II empty, then then each
each nodenode in in the
the infinite
infinite
tree P
tree P will
will be
be aa sequent;
sequent; however,
however, in in the
the general
general case,case, each
each node node in in thethe infinite
infinite
tree
tree will
will be
be aa generalized
generalized sequent sequent of of the form r/,
the form F ~,II -+ �'
II--~ A ~with
with an an infinite
infinite number number
of
of formulas
formulas in in its
its antecedent.
antecedent. (At (At each
each stage
stage of of the
the construction
construction of of P P ,, the the sequents
sequents
contain
contain only only finitely
finitely many many formulas,
formulas, but but in in the
the limit
limit the the antecedents
antecedents contain contain every every
formula
formula from from IIII since
since these
these areare introduced
introduced by by step (1).) P
step (1).) P is
is aa finitely
finitely branching
branching tree, tree,
so
so byby Konig's
Khnig's lemma,
lemma, there there is is at
at least
least one
one infinite branch 7rr in
infinite branch in P P starting
starting at at the
the roots
roots
and
and proceeding
proceeding up up through
through the the tree
tree (except,
(except, in in the
the exceptional
exceptional case, case, 7rr is is to
to contain
contain
just
just thethe endsequent).
endsequent). We We useuse 7rr toto construct
construct aa structure
structure M Az[ and
and object
object assignmentassignment (Ja,,
for which rF--~
for which -+ � A is is not
not true.
true. The The universe
universe of of M A/[ isis equal
equal to to the
the set set of of L-terms.
L-terms.
The
The object assignment (Ja just
object assignment just mapsmaps aa variable
variable aa to to itself.
itself. TheThe interpretation
interpretation of of aa
function
function symbolsymbol is is defined
defined so so that M (r l, . . . ,, rrk)
that ffM(rl,... k) isis the term ff ((rrb
the term l , .. ... ., , rr~).
k ) . Finally,
Finally,
the
the interpretation
interpretation of of aa predicate
predicate symbol symbol P P isis defined
defined by letting pM
by letting P ~ ((rrl,l , .. .. ..,, rra)
k) hold
hold
ifif and
and only
only the formula P
the formula (rb . . . , rrk)
P(rl,..., k ) appears
appears in in an
an antecedent
antecedent of of aa sequent
sequent contained contained
in
in the branch 7r
the branch r ..
To
To finish
finish the
the proofproof of of the
the theorem,
theorem, it it suffices
suffices to to show
show thatthat everyevery formula formula A A
occurring
occurring in in an
an antecedent
antecedent (respectively,
(respectively, aa succedent)
succedent) along along 7r r isis true
true (respectively,
(respectively,
false)
false) in in MA4 with
with respect
respect to to (Ja;; since
since this
this implies
implies that that r -+ �
F---~ A isis not
not valid.
valid. This This claim
claim
is
is proved
proved by by induction
induction on on the
the complexity
complexity of of AA.. ForFor A A atomic,
atomic, it it is
is true
true by by definition.
definition.
Consider
Consider the the case
case wherewhere A A is is of
of the
the form (3x)B(x). . If
form (3x)B(x) If AA appears
appears in in an an antecedent,
antecedent,
then so
then so does
does a a formula
formula of of the
the form
form B(c)B(c);; by by the induction hypothesis,
the induction hypothesis, B(c) B(c) is is true
true
in
in M w.r.t, (J
Ad w.r.t. a,, so hence A
so hence is. If
A is. If A A appears
appears in in anan succedent,
succedent, then, then, for for every every term term tt,,
B(t) eventually
B(t) eventually appearsappears in in an succedent; hence
an succedent; hence everyevery B(t) B(t) is is false
false in in M w.r.t. (J
Az[ w.r.t, a,,
which implies A
which implies A is also false.
is also false. Note
Note thatthat A A cannot appear in
cannot appear in both
both an antecedent and
an antecedent and
aa succedent
succedent alongalong ~, 7r , since
since thethe nodes
nodes in in 7r~ were
were never
never active initial sequents.
active initial sequents. The The
rest of
rest of cases, for different
cases, for different outermost
outermost connectives
connectives of of A,A , are
are similar
similar and and we we omit
omit their
their
proofs.
proofs.

There are
2.3.8. There
2.3.8. are number
number ofof semantic
semantic tableau proof systems,
tableau proof systems, independently
independently duedue to
to
Beth [1956],
Beth Hintikka [1955],
[1956], Hintikka Kanger [1957]
[1955], Kanger and Schutte
[1957] and [1965], which
Schiitte [1965], are very
which are very similar
similar
to the
to the first-order
first-order cut-free
cut-free sequent
sequent calculus.
calculus. TheThe proof
proof above,
above, of
of the
the completeness
completeness ofof
the cut-free
the cut-free sequent
sequent calculus,
calculus, isis based
based on
on the
the proofs
proofs of
of the
the completeness
completeness of of semantic
semantic
tableau systems
tableau systems given
given by
by these
these four
four authors.
authors. The
The original
original proof,
proof, due
due to
to Gentzen,
Gentzen, was
was
based on
based on the
the completeness
completeness of of LK
LK withwith cut
cut and
and on
on aa process
process of
of eliminating
eliminating cuts
cuts from
from
aa proof
proof similar
similar to
to the
the construction
construction of of the
the next
next section.
section.

2.4. CCut
2.4. u t eelimination.
l i m i n a t i o n . TheThe cut-free
cut-free completeness
completeness theorem,
theorem, asas established
established above,
above,
has aa couple
has couple of of drawbacks.
drawbacks. Firstly,Firstly, we
we have
have proved
proved cut-free
cut-free completeness
completeness only only forfor
pure LK
pure LK and and itit isis desirable
desirable toto also
also establish
establish aa version
version ofofcut-free
cut-free completeness
completeness (called
(called
'free-cut free ' completeness)
'free-cut free' completeness) for for LKe
LKe and
and for
for more
more general
general systems
systems LK6.
LKs . Secondly,
Secondly,
the proof
the proofisis completely
completely non-constructive
non-constructive andand gives
gives no
no bounds
bounds onon the
the sizes
sizes of
ofcut-free
cut-free
proofs. Of
proofs. Of course,
course, the the undecidability
undecidability of of validity
validity in
in first-order
first-order logic
logic implies
implies that
that thethe
size of
size of proofs
proofs (cut-free
(cut-free or or otherwise)
otherwise) cannot
cannot bebe recursively
recursively bounded
bounded inin terms
terms of of the
the
formula being
formula being proved;
proved; instead,
instead, wewe wish
wish toto give
give an
an upper
upper bound
bound onon the
the size
size of
of aa
 Introduction
Introduction to
to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 37
37

cut-free LK -proof in
cut-free LK-proof in terms
terms of the size
of the size of
of a
a general LK -proof.
general LK-proof.
Accordingly,
Accordingly, wewe shall
shall give
give aa constructive
constructive proof
proof of the cut
of the cut elimination
elimination theorem
theorem -
this
this proof
proof will
will give
give an
an effective procedure for
effective procedure for converting
converting a a general LK -proof into
general LK-proof into aa
cut-free LK -proof. As
cut-free LK-proof. As part
part of
of our
our analysis,
analysis, wewe compute
compute an an upper bound on
upper bound on thethe size
size
of
of the
the cut-free
cut-free proof
proof constructed
constructed by by this
this procedure.
procedure. WithWith some
some modification,
modification, the the
procedure
procedure can
can also
also be
be used
used toto construct free-cut free
construct free-cut free proofs
proofs in LKee or
in LK L K ~ ; ; this
or LKs this will
will
be
be discussed
discussed inin section
section 2.4.4.
2.4.4.
It
It is
is worth
worth noting
noting that
that the
the cut
cut elimination
elimination theorem
theorem proved
proved next,
next, together
together withwith
the
the Completeness
Completeness Theorem
Theorem 2.2.3 for for the
the Hilbert-style
Hilbert-style calculus,
calculus, implies
implies the
the Cut-free
Cut-free
Completeness Theorem 2.3.7. This
Completeness Theorem This is because LK
is because L K can
can easily simulate Hilbert-style
easily simulate Hilbert-style
proofs
proofs and
and is
is thus complete; and
thus complete; then, since
and then, since any
any valid
valid sequent
sequent hashas an
an LK -proof, it
LK-proof, it
also
also has
has aa cut-free LK -proof.
cut-free LK-proof.

2.4.1. Definition. The

2.4.1. Definition. The depth, dp(A),, of
depth, dp(A) of aa formula
formula A A isis defined to equal
defined to equal the
the height
height
of
of the
the tree
tree representation
representation of of the
the formula;
formula; that that is is to
to say:
say:
•9 dp(A)
dp(A) = - 0O,, for
for A A atomic,
atomic,
•9 dp(A
dp(A 1\ B) =
A B) = dp(A
dp(A V V B)B) = dp(A :>
= dp(A ~ B)B) = = 1+ + max {dp(A) , dp(B)
max{dp(A), dp(B)},},
•9 dp( -,A) =
dp(-~A) = dp(
d p ( ((3x)A
3 x ) A )) = dp(
d p ( ((Vx)A
V x ) A )) = 1 + + dp(A)
dp(A)..
The depth of
The depth of aa cut
cut inference
inference is is defined
defined to to equal
equal thethe depth
depth of of its
its cut
cut formula.
formula.

Definition. The
Definition. superexponentiation function
The superexponentiation 2~,, for
function 2i for i,
i, x
x �_ 00,, is
is defined
defined inductively
inductively
by
by 20 - x
2~ = x and
and 2i+l 2f . Thus
- 222T.
2i~+1= Thus 2i2T is
is the
the number
number which
which isis expressed
expressed in in exponential
exponential
notation
notation as
as aa stack
stack of
of ii many
many 22's' s with
with an x at
an x at the
the top.
top.

2.4.2.
2.4.2. Cut-Elimination T h e o r e m . Let
C u t - E l i m i n a t i o n Theorem. Let P
P be
be an
an LK -proof and
LK-proof and suppose
suppose every
every cut
cut
formula in P
formula in P has
has depth
depth less less than
than oror equal
equal toto d
d.. Then
Then there
there is
is aa cut-free
cut-free LK proof P
L K - -proof P **
with
with the
the same
same endsequent
endsequent as as P
P,, with
with size
size

< 2211PII
IP* II < 91iPii
IILP*II d+2 '
Most
Most proofs
proofs of this theorem
of this theorem are are based
based onon the original proof
the original proof of Gentzen [1935]
of Gentzen
which
which involved
involved making
making local
local changes
changes to to aa proof
proof to
to reduce
reduce the
the depth
depth ofof cuts,
cuts, the
the
number
number of of cuts,
cuts, or
or the
the so-called
so-called rank
rank of
of a
a cut.
cut. We
We present
present here
here aa somewhat
somewhat differently
differently
structured
structured proof
proof in
in which
which thethe depth
depth or or number
number ofof cuts
cuts is
is reduced
reduced byby making
making global
global
changes
changes to to aa proof.
proof. WeWe feel
feel that
that our
our approach
approach hashas the
the advantage
advantage of of making
making thethe
overall
overall cut
cut elimination
elimination process
process clearer
clearer and
and more
more intuitive.
intuitive.
The
The main
main step
step in
in proving
proving the the cut
cut elimination
elimination theorem
theorem will
will be
be to
to establish
establish the
the
following
following lemma:
lemma:

2.4.2.1.
2.4.2.1. Lemma.
Lemma. Let P
Let P be be an LK -proof with
an LK-proof with final
final inference
inference aa cut
cut of
of depth
depth d d
such
such that
that every
every other
other cut cut inin P P has has depth
depth strictly
strictly less
less than
than dd.. Then
Then there
there is
is an
an
LK -proof P
LK-proof P ** with
with the same endsequent
the same endsequent asas PP with
with all
all cuts in P
cuts in P ** of
of depth
depth less
less
than
than d
d and
and with I P * IitI <
with ItiP* 1 P 1 12 .
< 1jjpjj2.
38 S. Buss

P r o o f . The
Proof. The proof P ends
proof P ends with
with aa cut
cut inference
inference
' 9.. :. 9. .. ..QQ .R
'
.. 9 ..R
, , . , o ,

rF---~
-+ �, A,A A A,
A, r -+ �
F--+ A
r -+ �
F---~ A
where
where the the depth
depth of of the
the cut formula A
cut formula A equals
equals dd and and where
where all all cuts
cuts in in the
the subproofs
subproofs
Q and and R have have depth depth strictly
strictly lessless than
than d d.. The
The lemmalemma is is proved
proved by by cases,
cases, based based on on
the
the outermost
outermost logical logical connective
connective of of the
the cut formula A
cut formula A.. We
We can
can assume
assume w.l.o.g. w.l.o.g, that that
both
both Q and and R R contain
contain at at least
least oneone strong
strong inference;
inference; since since otherwise,
otherwise, we we must must have have
A
A in in rF or in �
or in A,, or or have
have aa formula
formula whichwhich occurs
occurs in both r
in both and �
F and A,, andand in in thethe former
former
case,
case, the sequent r
the sequent -+ �
F---~ A is is obtainable
obtainable by by weak
weak inferences
inferences from from one one of of the the upperupper
sequents
sequents and and the the cut cut can
can therefore
therefore be be eliminated,
eliminated, and and inin the
the second
second case, case, r -+ �
F--~ A can can
be
be inferred
inferred withwith no no cut
cut inference
inference at at all.
all. The
The proof
proof P P is
is also
also assumed
assumed to to be be in in free
free
variable
variable normalnormal form. form.
Case (a): Suppose
Case Suppose A A isis aa formula
formula of of the form ...,
the form B . We
-~B. We shall
shall form form new new proofs proofs
Q** and
Q and R R** ofof the sequents B,
the sequents B, r -+ A
F--~ � and
and rP--~ -+ �, A, BB,, which
which can can then
then be be combined
combined
with
with aa cut cut inference
inference of of depth
depth d d -- 1 toto give
give thethe proof
proof P P ** of
of r -+ �
F--~ A.. To To form form Q Q*,*,
first form Q' by
first form replacing every
by replacing sequent II
every sequent II -+
~ A A in in Q with
with the
the sequent
sequent H, II, B B -+ ~ A -
A-,,
where
where A- A- is obtained from
is obtained from A A byby removing
removing all all direct
direct ancestors
ancestors of of the
the cut formula A
cut formula A..
O
Off course,
course, Q' is is not
not a a valid
valid proof;
proof; for example, aa ...,
for example, :right inference
-~ :right inference iinn Q of of the
the formform
B,
B, II
1-I-+
---~ AA
II
H -+---+ A,
A, ...,
--B B
could become in
could become in Q'
B, II,
B, II, B -+ A-
B---~ A-
II, B
II, B--++ A A--
This is
This is not,
not, strictly
strictly speaking,
speaking, aa valid valid inference;
inference; but but ofof course,
course, itit can can be be modified
modified
to
to be be valid
valid by inserting some
by inserting exchanges and
some exchanges and a a contraction.
contraction. In In this fashion, it
this fashion, is
it is
straightforward
straightforward to to modify
modify Q' so so that
that itit becomes
becomes aa valid valid proof
proof Q Q** by by removing
removing some some
..., :left inferences
-, :left inferences and inserting some
and inserting some weak
weak inferences.
inferences. We We leave
leave it it to to the
the readerreader to to
check
check that that Q* Q * can can be be validly formed in
validly formed in this
this way:
way: it it should
should be noted that
be noted that we we are using
are using
the assumption
the assumption that that initial sequents e
initial sequents C--+-+ C e must
must have have C e atomic.
atomic. The The proof,proof, R R*,*,
of
of F--~r -+ �, A, BB is is formed
formed in in aa similar
similar fashion
fashion fromfrom R. Obviously, no
R. Obviously, no new
new cuts cuts are are
introduced by
introduced by this this process
process and,
and, since
since wewe dodo not count weak
not count weak inferences,
inferences, IIIQ*II I Q * I I :::;
_< IIIQll
IQ I I
IR* I I _<
and II IR*II
and :::; II IRll; thus Pp** has
IRI I ; thus has only
only cuts
cuts of depth << dd and
of depth and hhas as II II PP** II II -<
:::; II IPll
I PI I . 9
(b): Now
Case (b):
Case Now suppose
suppose the the cutcut formula
formula A A isis ofof the
the form
form B BV e . We
V C. We define
define Q' Q' as as aa
tree of
tree of sequents,
sequents, with with root
root labeled
labeled F--~r -+ A, �, B,B, C,
e , by by replacing
replacing every
every sequent
sequent II---~ II -+ A A
in Q
in with the
Q with the sequent
sequent II--~II -+ A-,A - , B,
B, C,
e , where
where A- A - is is AA minus
minus all all occurrences
occurrences of of direct
direct
ancestors of
ancestors of the
the cut cut formula.
formula. By By removing
removing some some formerly
formerly Y :right inferences
V :right inferences from from Q' Q'
and by
and by adding
adding some some weakweak inferences,
inferences, Q' can be
Q' can be transformed
transformed into into aa validvalid proofproof Q*. Q* .
Now construct
Now construct RB RB fromfrom R R byby replacing
replacing every occurrence in
every occurrence in R R ofof B BV V Ce as as aa direct
direct
ancestor of
ancestor of the
the cut cut formula
formula with with just
just the
the formula
formula B. B . One
One way
way that that RB RB can can fail fail to to
be aa valid
be valid proof
proof is is that
that anan V V :left inference
:left inference
 Introduction to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 39
39

B, II
B, ---+ A
II---+ A C,
C, II ---+ A
I1---+ A
B vV C,
B C, II ---+ A
II---+ A
may
may become
become just
just
B, II
B, ---+ A
II---+ A C,
C, II ---+ A
H---} A
B, II
B, ---+ A
II---} A
in RB.. This
in RB This isis no
no longer
longer aa valid
valid inference,
inference, but
but it
it can
can be
be fi xed up
fixed up by
by discarding
discarding thethe
inference
inference and
and its
its upper
upper right
right hypothesis,
hypothesis, including
including discarding
discarding the
the entire
entire subproof
subproof of of
the upper right
the upper right hypothesis.
hypothesis. TheThe only other changes
only other changes needed
needed toto make
make RB valid
valid are
are
the
the addition
addition ofof weak
weak inferences,
inferences, and
and in
in this
this way,
way, aa valid proof RB of
valid proof ~ �
B, rP ---+
of B, A is
is
formed.
formed. AA similar
similar process
process forms
forms aa valid
valid proof Re of
proof Re of C,
C, r ---+ �
F---+ A.. The
The proof
proof P P ** can
can
now
now be
be defi ned to
defined to be
be
' 9.. :9 .. . .QQ
*
* . Re
'. .. :9 ...Re
o . . . . .

rF--} ---+ �,
A, B, C C C,
C, rF---+---+ �/k ... : ... RB
rP---}
---+ �,
A,BB B, F---+ A
rF ----+
-+A �
The
The processes
processes of of forming
forming Q Q*, * , RBRB,, and
and Re Re diddid not introduce any
not introduce any new
new cuts
cuts or or any
any
new
new strong
strong inferences.
inferences. Thus Thus we we clearly
clearly have
have thatthat every
every cut cut in in pP ** has
has depth
depth < < d,d,
and that III[PP ** [I II _::; IIJQJJ+2JJRI[+2.
and that Since I[[P[I
IQI I + 2 1 IR I I + 2 . Since IPII = = IIIQ]J+IJR[[ +11 and
I Q I I + I IR I I + and IIlQl],
IQ I I , IIIRll
IRI I �> 11,,
this
this suffices
suffices toto prove
prove the the lemma
lemma for for this
this case.
case.
Cases
Cases (c}, (d): The
(c),(d): The cases where A
cases where A hashas outermost
outermost connective
connective 1\ A or
or :)D are are very
very
similar
similar to the previous
to the previous case, case, andand areare omitted.
omitted.
Case (e): Now
Case (e): Now supposesuppose A A isis of
of the
the form (3x)B(x).. First
form (:3x)B(x) First consider
consider howhow the
the formula
formula
(3x)B(x) can
(:3x)B(x) can be be introduced
introduced in in the
the subproof
subproof Q Q.. Since
Since it it is
is not
not atomic,
atomic, itit cannot
cannot be be
introduced
introduced in in an
an initial
initial sequent;
sequent; thus, thus, it it can
can onlyonly bebe introduced
introduced by weakenings and
by weakenings and
by 3:3 :right
by inferences. Suppose
:right inferences. Suppose that there are
that there are kk � > 00 manymany :3 :right inferences
3:right inferences in in Q
which
which have
have their principal formula
their principal formula aa direct
direct ancestor
ancestor of of the
the cutcut formula.
formula. These These can can
be enumerated
be enumerated as as
Hi --~ Ai, B(ti)
IIi ---+ Ai,
a,, (:3x)B(x)
with 11 _::; i/ ::;
with _< k. Similarly, we
k. Similarly, locate all
we locate all the inferences in
:3 :left inferences
the 3:left in R which have
R which have
principal formula
principal formula aa direct direct ancestor
ancestor of of the
the cut
cut formula
formula and and enumerate
enumerate these these asas
B ( ai) , II: ---+ A
B(a,),II{--+ A~:
(:3x)B(x), II
(3x)B(x), II~: ---+
--~ Aa~:
for
for 1 < ::; ii<::;g .£ .
For each
For each ii ___ ::; k, we form
k , we form aa proof
proof Ri R; of
of thethe sequent
sequent B(ti), r ---+ �
B(ti), F--+ by replacing
A by replacing
all g£ of
all of thethe variables
variables aj with the
aj with the term everywhere in
term titi everywhere in R, replacing every
R , replacing every direct
direct
ancestor
ancestor ofthe of the cut cut formula
formula (3x)B(x)
(:3x)B(x) in in R with B(t~),
R with B(ti) , andand then
then removing
removing the the ge 3:left
:3 :left
inferences. It
inferences. It is is easy
easy to
to see
see that
that this
this yields
yields aa valid
valid proof;
proof; note
note that
that the
the fact that PP is
fact that is
in free
in variable normal
free variable normal form
form ensures
ensures that
that replacing
replacing the aj ' s with
the aj's with titi will
will not
not impact
impact
the eigenvariable
the eigenvariable conditions conditions for
for inferences
inferences in in R.R.
Now, form
Now, form Q' from Q
Q' from by replacing
Q by replacing each
each sequent
sequent II---}
II ---+ A
A iinn Q with the
Q with the sequent
sequent
II, F---+
II, r ---+ A, A - , where
�, A-, where A- A- isis A
A minus
minus allall direct
direct ancestors
ancestors of of the
the cut
cut formula
formula A. A.
40
40 S.
S. Buss
Buss

Clearly,
Clearly, Q' Q' ends
ends with
with the
the sequent
sequent r, -+ Ll,
F, rF---->A, LlA;; however,
however, itit isis not
not aa valid
valid proof.
proof. ToTo
fix
fix it
it up
up to to be
be aa valid
valid proof,
proof, we
we need
need to to do
do the
the following.
following. First,
First, anan initial
initial sequent
sequent
in
in Q'
Q' will
will bebe of
of the form A,
the form A, rF--~ A, A;
-+ Ll, A; this
this can
can be
be validly
validly derived
derived by by using
using the
the initial
initial
sequent A
sequent -+ AA followed
A---+ followed byby weakenings
weakenings and and exchanges.
exchanges. Second,
Second, for for 11 � < kk,, the
< ii � the
i-th :33 ::right
i-th right inference
inference enumerated
enumerated above,
above, will
will be
be of
of the
the form
form
IIi, + Ll,
IIi, rr --+ A, Ai,
Ai, B(ti)
B(ti)
IIi,
Hi, rF -+--} Ll,
A, AiAi
in
in QQ.. This
This cancan bebe replaced
replaced by by the
the following
following inferences
inferences
R;
. ..R~
:
IIi, -+ Ll,
II~,rp--+ A, Ai, A~,B(ti)
B(h) -+ Ll
B(h),' rF--~
B(ti) A
IIi, --'~ Ll,
Hi, r[' -+ A, Ai
Ai
Note
Note that
that this
this has
has replaced the :33 ::right
replaced the right inference
inference ofof Q
Q with
with aa cut
cut of
of depth
depth dd - 11 and
and -

some
some weakweak inferences.
inferences.
No
No further
further changes
changes are are needed
needed to to Q'Q' to to make
make it it aa valid
valid proof.
proof. In In particular,
particular,
the eigenvariable
the eigenvariable conditions
conditions still still hold
hold since
since no no free
free variable
variable in in r ~ Ll
F -+ A is
is used
used asas an
an
eigenvariable
eigenvariable in in QQ.. ByBy adding
adding somesome exchanges
exchanges and and contractions
contractions to to the
the end
end of
of this
this
proof,
proof, thethe desired
desired proof
proof P P ** of
of r ~ Ll
F -+ A is is obtained.
obtained. It It is
is clear
clear that
that every
every cut
cut in
in PP **
has
has depth
depth < < dd.. From inspection of
From inspection of the
the construction
construction of of P P **, , the
the size
size of P ** can
of P can bebe
bounded
bounded by by
IP* II �
IIIP*ll _< IIlqll'(llRIl+l)
IQI I · ( I IRII + 1) < I P W2.·
< IIIPII
Case ((f):
Case f): The
The case where A
case where A isis of
of the
the form (Vx)B(x) is
form (Vx)B(x) completely dual
is completely dual to
to case
case (e),
(e),
and
and isis omitted here.
omitted here.
Case
Case (g): Finally, consider
(g): Finally, consider the the case
case where
where A A isis atomic.
atomic. Form Form R' R' from
from R R byby
replacing every
replacing every sequent
sequent II---+II -+ A A inin R with the
R with the sequent
sequent II-, II - , rF ~-+ A,
Ll, A where II­
A,, where H-
is II minus
is II minus all occurrences of
all occurrences direct ancestors
of direct ancestors of of A.A. R' R' will
will end with the
end with sequent
the sequent
F, r
r, -+ A,
F---+ Ll, A
Ll and
and will
will bebe valid
valid as as aa proof,
proof, except
except for for its
its initial sequents. The
initial sequents. initial
The initial
sequents
sequents B B--~-+ BB in R , with
in R, with B B not
not aa direct
direct ancestor
ancestor of the cut
of the formula A,
cut formula A , become
become
r -+ A,
B, F--~
B, Ll, B in R';
B in R' ; these
these are are readily
readily inferred
inferred from from thethe initial
initial sequent
sequent B---> with
B -+ BB with
only weak
only inferences. On
weak inferences. On thethe other
other hand,
hand, the the other
other initial
initial sequents
sequents A--+ A -+ A A in
in R R
become F---}
become r -+ A,Ll, AA which
which is is just
just thethe endsequent
endsequent of of Q.Q . TheThe desired
desired proof
proof P*P * of of
r -+ A
F---> Ll is
is thus
thus formed
formed from from R' R' byby adding
adding some some weak inferences and
weak inferences and adding
adding some
some
copies of
copies of the
the subproof
subproof Q Q toto the
the leaves
leaves of of R',
R' , and
and by by adding
adding some some exchanges
exchanges andand
contractions to
contractions to the
the end
end of of R'.
R' .
Since Q
Since Q andand RR have
have only only cuts
cuts ofof degree
degree << dd (i.e., (i.e., have
have no no cuts,
cuts, since
since dd == 0),0),
PP** likewise
likewise hashas only
only cuts
cuts ofof degree
degree << d. Also, since
d . Also, since thethe number
number of of initial
initial sequents
sequents
in R'
in R' isis bounded
bounded by by [IRII
I IRII ++ 1,1 , the
the size
size ofof Pp** cancan be be bounded
bounded by by

I I P * III I � IIRll
liP* I I R I I ++ IIQ[I" ( I IR I I ++ 1)
I IQ I I · (lIRJI ( I I Q I I ++ 1)(lIRll
1) << (lIQll l ) (I IR I I ++ 1) I JPW2
1 ) << IIPJJ

That completes
That completes the
the proof
proof of
of Lemma
Lemma 2.4.2.1.
2.4.2.1.
 Introduction to Proof Theory 41
41

Lemma 2.4.2.1 shows

Lemma 2.4.2.1 shows how
how toto replace
replace aa single
single cut
cut by
by lower
lower depth
depth cut
cut inferences.
inferences.
By
By iterating
iterating this construction, it
this construction, it is
is possible
possible to
to remove
remove all
all cuts
cuts of
of the
the maximum
maximum
depth
depth d d in
in a
a proof.
proof. This
This is
is stated
stated asas Lemma 2.4.2.2: the
Lemma 2.4.2.2: Cut-Elimination Theorem
the Cut-Elimination Theorem
is
is an
an immediate
immediate consequence
consequence ofof this lemma.
this lemma.

2.4.2.2.
2.4.2.2. Lemma.
Lemma. If P
If P is is an LK -proof with
an LK-proof with all
all cuts
cuts of
of depth
depth at
at most d, there
most d, there is
is
an LK -proof P
an LK-proof P** with
with thethe samesame endsequent
endsequent which
which has
has all
all cuts
cuts of
of depth
depth strictly
strictly less
less
P** I[[I <
than d and with size I[II P < 2 2 11PII .9
2211Vll

P r o o f . Lemma
Proof. Lemma 2.4.2.2 will be
2.4.2.2 will be proved
proved by induction on
by induction on the
the number
number of of depth
depth dd cuts
cuts
in
in P P.. The
The base base case,
case, where
where there
there are
are no
no depth
depth d d cuts
cuts is
is trivial,
trivial, of
of course,
course, since
since
IPI] <
IIIPII 21 1P1I .. For
< 222~lPll For the
the induction
induction step,
step, it
it suffices
suffices to
to prove
prove the
the lemma
lemma in in the
the case
case where
where
P
P ends
ends with
with a a cut
cut inference
inference
.Q
'9.. : 9 ...Q .R
'... : 9 ...R
9 . 9 9 o 9

r
F---}-t .6.,
A,A A A,
A, rF---} -t .6.
A
F - ---t
r > .6.
A

where
where thethe cut formula A
cut formula A isis of
of depth
depth d d..
First
First suppose
suppose that that oneone ofof thethe subproofs,
subproofs, say say R, R, does
does not
not have have anyany strong
strong in­
in-
ferences;
ferences; i.e.,
i.e., II[R]I
IRI I == O0.. Therefore,
Therefore, R R must must either
either contain
contain thethe axiom axiom A A -t
~ A A,, or
or
must
must have
have direct
direct ancestors
ancestors of of the
the cut cut formula
formula A A introduced
introduced only only by by weakenings.
weakenings. In In
the
the former
former case,
case, A A must
must appear
appear in in .6.A,, andand the the desired
desired proof proof P P ** can be obtained
can be obtained
from
from Q Q by adding some
by adding some exchanges
exchanges and and a a contraction
contraction to to the
the end
end of of QQ.. In
In the
the second
second
case,
case, P P ** can
can be obtained from
be obtained from R R byby removing
removing all all the Weakening:left inferences
the Weakening:left inferences
that
that introduce
introduce direct
direct ancestors
ancestors of of the
the cut cut formula
formula A A (and possibly removing
(and possibly removing some
some
exchanges
exchanges and and contractions
contractions involving
involving these these A 's) . A
A's). A similar
similar argument
argument works works for
for the
the
case
case I]]QI] = O0.. In
IQ I I = In both
both cases, IP* II <
cases, I[IP*[I IPII <
< I[IPII 211PII .
< 2221'Pl'.
Second,
Second, suppose
suppose that IQ I I and
that IIIQII and IIIPIIIP I I are
are both
both nonzero.
nonzero. B Byy the
the induction
induction hypoth­
hypoth-
esis,
esis, there
there are
are proofs
proofs Q Q** and and R R** of of the
the same
same endsequents,
endsequents, with with all all cuts
cuts of
of depth
depth less
less
than
than d d,, and
and with
with
I][Q*][ < 2211QII
IQ * I I < 2.iQil and
and I][R*[] 1 1 RII
< 22 22iIRil
IR* I I <
Applying
Applying Lemma 2.4.2.1 to
Lemma 2.4.2.1 to the
the proofproof

* *
'9.. :9 .. ..QQ * *
.. . '9 . ..RR
. . , , . .

rF--+-t A,A.6., A A, rF---+

A, -t .6.
A
rF---~
-t .6.
A
gives
gives a
a proof P ** of
proof P of r -t .6.
F---} A with
with all
all cuts
cuts of
of depth
depth < d, so
< d, so that
that

i P * IIII <
lliP* < (IIQ *II +
(/[Q*I[ I R* I I +
+ I[IR*II 1) 2 �
+ 1)
2 211QII +
~ ( 222''Q'' 2 211RI
_/_ 2 (
211RllI - 11 _ ) 22 <
< 2 21IQII+IIRII+1
221 IQII+IIRII+I
=
21 1P11 .
22211PII

The
The final
final inequality
inequality holds since IIIQII,
holds since IRII :2: 11..
IQ I I , IIIRII
Q.E.D.
Q.E.D. Lemma 2.4.2.2 and
Lemma 2.4.2.2 and the
the Cut
Cut Elimination
Elimination Theorem.Theorem.
4422 S.
S. Buss
Buss

2.4.3 " A
2.4.3. A general
g e n e r a l bound
b o u n d on
on cut e l i m i n a t i o n . The
cut elimination. The upper
upper bound
bound ~IIPII
~2d+2
in
in the
the Cut
Cut 2�:lI2
Elimination
Elimination Theorem
Theorem is is based
based not
not only
only on on thethe size
size of P ,, but
of P but also
also on
on the
the maximum
maximum
depth
depth of
of the
the cut
cut formulas
formulas in P.. However,
in P However, there there is is aa general
general method
method thatthat allows
allows the
the
bound
bound toto be
be expressed
expressed in in terms
terms of
of just IP I I . This
just I]lPII. This is is based
based onon the
the following:
following:

P r o p o s i t i o n . Suppose
Proposition. Suppose P P is an LK
is an -proof of
LK-proof of the sequent rF--~
the sequent ---+ �
A.. Then
Then there
there is
is aa
cut-free
cut-free proof
proof P P** of
of the
the same
same sequent
sequent with
with size
size I]]I P * I I << 911Pal
P'HI "211P]l" 2���1I '
P r o o f . The
Proof. The proposition
proposition is is obviously
obviously true true if if PP has has no no cuts,
cuts, so so suppose
suppose it it contains
contains
at
at least
least one. one. We We need need somesome definitions:
definitions: Two Two semiformulas
semiformulas are are said
said to to be be term
term
variants if
variants if they
they have have identical
identical logical logical structure structure and and thus thus one one can
can be be transformed
transformed
into
into the
the other
other by by changing
changing only only its its semiterms.
semiterms. Obviously Obviously the the 'term variant'' relation
'term variant relation
is
is an
an equivalence
equivalence relation. relation. For For any any equivalence
equivalence class class of of term
term variants,
variants, there there is is aa
formula
formula skeleton
skeleton R( Tk) such
71 , . . . , 7k)
R(T1,..., such that that the the equivalence
equivalence class class contains
contains exactly exactly the the
semiformulas
semiformulas of of the the form form R(tl, tk) where
R ( t l , .. .. .., , tk) where tl, t l , .. .. .., , ttkk are
are semiterms.
semiterms.
Let
Let Ccl, l , Cc2, 3,
2 , Cc3,.., . • • be
be an an infi nite sequence
infinite sequence of of new new free free variables.
variables. For For R(· · ·) aa
R(...)
formula
formula skeleton
skeleton for for aa term
term variant
variant class, class, we we pickpick aa new new predicate
predicate symbol
symbol PR PR.. Given
Given
aa member
member R( R ( tt ll ,, .. ... ., , tk)
tk) ofof the
the term
term variant variant class, class, we we can can form form the the atomic
atomic semiformula
semiformula
PR(t t~) and
l , ' . . , tk)
PR(tl,..., and its its bound
bound variables
variables correspond correspond to to the the bound
bound variables
variables which which are are
freely
freely occurring
occurring in in R(i) R(t-)..
A formula A
A formula A is is defined
defined to to be active in
be active in PP if if some
some strong strong inference
inference in in P P has has a a term
term
variant
variant of of A A as as aa principalprincipal formula.formula. Suppose Suppose A A is is non-atomic
non-atomic and and notnot active
active in in P P;;
let
let R(·
R(..-) · ·) give
give the the term term variant
variant class class of of A. A. Consider
Consider the the following
following transformation
transformation
of
of P P:: for
for each
each term term variant variant R(tl, tk) which
R ( t l , ... .. ,. , tk) which appears
appears as as aa subformula
subformula of of a a formula
formula
in
in P P , , replace
replace it it withwith PR(tl PR(tl,..., tk).' It
, . . . , tk) It can
can be be checked
checked that that this
this transformation
transformation yields yields
aa valid proof, which
valid proof, which contains contains exactly exactly the the same
same kindskinds of of inferences
inferences as as PP. .
By
By repeatedly
repeatedly applying applying this this transformation,
transformation, a a valid
valid proof proof P' pi is
is obtained
obtained in in which
which
every
every subformula
subformula either either is atomic or
is atomic or is is a a term
term variantvariant of of a a principal
principal formulaformula of of aa
strong inference
strong inference in in P'. P' . Since
Since there there are are at at most
most II IPII IP I I many many strongstrong inferences
inferences in in piP',,
including
including at at least
least one one cutcut inference,
inference, and and sincesince initial
initial sequents sequents contain
contain only only atomicatomic
formulas, this
formulas, this implies
implies that that every
every formula formula in in P' has depth
pi has depth less less than
than ]lPl].
I I PI I . (To (To prove
prove
the last
the last assertion,
assertion, note note that
that everyevery formula formula in in P'
pi either either is is atomic
atomic or or hashas an an atomic
atomic
ancestor. ) Therefore,
ancestor.) Therefore, by by thethe cut cut elimination
elimination theorem, theorem, there there is is aa cut-free
cut-free proof proof P" P"
with the same endsequent
with the same endsequent of size liP"l] < of size I IP"I I 2���1 I'
~llPII
< "211P]l"
This proof
This proof P" P" has has thethe desired
desired size, size, but but itit may
may no no longer
longer be be aa proof
proof of of F--~
r ---+ A,
�,
since itit may
since may contain contain subformulas subformulas of of thethe formform PR(tl,...
PR(it , . . . ,tk). However, we
, tk) ' However, we may
may
(iteratively) replace
(iteratively) replace all all such
such subformulas
subformulas in in P" with the
P" with the formula
formula RR(tl, ( t l , ... .. ,. , t~). This
tk) ' This
yields the
yields the desired
desired proof proof of r ---+ A.
of F--~ � . [::] 0

2.4.4. FFree-cut
2.4.4. l i m i n a t i o n . We
r e e - c u t eelimination. We nextnext investigate
investigate the
the possibility
possibility of
of eliminating
eliminating
cuts in
cuts in LK~-proofs;
LK(5-proofs; that that isis to to say,
say, in
in proofs
proofs inin which
which initial
initial sequents
sequents may
may come
come
from |(5 . The
from The set set |(5 isis presumed
presumed to to be
be aa fixed
fixed set
set of
ofsequents
sequents closed
closed under
under substitution.
substitution.
An important
An important exampleexample of of such
such an an |(5 isis the
the set
set of
of equality
equality axioms
axioms ofof LK~;
LKe ; however,
however,
|(5 can
can also
also bebe thethe axioms
axioms of of any
any first-order
first-order theory.
theory.
 Introduction to Proof
Proof Theory 43
43

The
The Cut
Cut Elimination
Elimination Theorem
Theorem 2.4.2 applied
applied only
only to
to LK -proofs; on
LK-proofs; on the
the other
other
hand,
hand, the
the proof
proof of Corollary 2.3.7 gave
of Corollary gave a
a partial
partial cut
cut elimination
elimination theorem
theorem for
for LKs
LK~-­
proofs.
proofs. These
These results
results can
can be significantly improved
be significantly improved byby introducing
introducing a notion of
a notion of 'free'
'free'
cuts
cuts and
and giving
giving a construction eliminating
a construction eliminating free
free cuts
cuts from
from LKs-proofs
LKe-proofs by
by a
a method
method
similar
similar to
to the
the proof
proof of
of Theorem
Theorem 2.4.2.
2.4.2.

2.4.4.1.
2.4.4.1. Definition.
Definition. Let
Let P P bebe anan LKs -proof. A
LKe-proof. A formula
formula occurring
occurring inin PP isis
anchored ((by
anchored by an
an <5-sequent
| ) if
if it
it is
is a
a direct
direct descendent
descendent of of aa formula
formula occurring
occurring inin an
an
initial sequent
initial sequent inin <5| . A
A cut
cut inference
inference in in PP is anchored if
is anchored if either:
either:
((i)
i ) the
the cut
cut formula
formula is not atomic
is not atomic and and atat least
least one
one ofof the
the two
two occurrences
occurrences ofof the
the cut
cut
formula
formula inin the
the upper
upper sequents
sequents is is anchored,
anchored, or or
((ii)
ii) the
the cut
cut formula
formula is is atomic
atomic andand both
both ofof the
the occurrences
occurrences of of the
the cut
cut formula
formula inin the
the
upper
upper sequents
sequents areare anchored.
anchored.
A
A cut cut inference
inference which
which is is not
not anchored
anchored is is said
said to
to be free. The
be free. The proof P is
proof P is free-cut
free-cut free
free
if
if itit contains
contains nono free
free cuts.
cuts.

2.4.4.2.
2.4.4.2. An
An occurrence
occurrence of of aa formula
formula in in aa proof
proof P P is
is said
said toto be
be only
only weakly
weakly introduced
introduced
in
in PP ifif it does not
it does not have
have a direct ancestor
a direct ancestor which which appears
appears in in an
an initial
initial sequent
sequent or or which
which
is
is a
a principal
principal formula
formula of of aa strong
strong inference.
inference. It It is
is often
often convenient
convenient to to assume
assume that that a a
proof
proof P P satisfi
satisfieses the condition that
the condition that no no cutcut formula
formula is is only
only weakly
weakly introduced;
introduced; that that isis
to
to say,
say, that
that every
every cutcut inference
inference satisfies
satisfies the the condition
condition that that neither
neither occurrence
occurrence of of its
its
cut
cut formula
formula is is only
only weakly
weakly introduced
introduced in in P.P.
Note that
Note that if P is
if P is an
an LKs -proof, then
LKe-proof, then P P can
can bebe assumed
assumed w.l.o.g.
w.l.o.g, to to satisfy
satisfy this
this
extra
extra condition
condition without
without an an increase
increase in in thethe size
size ofof the
the proof
proof or or in
in the
the depth
depth of of cuts
cuts
in
in the
the proof.
proof. However,
However, conforming
conforming to to this
this convention
convention might might increase
increase the the number
number
and
and depth
depth of of free
free cuts
cuts in in the proof P
the proof P. . ToTo see
see this
this suppose
suppose that that P P contains
contains the the cut
cut
inference
inference with with one
one of of its
its cut
cut formulas
formulas weakly introduced; for
weakly introduced; for instance,
instance, suppose
suppose that that
an
an inference
inference
rF----~
-+ A t.,, AA AA,, r -+ t.
F---~ A
rF---~
-+ t. A
has the A
has the A occurring
occurring in in the
the right
right upper sequent A
upper sequent A,, r
F --+
+ t.A only
only weakly
weakly introduced.
introduced.
Now,
Now, it it isis possible
possible that that thethe subproof
subproof of of r -+ t.,
F---+ A, AA causes
causes a formula B
a formula B in in r F or
or t.A
to
to bebe anchored,
anchored, and and thatthat the corresponding B
the corresponding B isis not
not anchored
anchored in in the
the subproof
subproof
of A
of A,, r
F --+
- } t.
A.. The
The obvious
obvious way way to to eliminate
eliminate this this cut
cut is
is to
to remove
remove all all direct
direct ancestors
ancestors
of the A
of the A in in the
the right
right upper
upper sequent,
sequent, therebythereby getting
getting a a proof
proof of of r -+ t.
F---} A,, andand then
then
discard
discard the the left
left upper
upper sequent
sequent and and itsits proof.
proof. This,
This, of of course, causes B
course, causes B to to be
be only
only
weakly
weakly introduced
introduced in in the
the new
new subproof
subproof of of rF -+
~ t. A.. InIn other
other words,
words, thethe occurrence
occurrence
of B
of B inin the sequent r
the sequent F -+
~ t. A becomes
becomes unanchored.
unanchored. Then, Then, if if aa direct
direct descendent
descendent of of BB
is
is later
later used
used as as aa cut
cut formula,
formula, the elimination of
the elimination of the
the cutcut onon A could have
A could have changed
changed
the
the cut
cut from
from an an anchored
anchored cut cut into
into a a free
free cut.cut.
Our
Our proof
proof of of the
the free-cut
free-cut elimination
elimination theorem theorem will will use
use induction
induction on on the
the maximum
maximum
depth
depth of of free
free cuts
cuts appearing
appearing in in aa proof.
proof. For For this
this induction
induction to work, it
to work, it is
is important
important
that
that anchored
anchored cuts cuts dodo notnot change
change into into free cuts, introducing
free cuts, introducing new new free
free cuts
cuts of of higher
higher
44
44 S. Buss

depth. To
depth. To avoid this, we
avoid this, will assume
we will assume that
that no
no cut
cut formulas
formulas in
in the proof are
the proof are only
only
weakly
weakly introduced.
introduced.

2.4.5.
2.4.5. Free-cut
Free-cut Elimination
E l i m i n a t i o n Theorem.
Theorem. Let (5
Let | bebe aa set
set of
of sequents
sequents closed
closed under
under
substitution.
substitution.
(1)
(1) If
/]" LKs Fr
L K e f- ---7 �
F---+ A,, then
then there
there is
is aa free-cut
free-cut free
free LKs of r
-proof of
LK~-proof F ---7
~ � A..
(2) Let P
(2) Let P be
be an
an LKs -proof satisfying
LKG-proof condition 2.4.4.2
satisfying condition 2.4.4.2 and
and suppose
suppose every
every anchored
anchored
cut formula
cut formula inin PP has
has depth less than
depth less than or
or equal
equal to
to d
d.. Then
Then there
there is
is aa free-cut
free-cut free
free
LKs -proof P
LK6-proof P** with
with the same endsequent
the same endsequent as P, with
as P, with size
size
11P11
IIIP*ll < 2911PII
IP* II < 2d+2 '
The
The Free-cut
Free-cut Elimination
Elimination Theorem
Theorem is is essentially
essentially due
due to Gentzen; Takeuti
to Gentzen; Takeuti [1987J
[1987]
states
states aa related
related construction
construction for
for use
use with
with induction
induction rules,
rules, which
which we
we describe
describe in
in
section
section 2.4.6.
2.4.6.

P r o o f . Obviously,
Proof. Obviously, it it suffices
suffices toto prove
prove part
part (2)(2) of
of Theorem
Theorem 2.4.5.2.4.5. For
For this
this proof,
proof,
we shall give
we shall give aa procedure
procedure (Lemma(Lemma 2.4.5.1)
2.4.5.1) for
for removing
removing one one maximum
maximum depth depth free
free
cut.
cut. ItIt isis not
not possible
possible to use the
to use the procedure
procedure from the proof
from the proof of of Lemma
Lemma 2.4.2.1
2.4.2.1 without
without
modification,
modification, because
because it it may
may remove
remove (5-sequents
| from
from the
the proof
proof and
and thereby
thereby change
change
some
some anchored
anchored cutscuts into
into free
free cuts
cuts (and
(and thereby
thereby increase
increase the the maximum
maximum depth depth of of
free
free cuts)
cuts).. This
This isis unacceptable
unacceptable since since our
our proof
proof uses
uses induction
induction on on the
the maximum
maximum
depth
depth of of free
free cuts
cuts inin P P. . This
This undesirable situation can
undesirable situation happen in
can happen in case
case (b)(b) of
of the
the
proof of
proof Lemma 2.4.2.1
of Lemma 2.4.2.1 where
where thethe outermost connective of
outermost connective of the
the cut formula A
cut formula A isis VV,,
since
since at at various
various points,
points, subproofs
subproofs ending
ending with
with C,C, IT ---7 A
H---~ A or
or with
with B II ---7
B,, IT ---+AA are
are just
just
discarded
discarded in in R's
R~ andand inin R'c
R~,.. Subformulas
Subformulas in in ITH and
and A A may
may become
become unanchored
unanchored by by
this
this process.
process. ThisThis can
can happen
happen alsoalso in
in the
the similar cases (c)
similar cases (c) and
and (d)
(d).. In
In addition,
addition, it it
could
could also also happen
happen in in cases
cases (e),
(e), (f)
(f) and
and (g)
(g) if
if the
the cut
cut formula
formula occurring
occurring in in the right
the right
upper sequent
upper sequent is only weakly
is only weakly introduced, since in
introduced, since these cases
in these the subproof
cases the subproof on the
on the
left
left is
is completely
completely discarded;
discarded; however, since condition
however, since condition 2.4.4.2
2.4.4.2 holds, this never
holds, this never occurs.
occurs.
Therefore,
Therefore, we we need
need the
the following
following analogue
analogue ofof Lemma
Lemma 2.4.2.1:
2.4.2.1:

2.4.5.1. L e m m a . Let
2.4.5.1. Lemma. Let P
P bebe anan LKs -proof with
LK6-proof with final
final inference
inference aa free
free cut
cut of
of depth
depth dd
such
such that
that every
every other
other free
free cut
cut in in P P has
has depth
depth strictly
strictly less
less than
than d d.. Then
Then there
there is
is
an
an LKs -proof P
LK6-proof P** with
with the same endsequent
the same endsequent as as PP with
with all
all free
free cuts in P
cuts in P** of
of
depth
depth less
less than
than d d and with IIII P
and with < 1I1P
P ** IIII < IPII1 1 22.. Furthermore,
Furthermore, everyevery formula
formula occurring
occurring
in
in the
the endsequent
endsequent of of P
P which
which was was anchored
anchored by an (5
by an | -sequent is still anchored
is still anchored in in the
the
proof P
proof P **,, and
and every
every formula
formula in in the
the endsequent
endsequent of of P P ** which
which is
is only
only weakly
weakly introduced
introduced
in P
in P** was
was already
already only
only weakly
weakly introduced
introduced in in PP..

P r o o f . We
Proof. We indicate
indicate how
how to
to modify
modify the the proof
proof of
of Lemma
Lemma 2.4.2.1
2.4.2.1.. Assume
Assume that
that the
the
proof P
proof P ends
ends with
with aa free
free cut
cut inference
inference
. . . :9 . .. ..QQ
9 .

. . .
. . :9. .. ..RR
. . , .

rF---~
---7 �, A,A A A,
A, r ---7 �
F---~ A
rF---+
---7 �
A
 Introduction to Proof Theory 45
45

If
If the
the cut formula A
cut formula A is
is nonatomic,
nonatomic, then then Q Q and
and R R both contain at
both contain at least
least one
one strong
strong
inference
inference withwith principal
principal formula
formula equal
equal toto A A.. AsAs before
before the
the proof
proof splits
splits into
into cases
cases
depending
depending on on the
the outermost
outermost connective
connective of of A A.. When
When A A has
has outermost
outermost connective
connective
-'
-~,, :3
3 or
or VV then
then the
the argument
argument used used inin cases
cases (a)
(a),, (e)
(e) and
and (f)(f) of Lemma 2.4.2.
of Lemma 2.4.2.11 still
still
works:
works" we we leave
leave itit to
to the
the reader
reader to to check
check that,
that, inin these
these cases,
cases, any
any formulas
formulas in in the
the
sequent
sequent f -+ t.
F--~ A which
which were
were anchored
anchored or or were
were notnot only
only weakly
weakly introduced
introduced in in PP still
still
have
have these
these properties
properties in in PP **. .
For
For the
the case where A
case where A is
is of
of the
the form
form BB V VGC,, aa different construction is
different construction needed. In
is needed. In
this
this case,
case, form
form a a proof
proof Q Q** with
with endsequent
endsequent f -+ A,
F--~ t., B,
B, GC byby the construction used
the construction used
in
in case (b) of
case (b) of the
the proof
proof ofof Lemma
Lemma 2.4.2.1
2.4.2.1.. Also
Also form
form R' R ~ from
from R R be
be replacing
replacing every
every
sequent
sequent II -+ A
II-----}A in
in RR with
with the
the sequent 11-, fF -+
sequent H-, ~ A, t., A where 11
A where H-- is
is II minus all
II minus all direct
direct
ancestors
ancestors of of the
the cut
cut formula
formula B BV VGC.. An
An V :left inference
V :left inference in in RR with principal formula
with principal formula
B V
B VG will no
C will no longer
longer be
be aa valid
valid inference
inference since,
since, inin R'
R ~ it
it will
will become
become

B,
B, II - , fF---~
II-, -+ t.,
A,A A G,
C, II - , fP---+
II-, -+ t.,
A,AA
11 -
II-,, f -+ t.,
F---+ A,AA
This
This can
can be
be transformed
transformed into
into a
a valid
valid proof
proof by replacing it
by replacing it with
with

.. : ..Q
..
. .
9
.
. . Q ".
9 .
9
9
..

fF---+
-+ t.,
A,BB,, CG G,
C, 11 - , fF--~
l-I-, -+ t., A,A A ... :...
II , f -+ t., A,
II-, F---+ A , A , B B B,
B, II -
H-,, f -+ t.,
F---+ A,AA
11 - , fF---+
II-, -+ A,A
t., A
Fixing
Fixing upup R'R' in
in this
this way,
way, plus adding some
plus adding some weak
weak inferences
inferences yields yields a a valid
valid proof
proof R R**
of f, fF -+
of F, ~ A, A.. Appending
t., t. Appending some some exchange
exchange and and contraction
contraction inferences yields the
inferences yields the
desired proof p
desired proof P **. . It
It is readily checked
is readily checked that I P * IIII :::;
that IliP* I R I I ·" ((llqll
<- IIIRII I IQ I I + 1) <
+ 1) I PW2..
< IIIPII
The
The final
final case
case toto consider
consider is is the
the case where A
case where A is is atomic.
atomic. Since Since thethe cut
cut is
is not
not
anchored,
anchored, thethe cut
cut formula will either
formula will either not
not bebe anchored
anchored in in QQ or or notnot be be anchored
anchored in in RR..
IInn the
the latter
latter case,
case, since
since the
the cut
cut formula
formula isis not
not only
only weakly
weakly introduced,
introduced, it it must
must have
have
aa direct
direct ancestor
ancestor in in an
an initial sequent A
initial sequent -+ A
A---+ A ofof R.
R. Therefore,
Therefore, the the argument
argument fromfrom
case (g) of
case (g) of the
the proof
proof ofof Lemma
Lemma 2.4.2.1
2.4.2.1 still
still works.
works. In the former
In the former case, case, where
where thethe cut
cut
formula
formula is not anchored
is not anchored in in Q
Q,, the
the dual
dual argument
argument works.
works.

That
That completes
completes the
the proof
proof of
of Lemma
Lemma 2.4.5.1.
2.4.5.1. The
The Free-cut
Free-cut Elimination
Elimination Theorem
Theorem
follows
follows immediately
immediately from
from this
this lemma
lemma in in the
the same
same way
way that
that the
the Cut-Elimination
Cut-Elimination
Theorem
Theorem followed
followed from
from Lemma
Lemma 2.4.2.1.
2.4.2.1.
Q.E.D.
Q.E.D. Free-cut
Free-cut Elimination
Elimination Theorem.
Theorem.

2.4.6.
2.4.6. Free-cut
F r e e - c u t elimination
elimination withwith induction
induction rules.
rules. AA very
very useful
useful application
application
of
of free-cut
free-cut elimination
elimination is is for
for analyzing
analyzing subtheories
subtheories of
of arithmetic
arithmetic inin which
which induction
induction
is
is restricted
restricted to to certain
certain classes
classes of
of formulas.
formulas. For
For these
these fragments
fragments ofof arithmetic,
arithmetic, the
the
free-cut elimination theorem
free-cut elimination theorem becomes
becomes easier
easier to
to use
use if induction rules
if induction rules are
are used
used in
in
place
place of
of induction
induction axioms.
axioms. The The most
most common
common formulation
formulation of of induction
induction rules
rules is
is as
as
inferences
inferences of of the form:
the form:
46 s.
S. Buss

A(b)
A(b),, r
F -t
~ D., A(b +
A, A(b + 1)
A(O) r-t
A(0),, F A, A(t)
~ D., A(t)
where
where bb isis an
an eigenvariable
eigenvariable and
and may
may appear
appear only
only as
as indicated,
indicated, and
and tt is
is an
an arbitrary
arbitrary
term. It
term. It is
is easily
easily checked
checked that,
that, because
because of
of the
the presence
presence of
of the
the side
side formulas
formulas rF and
and
A,, the
D. the induction
induction rule for A
rule for A is
is equivalent
equivalent to
to the
the induction
induction axiom for A
axiom for A::

A(O) A ((Vx)(A(x)
A(O) 1\ V'x) (A(x) J
D A(x
A(x + 1))
1)) J (Vx)A(x)..
D (V'x)A(x)

For
For <I»
(I) a
a set
set of
of formulas,
formulas, <I»-IND indicates the
(I)-IND indicates the theory
theory with
with the
the above
above induction
induction rules
rules
for
for all formulas A
all formulas A E <I»
~.. We
We shall
shall always
always assume
assume thatthat such
such aa set
set <I»
(I) is
is closed
closed under
under
(term)
(term) substitution.
substitution.
The
The classic
classic examples
examples of of arithmetic
arithmetic theories
theories axiomatized
axiomatized by by induction
induction are are the
the
theories
theories TEn
I~n.. These
These are
are axiomatized
axiomatized by by the the six
six axioms
axioms of of Robinson's
Robinson's theory
theory Q Q plus
plus
induction
induction for for En
~n formulas
formulas (see
(see Chapter
Chapter II). II). When
When lEn I~n isis formalized
formalized in in the
the sequent
sequent
calculus,
calculus, it it has
has the
the non-logical
non-logical initial
initial sequents expressing the
sequents expressing the axioms
axioms of of Q plus the
Q plus the
induction
induction rulerule for
for En
~ formulas.
formulas. TheThe initial
initial sequents
sequents of of lEn
I2~ proofs
proofs are
are always
always purely
purely
existential. Along the
existential. Along the same
same lines,
lines, the
the fragments
fragments Tf T~ and S~ of
and s� of bounded
bounded arithmetic
arithmetic are
are
commonly
commonly formalized
formalized in in the
the sequent
sequent calculus
calculus with with quantifier-free
quantifier-free non-logical
non-logical initial
initial
sequents
sequents from
from BASIC,
BASIC, plus
plus induction
induction onon E � -formulas (see
~-formulas (see Chapter
Chapter IIII or
or Buss
Buss [1986]).
For T~,, the
For Tf the induction
induction rules
rules are
are as
as shown
shown above; for S;
above; for S~ the
the following PIND rules
following PIND rules are
are
used:
used:
A( l�bJ ) , rF -t
A(LlbJ), ~ D., A, A(b)
A(b)
A(O)
A(O),, F r-t
~ D., A, A(t)
A(t)

Definition. Let
Definition. Let P
P bebe aa sequent
sequent calculus
calculus proof
proof in
in an
an arithmetic
arithmetic theory
theory (5 | +§ <I»-IND
(I)-IND
(or
(or (5
| ++ <I»-PIND
(I)-PIND).). The
The principal formulas of
principal formulas of an
an induction
induction inference
inference are
are the
the formulas
formulas
denoted by
denoted A(0) and
by A(O) A(t) in
and A(t) in the
the lower
lower sequent.
sequent. An occurrence of
An occurrence of aa formula
formula in in PP is
is
defined
defined to
to be anchored if
be anchored if it
it is
is aa direct
direct descendent
descendent of of aa formula
formula occurring
occurring in in an
an initial
initial
sequent
sequent from
from (5~ or
or it
it is
is a direct descendent
a direct descendent ofof aa principal
principal formula
formula of of an
an induction
induction
inference.
inference.
Using
Using this
this definition
definition ofof anchored
anchored formulas,
formulas, the
the notions
notions of anchored cut
of anchored cut inference
inference
and free cut
and free cut inference
inference are
are defi ned identically
defined identically to
to Definition
Definition 2.4.4.1.
2.4.4.1.

Free-cut
F r e e - c u t Elimination T h e o r e m . Let
E l i m i n a t i o n Theorem. Let T = (5
T = | +§ <I»-IND
(I)-IND be
be aa theory
theory ofof arithmetic,
arithmetic,
with
with (5 | andand <I»
(~ closed
closed under term substitution.
under term Let r
substitution. Let -t D.
F--~ A be
be aa logical
logical consequence
consequence
of
of TT.. Then
Then there
there is is aa free-cut
free-cut free
free T -proof of
T-proof F -t
of r ~ D.
A.. Furthermore,
Furthermore, thethe size
size bounds
bounds
of
of Theorem
Theorem 2.4.5(2)
2.~.5(2) apply
apply to
to T -proofs.
T-proofs.

This
This theorem
theorem isis proved
proved byby an
an argument
argument identical
identical to
to the
the proof
proof ofof Theorem
Theorem 2.4.5.
The
The theorem
theorem also
also applies
applies without
without modification
modification to
to theories
theories axiomatized
axiomatized withwith PIND
PIND
in
in place
place of IND. It
of IND. It is
is also
also straightforward
straightforward to
to modify
modify thethe free
free cut
cut elimination
elimination to
to
work
work with
with sequent
sequent calculus
calculus formulations
formulations of
of inference
inference rules
rules other
other than
than induction.
induction. For
For
example, the collection
example, the collection (replacement) axioms for
(replacement) axioms for fragments
fragments of Peano arithmetic
of Peano can
arithmetic can
be equivalently
be equivalently formulated
formulated as sequent calculus
as sequent calculus rules.
rules. The
The obvious
obvious straightforward
straightforward
 Introduction to Proof Theory 47
47

modification
modification ofof the
the Free-cut
Free-cut Elimination
Elimination theorem
theorem applies
applies to
to theories
theories with
with collection
collection
rules.
rules.
A
A particularly
particularly useful
useful corollary
corollary of
of the
the Free-Cut
Free-Cut Elimination
Elimination Theorem
Theorem is:
is:

2.4.7.
2.4.7. Corollary.
Corollary. Let | be
Let (5 be aa set
set of
of sequents and <I>9 be
sequents and be aa set
set of
of formulas
formulas closedclosed
under
under term
term substitution
substitution and
and under
under subformulas,
subformulas, such
such that
that every
every sequent
sequent in ~ contains
in (5 contains
only
only formulas from <I>
formulas from (~.. Let
Let TT be
be the
the theory
theory (5| + <I>-IND
~-IND (or (or (5
| + + <I>-PIND).
(I)-PIND). Suppose
Suppose
that r
that F --+
~ � A is
is aa consequence
consequence of of T
T and
and that
that every
every formula
formula in in r --+ �
F--+ A is in <I>
is in (~.. Then
Then
there
there is
is aa T -proof P
T-proof of r
P of F --+
~ �A such
such that
that every
every formula
formula appearing
appearing in in P
P is in <I>
is in (~..

To
To prove
prove this
this corollary,
corollary, just
just note
note that
that it
it ilOlds
imlds for
for every
every free-cut
free-cut free
free T -proof of
T-proof of
rF--}
--+ �
A;; this
this is
is because
because every
every formula
formula in
in the
the proof
proof must
must be
be an
an ancestor
ancestor of
of either
either aa
cut
cut formula
formula oror aa formula
formula in
in the
the endsequent.
endsequent.

2.4.8.
2.4.8. Natural e d u c t i o n . Natural
N a t u r a l ddeduction. deduction proof
Natural deduction proof systems
systems were introduced by
were introduced by
Gentzen
Gentzen [1935][1935] in the same
in the same paper paper which
which introduced
introduced the the first-order sequent calculus.
first-order sequent calculus.
Gentzen
Gentzen's ' s motivation
motivation in in defi ning natural
defining natural deduction
deduction was was (in(in his
his words
words)) "to "to set
set upup
aa formula
formula systemsystem which which comes comes as as close
close as
,, The
reasoning. ''44 The
possible to
as possible to actual
actual reasoning.
importance
importance of of natural
natural deduction
deduction was was established
established by by the
the classic
classic result
result ofPrawitz
of Prawitz [1965]
[1965]
that
that aa version
version of of the
the cut
cut elimination
elimination holdsholds also
also for
for natural deduction.
natural deduction.
It
It is
is fair
fair toto say
say that
that the
the process
process ofof constructing
constructing natural
natural deduction
deduction proofs proofs isis indeed
indeed
'natural'' in
'natural in that
that it it corresponds
corresponds closelyclosely toto the
the human
human reasoning
reasoning process.
process. On On the
the other
other
hand,
hand, a a fully
fully constructed
constructed natural natural deduction
deduction proofproof cancan bebe very
very confusing
confusing to to read;
read; inin
particular,
particular, because
because of of the
the non-local
non-local nature
nature of of natural
natural deduction
deduction proofs,
proofs, it it is
is difficult
difficult
to
to quickly
quickly ascertain
ascertain which which formulas
formulas depends
depends on on which
which hypotheses.
hypotheses.
Natural deduction
Natural deduction proof proof systems
systems are particularly elegant
are particularly elegant for for intuitionistic
intuitionistic logic,logic,
especially
especially with with respect
respect to to the
the Curry-Howard
Curry-Howard formulas-as-types
formulas-as-types interpretation
interpretation (see (see
section
section 3.1.5). A A good
good modern
modern treatment
treatment of of applications
applications of natural deduction
of natural deduction is is
given by
given by Girard
Girard [1989].
We give
We give aa short definition of
short definition of the natural deduction
the natural deduction proofproof system
system here;here; however,
however,
the reader should
the reader should referrefer to Prawitz [1965]
to Prawitz for aa full
[1965] for treatment and
full treatment for statements
and for statements of of the
the
normalization theorems.
normalization theorems. The The definitions
definitions of of terms
terms and formulas and
and formulas and thethe conventions
conventions
on
on free and bound
free and bound variables
variables are are the same for
the same for natural
natural deduction
deduction as as for
for the
the sequent
sequent
calculus,
calculus, except except that that negation,
negation, ..." 9, isis not
not aa basic
basic symbol;
symbol; instead,
instead, aa new atomic
new atomic
formula
formula _1_ .1 is used to
is used to denote absurdity (the
denote absurdity (the constant False) , and
constant False), and ...,
~A A abbreviates
abbreviates
AA ~::> _l_.
.i . AA natural
natural deduction
deduction proof proof is
is aa tree
tree ofof formulas;
formulas; any any formula
formula may may appear
appear at at
aa leaf,
leaf, as
as aa hypothesis.
hypothesis. Various Various inferences
inferences may may close
close or
or discharge
discharge the the hypotheses;
hypotheses; in in
aa completed
completed proof proof all all hypotheses
hypotheses must must be be discharged
discharged and and the proof is
the proof is aa proof
proof of of the
the
formula appearing
formula appearing at the root
at the root node
node at
at the bottom of
the bottom of the
the tree.
tree. ItIt is
is best
best to to picture
picture the the
construction of
construction of aa natural
natural deduction
deduction proof
proof as as an
an ongoing
ongoing process;
process; at any point
at any point in in this
this
process some
process some hypotheses
hypotheses may already be
may already be discharged,
discharged, whereas
whereas others
others remain
remain open.
open.
The valid
The rules of
valid rules of inference
inference are given below;
are given below; theythey are classified as
are classified introduction rules
as introduction rules
p. 68
[1969], p.
4Gentzen [1969],
48
48 s. Buss
S. Buss

or elimination
or Hypotheses discharged
rules. Hypotheses
elimination rules. discharged by
by an
an inference
inference are
are shown
shown in
in square
square
brackets.
brackets.
A-intro A
A-intro A B
B A-elim A
A-elim AAA BB AA
A ABB
AAABB
A A
A B
B
[A]
[A] [B]
[B]
v-intro
V-intro A
A B
B v-elim
V-dim AV
A vB
B C
C C
C
AVvBB
A AVvBB
A C
C
[A]
::> -intro
-intro B
B ::>-elim
D-elim A
A AD::>B B
A
AD::>B B
A B
B

V-intro
V-intro
A(b)
A(b)
V-elim
V-elim
(Vx)A(x)
(Vx)A(x)
(Vx)A(x)
(Vx)A(x) A(t)
A(t)
[A(b)]
[A(b)]
A(t) (3x)A(x) B
3-intro
3-intro A(t) 3-elim
3-elim (3x)A(x) B
(3x)A(x)
(3x)A(x) B
B
[A ::>
[A D ..1]
_L]
..1/
2-i ..1
_L ..1c
-[-c _1_
A ..1
A AA
In the V-intro
In the V-intro and
and 3-elim rules, the
3-elim rules, the free
free variable is an
variable bb is an eigenvariable: this means
eigenvariable: this means
it must
it must not
not appear
appear in
in any non-discharged hypothesis
any non-discharged hypothesis above
above thethe V-intro inference or
V-intro inference or
in any
in non-discharged hypotheses
any non-discharged hypotheses other
other than
than A(b)
A(b) above
above thethe hypothesis
hypothesis B of the
B of the
3-elim inference.
3-elim inference. The
The -1-I rule is
..1/ rule is used
used for
for both intuitionistic and
both intuitionistic and classical
classical logic;
logic; the
the
•..1c rule is included
rule is included for
for classical logic. If
classical logic. If both rules for
both rules for ..1
• are omitted, then
are omitted, then minimal
minimal
logic
logic is
is obtained.
obtained.

2.5.
2.5. Herbrand's
H e r b r a n d ' s theorem,
t h e o r e m , interpolation
i n t e r p o l a t i o n and
a n d definability
definability theorems
theorems

2.5.1.
2.5.1. Herbrand's t h e o r e m . One
H e r b r a n d ' s theorem. One of
of the
the fundamental
fundamental theorems
theorems ofof mathematical
mathematical
logic
logic is
is the
the theorem
theorem of of Herbrand [1930] which
Herbrand [1930] which allows
allows aa certain
certain type
type of
of reduction
reduction of
of
first-order logic to
first-order logic to propositional
propositional logic.
logic. In
In its
its basic
basic form
form it
it states:
states:

Herbrand's
H T h e o r e m . Let
e r b r a n d ' s Theorem. Let T T be be aa theory
theory axiomatized
axiomatized by by purely
purely universalformulas.
universal formulas.
Suppose
Suppose that that T T F ~ (Vi) (3Yl l . . . , Yk
(VZ)(3yl,..., )B(x, Y)
yk)S(Z, ~ with with B(x, B(Z, Y)
y-') aa quantifier-free
quantifier-free formula.
formula.
Then
Then there
there is is aa finite
finite sequence
sequence of of terms
terms ti ---- ti
ti,j,j = ,j (X) , with
ti,j(X), < ii :::;
with 11 :::; < rr and
and 11 :::; < kk
< jj :::;
so
so that
(� )
that
T r (vx) B(x, ti ,l , . . . , ti,k) .

Proof. Since
Proof. Since TT is
is axiomatized
axiomatized by by purely
purely universal
universal formulas,
formulas, it
it may,
may, without
without loss
loss
of
of generality,
generality, be
be axiomatized
axiomatized by by quantifi er-free formulas
quantifier-free formulas (obtained
(obtained by
by removing
removing the
the
universal
universal quantifiers)
quantifiers).. Let
Let 'I
~7 be
be the
the set
set of sequents �
of sequents A with
--~ A A aa (quantifier-free)
with A (quantifier-free)
axiom
axiom of
of TT.. Since
Since T T F~ (Vx)
( V ~ )(3Y)B(x,
( 3 ~ B ( ~ ,y)
~ , , there
there is
is aa LK'J;-proof
LK~-proof of of the
the sequent
sequent
 Introduction
Introduction to
to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 49
49

� (3if)B(ii,
(3g)B(g, if) ~ . . ByBy thethe free-cut free-cut elimination
elimination theorem, there is
theorem, there is aa free-cut
free-cut free proof P
free proof P
of
of this
this sequent.
sequent.
Since
Since the the 'I-sequents
T-sequents contain contain only only quantifier-free
quantifier-free formulas,
formulas, allall cut
cut formulas in P
formulas in P
are
are quantifier-free.
quantifier-free. Thus, Thus, any any non-quantifi er-free formula
non-quantifier-free formula inin PP must
must bebe of
of the
the form
form
(3Yj) . . . (3
(3yj)... t l ,,. .. . ., . , tj_
~ ) B ( g , tl
( 3 yYk)B(ii, tj_~,! , Yj, · . . , YYk)
yj,..., k) with
with 11 � j <
<_ j k.. We
< k We claim that P
claim that P can
can be
be
modified
modified to to bebe a a valid
valid proof proof of of a a sequent
sequent of of the
the form
form

--+ B(ii, tl,! , . . . , tl,k), . . . , B(ii, tr, ! , . . . , tr k).

� ,
The
The general
general idea
idea isis to
to remove
remove allall 3 :right inferences
3 :right inferences inin P
P and
and remove
remove all all existential
existential
quantifi ers, replacing
quantifiers, replacing the bound variables
the bound variables by by appropriate terms. Since
appropriate terms. Since there
there may may
have
have been
been contractions
contractions on on existential
existential formulas
formulas that
that are
are no
no longer
longer identical
identical after
after terms
terms
are
are substituted
substituted for for variables
variables itit will
will also
also be
be necessary
necessary toto remove
remove contractions
contractions and and add
add
additional formulas
additional formulas to to the
the sequents.
sequents. To To dodo this
this more
more formally,
formally, wewe know
know that
that anyany
sequent
sequent inin P
P isis of
of the form r
the form � �,
F---+ A, �'A ~ ((up
up to
to order
order of
of the
the formulas
formulas in in the
the sequent
sequent), ),
where
where each
each formula
formula in in r and �
F and A isis quantifier-free
quantifier-free andand where
where each
each formula
formula in in �'
A' is
is
not
not quantifi er-free but
quantifier-free but isis purely
purely existential.
existential. We We can
can then
then prove
prove by induction on
by induction on the
the
number
number of of lines
lines inin the
the free-cut
free-cut free
free proof
proof of of r
F� ~ �,A, �'
A ~ that
that there
there is an rr ;:::
is an > 0 and and a a
cedent �"
cedent A" ofof the
the form
form

B ( d , t 1 , 1 , . . . , tl,k), . . . , B ( d , tr,1, . . . , tr,~)

such that rF---}

such that � A,�, �"
A" is
is provable.
provable. We
We leave the rest
leave the rest of the details
of the details to the reader.
to the reader. 0
[]

We momentarily define
We momentarily define an
an instance
i n s t a n c e of
of a
a universal
universal formula
formula (\lx)A(x)
(V~)A(~) to to be
be any
any
quantifier-free
quantifier-free formula A(t-).. It
formula A(i) It is is not
not hard
hard to
to see using cut
see using cut elimination,
elimination, that
that if
if
aa quantifier-free
quantifier-free formula formula C C is is aa consequence
consequence of of a a universal theory T
universal theory then it
T,, then it is
is
aa tautological
tautological consequence consequence of of some
some finite finite set
set of
of instances
instances of axioms of
of axioms T and
of T and ofof
equality
equality axioms. axioms. In In the
the special
special case where T
case where T isis the null theory,
the null theory, we we have
have that
that
CC is is a a consequence
consequence of of instances
instances of of equality axioms ((and
equality axioms and CC is is therefore called aa
therefore called
q u a s i t a u t o l o g y ) .) . If,
quasitautology If, in
in addition,
addition, C C doesdoes not not involve
involve equality,
equality, CC will
will bebe tautologically
tautologically
valid.
valid. Thus, Thus, HerbrandHerbrand's' s theorem
theorem reduces
reduces provability
provability inin first-order
first-order logic
logic to
to generation
generation
of ((quasi)tautologies.
of quasi) tautologies.

2.5.2.
2.5.2. As
As stated
stated above,
above, Herbrand's
Herbrand's theorem
theorem has
has limited
limited applicability
applicability sincesince it it
applies
applies only
only to
to II 2 -consequences of
II2-consequences of universal
universal theories:
theories: fortunately,
fortunately, however,
however, therethere
are
are several
several ways
ways toto extend
extend Herbrand's
Herbrand's theorem
theorem to
to more
more general
general situations.
situations. In In 2.5.3
2.5.3
below,
below, we
we explain
explain oneone such
such generalization;
generalization; but
but first,
first, in
in this
this paragraph,
paragraph, we we give
give a a
simpler method
simpler method of widening the
of widening applicability of
the applicability of Herbrand's
Herbrand's theorem,theorem, based based on
on thethe
introduction
introduction ofof new
new function
function symbols,
symbols, which
which we
we call H e r b r a n d and
call Herbrand S k o l e m functions,
and Skolem functions,
that
that allow
allow quantifier
quantifier alternations
alternations to
to be
be reduced.
reduced.
For-notational
For'notational convenience,
convenience, we we will
will consider
consider only
only formulas
formulas in in prenex
prenex form form in
in this
this
paragraph;
paragraph; however,
however, thethe definitions
definitions and
and proposition
proposition below
below can can be
be readily
readily generalized
generalized
to
to arbitrary
arbitrary formulas.
formulas.
50
50 S. Buss
S. Buss

Definition. Let
Definition. (3x)A(x, 5)
Let (3x)A(x, C) be
be aa formula
formula with
with 5'c all
all of
of its
its free
free variables.
variables. The
The Skolem
Skolem
function for
function (3x)A isis represented
for (3x)A represented by by aa function
function symbol
symbol f3xA and has
hxA and has the
the defining
defining
axiom:
axiom:
Sk-def(hxA) ::
Sk-de](fSxA) (V~7)(Vx) (A(x, Y) D
(VY) (Vx) (A(x,y-') :::l A(f3,A(~,Y~).
A( hxA (Y) , Y) ) .
Note that
Note that Sk-def(f3~A)
Sk-def(hxA) implies
implies (Vy-') ((3x)A(x, Y) ~f-+ A(f3~A(Y-),Y-)).
(VY) ((3x)A(x,g) A(hxA(Y) , Y) ) .
Definition. Let
Definition. A(C) be
Let A(c-) be aa formula
formula in
in prenex
prenex form.
form. The
The Skolemization, s (c-*),, of
Skolemization, AAS(C) A
of A
is the
is the formula
formula defined
defined inductively
inductively by:
by:
(1) If
(1) A(C) isis quantifier-free,
If A(c-) quantifier-free, then AS(C)
then AS(c A(C) .
is A(c-).
-) is
A(C) isis (Vy)B(5',
If A(c-)
(2) If (Vy)B(c, y),
y) , then AS(C)
then AS(c is the
-) is the formula (Vy)BS(c, y).
formula (Vy)BS(g, y) .
(3) If A(C) is
If A(~ (3y)B(c, y) , then
is (3y)B(g,y), AS(C) is
then AS(~ BS(c, fA(c-)),
is BS(g, !A(C)) , where
where fA
fA isis the
the Skolem
Skolem
function
function for A.
for A.
It is
It is aa simple,
simple, but
but important
important fact that A
fact that ASs 1=~ A.
A.
The Skolemization
The Skolemization of theory T
of aa theory T isis the theory TS
the theory Ts =- {A{Ass :: AA E T}.
T} . Note that TTSs
Note that
is
is a purely universal
a purely universal theory. Incidentally, the
theory. Incidentally, the set
set of all Sk
of all - def axioms
Sk-def axioms of the Skolem
of the Skolem
functions
functions is is equivalent to aa set
equivalent to set of
of universal
universal formulas; however, they
formulas; however, they are not included
are not included
in theory TS
in theory T s.. From
From model-theoretic
model-theoretic considerations,
considerations, it it is
is not
not difficult
difficult to
to see that TS
see that TS
contains
contains andand isis conservative over T
conservative over T..

We
We next
next define
define the
the concept
concept of
of 'Herbrandization'
'Herbrandization' which
which is completely dual
is completely dual to
to the
the
notion of Skolemization:
notion of Skolemization:

Definition. Let (Vx)A(x,

Definition. Let (Vx)A(x, C)
~ be be aa formula
formula with
with c 5' all
all of
of its
its free
free variables.
variables. The
The
Herbrand
Herbrand function for (Vx)A
function for (Vx)A isis represented
represented by
by aa function
function symbol
symbol hv xA and
hvzA and has
has the
the
defining
defining axiom:
axiom:
(VY) (Vx) (...,
(V~7)(Vx) (~A(x,A (x, Y) D ...,
~) :::l A ( hVxA (Y) , Y)
~A(hwA(y-), ).
Y-O).

Note
Note that
that this
this implies
implies (V ~7) f-+
Y) ((Vx)A(x, Y)
(Vy-')((Vx)A(x, ~ A( hVxA (Y) , Y)
A(hvxA(y-*), ) . The
y-*)). The Herbrand
Herbrand function
function
can
can also
also be
be thought
thought of
of as
as aa 'counterexample function';' ; in
'counterexample function in that (Vx)A(x) is
that (Vx)A(x) is false
false if
if
and
and only
only if VxA provides
if hhvxA value xx which
provides aa value which is
is aa counterexample
counterexample to to the
the truth of (Vx}A
truth of (Vx)A..

Definition. Let
Definition. Let A(C)
A(c~ bbee aa formula
formula iinn prenex
prenex form.
form. The Herbrandization, A
The Herbrandization, AH (C) ,
u(c-),
of A
of A is
is the
the formula
formula defined
defined inductively
inductively by:
by:
(1) If A(C)
(1) If A(~ is
is quantifi then AH
er-free, then
quantifier-free, (C) isis A(C)
A H(~ A(~..

If A(C)
(2) If is (3y)B(c,
A(~ is (3y)B(~, y)
y),, then
then AH
A H(C)
(~ is
is the (3y)S H((5',
formula (3y)BH
the formula c, y)
y)..
If A(C)
(3) If
(3) is (Vy)B(c,
A(~ is y) , then
(Vy)B(g,y), then AH (C)-) isis BH(
AH(c c, hA
BH(g, (C)) , where
hA(c-)), hA isis the
where hA the Herbrand
Herbrand
function for A
function for A..
It
It is
is not
not hard
hard to
to see
see that A 1=~ AH
that A A H.. Note that AH
Note that A H isis purely
purely existential.
existential.
 Introduction
Introduction to
to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 51
51

Proposition. Let T
P r o p o s i t i o n . Let T be
be a
a set
set of
o.f prenex
prenex formulas
formulas and
and A
A any
any prenex
prenex formula.
formula. Then
Then
the
the following
following areare equivalent:
equivalent:
(1) T
(1) T ~FAA,
,
(2) TS
Ts F~ A,
A,
(3) TT F AH
~ A H,,
(4) TS
Ts F~ AAHH ,,

This proposition is
This proposition is easily
easily proved
proved from
from the
the above definitions and
above definitions remarks. The
and remarks. The
importance
importance ofof the
the proposition
proposition lies
lies in
in the
the fact that TS
fact that T s is
is a
a universal
universal theory
theory and
and
that AH
that A H is
is an
an existential
existential formula,
formula, andand that
that therefore Herbrand's's theorem
therefore Herbrand theorem applies
applies
to TS
to Ts F
~ AAHH.. Therefore, Herbrand's' s theorem
Therefore, Herbrand theorem can can be
be applied
applied to
to an
an arbitrary
arbitrary logical
logical
implication T
implication T F
~A A,, at
at the
the cost
cost of
of converting
converting formulas
formulas to
to prenex
prenex form
form and
and introducing
introducing
Herbrand
Herbrand and
and Skolem
Skolem functions.
functions.

2.5.3. A
2.5.3. A generalized
g e n e r a l i z e d Herbrand's t h e o r e m . Herbrand
H e r b r a n d ' s theorem. Herbrand actually
actually proved
proved aa more
more
general
general version
version of of Theorem
Theorem 2.5.1 2.5.1 which
which applied
applied directly
directly whenever
whenever F ~A A,, for
for AA aa general
general
formula,
formula, not necessarily existential.
not necessarily existential. His His result
result avoids
avoids the
the use
use of of Skolem /Herbrand
Skolem/Herbrand
functions
functions but
but isis somewhat
somewhat more more difficult
difficult to to state
state and
and comprehend.
comprehend. The The theorem
theorem we we
state
state next
next is
is aa generalization
generalization of of Herbrand
Herbrand's ' s theorem
theorem which
which isis quite
quite similar
similar in in spirit
spirit
and
and power
power toto the
the theorem
theorem as as stated
stated originally
originally by by Herbrand
Herbrand [1930]
[1930]..
In
In this section, we
this section, shall consider
we shall consider a a first-order
first-order formula
formula AA such
such that
that F ~AA.. Without
Without
loss
loss of
of generality,
generality, we we shall
shall suppose
suppose that that the the propositional
propositional connectives
connectives in in A A are
are
restricted to
restricted to bebe /\ A,, V V and
and -' -~,, and
and thatthat thethe -, -~ connective
connective appears
appears only only inin front
front ofof
atomic
atomic subformulas
subformulas of A.. ((The
of A The only
only reason
reason for for this
this convention
convention is is that
that it
it avoids
avoids
having
having to
to keep
keep track
track of of whether
whether quantifi
quantifiers ers appear
appear positively
positively and
and negatively
negatively in in A
A.).)

Definition. Let
Definition. Let AA satisfy
satisfy the
the above
above convention
convention on negations. An
on negations. An V -expansion of
V-expansion of A A
is
is any
any formula
formula that
that can
can be
be obtained
obtained from
from AA by
by aa finite
finite number
number of applications of
of applications of the
the
following
following operation:
operation:
(a)
(a) IfIf B
B is
is aa subformula
subformula of of an
an V -expansion A'
V-expansion A ~ of A,, replacing
of A replacing BB in A ~ with
in A' with B
BV VB B
produces another
produces another V-expansion
V-expansion of of AA..
A strong V
A strong -expansion of
V-expansion A is
of A defined similarly,
is defined similarly, except
except that
that now
now the
the formula
formula B B is is
restricted
restricted to
to be
be aa subformula
subformula with
with outermost
outermost connective
connective anan existential
existential quantifier.
quantifier.

Definition. Let
Definition. Let A A be
be a
a formula.
formula. A prenexification of
A prenexification of AA is
is aa formula
formula obtained
obtained
from A by
from A by first
first renaming bound variables
renaming bound variables in A so
in A so that
that no
no variable
variable is
is quantified
quantified
more
more than
than once
once in A and
in A and then
then using
using prenex operations to
prenex operations to put
put the
the formula
formula in
in prenex
prenex
normal
normal form.
form.

Note
Note that
that there
there will
will generally
generally be
be more
more than
than one
one prenexification
prenexification of
of A
A since
since prenex
prenex
operations
operations may
may bebe applied
applied in
in different
different orders
orders resulting
resulting in
in aa different
different order
order of
of the
the
quantifiers
quantifiers in
in the
the prenex
prenex normal
normal form
form formula.
formula.
52 s.
S. Buss
Buss

Definition. Let
Definition. Let A be aa valid
A be valid first-order
first-order formula
formula in prenex normal
in prenex normal form,
form, with no
with no
variable
variable quantified twice in
quantified twice in A
A.. If
If A has rr �
A has _ 0 existential
existential quantifiers, then A
quantifiers, then A is
is of
of
the following
the following form with B
form with B quantifier-free:
quantifier-free:

(VXl""" Xnl)(:::]yl)(VXnl+I " " " Xn2)(~y2) " " " (:~Yr)(VXnr+l * " " Xnr+,)B(:~, Y~

with
with 0 � _< n _~ n
nll � n22 � _ < .' ". . �
_< nr +1 . A
nr+l. A witnessing substitution for
witnessing substitution for AA is
is a
a sequence
sequence of of
terms ((actually,
terms semiterms)) ttb
actually, semiterms tr such
l , .. .., . tr such thatthat (1) each each ttii contains
contains arbitrary
arbitrary free
free vari­ vari-
ables but
ables only bound
but only variables from
bound variables from X Xbl , .. .. .., , xn•
xn, and
and (2) thethe formula
formula B(x,
B(Z, tt lt ,, .. ...., , t.)
t~)
is
is a quasitautology ((i.e.,
a quasitautology i.e., aa tautological
tautological consequence
consequence of of instances
instances ofof equality
equality axioms axioms
only
only).) . In
In the
the case
case where
where B B does
does not not contain
contain the the equality sign, then
equality sign, (2) is
then (2) is equivalent
equivalent
to
to B being aa tautology.
B being tautology.
Let
Let T T be
be aa fi rst-order theory.
first-order theory. A A sequence
sequence of of terms
terms is
is said
said to witness A
to witness over T
A over T if if
the
the above
above conditions
conditions holdhold except
except with condition (2) replaced
with condition replaced by by the
the weaker
weaker condition
condition
that
that T T 1= (V~)S(x, i)
~ (Vx)B(x, t-)..

Definition. A
Definition. A Herbrand proof of
Herbrand proof of a
a first-order
first-order formula
formula AA consists
consists of
of a
a prenexifi ca­
prenexifica-
tion A** of
tion A of a
a strong
strong V-expansion
V-expansion ofof AA plus
plus a
a witnessing substitution (7a for
witnessing substitution for A *.
A*.
A Herbrand T
A Herbrand -proof of
T-proof of A
A consists
consists of
of a
a prenexification
prenexification AA** ofa
of a strong
strong V-expansion
V-expansion
of
of A
A plus
plus a substitution which
a substitution which witnesses
witnesses A A over
over T
T..

We
We are
are now
now iinn aa position
position to
to state
state the
the general
general form
form of Herbrand's's theorem:
of Herbrand theorem:

Theorem. A
Theorem. A first-order formula A
first-order formula A is
is valid
valid if
if and
and only if A
only if A has
has aa Herbrand
Herbrand proof.
proof.
More
More generally,
generally, if
if T
T is
is aa universal
universal theory,
theory, then
then TT 1=
~A A if and only
if and if A
only if has aa H
A has erbrand
Herbrand
T
T -proof.
-proof.

P r o o f . We
Proof. We shall
shall sketch
sketch aa proof
proof ofof only the frst
only the first part
part of the theorem
of the theorem since the proof
since the proof
of
of the
the second
second partpart is
is almost
almost identical.
identical. OfOf course
course itit is
is immediate
immediate from from the
the definitions
definitions
that
that ifif A A has
has a a Herbrand
Herbrand proof,
proof, then
then A A is
is valid.
valid. SoSo suppose
suppose A A is
is valid,
valid, and
and therefore
therefore
has
has a a cut-free
cut-free LK -proof P
LK-proof P.. We
We shall modify P
shall modify P in
in stages
stages so so as
as to
to extract
extract aa Herbrand
Herbrand
proof
proof of of PP. .
The
The first
first stage will involve
stage will involve restricting
restricting thethe formulas
formulas whichwhich cancan be
be combined
combined by by
aa contraction
contraction inference. One problem
inference. One problem thatthat arises
arises inin this
this regard
regard is that inferences
is that inferences
with
with two two hypothesis,
hypothesis, such such as
as V :left and
V :left :right, contain
A :right,
and 1\ implicit contractions
contain implicit contractions onon side
side
formulas.
formulas. To To avoid
avoid dealing
dealing with
with this
this complication,
complication, we we modify
modify thethe rules
rules of
of inference
inference
so
so that
that no no implicit
implicit contractions occur; e.g.,
contractions occur; e.g., the
the V :left inference
V :left inference rule
rule is
is replaced
replaced byby
the
the rule
rule
A,
A, f -t �
F--~ A B,
B, f' -t �'
F'---~ A'
AAV V B,
B, f,
P, f' -t �,
P'--~ A,A �''
and the
and and :::>
:right and
A :right
the 1\ :left are
D :left are modified
modified analogously.
analogously. It
It is
is easy
easy toto see
see that
that changing
changing
the
the rules
rules of
of inference
inference in
in this
this way,
way, makes
makes no
no difference
difference to
to what
what strong
strong inferences
inferences are
are
needed
needed in
in aa proof:
proof: instead,
instead, it it merely
merely makes
makes contractions
contractions explicit.
explicit. InIn particular,
particular, the
the
cut elimination theorems
cut elimination theorems still
still hold
hold with
with the
the new
new inference
inference rules.
rules.
 Introduction
Introduction to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 53

A
A contraction
contraction inference
inference is
is said
said to
to be
be aa propositional
propositional contraction resp., an
contraction ((resp., an :33--
contraction) provided
contraction) provided that
that the
the principal
principal formula
formula of of the
the contraction
contraction is is quantifier­
quantifier-
free resp., its
free ((resp., its outermost
outermost connective
connective isis an
an existential
existential quantifier
quantifier). ) . The
The first
first step
step in
in
modifying P
modifying P isis to
to form
form aa cut-free proof PI
cut-free proof P1,, also
also with
with endsequent
endsequent --+ --~ A
A such
such that
that all
all
contraction
contraction inferences
inferences inin PI
P1 are
are propositional
propositional or or 3-contractions.
3-contractions. The The construction
construction
of PI
of from P
P1 from P isis formally
formally done
done by
by an
an induction
induction process
process analogous
analogous to to the
the proof
proof ofof the
the
Cut-elimination
Cut-elimination Theorem
Theorem 2.4.2. Namely,
Namely, defi ne the
define the E -depth of
E-depth of aa formula
formula similarly
similarly to
to
the
the definition
definition of of depth in
in 2.4.1, except
except define
define the
the E-depth
E-depth ofof aa quantifier-free
quantifier-free formula
formula
or
or of
of aa formula
formula with
with outermost
outermost connective
connective an an existential
existential quantifier
quantifier to
to be
be zero.
zero. Then
Then
prove,
prove, byby double
double induction
induction on on the
the maximum
maximum E-depth
E-depth d d of
of contraction
contraction formulas
formulas
and
and the
the number
number of
of contractions
contractions ofof formulas
formulas ofof this
this maximum
maximum E-depth, that PI
E-depth, that P1 can
can
be
be transformed
transformed into
into a
a proof
proof in
in which
which all
all contractions
contractions are
are on
on formulas
formulas ofof E -depth
E-depth
zero.
zero. The induction step
The induction step consists
consists of
of removing
removing aa topmost
topmost contraction
contraction inference
inference of
of
the
the maximum
maximum E-depth
E-depth d d.. For
For example,
example, suppose
suppose that
that the
the following
following inference
inference is
is aa
topmost
topmost contraction
contraction with principal formula
with principal formula ofof E-depth
E-depth d; d;
9
. . ..R
* . o R

rr ---++ �, ((W)B,
Vx ) B, ((Vx)B
Vx) B
r --+ �, Vx) B
A, ((W)B
Since PI
Since P1 is
is w.l.o.g.
w.l.o.g, in
in free
free variable
variable normal
normal form
form and
and since
since this
this is
is aa topmost
topmost con­
con-
traction
traction of E-depth dd,, we
of E-depth we can
can modify
modify the
the subproof
subproof R of PI
R of P1 byby removing
removing at
at
most
most two
two V :right inferences
V:right and/or changing
inferences and/or changing some Weakening:right inferences
some Weakening:right inferences to
to
get
get a
a proof
proof of
of r --+ �,
F--~ A, B(a) B(a'),, where
U(a),, B(a') where aa and
and a'a' are
are free
free variables
variables not
not appearing
appearing
in
in the
the endsequent
endsequent of R. Further
of R. Further replacing a ~ everywhere
replacing a' everywhere by by aa gives
gives aa proof
proof of
of
r --+ �,
F--~ A, B(a), B(a)": we
B(a), B(a) we use this get
use this get to
to a proof ending:
a proof ending:
9 .
".
9 . 9

rr ---+
+ �, B(a) , B(a)
--+ �,
rP--~ A, B(a)
S(a)
rr ---++ �, Vx) B
A, ((Vx)B
Thus
Thus we
we have
have reduced
reduced the
the E -depth of
E-depth of the
the contraction
contraction inference.
inference. A similar procedure
A similar procedure
works
works for
for contractions
contractions of of E-depth
E-depth d d with
with outermost
outermost connective
connective aa propositional
propositional
connective-we
connective--we leaveleave the
the details
details to to thethe reader.
reader. Note
Note that
that the
the construction
construction of of PI
P1
depends
depends on on the fact that
the fact that propositional
propositional inferences
inferences and V:right inferences
and V:right inferences cancan bebe
pushed
pushed downward
downward in in the
the proof.
proof. It It is
is not
not generally
generally possible
possible to
to push
push 33 :right
:right inferences
inferences
downward
downward in in aa proof
proof without violating eigenvariable
without violating eigenvariable conditions.
conditions.
The
The second
second step
step in modifying P
in modifying P is is to convert PI
to convert P1 into
into aa cut-free proof P
cut-free proof P22 of
of
some
some strong
strong V-expansion
V-expansion A' A' of
of AA such
such thatthat every
every contraction
contraction inin P
P22 is
is propositional.
propositional.
This
This is
is done
done by by the
the simple
simple expedient
expedient of of replacing
replacing every
every 3-contraction
3-contraction in P1 with
in Pt with
an
an V :right inference,
V :right inference, andand then
then making
making the the induced
induced changes
changes to to all
all descendents
descendents of of
the
the principal
principal formula
formula of of the
the inference.
inference. More More precisely,
precisely, starting
starting with
with a a lowermost
lowermost
3-contraction
3-contraction in in PI
P1,, say
say
rr---+
--+ �, 3x) B, ((3x)S
A, ((3x)S, :3x) B
rF --+
~ �, :3x) B
A, ((3x)B
54
54 S.
S. Buss
Buss

replace this
replace this with
with an :left inference
V :left
an V inference
f ---+ b..
F'--+ A,, (3x)B,
( 3 x ) S , (3x)B
(3x)S
f ---+ b..
F-"+ A,, (3x)B
(3x)S V V (3x)B
(3x)S
and
and then,
then, in in order
order to to get
get aa syntactically
syntactically correct correct proof,
proof, replace,
replace, as as necessary,
necessary, subfor­
subfor-
mulas (3x)B'
mulas ( 3 x ) B ' ofof formulas
formulas in in P with (3x)B'
P with (3x)B' V ( 3 x ) S ' ((we
V (3x)B' we use the notation
use the notation B' B' since
since
terms
terms in in B B maymay be be different
different in in the descendents).) . Iterating
the descendents Iterating thisthis process
process yields
yields the the
desired
desired proofproof/)2 P2 of of aa strong
strong V -expansion A'
V-expansion A' ofof A A.. By By renaming
renaming bound bound variables
variables
in P
in P22 wewe cancan assume
assume w.l.o.g.
w.l.o.g, that
that no no variable
variable is is quantified
quantified twice twice in in any
any single
single sequent
sequent
in P
in 2•
P2.
Thirdly,
Thirdly, from from P P22 wewe can
can construct prenexification A
construct aa prenexification A** ofof A'A' together
together with with
aa witnessing
witnessing substitution,
substitution, thereby thereby obtaining
obtaining aa Herbrand
Herbrand proof proof of of AA.. ToTo do
do this,
this,
we
we iterate
iterate the the following
following procedure
procedure for for pulling
pulling quantifiers
quantifiers to to the
the front
front of
of the
the proved
proved
formula.
formula. Find Find any any lowest quantifier inference
lowest quantifier inference in in P which has
P22 which has not already been
not already been
handled:
handled: this this quantifier
quantifier inference
inference corresponds
corresponds to to aa unique
unique quantifier,
quantifier, (Qx)(Qx),, appearing
appearing
in
in the
the endsequent
endsequent of of the proof ((and
the proof and conversely,
conversely, each each quantifier
quantifier in in the
the endsequent
endsequent of of
the proof corresponds
the proof corresponds to to aa unique quantifier inference,
unique quantifier inference, since since all
all contraction
contraction formulas
formulas
are quantifier-free).) . Use
are quantifier-free Use prenex
prenex operations
operations to to pull
pull (Qx)(Qx) as as far
far to
to the
the front
front of of the
the
endsequent
endsequent formula formula as possible ((but
as possible but notnot past
past the the quantifiers
quantifiers that that have
have already
already been been
moved
moved to to the
the front
front of of the
the endsequent
endsequent formula formula).) . Also,Also, pushpush the
the quantifier
quantifier inference
inference
downward
downward in in the
the proof until it
proof until it reaches
reaches the the group
group of of quantifier
quantifier inferences
inferences that
that have have
already
already been been pushed
pushed downward
downward in in thethe proof.
proof. It It is
is straightforward
straightforward to to check
check that
that thisthis
procedure
procedure preserves
preserves the the property
property of of having
having aa syntactically
syntactically valid valid proof.
proof. When
When we we areare
done
done iterating
iterating this this procedure,
procedure, we we obtain
obtain aa proof
proof/)3 P3 of of aa prenexification
prenexification ---+ --+ A A** of of
A
A.. It
It remains
remains to to define
define aa witnessing
witnessing substitution
substitution for for A* A*,, which
which is is now
now easy:
easy: for
for each
each
existential quantifier (3
existential quantifier Yi) in
(3y/) in A * , find
A*, find the
the corresponding
corresponding 33 :right :right inference
inference
f---+
r--+ b.. A,, B(ti)
B(t )
fr--+ Lx,, (3
---+ b.. Yi)B(Yi)
(3y,)B(y,)
and let the term tii be from this inference. That
and let the term t be from this inference. That this this isis aa witnessing
witnessing substitution
substitution
for A
for A** is is easily
easily proved
proved by by noting
noting that that by by removing
removing the :right inference
the 33 :right from P
inference from 3 , aa
Pa,
proof
proof of of A�(x
A~(Z,, i) t-) is
is obtained where A�
obtained where A~ is is the
the quantifier-free
quantifier-free portion portion ofof A*
A*.. 0 [::1

The
The above
above theorem
theorem can
can be
be used
used to obtain the
to obtain the following
following 'no-counterexample
'no-counterexample inter­
inter-
pretation'' which
pretation which has
has been
been very
very useful
useful recently
recently in
in the
the study
study of arithmetic ((see
bounded arithmetic
of bounded see
Krajicek,
Kraji~ek, Pudhik
Pudls and
and Takeuti 1991] ' or
Takeuti [[1991], section 3.3.2 of
or section Chapter 11)
of Chapter II)..55

Corollary. Let
Corollary. Let T
T be
be a
a universal
universal theory
theory and
and suppose
suppose T
T F
~ (3x)
( 3 x ) ((Vy)A(x, y, C)
V y ) A ( x , y, ~ with
with
A
A a a quantifier-free
quantifier-free formula. formula. Then Then there
there is
is aa k
k >
> 00 and
and terms t l ((C)
terms tl ~ ,, t2 ( C, Yyl),
t2(g, l) ,
tt3(c',
3 ( C, Yb 2) , . . . , tk
Yl, YY2),..., tk(~, Yx, '. .. .. Yk-l)
( C, Yb Yk-1) such
such that
that

v (VY2) [A(t2(c, yd, Y2, C)V

T F (VYl) [A(t1(C) , Yl , C) V
T
(V Y3 ) [A(t3 (c, Yl
(Vy3)[A(ta(g, Yl,, Y 3 , C)
2) , YY3,
Y2), V ·. ·. .· V
c-*)V V (VYk ) [A(tk(C, Yl
(Vyk)[A(t~(g, yl,, ". . ". , Y
yk-1), Yk, C))
k - l) , yk, ] . . .]]]
c-))]...]]]
5This
SThis corollary
corollary is named
named after
after the more
more sophisticated
sophisticated no-counterexample
no-counterexample interpretations
interpretations of
Kreisel
Kreisel [1951,1952].
[1951,1952].
 Introduction to
Introduction to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 55
55

To prove
To prove the
the corollary,
corollary, note
note that
that the
the only
only strong
strong V-expansions
V -expansions of
of AA are
are formulas
formulas
of the
of the form
form VV(3x) and apply
(Vy)A(x, y,y, ~C) and
(3x)(Vy)A(x, apply the
the previous
previous theorem.
theorem.
2.5.4. NNo
2.5.4. o rrecursive
e c u r s i v e bbounds o u n d s oon n nnumber
u m b e r oof f tterms.
erms. ItIt is
is interesting
interesting to to ask
ask
whether itit isis possible
whether possible to to bound bound the the value
value ofof rr in Herbrand 's Theorem
in Herbrand's Theorem 2.5.1. For
2.5.1. For
this, consider
this, consider the the special
special case case where
where the theory TT isis empty,
the theory empty, so so that
that we
we have
have anan
K - -proof
LLK p r o o f PP of of ((3X
3 Xll ,, .'. .. ,. , xk)B(g,
xk)B(ii, ~) where BB isis quantifier-free.
x) where quantifier-free. There There are
are two
two ways
ways
which one
in which
in one might might wish wish to to bound
bound thethe number
number rr needed needed for for Herbrand's
Herbrand's theorem:
theorem:
as aa function
as function of of thethe sizesize of of PP, , or
or alternatively,
alternatively, as as aa function function of of the
the size
size of
of the
the
(3x)B . For
formula (3~)B.
formula For thethe first first approach,
approach, itit follows
follows immediately
immediately from from Theorem
Theorem 2.4.32.4.3
and the
and the proof
proof of Herbrand ' s theorem,
of Herbrand's theorem, that 2�lf»II ' For
that rr -<:::; "211Pl1"
911PI[ For the the second
second approach
approach, we we
sketch aa proof
shall sketch
shall proof belowbelow that that rr can
can not
not be
be recursively
recursively bounded bounded as as aa function
function of of the
the
( 3x)B .
formula (3~)B.
formula
To show
To show that that rr cannot cannot be be recursively
recursively bounded
bounded as as aa function
function of ( 3x)B , we
of (3~)B, we
shall prove
shall prove that that havinghaving aa recursive recursive bound
bound on on rr would would give give aa decision
decision procedure
procedure
determining ifif aa given
for determining
for given existential formula isis valid.
existential formula valid. Since Since itit is is well
well known
known thatthat
validity
validity of of existential first-order formulas
existential first-order formulas isis undecidable,
undecidable, this this implies
implies that
that rr cannot
cannot
be recursively
be recursively bounded bounded in in terms
terms ofof the
the formula
formula size.size.
What
W h a t wewe shall shall show show is that, given
is that, given aa formula
formula BB as as in in Theorem
Theorem 2.5.1 2.5.1 and given
and given
an rr >
an > 0,0 , itit isis decidable
decidable whether whether there
there are
are terms
terms t1 t l ,, !1,, .. .. .., , tr,k which make
tr,k which make thethe formula
formula
r

~lB(d,
V B(ii, titi,1,...,ti,~)
,! , . . . , ti,k) (1)
(1)
i=1
i=1

tautology. 66 This
aa tautology. This will
will suffice
suffice toto show that rr cannot
show that cannot be be recursively
recursively bounded.
bounded. The The
quantifier-free
quantifier-free formula
formula B B isis expressible
expressible as as aa Boolean
Boolean combination
combination C(D!, C(D1,...,DI) . . . , Dl )
where
where each
each Di Di is is an
an atomic
atomic formula
formula and and C(·C ( . .·. )·) is
is aa propositional
propositional formula.
formula. If If the
the
formula (1) is
formula (1) is aa tautology,
tautology, itit is
is by
by virtue
virtue of
of certain
certain formulas Di(ii, titi,1,...,
formulas Di(g, !, , . . . , tit~,k)
, k) being
being
identical.
identical. That
T h a t is
is to
to say
say there
there isis aa finite set X
finite set X of of equalities
equalities of
of the
the form
form

Di(g, ti,1,..., ti,k) = Di, (g, ti,,1,..., ti,,~)

such
such that,
that, anyany set
set of
of terms
terms t1 t l ,,!1, ,.. .. .., , tr ,k which
tr,k which makes
makes allall the
the equalities
equalities in in XX true
true will
will
make
make (1) (1) aa tautology.
tautology.
But
But now
now thethe question
question of
of whether
whether there there exist
exist terms
terms ttl,1, ,k which
1 , ! , . 9. 9. 9, trtr,k which satisfy
satisfy such
such
aa finite set X
finite set X ofof equations
equations is is easily
easily seen seen toto be
be aa first-order
first-order unification
unification problem,
problem, as as
described
described in in section 2.6.1 below.
section 2.6.1 below. This This means
means thatthat there
there is is an an algorithm
algorithm which
which can
can
either
either determine
determine that that no
no choice
choice of of terms
terms will
will satisfy
satisfy all
all thethe equations
equations in in XX or
or will
will
find aa most
find most general
general unifier
unifier which
which specifies specifies all all possible
possible ways
ways to to satisfy
satisfy the
the equations
equations
of X
of X ..
Since,
Since, forfor aa fixed > 00,, there
fixed rr > there are are only
only finitely
finitely many
many possible
possible sets sets X
X ofof equalities,
equalities,
we
we have
have the
the following
following algorithm
algorithm for for determining
determining if if there
there are are terms terms which
which make
make (1)
(1)
aa tautology:
tautology: for for each
each possible
possible set set X X of of equalities,
equalities, check
check if if it it has solution ((i.e.,
has aa solution i.e., aa
66 This
This was
was first
first proved
proved by
by Herbrand
Herbrand [1930]
[1930]by
by the
the same
same argument
argument that
that we
wesketch
sketch here.
here.
56
56 S. Buss
S. Buss

most
most general
general unifier)
unifier),, and
and if
if so,
so, check
check if
if the
the equalities
equalities are
are sufficient
sufficient to
to make
make (1)
(1) aa
tautology. D
tautology. []

2.5.5.
2.5.5. Interpolation
Interpolation theorem
theorem

Suppose
Suppose we
we are
are given
given two
two formulas and B
A and
formulas A B such
such that
that AA ::>
D B B is is valid.
valid. An
An
interpolant for
interpolant A and
for A and BB is
is aa formula C such
formula C such that
that AA ::>
D C C and
and C C ::>
D B B are
are both
both
valid.
valid. It
It is
is aa surprising,
surprising, and
and fundamental,
fundamental, fact fact that
that it
it is
is always
always possible
possible toto find
find an
an
interpolant
interpolant C C such
such that
that C C contains
contains only
only non-logical
non-logical symbols
symbols which
which occur
occur in
in both
both
A and B
A and B..
We
We shall
shall assume
assume forfor this
this section
section that
that first-order
first-order logic
logic has
has been
been augmented
augmented to to
include
include the
the logical
logical symbols
symbols T T and
and .1 . For
_l_. For this,
this, the
the sequent
sequent calculus
calculus hashas two
two new
new
initial sequents
initial sequents ---+ ~ T T and
and .1 ---+ . We
2_---+. We write L(A) to
write L(A) to denote
denote the
the set
set ofof non-logical
non-logical
symbols
symbols occurring
occurring in A plus
in A plus all
all free
free variables
variables occurring
occurring in A,, i.e.,
in A i.e., the
the constant,
constant,
symbols,
symbols, function
function symbols,
symbols, predicate
predicate symbols
symbols andand free
free variables
variables used
used in For II
A.. For
in A II aa
cedent, L(II) is
cedent, L(II) is defined
defined similarly.
similarly.

Craig'S
Craig's Interpolation Theorem. Craig
Interpolation Theorem. Craig [1957a]
[1957a]..
(a)
(a) Let
Let A and B
A and B be
be first-order
first-order formulas
formulas such
such that
that F D B
A ::>
~ A B.. Then
Then there
there is
is aa
formula
formula CC such
such that
that L(C)
L(C) � L(A) n
C_ L(A) N LL(B)
( B ) and
and such
such that
that F A ::>
~ A D CC and
and
F~ CCD::>B .B .
(b) Suppose
(b) Suppose rF1, I > rF22 ---+
~ L}.l,
A1, L}.
A22 is
is aa valid
valid sequent.
sequent. Then
Then there
there is
is aa formula
formula C such
C such
that
that L(C)
L(C) is is aa subset
subset ofof L(rl' A1) n
L(r~, L}.l) n L(r ,
2 2
L(F2, L}.
A2) ) and
and such
such that
that rl
F1 ---+
--~ L}.l
A1, , C
C and
and
C,
C, r
F22 ---+
~ L}.A22 are are both
both valid.
valid.

Craig's interpolation
Craig's interpolation can can be
be proved straightforwardly from
proved straightforwardly from the the cut elimination
cut elimination
theorem.
theorem. We We shall
shall outline
outline some
some of of the
the key key points
points of of thethe proof,
proof, but leave aa full
but leave full proof
proof
to the
to reader. First
the reader. First itit is
is easy to see
easy to see that
that partpart (a)(a) is is just
just aa special
special casecase of of (b),
(b), so
so it
it
suffices to
suffices to prove
prove (b) (b).. To
To prove (b), we
prove (b), first use
we first use the
the cut
cut elimination
elimination theorem
theorem to to obtain
obtain
aa cut-free proof P
cut-free proof P ofof F1, r2 ---+ A1,
rl > F2--~ L}.l , L}. We then
A 22 .. We then prove
prove by induction on
by induction on thethe number
number
of strong inferences
of strong inferences in that there
in PP that there is is aa formula
formula C with only
C with only the
the desired
desired non-logical
non-logical
symbols
symbols and and there
there are proofs P1
are proofs and P2
Pl and P2 of of rF11 ---~
---+ L}.
A1, 1 , CC and
and C,C, F2r2 ---+
---~ L}.
A2. 2 . In fact, the
In fact, the
proofs P
proofs P1l and
and P2 are also
P2 are cut-free and
also cut-free and have have lengths
lengths linearly bounded by
linearly bounded by the
the length
length
of P
of P. . For an example
For an example of of how the proof
how the proof by by induction
induction goes, goes, let ' s make
let's make the simplifying
the simplifying
assumption that
assumption that there
there areare nono function
function symbols symbols in our languages,
in our languages, and and then
then assume
assume
that the
that the final
final strong
strong inference
inference of of PP is is an
an 33 :right inference with
:right inference with principal
principal formulaformula
in A2.
in That is
L}.2 . That is to
to say,
say, suppose
suppose PP ends ends with with thethe inference
inference
. . . .
9 .
. .
~
:
~ 9
~

r~, r~--+ A,, A~, A(t)

r l > F2
F1, r2 ~---+ A1,L}. 1> L}.�, (3x)A(x)
A~, (3x)A(x)
with
with L}.A22 isis the
the cedent
cedent A~, L}.�, (3x)A(x).
(3x)A(x) . Since Since we we are assuming there
are assuming there areare no no function
function
symbols, tt is
symbols, is just
just aa free
free variable
variable or or aa constant symbol. The
constant symbol. The induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis
states that
states that there
there is is an
an interpolant
interpolant C(t) C(t) with with an an appropriate
appropriate first-order
first-order language
language such such
 Introduction to Proof Theory 57
57

that F1
that r l ~----7 A1,
�I , C(t) and C(t),
C(t) and C(t), F2r2 ~----7 A2,
�2 , A(t) are LK-provable.
A(t) are LK-provable. The The interpolant
interpolant C* C*
for the
for the endsequent
endsequent of of PP isis defined
defined asas follows:
follows: ifif the
the symbol
symbol tt does does not
not appear
appear in in the
the
sequent F2
sequent r2 ~----7 A2, then C*
�2 ' then C * isis (3y)C(y); otherwise, ifif the
(3y)C(y) ; otherwise, the symbol
symbol tt does
does not not appear
appear
in the
in the sequent
sequent F1 rl ~----7 A1, then C*
�I ' then C * isis (Vy)C(y);
(Vy)C(y) ; and and ifif tt appears
appears in in both
both sequents,
sequents,
C* isis just
C* just C.C . ItIt can
can be
be checked
checked thatthat in
in all
all three
three cases,
cases, the
the sequents
sequents F~ r I --~ C * and
�I ' C*
----7 A~, and
C * , r2 ----7 �2' (3x)A(x)
C*,F2---~A2, (3x)A(x) are are LK-provable.
LK -provable. Therefore,
Therefore, C* C * isis an
an interpolant
interpolant for for the
the
endsequent of
endsequent of P; also, itit is
P ; also, is obvious
obvious that
that the the language
language L(C) L( C) ofof C
C isis still
still appropriate
appropriate
for the
for the endsequent.
endsequent.
Secondly, suppose
Secondly, suppose PP ends ends with
with the
the inference
inference
~ o
~ o ~

r,, A(b)
rI, F2
F~, r2 --~
----7 A~,
�1, A'2,
��, (Vx)A(x)
with the
with the principal formula still
principal formula still presumed
presumed to to be
be in
in A2. The induction
�2 . The hypothesis
induction hypothesis
states
states that that there
there is an interpolant
is an interpolant C with an
C with an appropriate first-order language
appropriate first-order language such
such
that rF1l ----7
that ---~ �I and C(b),
A1,, C(b) and C(b) , F2
r2 --~
----7 � A(b) . Since,
2 , A(b).
A2, by the
Since, by eigenvariable condition,
the eigenvariable condition,
does not
bb does not occur
occur except
except asas indicated;
indicated; we we get
get immediately LK -proofs of
immediately LK-proofs of the sequents
the sequents
r l ----7
F1 ~ A1, �I, (Vy)C(y) andand (Vy)C(y), F2 r2 ~----7 A2,
�2' (Vx)A(x). Therefore, (Vy)C(y) serves
(Vx)A(x) . Therefore, serves
as
as an
an interpolant for the
interpolant for the endsequent
endsequent of of P.
P.
There
There areare aa number
number of of other
other cases
cases that
that must
must bbee considered,
considered, depending
depending on on the
the
type
type of the final
of the final strong
strong inference
inference in in P P and
and on on whether
whether itsits principal
principal formula
formula is is (an
(an
ancestor
ancestor of)
of) aa formula
formula in in �IA1,' � 2 ' rF1I or
A2, or r 2 . These
F2. These cases
cases are
are given
given inin full
full detail
detail in
in
textbooks
textbooks suchsuch asas Takeuti
Takeuti [1987]
[1987] or
or Girard
Girard [1987b].
[1987b].
It
It remains
remains to consider the
to consider the case
case where
where there
there are
are function
function symbols
symbols in in the
the language.
language.
The
The usual
usual method
method of of handling
handling thisthis case
case isis to
to just
just reduce
reduce itit to
to the
the case
case where
where there
there
are
are no
no function
function symbols
symbols by by removing
removing function
function symbols
symbols inin favor
favor ofof predicate
predicate symbols
symbols
which
which defi ne the
define the graphs
graphs of of the
the functions.
functions. Alternatively,
Alternatively, oneone can
can carry
carry out
out directly
directly
aa proof
proof onon induction
induction on on the
the number
number of of strong
strong inferences
inferences in in PP even
even when
when function
function
symbols
symbols areare present.
present. This
This involves
involves aa more
more careful
careful analysis
analysis ofof the 'flow'' of
the 'flow of terms
terms inin
the
the proofs,
proofs, but
but still
still gives
gives cut-free
cut-free proofs
proofs PI P1 and
and P P22 with
with size
size linear
linear inin the
the size
size of
of P
P..
We
We leave
leave the
the details
details ofof the
the function-symbol
function-symbol case case to
to the
the reader.
reader.

Other
O t h e r interpolation theorems. A
i n t e r p o l a t i o n theorems. A useful
useful strengthening
strengthening of of the
the Craig
Craig interpolation
interpolation
theorem
theorem is is due
due to to Lyndon
Lyndon [1959].
[1959]. This
This theorem
theorem states
states that
that Craig's
Craig's interpolation
interpolation
theorem
theorem may may be be strengthened
strengthened by by further
further requiring
requiring that
that every
every predicate
predicate symbol
symbol which
which
occurs
occurs positively
positively (resp.,(resp., negatively)
negatively) inin CC also
also occurs
occurs positively
positively (resp.,
(resp., negatively)
negatively) in
in
both
both A A and
and B B.. TheThe proof
proof ofof Lyndon's
Lyndon's theorem
theorem is is identical
identical to
to the
the proof
proof sketched
sketched
above,
above, except
except that that now now one
one keeps
keeps track
track ofof positive
positive and
and negative
negative occurrences
occurrences ofof
predicate
predicate symbols.
symbols.
Craig
Craig [1957b]
[1957b] gives gives aa generalization
generalization ofof the
the Craig
Craig interpolation
interpolation theorem
theorem which
which
applies
applies to to interpolants
interpolants of of cedents.
cedents.
Lopez-Escobar
Lopez-Escobar [1965] [1965] proved
proved that
that the
the interpolation
interpolation theorem
theorem holds
holds for
for some
some in­
in-
finitary
finitary logics.
logics. Barwise
Barwise [1975,§III.6]
[1975,w proved
proved that
that the
the interpolation
interpolation theorem
theorem holds
holds
for
for aa wider
wider classclass of of infinitary
infinitary logics.
logics. Lopez-Escobar's
Lopez-Escobar's proofproof was
was proof-theoretic,
proof-theoretic,
58
58 s.
S. Buss

based
based on
on aa sequent
sequent calculus
calculus formalization
formalization ofof infinitary
infinitary logic.
logic. Barwise's
Barwise's proof
proof was
was
model-theoretic;
model-theoretic; Feferman
Feferman [1968]
[1968] gives
gives aa proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic treatment
treatment of
of these
these general
general
interpolation
interpolation theorems,
theorems, based
based on
on the
the sequent
sequent calculus.
calculus.

2.5.6.
2.5.6. Beth's
B e t h ' s definability
definability theorem
theorem

Definition. Let
Definition. Let PP and P~ be
and pi be predicate
predicate symbols
symbols with
with the
the same
same arity.
arity. Let F(P) be
Let r(p) be
an
an arbitrary
arbitrary set
set of
of first-order
first-order sentences
sentences notnot involving
involving p i , and
P~, and let F(P ~) be
let r(pl) be the
the same
same
set
set of
of sentences
sentences with
with every
every occurrence
occurrence of of PP replaced
replaced with
with P' P~..
The set r (P) is said to explicitly define the predicate P if
The set r(P) is said to explicitly define the predicate P if there
there is
is aa formula A( C)
formula A(~
such
such that
that
r(p)
r(P) I-~ (V'X') (A(X') f-t
(V~)(A(~) ++ P( X')).
P(~)).
The
The set F(P) is
set r(p) is said
said to
to implicitly define thethe predicate
predicate PP ifif
r(P)
r(P) U r(pl) 1= (V'
u r(P')~ X') (P(X') f-t
(v~)(P(~) +, PI( X')).
P'(~)).
The
The Definability
Definability Theorem
Theorem of of Beth
Beth [1953]
[1953] states
states the
the fundamental
fundamental fact fact that
that the
the
notions
notions of of explicit
explicit and
and implicit
implicit definability
definability coincide.
coincide. One
One way
way to to understand
understand thethe
importance
importance of of this
this is
is to
to consider implicit definability
consider implicit definability of
of PP as
as equivalent
equivalent to to being
being
able
able toto uniquely
uniquely characterize
characterize P P.. Thus,
Thus, Beth's
Beth's theorem
theorem states,
states, loosely
loosely speaking,
speaking, that
that
if
if aa predicate
predicate can
can bebe uniquely
uniquely characterized,
characterized, then then it
it can
can be
be explicitly
explicitly defined
defined by
by aa
formula
formula notnot involving
involving P P..
One
One common,
common, elementary
elementary mistake
mistake isis to
to confuse
confuse implicit
implicit definability
definability byby aa set
set of
of
sentences r(P)
sentences with implicit
F(P) with implicit definability
definability inin aa particular
particular model.
model. For
For example,
example, consider
consider
the
the theory
theory TT of
of sentences
sentences which
which are
are true
true in
in the
the standard
standard model
model (N,
(N, 0,
0, S, +) of
S, +) of natural
natural
numbers
numbers withwith zero,
zero, successor
successor and
and addition.
addition. One One might
might attempt
attempt to to implicitly
implicitly define
define
multiplication
multiplication in in terms
terms ofof zero and addition
zero and addition letting
letting F(M)
r(M) be be the
the theory
theory
{(V'x) (M(x, 0) = 0),
TTUU {(Vx)(M(x,O) (V'x) (V'y) (M(x, S(y)) = M(x,
0), (Vx)(Vy)(M(x,S(y)) M(x,y)y) + x))
x)}
It
It is true that
is true that this
this uniquely characterizes the
uniquely characterizes the multiplication
multiplication function
function M(x, y) in
M (x, y) the
in the
sense that
sense that there is only
there is only one
one way
way toto expand 0, S,
(N, 0,
expand (N, S, +) to aa model
+) to model of however,
r(M) ; however,
of r(M);
this
this is
is not
not an implicit definition
an implicit definition of
of M since there
M since there are
are nonstandard
nonstandard models of T
models of which
T which
have more than
have more one expansion
than one expansion toto a model of
a model r (M) .
of F(M).

Beth's Definability TTheorem.

B e t h ' s Definability r(p) implicitly
h e o r e m . F(P) implicitly defines P if
defines P if and only if
and only it explicitly
if it explicitly
defines P
defines P..

Beth's theorem
Proof. Beth's
Proof. theorem is
is readily
readily proved
proved from
from the
the Craig
Craig interpolation
interpolation theorem
theorem asas
follows. First
follows. First note
note that
that if is explicitly
if PP is definable, then
explicitly definable, then itit is
is clearly
clearly implicitly
implicitly
definable. For
definable. the converse,
For the converse, assume
assume that is implicitly
that PP is implicitly definable.
definable. By
By compactness,
compactness,
we may
we may assume without loss
assume without loss of
of generality
generality that
that F(P)
r(p) isis aa single
single sentence.
sentence. Then
Then we
we
have that
have that
r(p) A
r(P) 1\ PP(C)
(~ ~1= r(P')
r(pl) ~:) PPI(C).
'(~.
By the
By Craig Interpolation
the Craig Interpolation Theorem,
Theorem, there
there is
is aa interpolant
interpolant A(~ r(P) ^1\ P(c-)
for r(P)
A(C) for and
P(C) and
r(pl) D
F(P') :) P'(~. This interpolant
PI(C) . This is the
interpolant is the desired formula explicitly
desired formula explicitly defining
defining P.
P. D0
 Introduction to Proof Theory 59
59

It is
It is also
also possible
possible to
to prove
prove the
the Craig
Craig Interpolation
Interpolation Theorem
Theorem from
from the
the Beth
Beth Defi nability
Definability
Theorem.
Theorem. In In addition,
addition, both
both theorems
theorems are
are equivalent
equivalent to
to the
the model-theoretic
model-theoretic Joint
Joint
Consistency
Consistency Theorem
Theorem ofof Robinson
Robinson [1956]
[1956]..

2.6. First-order
2.6. F i r s t - o r d e r logic
logic and
a n d resolution
r e s o l u t i o n refutations
refutations

The
The importance
importance of of the
the resolution
resolution proof proof method
method for for propositional
propositional logiclogic (described
(described
in
in section
section 11.3).3) lies
lies inin large
large part
part in in the
the factfact that
that itit also
also serves
serves asas aa foundation
foundation
for
for theorem-proving
theorem-proving in in first-order
first-order logic.
logic. Recall
Recall thatthat byby introducing
introducing Herbrand
Herbrand and and
Skolem
Skolem functions,
functions, theorem-proving
theorem-proving in in first-order
first-order logiclogic can
can be be reduced
reduced to to proving
proving
Ih-formulas
II2-formulas of of the
the form
form (\fx) (:3Y)A(x, Y)
(V~)(3y-~A(~, ~ with
with A quantifier-free
quantifier-free (see(see §2.5.2)
w . Also,
Also,
by
by Herbrand's
Herbrand's Theorem
Theorem 2.5.1, 2.5.1, the
the problem
problem of of proving
proving (\fx) (:3Y)A(x, Y)
(VZ)(3~)A(Z, y-~ is
is reducible
reducible
to
to the
the problem
problem of of fi nding terms
finding terms Tt, 1'2, . . . , Tk
?1, ?2,..., ?~ so
so that
that V Vii A ~) is
(x, i;)
A(Z, is tautologically
tautologically
valid.
valid. Now,
Now, given
given thethe terms
terms T I, . . . , T
71,..., k , determining
?k, determining tautological
tautological validity
validity is is 'merely'
'merely'
aa problem
problem in in propositional
propositional logic; logic; and hence is
and hence is amenable
amenable to to theorem
theorem proving
proving methods
methods
such
such asas propositional
propositional resolution.
resolution. Thus Thus one one hopes
hopes that
that ifif one
one had
had aa good
good scheme
scheme for for
choosing
choosing terms
terms T I " ' " i'k
r'l,..., ?k,, then
then oneone could
could have have aa reasonable
reasonable method
method of of first-order
first-order
theorem
theorem proving.
proving.
This
This latter
latter point
point is is exactly
exactly the the problem
problem that that was
was solved
solved by by Robinson
Robinson [1965b];
[1965b];
namely,
namely, he he introduced
introduced the the resolution
resolution proof proof method
method and and showed
showed thatthat by by using
using aa
unifi cation algorithm
unification algorithm to to select
select terms,
terms, the the entire
entire problem
problem of of which
which terms
terms to to use
use could
could
be
be solved
solved efficiently
efficiently by by using
using thethe "most
"most general"
general" possible
possible terms.
terms. In In essence,
essence, thisthis
reduces
reduces thethe problem
problem of of first-order
first-order theorem
theorem provingproving to to propositional
propositional theorem
theorem proving.
proving.
(Of
(Of course,
course, this
this last
last statement
statement is is not
not entirely
entirely true true for
for two
two reasons:
reasons: firstly,
firstly, there
there may
may
be
be aa very
very large number (not
large number (not recursively
recursively bounded)bounded) of of terms
terms that are needed,
that are needed, and and
secondly,
secondly, it it is entirely possible
is entirely possible thatthat foreknowledge
foreknowledge of of what terms are
what terms sufficient, might
are sufficient, might
help guide
help the search
guide the search for for a propositional proof.)
a propositional proof.)

2.6.1. Unification.
2.6.1. Unification. We
We shall now describe
shall now describe the the unification
unification algorithm for finding
algorithm for finding
most general
most general unifiers.unifiers. We We shall
shall let
let tt denote denote a term containing
a term containing function
function symbols,
symbols,
constant
constant symbols
symbols and variables. A
and variables. A substitution,
substitution, a, a, is
is aa partial
partial map from variables
map from variables
to terms;
to terms; we we write write xxa a toto denote
denote a(x)
a ( x ) , , andand when
when x is not in
is not in the
the domain
domain ofof aa,, we
we
let xa
let x a be
be x. x . If If aa is is aa substitution,
substitution, then then to' denotes the
ta denotes the result
result of
of simultaneously
simultaneously
replacing every
replacing every variable variable xx in with xa
in tt with We extend
x a . . We extend aa to to atomic relations by
atomic relations by
letting R ( t l ,,. .. .. . ,tk)a
letting R(tt , t k ) a denote
denote RR((ttlla
a ,,. .. .. . ,tka).
, t ka) . We
We use concatenation aaT
use concatenation to denote
T to denote
the substitution
the substitution which which is is equivalent
equivalent to to an an application
application of followed by
of aa followed by an
an application
application
T.
of T.
of

Definition. Let
Definition. Let A1,... , Ak bbee atomic
AI, . . . ,Ak atomic formulas.
formulas. AA unifierfor
unifier for the
the set
set (A1,...
{AI, " " , AAk}
k}
is aa substitution
is substitution aa such
such thatthat AAla
la -= A2a
A2a .=. . . -= AAka where -= represents
k a , , where
. . . represents thethe
property of
property of being
being the
the identical formula.
identical formula.
A substitution
A substitution is
is said
said to to be
be aa variable
variable renaming substitution, ifif the
renaming substitution, the substitution
substitution
maps variables
maps only to
variables only to terms
terms which
which are
are variables.
variables.
60
60 S.
S. Buss
Buss

A unifier
A unifier aa is said to
is said be aa mmost
to be o s t general u n i f i e r if,
g e n e r a l unifier if, for
for every unifier T
every unifier r for the same
for the same
set, there
set, there is
is a unifier p
a unifier p such
such that
that T T =- a a pp. . Note
Note that that up
up to
to renaming
renaming ofof variables,
variables, a
a
most
most general
general unifier
unifier must
must be unique.
be unique.

Unification h e o r e m . If
Theorem.
Unification T I f {AI , . . . , Ad has
{A1,...,A~} has a
a unifier
u n i f i e r then
t h e n it
it has
has a
a most
m o s t general
general
unifier.
uniter.
P r o o f . We
Proof. We shall
shall prove
prove thethe theorem
theorem by outlining an
by outlining an efficient
efficient algorithm
algorithm forfor determin­
determin-
ing
ing whether
whether a a unifi er exists
unifier exists and,
and, if so, finding
if so, finding aa most
most general unifier. The
general unifier. The algorithm
algorithm
is
is described
described as as an
an iterative
iterative procedure
procedure which,which, at at stage
stage ss hashas aa set Es of
set Es of equations
equations
and
and a substitution as
a substitution as.. The
The equations
equations in Es are
in Es are of
of the form a
the form c ~==
- f3 where a
~ where c~ and
and f3
may
may be be formulas
formulas or terms. The
or terms. The meaning
meaning of of this
this equation
equation is is that
that the
the sought-for
sought-for mostmost
general unifier must
general unifier must bebe aa substitution
substitution which makes a
which makes c~ and
and f3~ identical.
identical. Initially,
Initially, EoE0 isis
the
the set
set ofof kk-- 11 equations
equations Aj A j ==
- Aj and ao
A j ++I l and a0 is
is the
the identity.
identity. Given
Given Es Es and
and as as,, the
the
algorithm
algorithm does does any
any one
one ofof the
the following
following operations
operations to to choose
choose Es + ! and
Es+l and as + ! ::
as+l
(1) If
(1) If EsEs is
is empty,
empty, wewe are
are done
done and
and as as isis a
a most
most general
general unifier.
unifier.
(2) If
(2) If EsEs contains
contains anan equation
equation of of the
the formform

F(tl
F ( t l , ' .. .. .. ,, ti)
ti) == F(t�, . . . , t;) ,
" F(t~l, . . . , t~),

then
then as as and
= as
+l =
as+l and Es + ! is
Es+l is obtained
obtained from
from EsEs by
by removing
removing this
this equation
equation and
and
adding
adding the
the ii equations ti ==" t:
equations ti t~.. Here
Here FF isis permitted
permitted to
to be
be a
a function
function symbol,
symbol, a
a
constant
constant symbol
symbol or
or a
a predicate
predicate symbol.
symbol.
(3) Suppose
(3) Es contains
Suppose Es contains an
an equation
equation of of the
the form
form

x - t or
or tt ==
- x,
x,

with
with x x a a variable
variable and and tt a a term.
term. Firstly, Firstly, if if tt is
is equal
equal to x, then
to x, then this this equation
equation
is discarded, so
is discarded, so Es Es+l + ! is
is Es
Es minus
minus this
this equation
equation and
and as +
as+l ! =
- as
as.. Secondly,
Secondly, if
if
tt is
is a a non-trivial
non-trivial term term in in which
which x x occurs,
occurs, then then the the algorithm
algorithm halts halts outputting
outputting
that
that no no unifier
unifier exists.7exists. 7 Thirdly, Thirdly, if if xx does
does not not occur
occur inin tt,, then
then let I x / t ] denote
let [x/t] denote
the
the substitution
substitution that that maps maps x x to to tt and and definedefine Es + ! to
Es+l to bebe thethe setset ofof equations
equations
six~t] ==
s[x/t] s ' [ x / t ] such
- s'[x/t] such that that ss == - s' s' isis in
in E Es, . , and
and defi ne as
define +! =
as+l - as[x/t]
as[x/t]. .
We
We leave leave it it to to thethe reader
reader to to prove
prove that that this this algorithm
algorithm alwaysalways halts halts with
with a a most
most
general
general unifier unifier if if aa unifier
unifier exists. exists. The The factfact thatthat thethe algorithm
algorithm does does halthalt can can be
be
proved
proved by by noting
noting that that each each iteration
iteration of of the
the algorithm
algorithm eithereither reduces
reduces the the number
number
of
of distinct
distinct variables variables in in the the equations,
equations, or or reduces
reduces the the sum
sum of of the
the lengths
lengths of of the
the
terms
terms occurring occurring in in the
the equations.
equations, 0 o
The
The algorithm algorithm as as given given above above is is relatively
relatively efficient; efficient; however,
however, the the sizes sizes ofof
the terms
the terms involved involved may may grow grow exponentially
exponentially large. large. Indeed,
Indeed, there there are are unifiunifi-­
cation
cation problems problems where where the the size size of of the the mostmost general general unifier
unifier is exponential in
is exponential in
the
the size size of of the the unification
unification problem; problem; for for example,
example, the the most
most general
general unifierunifier for for
{J(Xb . . . x, ~· )· ,· Xk), f
{ f ( x l , x 2 ,X2 f ( g(g(x x 2 ) , ,. .". " , gg(
( x 2 ,2 ' X2) k ++l ,b
( xXk + l+) )!))}
X ~Xk } maps
maps Xl Xl to
to aa term
term of of height
height k with
k with
22kk atoms.
atoms.
7This failure
failure condition known as
condition is known as the occurs
occurs check.
check.
 Introduction
Introduction to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 61
61

If
If one
one is
is willing
willing to
to use
use a
a dag
dag (directed
(directed acyclic
acyclic graph)
graph) representation
representation for
for terms,
terms,
then
then this
this exponential
exponential growth
growth rate
rate does
does not
not occur.
occur. Paterson
Paterson and
and Wegman
Wegman [1978]
[1978] have
have
given
given an
an efficient
efficient linear-time
linear-time unification
unification algorithm
algorithm based on representing
based on representing terms
terms as
as
dags.
dags.

2.6.2.
2.6.2. Resolution
R e s o l u t i o n and
a n d factoring
f a c t o r i n g inferences.
inferences. We
We nownow describe
describe the the resolution
resolution
inference
inference used
used by by Robinson
Robinson [1965b][1965b] for for first-order
first-order logic.
logic. The
The starting
starting point
point is is Her­
Her-
brand's's theorem:
brand theorem: we we assume
assume that that we we are
are attempting
attempting to to prove
prove a a first-order
first-order sentence,
sentence,
which
which without
without loss loss ofof generality
generality is is of
of the
the form (3Z)A(~7).. (This
form (:3x)A(Y) (This maymay be be assumed
assumed
without
without loss
loss ofof generality
generality since,since, if if necessary, Herbrand functions
necessary, Herbrand functions may may bebe introduced.)
introduced.)
We
We assume,
assume, in in addition,
addition, that that A A is is in
in disjunctive
disjunctive normal
normal form.
form. Instead
Instead of of proving
proving this this
sentence,
sentence, wewe shall
shall instead
instead attempt
attempt to to refute
refute thethe sentence
sentence (V'x) (...,A (x)) . Since
(VZ)(-~A(x)). Since A A isis
in
in disjunctive
disjunctive normal
normal form,form, we we maymay view view ...,
~AA as as a
a set
set rFA A of
of clauses
clauses withwith the
the literals
literals
in
in the
the clauses
clauses being
being atomic
atomic formulas
formulas or or negated
negated atomic
atomic formulas.
formulas. We We extend
extend the the
definition
definition ofof substitutions
substitutions to to act
act on on clauses
clauses in in the
the obvious
obvious wayway so so that
that {C1
( C 1,, .. .. .., , Cda
Ck}a
is
is defined
defined toto be
be {CIa,
(Cla,...,...,C k a} .
Cka}.
When
When we we refute V'x) (...,A ) , we
refute ((V~)(-~A), we are are showing
showing thatthat there
there is is no structure M
no structure M which which
satisfies V'x) ( ...,A) . Consider
satisfies ((VZ)(-~A). Consider aa clause clause C C inin r FAA.. The
The clause
clause C C is is a
a set
set ofof atomicatomic
and
and negated
negated atomic
atomic formulas,
formulas, and and a a structure
structure M M is is said
said to satisfy C provided
to satisfy provided it it
satisfies V'X) (V r/>EC ¢>(X)) . Thus,
satisfies ((vz)(Vcecr Thus, it it is immediate that
is immediate that if M satisfies
if M satisfies C C,, and
and if a is
if a is
aa substitution,
substitution, then then M M alsoalso satisfies
satisfies Ca Ca.. FromFrom this,
this, wewe seesee that
that the
the following
following
version
version ofof resolution
resolution is is sound
sound in in that
that it it preserves
preserves the the property
property of of being
being satisfied
satisfied by by
aa model
model M M": If If B B andand C C areare clauses,
clauses, if r is
if ¢> is an
an atomic
atomic formula
formula and and ifif aa and
and 7 T are
are
substitutions,
substitutions, let let D D bebe the
the clause
clause (Ba \\ (r {¢>}) UU (CT (r . It
(C7 \\ {"¢)}) It is
is easy
easy to
to verify
verify that that
if
if B
B and
and C C are
are satisfied
satisfied in in MM , , then
then so so is
is D
D..
Following
Following Robinson
Robinson [1965b][1965b],, we we useuse aa restricted
restricted formform of of this
this inference
inference principle
principle as as
the sole rule
the sole rule ofof inference
inference for first-order resolution
for first-order resolution refutations:
refutations:

D e f i n i t i o n . Let
Definition. Let BB and
and CC be be clauses
clauses and and suppose
suppose P(sd P(gl),, P(S P(gk) are
P ( g 22 )) ,, .. ... . P(Sk) are atomic
atomic
formulas
formulas in in BB and
and that
that ..., P (i;.) , ...,p (i;) , . . . ...,P (i't) are
~P(~),-~P(~2),...-~P(Q) are negated
negated atomicatomic formulas formulas inin C
C..
Choose
Choose a a variable
variable renaming
renaming substitution
substitution 7 T soSO that
that C7CT has
has nono variables
variables in in common
common
with
with B B.. Also
Also suppose
suppose that
that thethe k k+ + £g formulas
formulas P(gi) P( Si) and P( �)7 have
and P(~)T have a a most
most general
general
unifier
unifier a a.. Then
Then the
the clause
clause D D defined
defined by by
{ P ( g l ) a } ) Uu (Cm
(Ba \\ {P(sda}) (CTa \\ {""P(sdm})
{-~P(gl)Ta})
is
is defined
defined to
to be
be an R-resolventof
an R-resolvent of B B andand C C..

The
The reason
reason for
for using
using the
the renaming
renaming substitution
substitution 7T is
is that
that the
the variables
variables iinn the
the clauses
clauses
B
B and
and C C are implicitly universally
are implicitly universally quantified;
quantified; thus
thus ifif the
the same
same variable
variable occurs
occurs in
in
both B
both B and
and CC wewe allow
allow that
that variable
variable to
to be
be instantiated
instantiated in in BB by
by aa different
different term
term
than
than in C when
in C when wewe perform
perform the
the unification.
unification. Applying
Applying 7 T before
before the
the unification
unification allows
allows
this
this to
to happen
happen automatically.
automatically.
One
One often
often views
views R-resolution
R-resolution asas the
the amalgamation
amalgamation of of two
two distinct
distinct operations:
operations:
first, the factoring operation
first, the operation finds
finds aa most
most general
general unifier
unifier of
of aa subset
subset of
of clause,
clause, and
and
62
62 Buss
S. Buss
S.

second, the
second, the unitary
unitary resolution
resolution operation
operation which
which resolves
resolves two
two clauses
clauses with
with respect
respect toto
aa single
single literal.
literal. Thus,
Thus, R-resolution
R-resolution consists
consists of ( a) choosing
of (a) choosing subsets
subsets ofof the
the clauses
clauses
BB and and factoring
and CC and factoring them,
them, and
and then ( b) applying
then (b) applying resolution
resolution w.r.t,
w.r.t. to
to the
the literal
literal
obtained by
obtained by the
the factoring.
factoring.

Completeness
C of R
o m p l e t e n e s s of R-resolution. A set
-resolution. A set Fr of
of first-order
first-order clauses
clauses isis unsatisfiable
unsatisfiable ifif
and only
and only ifif the
the empty
empty clause
clause can
can be
be derived
derived from
from Fr by
by R-resolution.
R-resolution.
This theorem
This theorem isis proved
proved by
by the
the discussion
discussion in
in the
the next
next paragraph.
paragraph.

2.6.3. Lifting
2.6.3. Lifting groundg r o u n d resolution
r e s o l u t i o n toto ffirst-order
i r s t - o r d e r rresolution.
esolution. A A ground literal isis
ground literal
defined
defined to to be
be aa literal
literal in in which
which no no variables
variables occur; occur; aa ground
ground clause
clause is is aa set
set ofof ground
ground
literals. We
literals. assume, with
We assume, with no no loss
loss of of generality,
generality, that that our
our first-order
first-order language
language contains
contains
aa constant
constant symbol symbol and and thatthat therefore
therefore ground ground literals literals exist.
exist. Ground
Ground literals
literals may may
independently
independently be be assigned
assigned truth truth values
values8s and and therefore
therefore play play the
the same
same rolerole that
that literals
literals
played
played in in propositional
propositional logic. logic. A A ground resolution refutation
ground resolution refutation is is aa propositional-style
propositional-style
refutation involving ground
refutation involving ground clauses
clauses only, only, with
with ground literals in
ground literals in place
place of propositional
of propositional
literals. By
literals. By thethe Completeness
Completeness Theorem Theorem 1.3.4 for for propositional resolution, aa set
propositional resolution, set of
of
ground clauses
ground clauses is is unsatisfiable
unsatisfiable if and only
if and only if if itit has
has aa ground
ground resolution
resolution refutation.
refutation.
For
For sets
sets ofof ground
ground clauses, clauses, R-resolution
R-resolution is is identical
identical to to propositional-style
propositional-style resolu­ resolu-
tion. Suppose,
tion. Suppose, however,
however, that that r F is is an
an unsatisfiable
unsatisfiable set set ofof first-order
first-order ((not not necessarily
necessarily
ground) clauses.
ground) clauses. Since Since r F isis unsatisfiable
unsatisfiable there there is, is, by
by Herbrand's
Herbrand's theorem,theorem, aa set set ofof
substitutions
substitutions O'l ar so
a l ,, .. ... ., , O'r that each
so that each rO'r Far is is aa set
set of ground clauses
of ground clauses and and so so that
that the the
set
set ITII =-- U Fai of
[.Jii rO'i of clauses
clauses is is proposition
propositionally ally unsatisfi
unsatisfiable.able. Therefore
Therefore there there is is a
a ground
ground
resolution
resolution refutation
refutation of of ITH..
To
To justify
justify the the completeness
completeness of of R-resolution,
R-resolution, we we shall
shall show
show that that any any ground
ground
resolution
resolution refutation
refutation of of ITH can
can be be 'lifted'
'lifted' to to anan R-resolution
R-resolution refutation
refutation of of r F.. In
In fact,
fact,
we
we shall
shall prove
prove the the following:
following: if if C1,
C1, C2,(;'2,...,, Cn
• • • Cn = - 00 isis aa resolution
resolution refutation
refutation of of ITH,,
then
then there
there are are clauses
clauses D1, D2, ,,Din
D1,D2,...
• • • Dm = - 0 which which formform an an R-resolution
R-resolution refutation
refutation
of
of r F and
and there
there are are substitutions
substitutions 0'1 am SO
, 0'2, ' . . ,,am
al,a2,... so that
that DiO'i
D i a i=- CiCi.. We
We define
define Di Di andand
ai by
O'i by induction
induction on on ii as as follows.
follows. Firstly,
Firstly, if if Ci Ci E E ITH,, then
then it it must
must be be equal
equal to to DWiDia~
for
for some
some Di E Er F and and some some substitution
substitution 0'; ai byby the the defi nition of
definition of IT
H.. Secondly,
Secondly, if if C;Ci is
is
inferred
inferred from from Cj Cj and and Ck Ck,, with
with j, j, kk < < ii byby resolution
resolution w.r.t.w.r.t, the the literal P ( ~ , , then
literal P(fj then
define
define Ej Ej to to be
be the the subset subset of of DjDj whichwhich is is mapped
mapped to P ( ~ by
to P(fj by O'jaj,, and
and define
define Ek Ek
similarly.
similarly. Now, Now, form form the the R-resolution
R-resolution inference inference which which factors
factors the the subsets
subsets Ej and and Ek E~
of
of DjDj andand Dk Dk and
and forms forms the the resolvent.
resolvent. This This resolvent
resolvent is is Di andand it it is
is straightforward
straightforward
to
to show
show thatthat thethe desired
desired O'i ai exists.
exists.
That
That finishes
finishes the the proof proof of of the
the Completeness
Completeness Theorem Theorem for for R-resolution.
R-resolution. It It should
should
be
be noted
noted thatthat thethe method
method of of proof
proof showsshows that that R-resolution
R-resolution refutations
refutations are are the
the shortest
shortest
possible
possible refutations,
refutations, even even if if arbitrary
arbitrary substitutions
substitutions are are allowed
allowed for for factoring
factoring infer­infer-
ences.
ences. Even Even moremore importantly,
importantly, the the method
method by by which
which ground
ground resolution
resolution refutations
refutations
were
were 'lifted'
'lifted' to to R-resolution
R-resolution refutations refutations preservespreserves many many of of the
the search
search strategies
strategies that that

8SWe
We are
are assuming
assumingthat
that the
the equality
equality sign
sign ((=)
= ) is
is not
not present.
present.
 Introduction to Proof Theory 63
63

were
were discussed
discussed in section 11.3.5.
in section .3.5. This
This means
means that
that these
these search strategies can
search strategies can be
be used
used
for
for first-order
first-order theorem
theorem proving.9
proving. 9

2.6.4.
2.6.4. Paramodulation.
Paramodulation. The
The above
above discussion
discussion of
of R-resolution
R-resolution assumed
assumed thatthat
equality
equality was
was not
not present
present in
in the
the language.
language. In In the
the case
case where
where equality
equality isis in
in the
the
language,
language, one
one must
must either
either add
add additional
additional initial
initial clauses
clauses as
as axioms
axioms that
that express
express the
the
equality
equality axioms
axioms oror one
one must
must add
add additional
additional inference
inference rules.
rules. For
For the
the first
first approach,
approach,
one
one could
could add
add clauses
clauses which
which express
express the
the equality
equality axioms
axioms from
from section
section 2.2.1
2.2.1;; for
for
instance
instance the third equality
the third equality axiom
axiom can
can be
be expressed
expressed with
with the
the clause
clause

{xl r Yl, ..., xk r y~,-~P(~), P ( ~ },

and
and the
the other
other equality
equality axioms
axioms can
can similarly
similarly be
be expressed
expressed as clauses. More
as clauses. More computa­
computa-
tional efficiency
tional efficiency can
can be obtained with
be obtained with equality
equality clauses
clauses of
of the
the form
form

{x
{x #
~ y,
y, A(x),
A(x), A(y)}
A(y) }

where
where A (x) indicates
A(x) indicates anan arbitrary
arbitrary literal.
literal.
For
For the
the second
second approach,
approach, the the paramodulation inference
inference isis used
used instead
instead ofof equality
equality
clauses; this
clauses; this inference
inference isis aa little
little complicated
complicated to define, but
to define, but goes
goes as
as follows: Suppose B
follows: Suppose B
and
and C C are
are clauses
clauses with
with nono free
free variables
variables inin common
common and and that
that rr =- ss is
is a
a literal
literal in
in C;
C;
let
let tt be
be aa term
term appearing
appearing somewhere
somewhere in in BB and
and let
let a
a be
be aa most
most general
general unifier
unifier of
of
rr and (or of
and tt (or of ss and ) ; let
and tt); let B'
B ~ be
be the
the clause
clause which
which isis obtained
obtained from
from BaBa by by replacing
replacing
occurrences
occurrences of of ta
ta with
with sasa (or
(or with
with ra
ra,, respectively)
respectively) andand let C' be
let C' be (C(C \\ {{rr = s})a.
s))a.
Under
Under these
these circumstances,
circumstances, paramodulation
paramodulation allows
allows B' B~UU C'C ~ to
to be
be inferred
inferred fromfrom
BB and
and C C.. Paramodulation
Paramodulation was was introduced
introduced andand shown
shown to be complete
to be complete by by Robinson
Robinson
and
and Wos
Wos [1969]
[1969] and
and Wos
Wos and and Robinson
Robinson [1973]
[1973]:: for completeness, paramodulation
for completeness, paramodulation
must
must be be combined
combined withwith R-resolution,
R-resolution, withwith factoring
factoring and
and with
with application
application of of variable
variable
renaming substitutions.
renaming substitutions.

2.6.5.
2.6.5. Horn clauses. An
H o r n clauses. An important
important specialspecial case
case of of first-order
first-order resolution
resolution is is when
when
the
the clauses
clauses areare restricted
restricted to to be
be Horn
Horn clauses.
clauses. The The propositional
propositional refutation
refutation search
search
strategies described
strategies described in section 11.3.5.6
in section .3.5.6 still
still apply;
apply; and,and, in in particular,
particular, an an unsatisfiable
unsatisfiable
set
set rF of
of Horn
Horn clauses
clauses always
always has has a a linear
linear refutation
refutation supported
supported by by aa negative
negative clause
clause
in
in rF.. In addition, the
In addition, the factoring portion of
factoring portion of R-resolution
R-resolution is is not
not necessary
necessary in in refutations
refutations
of
of rF..
A
A typical
typical use
use of
of Horn
Horn clause
clause refutations
refutations is is as
as follows:
follows: a a set
set �A of
of Horn
Horn clauses
clauses is is
assumed
assumed as as a 'database'' of
a 'database of knowledge,
knowledge, such such that
that every
every clause
clause in in �A contains
contains a a positive
positive
literal.
literal. AA query, which is
query, which is an
an atomic
atomic formula
formula P(S P(sl,l , ... sk),, is
...,, Sk) is chosen; the object
chosen; the object isis to
to
determine
determine if if there
there is
is an
an instance
instance of P ( ~ which
of P(S) which is is aa logical
logical consequence
consequence of of �A.. InIn
other
other words,
words, thethe object
object isis to
to determine
determine if ( 3 ~ ) P ( ~ is
if (3X)P(S) is aa consequence
consequence of of �A where
where x ~ is
is
the vector
the vector ofof variables
variables in P ( ~ . . To
in P(S) solve this
To solve this problem,
problem, one one forms the clause
forms the clause {P(S)
{ P ( ~ )}

9Historically, it was
9Historically, was the desire to find strategies for first-order theorem proving and the ability
ability to
lift results
results from
from propositional theorem proving,
proving, that motivated the research
research into search
search strategies
for propositional
propositional resolution.
64
64 s.
S. Buss

and
and lets
lets r F be
be thethe set
set �AU ( P ( ~S)}}; ; one
U {P( one then
then searches
searches forfor aa linear
linear refutation
refutation ofof r F
which
which is is supported
supported by P ( ~ . . If
by P(S) If successful,
successful, such such aa linear
linear refutation
refutation R R also
also yields
yields aa
substitution
substitution (J a,, such
such that
that � A I--
F P( S)(J ; and
P(s-')a; and indeed,
indeed, (J a is
is the
the most
most general
general substitution
substitution
such
such that
that R R gives
gives aa refutation
refutation of of �AU U {P( ~ a } .. From
{ P ( S)(J} From this,
this, what
what one
one actually
actually has
has isis aa
proof
proof ofof (Vi/) ( P ( ~ a ) where
( V ~ (P(S)(J) where 17 ~7isis the
the vector
vector of of free
free variables
variables in in the
the terms P(~a. Note
terms P(S)(J. Note
that
that there
there may
may be be more
more than
than one one refutation,
refutation, and and that
that different
different refutations
refutations can
can give
give
different
different substitutions
substitutions (J a,, so
so there
there is is not
not necessarily
necessarily aa unique
unique most
most general
general unifier.
unifier.
What
What we we have
have described
described is is essentially
essentially aa pure pure form
form of of PROLOG,
PROLOG, which which is
is aa logic
logic
programming
programming language
language based
based on on searching
searching for for refutations
refutations of of Horn
Horn clauses,
clauses, usually
usually in in
aa depth-fi
depth-firstrst search.
search. PROLOG
PROLOG also also contains
contains conventions
conventions for for restricting
restricting the
the order
order of of
the
the proof
proof search
search procedure.
procedure.

For
For further reading. There
f u r t h e r reading. There is
is an
an extensive
extensive literature
literature on
on logic
logic programming,
programming, au­ au-
tomated
tomated reasoning
reasoning andand automated
automated theorem
theorem proving
proving which
which we
we cannot
cannot survey
survey here.
here.
The
The paper
paper of of Robinson [1965b] still
Robinson [1965b] still provides
provides aa good
good introduction
introduction to
to the
the foundations
foundations
of
of logic
logic programming;
programming; the the textbooks
textbooks of of Chang
Chang and
and Lee
Lee [1973]
[1973] and
and Loveland
Loveland [1978]
[1978]
provide
provide a a more detailed treatment
more detailed treatment of of the
the subject
subject matter
matter above,
above, and
and the textbooks of
the textbooks of
Kowalski
Kowalski [1979]
[1979] and
and Clocksin
Clocksin and
and Mellish
Mellish [1981]
[1981] provide
provide good
good detailed
detailed introductions
introductions
to
to logic
logic programming
programming and PROLOG. Chapter
and PROLOG. Chapter IX,
IX, by
by G.
G. Jager
J~iger and
and R.
R. Stark,
St~irk, discusses
discusses
the
the proof-theory
proof-theory and and semantics
semantics ofof extensions
extensions of
of logic
logic programming
programming to to non-Horn
non-Horn
clauses.
clauses.

3. Proof
3. P r o o f ttheory
h e o r y for
f o r oother
t h e r logics
logics

In
In the
the final
final section
section of
of this
this chapter,
chapter, we
we shall
shall briefly
briefly discuss
discuss two
two important
important non­
non-
classical logics,
classical logics, intuitionistic logic and
intuitionistic logic and linear
linear logic.
logic.

3.1. IIntuitionistic
3.1. logic
n t u i t i o n i s t i c logic

Intuitionistic logic
Intuitionistic logic isis aa subsystem
subsystem of of classical
classical logic which historically
logic which historically arose
arose outout
of
of various
various attempts
attempts to to formulate
formulate aa more more constructive
constructive foundation
foundation for mathematics.
for mathematics.
For example, in
For example, in intuitionistic
intuitionistic logic,logic, thethe law
law ofof the
the excluded middle, A
excluded middle, AV V -,A
~A,, does
does
not hold in
not hold general; furthermore,
in general; furthermore, it it is
is not
not possible
possible to intuitionistically prove
to intuitionistically prove A AV VBB
unless already
unless already atat least
least one
one ofof A A or
or BB isis already
already intuitionistically
intuitionistically provable.
provable. We shall
We shall
discuss below primarily
discuss below primarily mathematical
mathematical aspects aspects of of the
the intuition istic logic,
intuitionistic and shall
logic, and shall
omit philosophical
omit philosophical or or foundational
foundational issues:issues: the
the books
books ofof Troelstra
Troelstra andand van Dalen [1988]
van Dalen [1988]
provide aa good
provide good introduction
introduction to to the
the latter
latter aspects
aspects ofof intuitionistic
intuitionistic logic.
logic.
The intuitionistic
The intuitionistic sequent
sequent calculus,
calculus, LLJ, is defined
J, is defined similarly
similarly to to the
the classical sequent
classical sequent
calculus LK,
calculus LK , except
except withwith the
the following
following modifications:
modifications:
(1) To
(1) simplify the
To simplify the exposition,
exposition, we we adopt
adopt the the convention
convention that that negation
negation (-~)
( ) is
-, is not
not aa
propositional symbol.
propositional symbol. In In its
its place,
place, wewe include
include the
the absurdity
absurdity symbol
symbol _L in the
1.. in the
language; _1_
language; 1.. is
is aa nullary
nullary propositional
propositional symbolsymbol which
which is is intended
intended to to always
always have have
value False.
value False. TheThe twotwo ~-, rules
rules ofof LLK
K are are replaced
replaced withwith the
the single 1.. :left
single _L initial
;left initial
sequent, namely
sequent, 1.. ----t . Henceforth,
namely _L---+. Henceforth, -~A -,A is
is used
used asas an
an abbreviation
abbreviation for for A AD 1.. .
:J _L.
 Introduction to Proof Theory 65
65

(2) In
(2) L J, the
In LJ, the V
Y :right rule used
:right rule used in
in the
the definition
definition of L K in
of LK in section
section 1.2.2
1.2.2 is
is replaced
replaced
by
by the
the two
two rules
rules
f
F---+ �, A
---7 A,A and
and + �,
fF ----7 A,AA
f ---7 �,
F---F A,AA VV B
B ---7 �,
fF---F A,BBV VAA
Otherwise, LJ
(3) Otherwise,
(3) LJ is defined like
is defined L K ,, except
like LK except with
with the
the important
important proviso
proviso that
that at
at
most one
most one formula
formula may
may appear in the
appear in the antecedent
antecedent ofof any
any sequent.
sequent. In
In particular,
particular,
this
this means
means that
that rules
rules which
which have
have the
the principal
principal formula
formula to to the
the right
right of
of the
the
sequent
sequent arrow
arrow may
may notnot have
have any
any side
side formulas
formulas to to the
the right
right of
of the
the sequent
sequent
arrow.
arrow.

3.1.1.
3.1.1. Cut e l i m i n a t i o n . An
C u t elimination. An important
important property
property of
of intuitionistic
intuitionistic logic
logic is
is that
that the
the
cut
cut elimination
elimination and and free-cut elimination theorems
free-cut elimination theorems still
still apply:
apply:

Theorem.
Theorem.
(1)
(1) Let
Let f ---7 A
F---+ A be
be LLJJ-provable.
-provable. Then
Then there
there is
is aa cut-free
cut-flee LJ -proof of
L J-proof of f ---7 A
F'--+ A..
(2) Let <5
(2) Let ~ be
be aa set
set of
of sequents
sequents closed
closed under
under substitution
substitution such
such that
that each
each sequent in <5
sequent in G
has
has at most one
at most one formula
formula in
in its
its antecedent.
antecedent. Let
Let LJ6
L J6 be
be LLJJ augmented
augmented with
with initial
initial
sequents from <5
sequents from | . If
If LK6 F- f
L K s f- ---7 A
F---+ A,, then
then there
there is
is aa free-cut
free-cut free
free LK6 -proof of
LK~-proof of
f ---7 A
F---~ A..

The
The (free)
(free) cut
cut elimination
elimination theorem
theorem for L J can
for LJ can be
be proved
proved similarly
similarly to
to the
the proof­
proof-
theoretic
theoretic proofs
proofs used
used above
above for
for classical
classical logic.
logic.

3.1.2.
3.1.2. Constructivism
C o n s t r u c t i v i s m and
a n d intuitionism.
intuitionism. Intuitionistic
Intuitionistic logic logic is is intended
intended to to
provide
provide a a 'constructive'
'constructive' subset subset of of classical
classical logic:
logic: that
that is is to
to say,
say, it it is
is designed
designed
to
to not
not allow
allow non-constructive
non-constructive methods methods of reasoning. An
of reasoning. An important
important exampleexample of of
the
the constructive
constructive aspect aspect of of intuitionistic
intuitionistic logiclogic isis the
the Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov
Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov
(BHK)
(BHK) constructive
constructive interpretation
interpretation of of logic.
logic. In In the
the BHK
BHK interpretation,
interpretation, the the logical
logical
connectives
connectives V V,, :33 and
and J D have
have non-classical,
non-classical, constructive
constructive meanings.
meanings. In In particular,
particular, in in
order
order to to have
have aa proof
proof of of (or
(or knowledge
knowledge of) of) aa statement (3x)A(x),, it
statement (:3x)A(x) it is
is necessary
necessary to to
have
have a a particular object tt and
particular object and aa proof
proof of of (or
(or knowledge
knowledge of) of) A (t) . Likewise,
A(t). Likewise, in in order
order
to
to have
have aa proof
proof of of AAV VB B the BHK interpretation
the BHK interpretation requires
requires one one toto have
have aa proof
proof either
either
of
of A A oror ofof BB,, along
along with with a a indication
indication of of which
which oneone itit is
is aa proof
proof of.of. In addition, in
In addition, in
order
order to to have
have aa proof
proof of of A AJ DB B,, one
one must
must have
have aa method
method of of converting
converting any any proof
proof ofof A
A
into
into aa proof
proof B B.. The The BHK BHK interpretation
interpretation of of the
the connectives
connectives 1\ A and V are
and '<:/ similar to
are similar to
the classical
the classical interpretation;
interpretation; thus, thus, a a proof
proof of of A AB
A 1\ B or
or of (Vx)A(x),, consists
of ('<:/x)A(x) consists of of proofs
proofs
of
of both
both A and B
A and B oror ofof a a method
method of of constructing
constructing aa proofproof of of A (t) for
A(t) for all
all objects
objects tt..
It
It is
is not
not difficult
difficult to to see
see that
that the
the intuitionistic
intuitionistic logic
logic L L JJ is
is sound
sound under
under the the BHK
BHK
interpretation,
interpretation, in in that
that any any LJ -provable formula
L J-provable formula hashas aa proof
proof in in the
the sense
sense of of the
the BHK
BHK
interpretation.
interpretation.
The
The BHKBHK interpretation
interpretation provides provides the the philosophical
philosophical and and historical
historical underpinnings
underpinnings
of
of intuitionistic
intuitionistic logic;logic; however,
however, it it has
has the
the drawback
drawback of of characterizing
characterizing what what constitutes
constitutes
aa valid
valid proof
proof rather
rather than than characterizing
characterizing the the meanings
meanings of of the
the formulas
formulas directly.
directly. It It
is possible to
is possible to extend
extend the BHK interpretation
the BHK interpretation to to give
give meanings
meanings to to formulas
formulas directly,
directly,
66
66 S. Buss

e.g.,
e.g., by
by using
using realizability;
realizability; under
under this
this approach,
approach, an an existential
existential quantifier (3x) might
quantifier (3x) might
mean
mean "there
"there isis aa constructive procedure which
constructive procedure which produces
produces x x,, and
and (possibly)
(possibly) produces
produces
evidence
evidence that
that x x isis correct"
correct".. This
This approach
approach has has the
the disadvantage
disadvantage of of requiring
requiring one one to
to
pick
pick aa notion
notion ofof 'constructive procedure'' in
'constructive procedure in an
an ad-hoc
ad-hoc fashion;
fashion; nonetheless
nonetheless it it can
can be
be
very
very fruitful
fruitful inin applications
applications suchsuch aa intuitionistic
intuitionistic theories
theories of of arithmetic
arithmetic where
where there
there
are
are natural
natural notions
notions of of 'constructive procedure'.' .
'constructive procedure
For
For pure intuitionistic logic,
pure intuitionistic logic, there
there is is aa very
very satisfactory
satisfactory modelmodel theory
theory based
based
on
on Kripke
Kripke models.
models. Kripke models provide
Kripke models provide aa semantics
semantics for intuitionistic formulas
for intuitionistic formulas
which
which is is analogous
analogous to to model
model theory
theory forfor classical
classical logic
logic inin many
many ways,
ways, including
including aa
model theoretic
model theoretic proof
proof ofof the
the cut-free
cut-free completeness theorem, analogous
completeness theorem, analogous to to the
the proof
proof
of
of Theorem
Theorem 2.3.72.3.7 given
given above.
above.
For
For an accessible account
an accessible account ofof the BHK interpretation
the BHK interpretation and and Kripke model semantics
Kripke model semantics
for
for intuitionistic
intuitionistic logic,
logic, the
the reader
reader can
can refer
refer to Troelstra and
to Troelstra and vanvan Dalen
Dalen [1988,vol.
[1988,vol. 1];1];
Chapter
Chapter VI VI contains
contains an an thorough
thorough discussion
discussion of of realizability.
realizability. In In this
this section
section wewe
shall
shall give only the
give only the following
following theorem
theorem of of Harrop,
Harrop, which
which generalizes
generalizes thethe statements
statements
that A V B is intuitionistically valid if and only
that A V B is intuitionistically valid if and only if either A or B is,if either A or B is, and
and that
that
(3x)A
(3x)A(x)(x) is
is intuitionistically
intuitionistically validvalid if
if and
and only
only ifif there
there is is aa term
term tt such
such that A(t) is
that A(t) is
intuitionistically
intuitionistically valid.
valid.

3.1.3. Definition. The

3.1.3. Definition. The Harrop formulas are
Harrop formulas are inductively
inductively defined
defined by:
by:
(1)
(1) Every
Every atomic
atomic formula
formula is
is aa Harrop
Harrop formula,
formula,
(2) If
(2) B is
If B is aa Harrop
Harrop formula
formula and
and AA is
is an
an arbitrary
arbitrary formula,
formula, then
then AAJ B is
::) B is aa Harrop
Harrop
formula.
formula.
(3) If
(3) B is
If B is aa Harrop
Harrop formula,
formula, then (Vx)B is
then (Vx)B is aa Harrop
Harrop formula.
formula.
(4) If
(4) A and
If A and B B are
are Harrop
Harrop formulas,
formulas, then
then so
so is
is A AB
A 1\ B..

Intuitively,
Intuitively, aa Harrop
Harrop formula
formula isis aa formula
formula in
in which
which all
all existential
existential quantifiers
quantifiers and
and all
all
disjunctions
disjunctions are 'hidden'' inside
are 'hidden inside the
the left-hand
left-hand scope
scope of
of an
an implication.
implication.

T h e o r e m . (Harrop
Theorem. (Harrop [1960])
[1960]) Let
Let r
F be
be aa cedent
cedent containing
containing only
only Harrop formulas, and
Harrop.formulas, and
let
let A
A and
and BB be be arbitrary
arbitrary formulas.
formulas.
(a) If
(a) LJJ f-F rF--~
/f L -+ (3x)B(x)
(3x)B(x),, then
then there
there exists
exists aa term
term tt such
such that LJJ proves
that L proves rF -+
~ B(t)
B(t) ..
(b) If
(b) LJJ f-F rF---~
If L -+ AAVVB B,, then
then at
at least one of
least one of rF -+
~ AA and
and rF -+
~ BB is LJJ-provable.
is L -provable.
We
We omit
omit the
the proof
proof of
of the
the theorem,
theorem, which
which is
is readily
readily provable
provable by
by using
using induction
induction on
on
the
the length
length of
of cut-free
cut-free LJ -proofs.
L J-proofs.

3.1.4.
3.1.4. Interpretation
Interpretation into classical logic. The
classical logic. The 'negative translation'' provides
'negative translation provides
aa translation
translation of
of classical
classical logic
logic into
into intuitionistic logic; an
intuitionistic logic; an immediate corollary of
immediate corollary of the
the
negative translation is
negative translation is aa simple,
simple, constructive
constructive proof
proof ofof the
the consistency
consistency ofof classical
classical
logic
logic from
from the
the consistency
consistency of intuitionistic logic.
of intuitionistic logic. There
There are
are aa variety
variety of
of negative
negative
translations:
translations: the
the first
first ones
ones were independently discovered
were independently discovered by Kolmogorov, Godel
by Kolmogorov, GSdel
and
and Gentzen.
Gentzen.
 Introduction to Proof Theory 67
67

Definition. Let
Definition. Let AA be be aa formula.
formula. The
The negative translation, A
negative translation, A --, , of
of A
A is
is inductively
inductively
defined
defined by:by:
(1) If A A isis atomic,
atomic, then then A- is •
A- is •A ,
-~-~A,
(2)
(2) (.B) -
( - , B ) - i is
s .(B-)
~ ( B - ) ..
(3) (B
(3) (B A C)- is
A C) - is (B-)
(B-) A A (C-)
(C-), ,
(4)
(4) (B
(S ::) C)- is
D C)- is (B-)
(S-) ::)D (C-)
(C-),,
(5) (B
(5) (B V C)- is
V C)- is .(.(B-)
~(-~(B-) A (C )) ,
A-~(C-)),
. -

(6) (VxB)-
(6) (VxB)- is is Vx(B-)
Vx(S-),,
(7) (3xB)-- is
(7) (3xB) .Vx(.(B - )) ,
is-~Vx(~(B-)),

Theorem.
T Let A
h e o r e m . Let A be
be aa formula. Then LK
formula. Then FA
L K f- A if
if and
and only if LJ
only if FA
L J f- A --. .

Clearly
Clearly A-
A- is classically equivalent
is classically equivalent to
to A
A,, so
so if A-- is
if A is intuitionistically
intuitionistically valid, then
valid, then
A
A is classically valid.
is classically valid. For
For the
the converse,
converse, we
we use
use the
the following
following two
two lemmas
lemmas which
which
immediately imply the
immediately imply the theorem.
theorem.

Let A
L e m m a . Let
Lemma. A be
be aa formula. Then LJ
formula. Then proves ••
L J proves A - --+
-~-~A- ~ A A -- ..

Proof. The
Proof. The proof
proof is
is by induction on
by induction on the
the complexity
complexity of of A A.. We will do
We will do only
only
one
one ofof the
the more difficult cases.
more difficult cases. Suppose
Suppose A A is is B B ::)D C.C. We We need
need to to show
show
that
that LJ proves -••
L J proves B -- ::)
~ ((B D C-) - } BB- - ::)
C - ) ---+ D C C --, , forfor which,
which, it it suffices
suffices to
to prove
prove
B-, ••
B-, -,-,(B- D C-) ~ C - . By the induction hypothesis, LJ
(B- ::) C-) --+ C- . By the induction hypothesis, L J proves •• C - --+
proves -~-,C- --} C-
C - ,,
so
so it will suffice
it will suffice toto show
show that B - , -••
that B-, ~(B (B- - ::)
DC C --)),, -.C- + is
, C - ---+ is LJ -provable. To
L J-provable. To do
do
this
this it suffices to
it suffices to show
show that
that B - , B-
B-, B - ::)
D C- -+ C- is
C----~C- is LJ -provable, which
L J-provable, which isis easy
easy to
to
prove.
prove. 0 []

F is
If r is aa cedent B 1 , . . . , ,BBk
cedent B1, • • • ~ , , then r- denotes
then F- denotes the
the cedent
cedent B1 Bi:k and
B ~ -, ,. ... .. ,, B and .r­
~F-
denotes
denotes the
the cedent
cedent .B1
-~B~-,..., , · . . , .Bi:
~B~-..

L e m m a . Suppose
Lemma. that LK
Suppose that L K proves
proves r --+ b..
F-----}A.. Then LJ
Then proves the
L J proves the sequent
sequent
r- -~A-- --+
F-,, .b.. ----} ..

Proof. The
Proof. The proof
proof of
of the
the lemma
lemma isis by
by induction
induction on on the
the number
number ofof inferences
inferences in
in an
an
LK -proof, possibly
LK-proof, possibly containing
containing cuts.
cuts. We ' ll do
We'll do only
only one
one case
case and
and leave
leave the
the rest
rest to
to the
the
reader.
reader. Suppose
Suppose the
the LK -proof ends
LK-proof ends with
with thethe inference
inference
B,
B , Fr---+
+ b..
A ,, CC
r --+ b..
F--+ A,B , B ::)
DC C
The induction hypothesis
The induction hypothesis isis that
that B-,
B-,F-, b.. - , .C- --+ is
r- , .~A-,-~C----} is provable
provable in in LJ.
LJ. ByBy
the
the previous
previous lemma,
lemma, the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis implies
implies that
that B - , r-
B-, , .b.. - --+ C- is
F-,-,A---}C- is
provable,
provable, and
and from
from this
this it
it follows that r-
follows that , 'b.. - , .(B- ::)
F-,-~A-,-,(B- D C-) --+ is
C-)---} is also
also LJ­
LJ-
provable,
provable, which
which is
is what
what we
we needed
needed to
to show.
show. 0 D
68
68 s.
S. Buss
Buss

One
One consequence
consequence of of the
the proof
proof of
of the
the above
above theorem
theorem is is aa constructive
constructive proof
proof that
that
the
the consistency
consistency of of intuitionistic
intuitionistic logic
logic is
is equivalent
equivalent to to the
the consistency
consistency of of classical
classical
logic; thus
logic; thus intuitionistic
intuitionistic logic
logic does
does not
not provide
provide aa better
better foundations
foundations for for mathematics
mathematics
from the
from the point
point ofof view
view ofof sheer
sheer consistency.
consistency. This
This is,
is, however,
however, of of little
little interest
interest to
to
aa constructivist,
constructivist, since
since the
the translation
translation of
of classical
classical logic
logic into
into intuitionistic
intuitionistic logic
logic does
does
not
not preserve
preserve the
the constructive
constructive meaning
meaning (under,
(under, e.g.,
e.g., the
the BHK
BHK interpretation)
interpretation) of of the
the
formula.
formula.
It
It is
is possible
possible to
to extend
extend thethe negative
negative translation
translation toto theories
theories ofof arithmetic
arithmetic and
and to
to
set
set theory;
theory; see,
see, e.g.,
e.g., Troelstra
Troelstra and
and van
van Dalen
Dalen [1988,vol.
[1988,vol. 1].1].

3.1.5. F o r m u l a s as
3.1.5. Formulas as types.
types. Section
Section 3.1.2
3.1.2 discussed
discussed aa connection
connection between
between intu­
intu-
itionistic
itionistic logic
logic and
and constructivism.
constructivism. An An important
important strengthening
strengthening of of this
this connection
connection is is
the
the Curry-Howard
Curry-Howard formulas-as-types
formulas-as-types isomorphism,
isomorphism, which
which provides
provides aa direct
direct correspon­
correspon-
dence
dence between
between intuitionistic
intuitionistic proofs
proofs and
and A-terms
A-terms representing
representing computable
computable functions,
functions,
under
under which
which intuitionistic
intuitionistic proofs
proofs can
can bebe regarded
regarded asas computable
computable functions.
functions. ThisThis
section
section will
will discuss
discuss thethe formulas-as-types
formulas-as-types isomorphism
isomorphism forfor intuitionistic
intuitionistic propositional
propositional
logic;
logic; our
our treatment
treatment is is based
based on
on the
the development
development by by Howard
Howard [1980].
[1980]. Girard
Girard [1989]
[1989]
contains
contains further
further material,
material, including
including the
the formulas-as-types
formulas-as-types isomorphism
isomorphism for for first-order
first-order
intuitionistic logic.
intuitionistic logic.

T h e {{::)
The } - f r a g m e n t ... We
D }-fragment . We will
will begin
begin with
with the
the fragment
fragment of of propositional
propositional logic
logic in
in
which
which the
the only
only logical
logical connective
connective is
is ::)
D.. WeWe work
work in in the
the sequent
sequent calculus,
calculus, and
and the
the
only
only strong
strong rules
rules ofof inference
inference are
are the
the ::) :left and
D :left and ::) :right rules.
D :right rules. Firstly
Firstly we
we must
must define
define
the
the set
set of
of types:
types:

Definition. The
Definition. types are
The types defined as
are defined as follows:
follows:
( a) Any
(a) propositional variable
Any propositional Pi is
variable Pi is aa type.
type.
If a
(b) If
(b) and T are
a and are types,
types, then ( a --+
then (a -+ T) is aa type.
T ) is type.
If we
If we identify
identify the
the symbols
symbols ~::) and
and -+ the types
4 , , the types are
are exactly
exactly the
the same
same as
as formulas,
formulas, since
since
::) is
is the
the only
only logical
logical connective allowed. We
connective allowed. We shall
shall henceforth
henceforth make this identification
make this identification
of types
of types and
and formulas
formulas without
without comment.
comment.
Secondly, we
Secondly, we must define the
must define the terms
terms of of the
the A-calculus;
A-calculus; each
each term has aa unique
term tt has unique
associated type.
associated type. We write tF~ to
We write to mean
mean that
that tt is
is aa term
term of
of type
type T.
T.

Definition. For
Definition. For each
each type
type T, there isis an
T , there an infinite
infinite set
set of
of variables, xl, x~,
variables, x~, x2, x~,..,
xa, . . of
of
.

type T.
type T . Note that ifif aa ~-
Note that T , then
'I T, then x~xf and
and x~xi are
are distinct
distinct variables.
variables.
The terms
The are inductively
terms are inductively defined
defined by:
by:
Any variable
(a) Any
(a) variable of type T isis aa term
of type term of
of type
type T.
T.

(b) If
(b) U-7T and
If sS~-~ and ttU~ are
are terms
terms of
of the
the indicated
indicated types,
types, then
then (st)
(st) isis aa term
term of
of type
type T.
T.
This term
This term may
may also
also be
be denoted
denoted (st) or even
(sty~ or even (s~-~t~)
(SU-7TtUY~..
If tt~T isis aa term
(c) If
(c) term then
then )~x~.t
AXu. t isis aa term
term of type aa --+
oftype This term
T . This
-+ T. term can
can also
also be
be denoted
denoted
(AXU.tY~ -7T or
()~x~.t) (AxU F )U-7T
or (Ax~.t~) ~
 Introduction
Introduction to
to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 69
69

Traditionally,
Traditionally, a a type
type a a -+ 7 T is
is viewed
viewed asas aa set
set of
of mappings
mappings fromfrom the the objects
objects
of
of type
type a a into
into the
the objects
objects of type 7
of type T.. For
For intuitionistic
intuitionistic logic,
logic, it
it is
is often
often usefuluseful to
to
think
think of
of a
a type
type a a as
as being
being the
the set
set of
of proofs
proofs of
of the formula o'
the formula a.. Note
Note thatthat under
under the the
BKH-interpretation
BKH-interpretation this this is
is compatible
compatible withwith the
the traditional
traditional view
view of
of types
types as as a a set
set of
of
mappings.
mappings.
The AX
The Ax connective
connective serves
serves toto bind
bind occurrences
occurrences of of Xx;; thus
thus one
one can can defidefine ne the
the
notions
notions ofof bound
bound andand free
free variables
variables inin terms
terms in
in the
the obvious
obvious way.
way. A A term
term is is closed
closed
provided
provided itit has
has no
no free
free variables.
variables. TheThe computational
computational content
content ofof aa term
term is is defined
defined
by
by letting (st) represent
letting (st) represent thethe composition
composition of of the
the terms
terms ss and
and tt,, and letting AXu
and letting Ax~.t. t
represent
represent the
the mapping
mapping thatthat takes objects dd of
takes objects type 7
of type T to
to the
the object
object t( x //dd)). . Clearly
t (x Clearly
this
this gives
gives aa constructive computational meaning
constructive computational meaning to terms.
to terms.

T h e o r e m . Let
Theorem. Let B
B be
be aa formula.
formula. LJ
L J f- B if
F- B if and
and only
only if
if there
there is
is aa closed
closed term
term of
of
type
type B
B ..

An
An example
example of of this
this theorem
theorem is is illustrated
illustrated byby the
the closed
closed term
term K K defined
defined asas
AX.Ay.X
Ax.Ay.x where where x and yy are
x and are ofof type
type a and 7T,, respectively,
a and respectively, andand therefore the term
therefore the term
KK hashas type
type a ~ ((T
a -+ 7 -+ a ) , which
a), which is is a
a valid
valid formula.
formula. A A second
second important
important example
example
is
is the
the closed
closed term
term S which is
S which is defi ned by
defined by AX.Ay.AZ. ((XZ) ( Yz)) where
Ax.)~y.Az.((xz)(yz)) where the
the types
types ofof x
x,,
and Zz are
yy and are a ~ ((T
a -+ T -+ fJ)
#),, a a -+--+ 7
T and
and a a,, respectively,
respectively, and and therefore,
therefore, S S has
has type
type
((aa -+ 7 -+
--+ ((T --+ fJ))
#)) -+--+ (( ~ 7
((aa -+ r)) -+
-+ ((a --+ fJ))
a -+ #)) which
which isis a
a valid
valid formula.
formula 9 The terms K
The terms g
and
and S S are
are examples
examples of of combinators.
combinators.
The
The import
import of of this
this theorem
theorem is is that
that a a closed
closed term
term ofof type
type B B corresponds
corresponds to to aa proof
proof
of
of B B.. We
We shall
shall briefly
briefly sketch
sketch the proof of
the proof of this
this for
for the
the sequent
sequent calculus;
calculus; however,
however, thethe
correspondence
correspondence between between closed
closed terms
terms andand natural
natural deduction
deduction proofs
proofs is
is even
even stronger,
stronger,
namely,
namely, the the closed
closed terms
terms areare isomorphic
isomorphic to to natural
natural deduction
deduction proofs
proofs in
in intuitionistic
intuitionistic
logic ((see
logic see Girard [1989]).. To
Girard [1989]) To prove
prove thethe theorem,
theorem, we we prove
prove thethe following lemma:
following lemma:

Lemma.
Lemma. L LJ
J proves
proves the
the sequent
sequent AI
A1,' .. '. ". , An --7 B
An---+ if and
B if and only
only if if there
there is term tt B
is aa term B of
of
the
the indicated
indicated type
type involving
involving only
only the
the free
free variables
variables x t " . . . ,, Xx�nA.n .
xA1,. 9 9

P r o o f . It
Proof. It is
is straightforward
straightforward to to prove,
prove, by induction on
by induction on the
the complexity
complexity ofof tt B
s ,, that
that
the
the desired
desired L -proof exists.
LJJ-proof exists. For
For the
the other
other direction,
direction, use
use induction
induction on
on the
the length
length of of
the
the L -proof to
LJJ-proof to prove
prove that
that the term tt B
the term exists. We
B exists. will consider
We will only the
consider only the case
case where
where
the
the last
last inference
inference ofof the
the L -proof is
LJJ-proof is
fF--+
--7 AA B,
B, f --7 C
F--> C
A
AJD B,B, f --7 C
F--+ C
The
The induction
induction hypotheses
hypotheses give
give terms A (xrr)) and
terms rrA(x C (xf , xr ) where
and SsC(xB,xr) where xrr actually
actually
represents
represents a a vector
vector of
of variables,
variables, one
one for
for each
each formula
formula in in f F.. The
The desired
desired term
term
C (xt �B , xx rr)) is
ttC(xA~B, is defined
defined to
to be C ((xt � B rA (xr )) , xxr)
be ssC((xA~SrA(xr)), r ) .. D
[]

The
T h e {J, - f r a g m e n t . The
.l}} -fragment.
{ D, _l_ The above
above treatment
treatment of
of the
the formulas-as-types
formulas-as-types isomorphism
isomorphism
allowed
allowed only
only the the connective
connective J. D. The
The formulas-as-types
formulas-as-types paradigm
paradigm can
can be
be extended
extended
to
to allow
allow also
also the symbol .1
the symbol _L and
and thereby negation, by
thereby negation, by making
making the
the following
following changes.
changes.
70
70 S. Buss
Buss

Firstly, enlarge the

Firstly, enlarge the defi nition of
definition types, by
of types, adding aa clause
by adding clause specifying
specifying that
that 00 is
is aa type.
type.
Identifying
Identifying 0@with
with .1
2. makes
makes types
types identical
identical to
to formulas.
formulas. The The type
type 00 corresponds
corresponds to to
the
the empty
empty set;
set; this
this is
is consistent
consistent with
with the BHK interpretation
the BHK interpretation since since .12_ has
has no
no proof.
proof.
Secondly,
Secondly, enlarge
enlarge the definition of
the definition of terms
terms byby adding
adding to to the definition aa new
the definition new clause
clause
stating that, for
stating that, for every
every type
type aa,, there
there is
is a term f0
a term ~ of
f 0 --tu of type
type 00 -+ a a..
Now
Now the
the Theorem
Theorem and and Lemma
Lemma of of section
section 3.1.5
3.1.5 still
still hold
hold verbatim
verbatim for for formulas
formulas
with
with connectives
connectives {:J, 2_} and
{ D, .1} and with
with the
the new definitions of
new definitions of types
types and terms.
and terms.

The
T h e {{D,
:J , .1, A } - f r a g m e n t . To
2., I\}-fragment. To further
further expand
expand the the formulas-as-types
formulas-as-types paradigm
paradigm to to
intuitionistic
intuitionistic logic logic withwith connectives
connectives :J 2. and
D,, .1 and 1\ A,, we
we must
must make
make thethe following
following
modifications
modifications to to the
the definitions
definitions of of terms
terms and
and types.
types. Firstly,
Firstly, add
add toto the
the definition
definition
of
of types,
types, a a clause
clause stating
stating that that if a and
if a and r T are
are types, then ((a
types, then a x r)T) is
is a
a type.
type. By By
identifying
identifying x with with 1\ A,, we still have
we still have the
the types
types identified
identified with
with the
the formulas.
formulas. Consistent
Consistent
with
with the
the BHK-interpretation,
BHK-interpretation, the type ((aa x r
the type T)) may
may bebe viewed
viewed as as the
the cross-product
cross-product
of
of its
its constituent
constituent types. types. Secondly,
Secondly, add add toto the
the definition
definition of
of terms
terms the
the following
following two two
clauses:
clauses: (i) ( i ) iif
f sU and r
s ~ and t r are
are terms, then (s
terms, then t) is
(s,, t) is aa term
term of
of type
type a a x r and (ii)
7-,, and if
(ii) if
s ~x~ is
SUXT is a
a term,
term, then then (11"lS)U and (11"2S)"
(rls) ~ and (r2s) ~ are
are terms.
terms. The The former
former term
term uses
uses thethe pairing
pairing
function;
function; and and the the latter
latter terms
terms useuse the
the projection
projection functions.
functions.
Again,
Again, the the Theorem
Theorem and and Lemma
Lemma above above still
still holds
holds with
with these
these new
new definitions
definitions of of
types
types and
and terms.
terms.

The
T h e {{D, :J , .1
2.,, A, V } - f r a g m e n t . To
1\, V}-fragment. To incorporate
incorporate also also the
the connective
connective V V into
into thethe
formulas-as-types
formulas-as-types isomorphism isomorphism we we expand
expand thethe definitions
definitions of of types
types and and terms
terms as as
follows. Firstly,
follows. Firstly, add add to to the
the definition
definition of of types
types that
that if
if aa and
and r T are
are types,
types, then
then
((aa +
+rT)) is
is aa type.
type. To To identify
identify formulas
formulas with with types,
types, the
the symbol
symbol + + isis identified
identified with
with V V..
The
The type
type a a + + r~" is
is viewed
viewed as as the
the disjoint
disjoint union
union of a and
of a and r T,, consistent
consistent withwith thethe
BHK-interpretation. Secondly,
BHK-interpretation. Secondly, add add to to the
the definitions
definitions ofof terms
terms the the following
following twotwo
clauses
clauses
•9 If s ~ and
If SU and tT t r are
are terms
terms of of the
the indicated
indicated types,
types, then
then (Lr- t (U+T) s) and
(~-~(~+r)s) and (L; -t (U+T) t)
(~-*(~+~)t)
are
are terms
terms of of type
type a a +
+ r T..
•9 For
For all all types
types a a,, r and J..L
T and #,, there
there is is a
a constant
constant symbol
symbol d(u- t/,)-t« T-t/,)-t« U+T)-t/,»
d (~-+')-~((~-+')-~((~+~)-+'))
of
of the
the indicated
indicated type. type. In In other
other words,
words, if s ~-~" and
if su-t/, t ~-+" are
and tT-t/' are terms,
terms, then
then (dst)
(dst)
is
is aa term
term of type ((aa +
of type + r --+ J..L
T)) -+ #..
Once again, the
Once again, the Theorem
Theorem and and Corollary
Corollary of of section
section 3.1.5 holds with
3.1.5 holds with these
these enlarged
enlarged
definitions
definitions for for types
types and terms.
and terms.

3.2.
3.2. Linear
L i n e a r logic
logic

Linear
Linear logic
logic was
was first
first introduced
introduced by by Girard 1987aJ as
Girard [[1987a] as a
a refinement
refinement of of classical
classical
logic,
logic, which
which uses
uses additional
additional connectives
connectives and
and in
in which
which weakening
weakening andand contractions
contractions
are
are not
not allowed.
allowed. Linear
Linear logic
logic is
is best
best understood
understood asas aa 'resource logic'' in
'resource logic in that
that proofs
proofs
in linear
in linear logic
logic must use each
must use each formula
formula exactly
exactly once. In this
once. In this point
point view,
view, assumptions
assumptions
in
in a
a proof
proof are
are viewed
viewed asas resources;
resources; each
each resource
resource must
must bebe used
used once
once and
and only
only once
once
during the
during the proof.
proof. Thus,
Thus, loosely
loosely speaking,
speaking, an
an implication
implication A A f-
~ BB can
can bebe proved
proved in
in
 Introduction to Proof Theory 71
71

linear logic
linear logic only
only if A is
if A exactly what
is exactly what is is needed
needed to to prove
prove B B;; thus
thus ifif the
the assumption
assumption A A
is
is either
either too
too weak
weak or or too strong, it
too strong, it is
is not possible to
not possible to give
give aa linear
linear logic
logic proof
proof ofof 'if
'if
A thtn
A then B
' As an
B'.. As an example
example of of this,
this, A A f-
~ BB being
being provable
provable in in linear
linear logic
logic does
does not
not
generally
generally imply
imply that A, A
that A, A f- B is
F- B is provable
provable in in linear
linear logic;
logic; this
this is
is because
because A A f- B is
F- B is
asserting
asserting that
that one
one useuse of
of the
the resource
resource A A gives
gives BB,, whereas
whereas A, A, A B asserts
F- B
A f- asserts that
that two
two
uses
uses of the resource
of the resource A gives B
A gives B..
We
We shall
shall introduce
introduce only only the
the propositional
propositional fragment
fragment of of linear
linear logic,
logic, since
since already
already
the
the main
main features
features of of linear
linear logic
logic are
are present
present inin its propositional fragment.
its propositional fragment. We We areare
particularly
particularly interested
interested in giving aa intuitive
in giving intuitive understanding
understanding of of linear
linear logic;
logic; accordingly,
accordingly,
we shall frequently
we shall frequently make make vague
vague or or even not-quite-true assertions,
even not-quite-true assertions, sometimes,
sometimes, but but not
not
always,
always, preceded
preceded by by phrases
phrases such
such as "loosely speaking"
as "loosely speaking" or or "intuitively"
"intuitively",, etc.etc.
Linear
Linear logic
logic will
will be
be formalized
formalized as as a
a sequent
sequent caiculus.
0 The initial
calculus. 1~~ The initial logical
logical sequents
sequents
are
are just
just AA --t-} AA;; the
the weakening
weakening and contraction structural
and contraction structural rules
rules are
are not
not allowed
allowed and
and
the
the only structural rules
only structural rules are
are the
the exchange
exchange rule
rule and
and the
the cut rule. Since
cut rule. Since contraction
contraction is is
not permitted,
not permitted, thisthis prompts
prompts one one toto reformulate
reformulate the the rules,
rules, such
such asas 1\ :right and
A :right and VV :lejt,
:left,
which
which contain
contain implicit
implicit contraction
contraction of of side
side formulas.
formulas. To To begin
begin with
with conjunction,
conjunction,
linear
linear logic
logic has
has two
two different
different different
different conjunction
conjunction symbols,
symbols, denoted
denoted ® | and
and & &:: the
the
multiplicative connective
multiplicative connective ® | does
does notnot allow
allow contractions
contractions on on side
side formulas,
formulas, whereas
whereas
the
the additive conjunction &
additive conjunction does. The
& does. The rules
rules ofof inference
inference forfor the
the twotwo varieties
varieties ofof
conjunction
conjunction are: are:
A,
A, B,
B, r-t�
F---~A FI---+A1, A F2---+A2, B
| leit A
®: A®| B,
B~ r-t�
F---}A @:right
F1, F2---~A1, A2, A | B
and
and
A,
A, r-t�
F---}A . . ht r-t�,
F---}A, A
A r-t�,
F---}A, B
B
&:lejt A&B,, r-t� & .Ng
&:right
&:left A&B F---~A F--+A,, A&B
r-t� A&B
B,
B, r-t�
&:lejt
&:left F--'~A
A&B,, r-t�
A&B F-"> A
The
The obvious
obvious question
question nownow arises
arises ofof what
what thethe difference
difference is
is in
in the
the meanings
meanings of of the
the two
two
different
different conjunctions
conjunctions ® and &
| and &.. For
For this, one should
this, one should think
think inin terms
terms of of resource
resource
usage. Consider first
usage. Consider first the
the ® :left inference:
@ :lejt inference: thethe upper
upper sequent
sequent contains
contains both both A A and
and B B
so
so that
that resources
resources for both A
for both A and
and B B are
are available.
available. The
The lower
lower sequent
sequent contains
contains A A® | B B
in
in their stead; the
their stead; the obvious intuition is
obvious intuition is that
that the resource ((for)
the resource for) A A® | BB is is equivalent
equivalent
to having
to having resources
resources for both A
for both A and
and BB.. Thus,
Thus, loosely
loosely speaking,
speaking, we we translate
translate ® | asas
meaning "both"
meaning "both".. Now
Now consider
consider thethe & :left inference;
& :lejt inference; here
here the
the lower
lower sequent
sequent has has the
the
principal
principal formula
formula A&BA&B in place of
in place either A
of either A or
or BB,, depending
depending on on which
which formform ofof the
the
inference
inference is used. This
is used. This means that aa resource
means that resource A&B A&B is is equivalent
equivalent to to having
having a a resource
resource
for
for AA or
or BB,, whichever
whichever is desired. So
is desired. So we
we cancan translate
translate & & as
as "whichever"
"whichever"..
The
The translations "both" and
translations "both" and "whichever"
"whichever" also also make
make sense
sense for
for the
the other
other inferences
inferences
for
for the
the conjunctions.
conjunctions. Consider
Consider the the ® :right inference
| :right and, since
inference and, since wewe have
have not
not yet
yet
discussed the
discussed the disjunctions,
disjunctions, assume
assume � A11 and
and � A22 are
are empty.
empty. In this case,
In this case, the
the upper
upper
hypotheses
hypotheses say say that
that from
from a a resource
resource r F1l one
one can
can obtain
obtain A A,, and
and from
from a a resource
resource r F22

lOThe
1~ customary convention
convention for linear
linear logic f- as
logic is to use "b" as the symbol
" symbol for the sequent
"

connection; we shall
connection; symbol "" ~
shall continue to use the symbol -t " however.
however.
72 S. Buss

one can
one can obtain
obtain BB.. The conclusion then
The conclusion then says
says that
that from
from (the
(the disjoint
disjoint union
union of)
of) both
both
these
these resources,
resources, one
one obtains
obtains both A and
both A B. Now
and B. Now consider
consider a
a & :right inference
& :right inference
rF---~
--+ AA rF---~
--+ B
B
rF --+
---+ A&B
A&B
For
For the
the lower
lower sequent,
sequent, consider
consider anan agent
agent who
who hashas the
the responsibility
responsibility ofof providing
providing
(outputting)
(outputting) a a resource A&B using
resource A&B using exactly
exactly the
the resource
resource rF.. To
To provide
provide the
the resource
resource
A&B,, the
A&B the agent
agent must
must be
be prepared
prepared toto either
either provide
provide aa resource
resource A A or
or aa resource
resource B B,,
whichever
whichever one one is
is needed;
needed; inin either
either case,
case, there
there isis an
an upper
upper sequent
sequent which
which says
says the
the
agent
agent can
can accomplish
accomplish this.
this.
Linear
Linear logic
logic also
also has
has two
two different
different forms
forms ofof disjunction:
disjunction" the
the multiplicative
multiplicative dis­
dis-
junction
junction � ~' and
and the
the additive
additive disjunction @.. The
disjunction ill The former
former connective
connective isis dual to ®
dual to | and
and
the
the latter
latter is
is dual
dual to &.. Accordingly
to & Accordingly the the rule
rule of
of inference
inference for
for the
the disjunctions
disjunctions are:
are:
'left A,
A, rl --+�l
Ft---}A1 B, F22 --+�
B, r 2
"----}A2 r--+�, A, B
�
~ .:left � Tight F'--} A, A, B
:~.:right
A�B, r l ,, r
A ~ B , rl 2 --+�l
r2--'}At, �
' 2
A2 r--+�,
F---+ A, A�B
A:~B
and
and
A, r--+�
1 ,4 A, F---~A B, r--+�
B, F---}A
ill . ht r--+�,
P-+A, A A
e :: leeIt
ill J" A
A ill
@ B, r--+�
B,F---+A @::right
rzg
r--+�,
F-----}A, A
A ill
@B B

ill . ht r--+�,
F---+A, B B
@:rzg
:right F---} A, A
r--+�, A ill
@B B
By examining these
By examining these inferences,
inferences, we we cancan seesee that
that thethe multiplicative
multiplicative disjunction,
disjunction, � ~ ,,
is
is a
a aa kind
kind of of 'indeterminate
'indeterminate OR' OR' or or 'unspecifi
'unspecificc OR OR',' , in
in that
that aa resource
resource for for A�B
A~B
consists
consists ofof aa either
either a a resource
resource either
either for for A A oror for
for B B,, but
but without
without aa specification
specification of of
which
which one
one itit is
is aa resource
resource for. for. OnOn thethe other
other hand,
hand, the the additive conjunction, ill
additive conjunction, @,, is
is a
a
'determinate
'determinate OR' OR' or or a 'specific OR
a 'specific OR',' , so
so that
that a a resource
resource for for AA ill B is
(9 B is either
either aa resource
resource
for
for AA or
or aa resource
resource for for B B together
together with with a a specification
specification of of which
which one one itit is
is aa resource
resource
for.
for. To
To give
give a a picturesque
picturesque example, consider aa military
example, consider military general
general who who hashas to
to counter
counter an an
invasion
invasion which
which will will come
come either
either on the western
on the western frontfront oror on on the
the eastern
eastern front.
front. If If the
the
connective
connective 'or''or' is
is the
the multiplicative
multiplicative or, or, then
then thethe general
general needs
needs sufficient
sufficient resources
resources to to
counter
counter both
both threats,
threats, whereas
whereas if if the 'or'' is
the 'or is an
an additive
additive disjunction
disjunction then then thethe general
general
needs
needs only
only enough
enough resources
resources to to counter
counter either
either threat.
threat. In In the
the latter
latter case,
case, the
the general
general
is told ahead
is told ahead of of time
time where
where the the invasion
invasion will occur and
will occur and has has the
the ability
ability to to redeploy
redeploy
resources
resources so so as
as to
to counter
counter the the actual
actual invasion;
invasion; whereas
whereas in in the
the former
former case,
case, thethe general
general
must
must separately
separately deploydeploy resources
resources sufficient
sufficient to to counter
counter the the attack
attack from
from thethe west
west and
and
resources
resources sufficient
sufficient to to counter
counter the the attack
attack from from thethe east.
east. From
From the the rules
rules ofof inference
inference
for
for disjunction,
disjunction, it it is
is clear
clear that
that thethe commas
commas in in the
the succedent
succedent of of aa sequent
sequent intended
intended to to
be
be interpreted
interpreted as as the
the unspecific
unspecific or, or, � ~ ..
The
The linear
linear implication
implication symbol, symbol, -0 --o,, is
is defined
defined by by letting
letting A A -0--o BB bebe anan abbrevia­
abbrevia-
tion
tion for A •J.�B , where
for A where A A 1.
• isis defined below.
defined below.
Linear logic
Linear logic also
also has
has two
two nullary connectives, 11 and
nullary connectives, and T T,, for
for truth
truth andand two nullary
two nullary
connectives, 00 and
connectives, and .1 _k,, for
for falsity.
falsity. Associated
Associated to to these
these connectives
connectives are are thethe initial
initial
sequents
sequents --+ ~ 11 and and 0, 0, r --+ �
F--} A,, and
and the
the oneone rule
rule ofof inference:
inference:
rF----~
--+ �A
1,
1, r --+ �
F---} A
 Introduction to Proof Theory 73
73

The intuitive
The intuitive idea idea for
for the
the multiplicatives
multiplicatives isis thatthat 11 has
has the
the null
null resource
resource and and that
that
there isis no
there no resource
resource for ..L . For
for _1_. For the
the additive connectives, TT has
additive connectives, has aa 'arbitrary'
'arbitrary' resource,
resource,
which means
which means that that anything
anything isis aa resource
resource for for T,T , whereas
whereas any
any resource
resource forfor 00 isis aa 'wild
'wild
card ' resource
card' which may
resource which may be be used
used for
for any
any purpose.
purpose.
In addition,
In addition, linear
linear logic
logic has
has aa negation
negation operation
operation A which is
A1-• which is involutive
involutive in in that
that
(A1-)1-• isis the
(A• the same
same asas formula
formula A. A . For each propositional
For each propositional variable
variable p, p, p•
p1- isis the
the negation
negation
of p. The
of p. The operation
operation of of the
the negation
negation is is inductively defined by
inductively defined by letting
letting (A (A |18> B) be
B)1-• be
A1-�B1-z,, (A&B)
AZ~B (A&B)1-• be be AA1-• @EB B,
B , 111-• be ..L , and
be 3_, and TT1-z be
be 0.o. This
This plus
plus the
the involution
involution
property defines
property defines the
the operation
operation A for all
A1-• for all formulas
formulas A. The two
A . The rules of
two rules of inference
inference
associated with
associated with negation
negation are are
.
•1- :right A, r --+ � and
:nght A, F - - } A
F---} •
F~
Ai, F__.} A
A, A
r --+ A,A
�, A1-• and

Definition. The
Definition. The multiplicative/additive
multiplicative/additive fragment
fragment of
of propositional
propositional linear
linear logic
logic is
is
denoted
denoted MMALL and contains
A L L and contains all
all the
the logical
logical connectives,
connectives, initial
initial sequents
sequents and
and rules
rules of
of
inference
inference discussed
discussed above.
above.

The
The absence
absence of of weakening
weakening and and contraction
contraction rules, rules, makes
makes thethe linear logic sequent
linear logic sequent
calculus particularly
calculus particularly well well behaved;
behaved; in in particular,
particular, the the cut
cut elimination theorem for
elimination theorem for
A L L is
MALL
M quite easy
is quite easy to
to prove.
prove. In fact, if
In fact, if PP is is a
aM A L L proof,
MALL proof, then there is
then there is aa shorter
shorter
A L L proof
MALL
M proof P P** with
with the the same
same endsequent
endsequent which which contains
contains no no cut
cut inferences.
inferences.
In addition, the
In addition, the number
number of of strong
strong inferences
inferences in in P P ** is bounded by
is bounded by the number
the number
connectives in
of connectives
of in the
the endsequent.
endsequent. Bellin Bellin [1990] contains an
[1990] contains an in-depth
in-depth discussion
discussion of of
M A L L and
MALL related systems.
and related systems.
As an
As an exercise,
exercise, consider
consider the distributive laws
the distributive laws A|A 18> (BEBC) --+ "+ (AI8>B)EB(AI8>B)
(A|174 and
and
(A|174 EB (A 18> B) --+
(AI8>B) ~ A A|18> (BEBC) . The The reader
reader should
should check
check that
that these
these are
are valid
valid under
under
the intuitive
the intuitive interpretation
interpretation of of the
the connectives
connectives given given above;
above; and,
and, asas expected,
expected, theythey
can
can bebe proved
proved in in MALL. Similar reasoning
M A L L . Similar reasoning shows shows thatthat & & isis distributive
distributive overover �~ ..
On
On the
the other
other hand,hand, EB (9 is
is not
not distributive
distributive over over � ~ ; ; this
this can
can bebe seen
seen intuitively
intuitively by by
considering
considering the the meanings
meanings of the connectives,
of the connectives, or or formally
formally by by using the cut
using the cut elimination
elimination
theorem.
theorem.
M A L L is
MALL is not
not the
the full
full propositional
propositional linearlinear logic.
logic. Linear
Linear logic (LL) has,
logic (LL) has, in
in
addition,
addition, twotwo modalities
modal• !! and
and ?? which
which allow
allow contraction
contraction and and weakening
weakening to to be
be used
used
in
in certain situations. The
certain situations. The negation
negation operator
operator is is extended
extended to LL by
to LL by defining (!A) • to
defining (!A)1- to
be ? (A 1-) . The four rules of inference
be ?(A• The four rules of inference for ! are: for ! are:
,.v :wea kenzngo
· r--+� '.!:weakening1
· A,
A, r--+�
:weakeningo
!A,
F---} A
!A, r--+ � :weakenzngl F---}A
9 F---+A !A,
!A, r--+ �
F---+A

!A, !A, r--+

!A, !A, F---+A� !r--+?�,
!F---~?A, A
A
: contraction --'-:-!A,
!!:contraction ....,.-'-=---;--:­
!A, r--+� F---+A !r--+?�,
!F---}?A, !A
!A
where
where in
in the
the last
last inference,
inference, !r respectively, ??A)
!F ((respectively, �) represents
represents aa cedent
cedent containing
containing only
only
formulas
formulas beginning
beginning with
with the
the !! symbol respectively, the
symbol ((respectively, the ?? symbol
symbol).).
The
The dual
dual rules
rules for
for ?? are
are obtained
obtained from
from these
these using
using the
the negation
negation operation.
operation. One
One
should
should intuitively
intuitively think
think ofof aa resource
resource for !A as
for !A as consisting
consisting of
of zero
zero or
or more
more resources
resources
74
74 s. Buss
S. Buss

for A.
for A . The
The nature
nature of of full
full linear
linear logic
logic with
with the
the modalities
modalities is is quite
quite different
different from
from that
that
of either
of either M
MALL
A L L or or propositional
propositional classical
classical logic;
logic; in
in particular,
particular, Lincoln
Lincoln etet al.
al. [1992]
[1992]
show that
show that LL
LL is is undecidable.
undecidable.
The above
The above development
development of of the
the intuitive
intuitive meanings
meanings of of the
the connectives
connectives inin linear
linear logic
logic
has not
has not been
been as as rigorous
rigorous as as one
one would
would desire;
desire; in
in particular,
particular, itit would
would be be nice
nice have
have aa
completeness theorem
completeness theorem for linear logic
for linear logic based
based onon these
these intuitive
intuitive meanings.
meanings. ThisThis hashas
been achieved
been achieved forfor some
some fragments
fragments of of linear
linear logic
logic by
by Blass
Blass [1992]
[1992] and
and Abramsky
Abramsky and and
Jagadeesan [ 1994] , but
Jagadeesan [1994], but hashas not
not yet been attained
yet been for the
attained for the full
full propositional
propositional linear
linear
logic. In
logic. In addition
addition to to the
the references
references above,
above, more information on
more information on linear
linear logic
logic may
may
be found
be found inin Troelstra [ 1992] although
Troelstra [1992], ' although his
his notation
notation is
is different
different from
from the
the standard
standard
notation we
notation we have used.
have used.

Acknowledgements.
A We are
c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s . We are grateful
grateful to
to S.
S. Cook,
Cook, E.
E. Gertz,
Gertz, C.
C. Guti~rrez,
Gutierrez, A.
A. Jonas-
Jonas­
son, C.
son, C. Lautemann,
Lautemann, A. A. Maciel,
Maciel, R.
R. Parikh
Parikh C.
C. Pollett,
Pollett, R.
R. St~irk,
Stark, J.J. Tor~n
Toran and
and S.
S. Wainer
Wainer
for reading
for reading and and suggesting corrections to
suggesting corrections to preliminary
preliminary versions
versions of this chapter.
of this chapter. Prepa­
Prepa-
ration
ration of of this
this article
article waswas partially
partially supported
supported byby NSF
NSF grant
grant DMS-9503247
DMS-9503247 and and by
by
cooperative
cooperative research
research grantgrant INT-9600919 /ME-103 of
INT-9600919/ME-103 of the NSF and
the NSF the Czech
and the Czech Republic
Republic
Ministry of
Ministry Education.
of Education.

References
References

s. ABRAMSKY
S. A BRAMSKY AND R. JAGADEESAN
AND R.. JAGADEESAN
Games and
[1994] Games
[1994] and full completeness for
full completeness for multiplicative
multiplicative linear logic, Journal of
linear logic, of Symbolic Logic,
Logic,
59, pp.
59, pp. 543-574.
543-574.
BARWISE
J. BARWISE
[[1975]
1975] Admissable Theory, Springer-Verlag,
AdmissableSets and Structures: An Approach to Definability Theory, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Berlin.
[[1977]
1977] Handbook Logic, North-Holland,
Handbookof Mathematical Logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
G. BELLIN
G. BELLIN
1990] Mechanizing
[[1990] MechanizingProof Theory:
Theory: Resource-Aware
Resource-Aware Logics
Logics and Proof-Transformations to Ex­
Ex-
tract Explicit Information, PhD
PhD thesis,
thesis, Stanford
Stanford University.
University.
E.
E. W W.. BETH
BETH
[[1953]
1953] On Padoa's method in the theory of definition,
definition, Indagationes Mathematicae, 15, pp. 330-
Mathematicae, 15,
339.
339.
1956] Semantic
[[1956] Semanticentailment
entailment and formal
formal derivability, Mathematicae, 19, pp. 357-
derivability, Indagationes Mathematicae,
388.
388.
A. BLASS
A. BLASS
[[1992]
1992] A game
game semantics
semantics for
for linear
linear logic,
logic, Annals of
of Pure Logic, 56,
Pure and Applied Logic, 56, pp. 183-220.
183-220.
S.
S. R.R. Buss
Buss
[[1986]
1986] Bounded Arithmetic, Bibliopolis,
BoundedArithmetic, Bibliopolis, Napoli.
Napoli. Revision
Revision of 1985
1985 Princeton University
University Ph.D.
thesis.
thesis.
C.-L.
C.-L. CHANG
CHANG
[[1970]
1970] The
The unit
unit proof
proof and
and the
the input
input proof
proof in
in theorem
theorem proving,
proving, J. Assoc.
Assoc. Comput. Mach., 17,
Comput. Mach., 17,
pp. 698-707.
698-707. Reprinted
Reprinted in: Siekmann Wrightson [[1983,vol
Siekmann and Wrightson ].
1983,voI 22].
C .-L. CHANG
C.-L. ANDR.
CHANGAND R. C .-T. LEE
C.-T. LEE
[[1973]
1973] Symbolic
SymbolicLogic
Logic and Mechanical
Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic
Theorem Proving, Academic Press,
Press, New
New York.
York.
 Introduction
Introduction to
to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 75
75

W.
W. F
F.. CLOCKSIN AND C.
CLOCKSIN AND S. MELLISH
C. S. MELLISH
[1981J Prolog, North-Holland,
[1981] Programming in Prolog, North-Holland, Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, 4th
4th ed.
ed.
W. CRAIG
W. CRAIG
[1957aJ
[1957a] Linear
Linear reasoning.
reasoning. A A new
new form
form of
of the Herbrand-Gentzen theorem,
the Herbrand-Gentzen theorem, Journal of
of Symbolic
Logic, 22, pp. 250-268.
22, pp. 250-268.
[1957bJ
[1957b] Three
Three uses
uses of
of the
the Herbrand-Gentzen
Herbrand-Gentzen theorem
theorem in
in relating
relating model
model theory
theory and
and proof
proof theory,
theory,
Journal of Logic, 22,
of Symbolic Logic, pp. 269-285.
22, pp. 269-285.
M. DAVIS
M. AND H
DAVIS AND H.. PUTNAM
PUTNAM
[1960] A
[1960J A computing
computing procedure
procedure for
for quantification
quantification theory,
theory, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 7,7, pp.
pp. 201-
201-
215. Reprinted
215. Reprinted in:in: Siekmann
Siekmann and and Wrightson
Wrightson [1983,vol
[1983,vol IJ.
1].
P. C.
P. C. EKLOF
EKLOF
[1977J
[1977] Ultraproducts
Ultraproducts for
for algebraists,
algebraists, in:
in: Barwise
Barwise [1977],
[1977], pp.
pp. 105-137.
105-137.
S. FEFERMAN
S. FEFERMAN
[1968] Lectures
[1968J Lectures on
on proof
proof theory,
theory, in:
in: Lectures on proof theory, Proceedings
Proceedings of
of the Summer
Summer
School in Logic,
Logic, Leeds, 1967, M.
Leeds, 1967, H. Lob,
M. H. LSb, ed.,
ed., Lecture
Lecture Notes
Notes in
in Mathematics
Mathematics #70,
#70,
Springer-Verlag,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
Berlin, pp.
pp. 1-107.
1-107.
G. FREGE
G. FREGE
[1879J
[1879] BegriJJsschrift,
BegriffsschrQ2, eine der arithmetischen
arithmetischen nachgebildete
nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens,
Halle.
Halle. English
English translation:
translation: in
in van
van Heijenoort
Heijenoort [1967],
[1967], pp.
pp. 1-82.
1-82.
G. GENTZEN
GENTZEN
[1935] Untersuchungen
[1935J Untersuchungen iiber
fiber das
das logische
logische Schliessen,
Schliessen, Mathematische ZeitschrQ2, 39,
Mathematische Zeitschrift, 39, pp.
pp. 176-
176-
210,
210, 405-431.
405-431. English
English translation in: Gentzen
translation in: Gentzen [1969],
[1969], pp.
pp. 68-131.
68-131.
[1969J
[1969] Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, North-Holland,
of Gerhard North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Amsterdam. Edited
Edited by
by M.
M. E.
E. Sz­
Sz-
abo.
abo.
J .-Y. GIRARD
J.-Y. GIRARD
[1987aJ
[1987a] Linear
Linear logic,
logic, Theoretical Science, 50,
Theoretical Computer Science, 50, pp.
pp. 1-102.
1-102.
[1987bJ
[1987b] Proof Theory and Logical Complexity, vol.
Logical Complexity, I, Bibliopolis,
vol. I, Bibliopolis, Napoli.
Napoli.
[1989J Types, Cambridge
[1989] Proofs and Types, Cambridge tracts
tracts in
in theoretical
theoretical computer
computer science #7, Cambridge
science #7, Cambridge
University Press. Translation
University Press. Translation and
and appendices
appendices by by P.
P. Taylor
Taylor and Y. Lafont.
and Y. Lafont.
K
K.. GODEL
GODEL
[1930] Die
[1930J Die Vollstandigkeit
Vollst~indigkeit der
der Axiome
Axiome des
des logischen
logischen F'Imktionenkalkiils,
Funktionenkalkiils, Monatshefte
Monatshe~e fUr
flit Math­
Math-
ematik und Physik, 37, pp. 349-360.
37, pp. 349-360.
R. HARROP
R. HARROP
[1960] Concerning
[1960J Concerning formulas
formulas of
of the types A -+
the types ~ BBVVCC,, A -+ (Ex)B(x) in
--+ (Ex)B(x) in intuitionistic
intuitionistic formal
formal
systems,
systems, Journal of Logic, 25,
of Symbolic Logic, pp. 27-32.
25, pp. 27-32.
J. VAN
J. VAN HEIJENOORT
HEIJENOORT
[1967J
[1967] From Frege to Giidel:
Gb'del: A sourcebook in mathematical logic, 1879-1931, Harvard
logic, 1879-1931, Harvard University
University
Press.
Press.
L. HENKIN
L. HENKIN
[1949] The
[1949J The completeness
completeness of
of the
the first-order
first-order functional
functional calculus,
calculus, Journal of
of Symbolic L09ic, 14,
Logic, 14,
pp.
pp. 159-166.
159-166.
LL.. HENSCHEN L. WOS
AND L.
HENSCHEN AND Wos
[1974] Unit
[1974J Unit refutations
refutations and
and Horn
Horn sets, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 21,
sets, J. 21, pp.
pp. 590-605.
590-605.
J.
J. HERBRAND
HERBRAND
[1930J
[1930] Recherches
Recherches sur la theorie dgmonstration, PhD
thdorie de la demonstration, PhD thesis,
thesis, University
University of
of Paris.
Paris. English
English
translation
translation in
in Herbrand
Herbrand [1971J
[1971] and
and translation
translation of
of chapter
chapter 55 in
in van
van Heijenoort
Heijenoort [1967J,
[1967],
pp.
pp. 525-581.
525-581.
76
76 S.
S. Buss
Buss

[1971]
[1971] Logical D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland. ed. by W. Goldfarb.
Logical Writings, D.
D
D.. HILBERT AND W.
HILBERT AND W. ACKERMANN
ACKERMANN
[1928]
[1928] Grundziige
Grundziige der theoretischen Logik, Springer-Verlag,
theoretischen Logik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Berlin.
D.. HILBERT
D HILBERT AND
AND PP.. BERNAYS
BERNAYS
Grundlagen der
[1934-39] Grundlagen
[1934-39] Mathematik, II fj
der Mathematik, f_4II,
II, Springer,
Springer,Berlin.
Berlin.
J. HINTIKKA
J. HINTIKKA
[1955] Form
[1955] Form and
and content
content in
in quantification
quantificationtheory,
theory,two
two papers
papers on
on symbolic
symbolic logic, Acta Philo­
logic,Acta Philo-
sophica Fennica,
sophica Fennica, 8,
8, pp. 7-55.
pp. 7-55.
W. A.
W. A. HOWARD
HOWARD
[1980] The
[1980] The formulas-as-types
formulas-as-types notion
notion of
of construction, in: To H. B. Curry: Essays in Combi­
construction, in: Combi-
Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism, J.
natory Logic, J. P.
P. Seldin
Seldin and J. R.
and J. R. Hindley,
Hindley, eds.,
eds.,
Academic
Academic Press,
Press, New
New York,
York, pp.
pp. 479-491.
479-491.
S.
S. KANGER
KANGER
[1957] Logic, Almqvist
[1957] Provability in Logic, Almqvist & & Wiksell,
Wiksell, Stockholm.
Stockholm.
S. C.
S. C. KLEENE
KLEENE
[1952]
[1952] Introduction Metamathematics, Wolters-Noordhoff,
Introduction to Metamathematics, Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen
Groningen and
and North-Holland,
North-Holland,
Amsterdam.
Amsterdam.
KOWALSKI
R. KOWALSKI
R.
[1979] Logicfor
[1979] Logic for Problem Solving,North-Holland,
Problem Solving, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Amsterdam.
J. KRAJf(3EK, P
J. KRAJiCEK, P.. PUDLAK,
PUDL~.K, AND
AND G G.. TAKEUTI
TAKEUTI
[1991] Bounded
[1991] Bounded arithmetic
arithmeticand
and the
the polynomial
polynomial hierarchy, Annals of
hierarchy,Annals of Pure
Pure and Applied Logic,
and Applied Logic,
52, pp. 143-153.
52, pp. 143-153.
G. KREISEL
G. KREISEL
[1951] On
[1951] On thethe interpretation
interpretationof of non-finitist proofs-part I,
non-finitistproofs-part Journal of
I, Journal of Symbolic
Symbolic Logic,
Logic, 16,
16,
pp. 241-267.
pp. 241-267.
[1952] On
[1952] On the
the interpretation
interpretationof of non-finitist
non-finitistproofs, part II.
proofs, part II. interpretation
interpretationofof number
number theory,
theory,
applications,
applications, Journal of of Symbolic Logic, 17,
Symbolic Logic, 17, pp.
pp. 43-58.
43-58.
P
P.. LINCOLN,
LINCOLN, JJ.. C.
C. MITCHELL,
MITCHELL, A A.. SCEDROV,
SCEDROV, AND AND N.N. SHANKAR
SHANKAR
[1992] Decision
[1992] Decision problems
problems for
for linear
linear logic,
logic, Annals
Annals of Logic, 56,
of Pure and Applied Logic, 56, pp.
pp. 239-311.
239-311.
E
E.. G.G. K.
K. LOPEZ-EsCOBAR
LOPEZ-ESCOBAR
[1965] An
[1965] An interpolation
interpolation theorem
theorem for for denumerably
denumerably long
long formulas,
formulas, Fundamenta Mathematicae,
57, pp.
57, pp. 253-272.
253-272.
D
D.. W.W. LOVELAND
LOVELAND
[1970] A
[1970] A linear
linear format
format for
for resolution,
resolution, in:in: Symp.
Syrup. on Automatic Demonstration, Lecture
Automatic Demonstration, Lecture Notes
Notes
in
in Mathematics
Mathematics #125,
#125, Springer-Verlag,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
Berlin, pp.
pp. 147-162.
147-162.
[1978]
[1978] Automated
Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Logical Basis, North-Holland,
North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Amsterdam.
D
D.. LUCKHAM
LUCKHAM
[1970] Refinement theorems
[1970] Refinement theorems in resolution theory,
in resolution in: Symp.
theory, in: Syrup. on Automatic
Automatic Demonstration,
Demonstration,
Lecture
Lecture Notes
Notes in
in Mathematics
Mathematics #125, #125, Springer-Verlag,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
Berlin, pp.
pp. 163-190.
163-190.
R.
R. C C.. LYNDON
LYNDON
[1959] An
[1959] An interpolation
interpolation theorem
theorem in in the predicate calculus,
the predicate calculus, Pacific Journal of of Mathematics, 9,
9,
pp.
pp. 129-142.
129-142.
E.
E. MENDELSON
MENDELSON
[1987]
[1987] Introduction
Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Logic, Wadsworth
Wadsworth & & Brooks /Cole, Monterey.
Brooks/Cole, Monterey.
J. R.
J. R. MUNKRES
M UNKRES
[1975] Topology: A First Course, Prentice-Hall,
[1975] Topology: Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Englewood Cliffs,
Cliffs, New
New Jersey.
Jersey.
 Introduction
Introduction to Proof
Proof Theory
Theory 77
77

M. S.
M. S. PATERSON M. N
AND M.
PATERSON AND N.. WEGMAN
WEGMAN
[1978] Linear
[1978] Linear unification, System Sci., 16,
unification, J. Comput. System 16, pp.
pp. 158-167.
158-167.
G.
G. PEANO
PEANO
[1889]
[1889] Arithmetices Principia, noca methodo exposito, Thrin.
Turin. English
English translation
translation in:
in: van
van
Heijenoort
Heijenoort [1967],
[1967], pp.
pp. 83-97.
83-97.
D. PRAWITZ
D. PRAWITZ
[1965]
[1965] Natural Deduction: A Proof- Theoretical Study, Almqvist
Proof-Theoretical Almqvist &
& Wiksell,
Wiksell, Stockholm.
Stockholm.
A. ROBINSON
A. ROBINSON
[1956] A
A result
result on
on consistency
consistency and
and it
it application
application to
to the
the theory
theory of
of definability,
definability, Indagationes
Mathematicae, 18,
Mathematicae, pp. 47-58.
18, pp. 47-58.
G
G.. ROBINSON AND L
ROBINSON AND L.. WOS
Wos
[1969] Paramodulation
[1969] Paramodulation andand theorem-proving
theorem-proving in
in first-order
first-order theories
theories with
with equality,
equality, in:
in: Machine
Intelligence pp. 135-150.
Intelligence 4, PP. 135-150.
J
J.. A. ROBINSON
A. ROBINSON
[1965a]
[1965a] Automatic
Automatic deduction
deduction with
with hyper-resolution,
hyper-resolution, International
International Journal of of Computer Math­
Math-
ematics, 1, pp. 227-234.
1, pp. Reprinted in:
227-234. Reprinted in: Siekmann
Siekmann and
and Wrightson
Wrightson [1983,vol
[1983,vol l].
1].
[1965b]
[1965b] A
A machine-oriented
machine-oriented logic
logic based
based on the resolution
on the resolution principle,
principle, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach.,
12,
12, pp. 23-41. Reprinted
pp. 23-41. Reprinted in:
in: Siekmann
Siekmann and
and Wrightson
Wrightson [1983,vol
[1983,vol l].
1].
K
K.. SCHUTTE
SCHIJTTE
[1965] Ein
[1965] Ein System
System des
des verkniipfenden
verkniipfenden Schliessens,
Schliessens, Archiv for
far Mathematische
Mathematische Logik und Grund­
Grund-
lagenforschung, 2, pp.
lagenforschung, 2, pp. 55-67.
55-67.
J. SIEKMANN
J. SIEKMANN AND G. WRIGHTSON
AND G. WRIGHTSON
[1983]
[1983] Automation
Automation of Reasoning, vol.
of Reasoning, 1&2, Springer-Verlag,
vol. l&2, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Berlin.
J. R. SLAGLE
J. R. SLAGLE
[1967] Automatic
[1967] Automatic theorem
theorem proving
proving with
with renamable
renamable and
and semantic
semantic resolution,
resolution, J. Assoc. Comput.
Mach., 14, pp. 687-697.
14, pp. 687-697. Reprinted in: Siekmann
Reprinted in: Siekmann and
and Wrightson
Wrightson [1983,vol
[1983,vol l].
1].
W.
W. W.
W. TAIT
WAIT
[1968] Normal
[1968] Normal derivability
derivability in
in classical
classical logic,
logic, in:
in: The Syntax and Semantics
Semantics of
of Infinitary
Infinitary
Languages, Lecture Notes in Mathematics J. Barwise,
#72, J.
Mathematics #72, Barwise, ed.,
ed., Springer-Verlag,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
Berlin,
pp.
pp. 204-236.
204-236.
G. TAKEUTI
G. TAKEUTI
[1987]
[1987] Proof Theory, North-Holland,
North-Holland, Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, 2nd
2nd ed.
ed.
A. S.
A. S. TROELSTRA
TROELSTRA
[1992] Logic, Center
[1992] Lectures on Linear Logic, Center for
for the
the Study
Study of
of Logic
Logic and
and Information,
Information, Stanford.
Stanford.
A. S.
A. S. TROELSTRA
TROELSTRA AND
AND D.D. VAN
VAN DALEN
DALEN
[1988]
[1988] Constructivism
Constructivism in Mathematics:
Mathematics: An Introduction, vol.
An Introduction, vol. I&II,
I&II, North-Holland,
North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Amsterdam.
G
G.. S.
S. TSEJTlN
TSEJTIN
[1968] On
[1968] On the
the complexity
complexity of derivation in
of derivation in propositional
propositional logic,
logic, Studies in Constructive
Constructive Mathe­
Mathe-
matics and Mathematical
Mathematical Logic, 2, pp.
Logic, 2, pp. 1115-125.
15-125. Reprinted in: Siekmann
Reprinted in: Siekmann and
and Wright­
Wright-
son
son [1983,vol
[1983,vol 2].
2].
A. N.
A. N. WHITEHEAD
WHITEHEAD AND B. RUSSELL
AND B. RUSSELL
[1910] Principia Mathematica, vol.
[1910] 1, Cambridge
vol. 1, Cambridge University
University Press.
Press.
L. WOS,
L. R. OVERBEEK,
Wos, R. E. LUSK,
OVERBEEK, E. AND J.
LUSK, AND J. BOYLE
BOYLE
[1992]
[1992] Automated Introduction and Applications, McGraw-Hill,
Automated Reasoning: Introduction McGraw-Hill, New
New York,
York, 2nd
2nd ed.
ed.
78
78 S.
S. Buss
Buss

L. WOS
L. Wos AND G. ROBINSON
AND G. ROBINSON
[1973]J Maximal
[1973 Maximal models
models and
and refutation
refutation completeness:
completeness: Semidecision
Semidecision procedures
procedures in
in automatic
automatic
theorem
theorem proving, in: Word Problems:
proving, in: Problems: Decision Problems and the Burnside Problem in
W. W.
Theory, W.
Group Theory, Boone, F.
W. Boone, B. Cannonito,
F. B. Cannonito, and
and R. C. Lyndon,
R. C. Lyndon, eds.,
eds., North-Holland,
North-Holland,
Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, pp.
pp. 609-639.
609-639.
L. Wos,
L. Wos, G. ROBINSON, AND D
ROBINSON, AND D.. F.
F. CARSON
CARSON
[1965J Efficiency
[1965] Efficiency and
and completeness
completeness of
of the
the set
set of
of support
support stategy
stategy in
in theorem
theorem proving,
proving, J. Assoc.
Comput. Mach., 12,
12, pp.
pp. 201-215.
201-215. Reprinted
Reprinted in:
in: Siekmann
Siekmann and
and Wrightson J.
1983,vol I1].
Wrightson [[1983,vol
 CHAPTER
CHAPTER II
II

First- Order Proof

First-Order Proof Theory
Theory of
of Arithmetic
Arithmetic

Samuel
Samuel R. R. Buss
Buss
Departments of Mathematics and Computer Science,
Science, University of
o] California,
California, San Diego,
Jolla, CA 92093-0112,
La Jolla, 92093-0112, USA

Contents
Contents
1. Fragments
1. Fragments of of arithmetic
a r i t h m e t i c .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
1.1. Very
Very weak weak fragments
fragments of of arithmetic
arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
1.2. Strong
Strong fragments
fragments of of arithmetic
arithmetic . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
1.3. Fragments
Fragments of of bounded
b o u n d e d arithmetic
arithmetic .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
1.4. Sequent
Sequent calculus
calculus formulations
formulations of of arithmetic
arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
2. Giidel
GSdel incompleteness
incompleteness . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
2.1. Arithmetization
A r i t h m e t i z a t i o n ofof metamathematics
m e t a m a t h e m a t i c s .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
13
2.2. The
T h e Giidel
GSdel incompleteness
incompleteness theorems theorems .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
18
3. On
On the
the strengths
strengths of of fragments
fragments of of arithmetic
arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.1. Witnessing
Witnessing theorems theorems .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.2. Witnessing
Witnessing theorem t h e o r e m for
for S� S~ .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.3. Witnessing
Witnessing theorems theorems and and conservation
conservation results for T�
results for T~ . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
3.4. Relationships
Relationships between between BE BEnn and and/E lEn n .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4. Strong
Strong incompleteness
incompleteness theorems theorems for for Iflo
IA0 + + exp
exp .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
References .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References 143
143

HANDBOOK
H A N D B O O K OF
OF P PROOF
R O O F THEORY
THEORY
Edited
Edited by S. R.
by S. R. Buss
Buss
© 1998
1998 Elsevier
Elsevier Science
Science B.V.
B.V. All
All rights
rights reserved
reserved
80 s.
S. Buss
Buss

This
This chapter
chapter discusses
discusses the
the proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic foundations
foundations of of the
the first-order
first-order theory
theory ofof
the
the non-negative
non-negative integers. This first-order
integers. This first-order theory
theory of of numbers,
numbers, also called 'first-order
also called 'first-order
arithmetic',' , consists
arithmetic consists of of the
the first-order
first-order sentences
sentences which
which are
are true
true about
about the
the integers.
integers.
The
The study
study ofof first-order
first-order arithmetic
arithmetic is is important
important for for several
several reasons.
reasons. Firstly,
Firstly, in
in the
the
study
study ofof the
the foundation
foundation of of mathematics,
mathematics, arithmetic
arithmetic andand set
set theory
theory areare two
two ofof the
the
most
most important first-order theories;
important first-order indeed, the
theories; indeed, the usual
usual foundational
foundational development
development of of
mathematical
mathematical structures begins with
structures begins with the
the integers
integers asas fundamental
fundamental and and from
from these
these
constructs
constructs mathematical
mathematical constructions
constructions such such asas the
the rationals
rationals and
and the
the reals.
reals. Sec­
Sec-
ondly,
ondly, the
the proof
proof theory
theory for arithmetic is
for arithmetic is highly
highly developed
developed andand serves
serves asas aa basis
basis for
for
proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic investigations
investigations of many stronger
of many stronger theories.
theories. Thirdly,
Thirdly, there
there are
are intimate
intimate
connections
connections between
between subtheories
subtheories of of arithmetic
arithmetic and and computational
computational complexity;
complexity; these
these
connections go
connections go back
back to to G6del
Ghdel's ' s discovery
discovery thatthat the
the numeralwise
numeralwise representable
representable func­
func-
tions
tions of
of arithmetic
arithmetic theories
theories are
are exactly
exactly thethe recursive
recursive functions
functions and
and areare recently
recently ofof
great interest because
great interest because some
some weak theories of
weak theories of arithmetic
arithmetic have
have very close connection
very close connection
of
of feasible
feasible computational
computational classes.
classes.

Because
Because of
of G6del
Ghdel's's second
second incompleteness
incompleteness theorem
theorem that
that the
the theory
theory ofof numbers
numbers
is
is not
not recursive,
recursive, there
there is
is no good proof
no good proof theory
theory for
for the
the complete
complete theory
theory ofof numbers;
numbers;
therefore,
therefore, proof-theorists
proof-theorists consider
consider axiomatizable
axiomatizable subtheories
subtheories (called
(called fragments)
fragments) ofof
first-order
first-order arithmetic.
arithmetic. These
These fragments
fragments range
range in
in strength
strength from
from the
the very
very weak
weak theories
theories
R
R and
and QQ up
up to
to the
the very
very strong
strong theory
theory of
of Peano
Peano arithmetic
arithmetic ((PA).
PA).
The
The outline
outline of of this
this chapter
chapter is
is as
as follows.
follows. Firstly,
Firstly, we we shall
shall introduce
introduce thethe most
most
important
important fragments
fragments of arithmetic and
of arithmetic and discuss their relative
discuss their relative strengths
strengths and
and the
the boot­
boot-
strapping
strapping process.
process. Secondly,
Secondly, we we give
give an
an overview
overview of of the
the incompleteness
incompleteness theorems.
theorems.
Thirdly,
Thirdly, section
section 3 discusses
discusses thethe topics
topics ofof what
what functions
functions areare provably
provably total
total in
in various
various
fragments
fragments of arithmetic and
of arithmetic and of
of the
the relative strengths of
relative strengths of different
different fragments
fragments of of arith­
arith-
metic.
metic. Finally,
Finally, we conclude with
we conclude with aa proof
proof of
of aa theorem
theorem of J. Paris
of J. Paris and
and A.A. Wilkie
Wilkie which
which
improves
improves G6del
Ghdel's 's incompleteness theorem by
incompleteness theorem showing that
by showing that L�o
IA0 + + exp
exp cannot
cannot prove
prove
the
the consistency
consistency ofof Q Q.. The
The main prerequisite for
main prerequisite reading this
for reading this chapter
chapter is knowledge of
is knowledge of
the sequent
the sequent calculus
calculus andand cut-elimination,
cut-elimination, as as contained
contained in Chapter II of
in Chapter this volume.
of this volume.
The
The proof
proof theory
theory ofof arithmetic
arithmetic isis aa major
major subfield
subfield ofof logic
logic and
and this
this chapter
chapter necessarily
necessarily
omits
omits many
many important
important and and central
central topics
topics inin the
the proof
proof theory
theory of of arithmetic;
arithmetic; thethe most
most
notable
notable omission
omission is is theories
theories stronger
stronger thanthan Peano
Peano arithmetic.
arithmetic. Our Our emphasis
emphasis has has
instead
instead been
been onon weak
weak fragments
fragments ofof arithmetic
arithmetic and and on
on fi nitary proof
finitary proof theory,
theory, especially
especially
on
on applications
applications of of the
the cut-elimination
cut-elimination theorem.
theorem. The The articles
articles ofof Fairtlough-Wainer,
Fairtlough-Wainer,
Pohlers,
Pohlers, Troelstra
Troelstra and and Avigad-Feferman
Avigad-Feferman in in this
this volume
volume alsoalso discuss
discuss the
the proof
proof theory
theory
of
of arithmetic.
arithmetic.

There
There are
are aa number
number ofof book
book length
length treatments
treatments of of the
the proof
proof theory
theory and
and model
model
theory
theory of
of arithmetic.
arithmetic. Takeuti [1987], Girard
Takeuti [1987], [1987] and
Girard [1987] and Schiitte [1977] discuss
Schiitte [1977] discuss the
the
classical
classical proof
proof theory
theory of
of arithmetic,
arithmetic, Buss [1986] discusses
Buss [1986] discusses the
the proof
proof of
of the
the bounded
bounded
arithmetic,
arithmetic, and
and Kaye [1991] and
Kaye [1991] and Hajek
H~jek and
and Pudlak [1993] treat
Pudl~k [1993] treat the
the model
model theory
theory
of
of arithmetic.
arithmetic. TheThe last
last reference
reference gives
gives an
an in-depth
in-depth and
and modern
modern treatment
treatment both
both of
of
classical
classical fragments
fragments ofof Peano
Peano arithmetic
arithmetic and
and of
of bounded
bounded arithmetic.
arithmetic.
 Proof
Proof Theory
Theoryof
of Arithmetic
Arithmetic 81
81

11.. Fragments
Fragments of
o f arithmetic
arithmetic

This
This section
section introduces
introduces thethe most
most commonly
commonly used
used axiomatizations
axiomatizations for for fragments
fragments
of
of arithmetic.
arithmetic. TheseThese axiomatizations
axiomatizations are are organized
organized into
into the
the categories
categories of of 'strong
'strong
fragments',' , 'weak
fragments fragments'' and
'weak fragments and 'very
'very weak fragments'.' . The
weak fragments The line
line between
between strong
strong
and
and weak
weak fragments
fragments is is somewhat
somewhat arbitrarily
arbitrarily drawn
drawn between
between those
those theories
theories which
which
can prove
can prove the
the arithmetized
arithmetized version
version of of the
the cut-elimination
cut-elimination theorem
theorem andand those
those which
which
cannot;
cannot; in
in practice,
practice, this
this is
is equivalent
equivalent to to whether
whether the
the theory
theory can
can prove
prove that
that the
the
superexponential function ii f-7
superexponential function 21 is
~-~ 2} is total.
total. The
The very
very weak
weak theories
theories are
are theories
theories which
which
do
do not
not admit
admit any any induction
induction axioms.
axioms.

Non-logical
Non-logical symbols s y m b o l s for a r i t h m e t i c . We
for arithmetic. We will
will be
be working
working exclusively
exclusively with with first­
first-
order
order theories
theories of of arithmetic:
arithmetic: these these havehave all all the
the usual
usual fifirst-order
rst-order symbols,
symbols, including
including
propositional
propositional connectives
connectives and and quantifiers
quantifiers and and thethe equality symbol ((=
equality symbol - )). . In
In addition,
addition,
they
they have non-logical symbols
have non-logical symbols specific
specific to to arithmetic.
arithmetic. TheseThese willwill always
always include
include thethe
constant
constant symbol
symbol 00,, thethe unary unary successor
successor function
function S S,, the
the binary
binary functions
functions symbolssymbols
+ and . 9for
+ and for addition
addition and and multiplication,
multiplication, and and thethe binary
binary predicate
predicate symbol
symbol � _< for
for
'less
'less than
than or or equal
equal toto'.' . 11 Very
Very often,
often, terms
terms are are abbreviated
abbreviated by omitting parentheses
by omitting parentheses
around
around thethe arguments
arguments of of the
the successor
successor function,
function, and and we write St instead
we write instead of S(t).. In
of S(t) In
n
addition,
addition, for for n k 0 an
n 2: an integer,
integer, we we write
write s S"tt toto denote
denote thethe term
term with
with n n applications
applications
of
of S to
to tt..
For
For weak
weak theories
theories of of arithmetic,
arithmetic, especially
especially for for bounded
bounded arithmetic,
arithmetic, it it is
is common
common
to
to include
include further non-logical symbols.
further non-logical symbols. These These include
include aa unary function l[sxJ
unary function �1xJ for
for
division by
division by two,
two, a a unary
unary function
function IIxl x l which
which is is defined
defined by by

I.,I = r~og~(n + 1)1,

and Nelson 's binary

and Nelson's binary function
function ## (pronounced 'smash')' ) which
(pronounced 'smash which we
we define by
define by

# n = 2 Iml·l nl .
m#n
m Iml'lnl.
=

It iiss easy
It easy to
to check
check that
that Inl
Inl isis equal
equal to
to the
the number
number of
of bits
bits in
in the
the binary
binary representation
representation
of Tb.
of n.
An alternative
An alternative toto the
the ## function
function isis the the unary
unary function
function Wl,WI , whichwhich isis defined
defined byby
nllog2 nJ and
wl (n) - n0og2nJ
wl(n) =
and has
has growth
growth rate
rate similar
similar to to ##. . The
The importance
importance of of the
the use
use of
of
the WI function
the wl function andand the
the ## function
function lies
lies mainly
mainly inin their
their growth
growth rate. rate. In In this
this regard,
regard,
they are
they are essentially
essentially equivalent
equivalent since
since Wl (n) ~� nn#n
wl (n) and m
# n and m#n
# n -= O(wl (max{m, (max{m, n})).n})) .
Both of
Both of these
these functions
functions are
are generalizable
generalizable to to faster
faster growing
growing functions
functions by by defining
defining
wn(x ) -= xx~"-l(ll~
wn(x) and x#n+ly
Wn-1(llog2 XJl and 2 l x l #nlyl where
X#n+lY -= 21*l#,lul where #2 is ##. . ItIt isis easy
#2 is easy to
to check
check that
that
the growth
the growth rates
rates of
of w~ and #~+1
Wn and are equivalent
#n+l are equivalent in in the
the sense
sense that
that any any term
term involving
involving
one of
one of the
the function
function symbols
symbols can
can be
be bounded
bounded by by aa term
term involving
involving the the other
other function
function
symbol.
symbol.

1 Many authors
1Many use << instead
authors use instead of
of <;
:5; however,
however, wewe prefer
prefer the
the use
use of
of <:5 since
since this
this sometimes
sometimes
makes axioms
makes axioms and
and theorems
theorems more
more elegant
elegant to
to state.
state.
82 s.
S. Buss

For
For strong
strong theories
theories of arithmetic, it
of arithmetic, it is
is sometimes
sometimes convenient
convenient to to enlarge
enlarge the
the set
set of
of
non-logical
non-logical symbols
symbols to to include
include function
function symbols
symbols for for all
all primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions.
functions.
The
The usual
usual way
way toto do
do this
this isis to
to inductively
inductively define
define the
the primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions
functions
as
as the
the smallest
smallest class
class of
of functions
functions which
which contains
contains thethe constant
constant function
function 0 and
and the
the
successor
successor function
function S S,, is
is closed
closed under
under aa general
general form
form ofof composition,
composition, and and is
is closed
closed
under
under primitive recursion. The
primitive recursion. The closure
closure under
under primitive
primitive recursion
recursion means
means that
that ifif
g
g and
and h are
are primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions
functions ofof arities
arities nn and
and n + 22,, then
n+ then the
the (n
(n + 1) -ary
+ 1)-ary
function
function f f defined
defined byby

f/ ( (x,
~ , 0 O)
) = g(x)
g(~)

ff (x,
(~, m
m++ 1) -- h(x,
1) = h(~, m,
m, f (x, m))
f(~', m))
is
is also
also primitive
primitive recursive.
recursive. These These equations
equations are called the
are called the defining equations of
defining equations of f
f ..
A bounded quantifier
A bounded quantifier is is of
of the
the form
form (Vx � < t) (- . . ) or
t)(-..) or (3x � < t)(- · ·) where
t)(...) where tt is is aa
term
term not
not involving
involving x x.. TheseThese may
may be be used
used as as abbreviations
abbreviations for for (Vx)
(Vx)(x (x � < tt :::l
D ..--). .)
and (3x) (x �
and (3x)(x A ... .. ). ), , respectively;
<_ tt 1\ respectively; or, alternatively, the
or, alternatively, the syntax
syntax ofof first-order
first-order logic logic
may
may bebe expanded
expanded to incorporate bounded
to incorporate bounded quantifi
quantifiers ers directly.
directly. In In the
the latter
latter case,
case,
the
the sequent calculus is
sequent calculus is enlarged with additional
enlarged with additional inference
inference rules,rules, shown
shown in in section
section 11.4. .4.
A
A usual
usual quantifier
quantifier is is calledcalled an unbounded quantifier;
an unbounded quantifier; when when Ixl Ix] is
is in
in the
the language,
language, aa
bounded
bounded quantifier
quantifier of of the the form
form (Qx � t I) is
<_ IIt]) called aa sharply
is called bounded quantifier.
sharply bounded quantifier.
A
A theory
theory isis said
said toto be be bounded if it is
bounded ifit is axiomatizable
axiomatizable with with aa set
set of bounded formulas.
of bounded formulas.
Since
Since free
free variables
variables in in axioms
axioms areare implicitly
implicitly universally
universally quantified,
quantified, this
this is is equivalent
equivalent
to being
to being axiomatized
axiomatized with with aa set
set of
of Ill -sentences (which
IIl-sentences (which are defined in
are defined in section
section 11.2.1).
.2.1).

1.1.
1.1. Very
V e r y weak
weak fragments
f r a g m e n t s of
of arithmetic
arithmetic

The
The most
most commonly
commonly usedused induction-free
induction-free fragment
fragment of
of arithmetic
arithmetic is
is Robinson's
Robinson's
theory
theory Q introduced by
Q,, introduced by Tarski,
Tarski, Mostowski
Mostowski and
and Robinson [1953].. The
Robinson [1953] The theory
theory QQ has
has
non-logical symbols 00,, S
non-logical symbols + and
S,, + and · 9and
and is
is axiomatized
axiomatized by
by the
the following
following six axioms:
six axioms:
(Vx) ~ =F
( w ) ((~--,sSx 0)
# 0)
(Vx)
( w ) ((Vy)
v y ) ((Sx s y :::l
= Sy
s~ = ~ x9 = y)
: y)
(Vx) (x =F
(v~)(~ ~ (3y)(Sy
# 0 :::l = x))
(~y)(sy = ~))
(Vx) (x +
(vz)(~ + 0== x) ~)
(Vx) (Vy)(x +
(w)(vy)(~ + Sy = S(x
sy = s(~ + y)))
+ V)
(v~)(~.
(Vx) (x 0o =
. o)
= 0)
(Vx) (x · Sy
(v~)(~. = x9 ·.yy +
sy = + x)
~)

Unlike
Unlike most
most ofof the
the theories
theories of
of arithmetic
arithmetic we
we consider,
consider, the
the language
language of
of Q does
does not
not
contain
contain the
the inequality
inequality symbol;
symbol; however,
however, we
we can
can conservatively
conservatively extend
extend QQ to
to include
include
_< by
� by giving
giving it
it the
the defining
defining axiom:
axiom:

x� y t+
< Y ( ~ zz))((x
++ (3 ~ +
+ z= y).) .
= V
 Proof Theory
Theory of Arithmetic 83
83

This
This conservative
conservative extension
extension of Q is
of Q is denoted
denoted Q�
Q<..
A yet
A yet weaker
weaker theory
theory isis the
the theory
theory R R,, also
also introduced
introduced by
by Tarski,
Tarski, Mostowski
Mostowski
and
and Robinson [1953].. This
Robinson [1953] This has
has the
the same
same language
language as Q and
as Q and is
is axiomatized
axiomatized byby the
the
following
following infi nite set
infinite set of
of axioms,
axioms, where
where we
we let
let s �_ t abbreviate
abbreviate (3z)
(3z)(s + z=
(s + - t)
t)..

sm o =I-
Sin0 ~: S nO
Sn0 for
for all _ m <
all 0 � < n,
smo +
Sin0 + S nO =
Sn0 = s m +n o
Sm+~0 for
for all
all m, n �
_ 0,
sm o . 9S
Sin0 nO =
S~0 = s m.n o
Sm'~0 for
for all
all m, n �
_ 0,
(V'x) _ s
(Vx) (x � mo V s
Sin0 mo �
smo < x) for
for all m �
all m _ 0, and
and
(V'x)(x
(vz)(z � s mmoo t-t
< s + + .x = o V
= 0 v x
z = so V
= SO v xz = s ~2o0 V
- S v . .·. · · V
v x
z = s ~moo)
= s )
for
for all m �
all m > o.
O.

We
We leave
leave it
it to
to the
the reader
reader to
to prove
prove that
that Q
QF~R
R..

1.2.
1.2. Strong
S t r o n g fragments
f r a g m e n t s of
of arithmetic
arithmetic

This
This section
section presents
presents the
the definitions
definitions and
and the
the basic
basic capabilities
capabilities of
of some
some strong
strong
fragments
fragments of of arithmetic.
arithmetic. These
These fragments
fragments areare defined
defined by
by using
using induction
induction axioms,
axioms,
minimization axioms
minimization axioms or collection axioms;
or collection axioms; these
these axioms
axioms do do not
not always
always apply
apply to
to all
all
fifirst-order
rst-order formulas,
formulas, but
but rather
rather apply
apply to
to formulas
formulas that
that satisfy
satisfy certain
certain restrictions
restrictions on
on
quantifier
quantifier alternation.
alternation. For
For this
this purpose,
purpose, wewe make
make the
the following
following defi nitions:
definitions:

1.2.1.
1.2.1. Definition.
Definition. A formula
A formula isis called
called aa bounded
bounded formula if if it
it contains
contains onlyonly
bounded
bounded quantifi ers. The
quantifiers. The set
set of
of bounded
bounded formulas
formulas isis denoted �o . For
denoted A0. For nn � >_ 0 the
0,, the
classes �n and
classes En ITn of
and IIn of first-order formulas are
first-order formulas are inductively defined by:
inductively defined by:
(1) ~0
(1) ITo =
�o == ri0 �0o, ,
= A
(2) E~+I is
(2) �n+1 the set
is the set of of formulas
formulas ofof the
the form
form (:Ji)A
(3s where
where A AE II~ and
E ITn is aa possibly
and si is possibly
empty vector
empty vector of of variables.
variables.
(3) ITn
(3) + 1 is
II~+1 the set
is the set ofof formulas
formulas ofof the
the form
form (3~)A where A EE �n
(:Ji)A where E~ and
and ~ i is
is aa possibly
possibly
empty
empty vector
vector of of variables.
variables.
These
These classes
classes �n En,, II~ form the
ITn form the arithmetic hierarchy.
1.2.2. Definition.
1.2.2. Definition. The The induction axioms are
are specified
specified as
as an axiom scheme;
an axiom scheme; that
that
is, <P is
is, ifif (I) is aa set
set of
of formulas
formulas then
then the
the (I)-IND
<p-IND axiom
axiom are
are the
the formulas
formulas

1\ (Vx)(A(x)
A(O) A :J A(Sx))
(V'x) (A(x) D :J (Vx)A(x),
A(Sx)) D (V'x)A(x) ,

for all
for all formulas
formulas A AC <P . Note
E ~. Note that
that A(x)
A(x) isis permitted
permitted to
to have other free
have other variables in
free variables in
addition to
addition to x. Similarly, the
x . Similarly, the least number principle
principle axioms or minimization
axioms or axioms
minimization axioms
for
for r¢ are
are denoted
denoted (I)-MIN
<p-MIN andand consist
consist of
of all
all formulas
formulas

:J (3x)(A(x)
(:Jx)A(x) D
(3x)A(x) 1\ -,(:Jy) (y << xx A
(:Jx)(A(x) A--(3y)(y 1\ A(y))),
A(y))),
84 S. Buss

for
for all
all A E <I>
r . Likewise,
Likewise, the or replacement axioms
the collection or axioms for
for <I>
r are
are denoted
denoted
<I>-REPL
O-REPL and and consist
consist of
of the
the formulas
formulas

(\:I
(Vx x�
_ tt)(Sy)A(x,y)
) (3y)A(x , y) J
D (3z) (\:Ix �
(Sz)(Vx ) (3y �
_ tt)(3y <_z)A(x,
z)A(x, y),

for
for all <I>.
all A E ~.

1.2.3.
1.2.3. Definition.
Definition. The
The above
above axioms
axioms form
form the
the basisbasis for
for aa hierarchy
hierarchy of of strong
strong
fragments
fragments of of arithmetic
arithmetic over
over the
the language
language containing
containing the the non-logical
non-logical symbols
symbols 0, 0, S
S,,
+ , . 9and
+, and _.� . The
The theory /E,n iiss defined
theory n:: defined to
to bbee the
the theory
theory axiomatized
axiomatized by by the
the eight
eight
axioms
axioms of Q< plus
of Q� plus the
the I:n-IND
E,-IND axioms.
axioms. Of particular importance
Of particular importance is is the special case
the special case
of
of the
the theory IA00 which
theory 11::. defined as
which defined Q< plus
as Q� plus the
the 1::. o -IND axioms.
A0-IND axioms. The
The theory
theory L I:n is
LE~ is
defined
defined to to be
be the
the theory
theory 11::.
IA00 plus the I:n
plus the -MIN axioms.
E~-MIN axioms. Similarly, BEN is
Similarly, BI:n is the
the theory
theory
consisting of
consisting of 11::.
IA00 plus
plus the
the I:n -REPL axioms.
E,-REPL axioms. Other
Other theories,
theories, especially
especially mn /II,,, Liin
LH,
and BII,,, can
and BIIn can be defined similarly.
be defined similarly.
The
The theory
theory of of Peano arithmetic, PA PA,, is
is defined
defined to be the
to be the theory
theory Q plusplus induc­
induc-
tion
tion for
for all
all first-order
first-order formulas.
formulas. The The figure
figure below
below shows shows that
that PA alsoalso admits
admits thethe
minimization
minimization and and replacement
replacement axioms
axioms forfor all
all formulas.
formulas.

1.2.4.
1.2.4. TheThe figure
figure below
below shows
shows thethe containments
containments between
between thethe various
various strong
strong frag­
frag-
ments
ments of
of arithmetic,
arithmetic, where
where S S =>
=} TT indicates that the
indicates that the theory
theory S logically
logically implies
implies the
the
theory
theory TT.. The
The twotwo arrows n::n+ 1 =>
arrows/E,+~ BEn+I and
:=> BI:n+1 BE,+1 =>
and BI:n+1 E , do
= ~ /n::n do not
not reverse,
reverse, i.e.,
i.e.,
the
the containments
containments are are proper.
proper. These
These facts
facts are
are due
due to
to Parsons [1970] and
Parsons [1970] and Paris
Paris and
and
Kirby [1978].. ((The
Kirby [1978] The figure
figure is
is taken
taken from
from the
the latter reference.))
latter reference.

n::n+1
-~n+l
.ij.
BI:n+ l � BIIn
BE.+lV=~BII~
.ij.
n::
PE.n � ~ L EL. I:n �
I. n �
~ / 1 -m r LIIn

Most
Most of
of these
these containments
containments are are proved
proved in
in section .2.9. The
section 11.2.9. The fact
fact that BE,+1 is
that BI:n+1 is aa
subtheory
subtheory of n::n +1 is
of/En+I is proved
proved as
as Theorem
Theorem 1.2.9 below. The
1.2.9 below. The fact
fact that
that it
it is
is aa proper
subtheory
subtheory of n::n+1 is
of/E,+I is proved
proved as Theorem 3.4.2.
as Theorem

1.2.5.
1.2.5. I:�
E + andand II�H + formulas.
formulas. Some
Some authors
authors use
use aa different
different definition
definition of
of the
the
arithmetic
arithmetic hierarchy
hierarchy than than definition .2.1 . These
definition 11.2.1. These alternative
alternative classes,
classes, which
which wewe denote
denote
I:�
E + and
and II�
H + ,, are
are inductively
inductively defined
defined by
by
(1) I:;
(1) = II;
+ = n o+ == 1::.
zx0,0,
(2) I:�
(2) ++11 is
E,+ is the
the set
set ofof formulas
formulas obtained
obtained by by prep ending an
prepending an arbitrary block of
arbitrary block of exis­
exis-
tential
tential quantifiers
quantifiers and bounded universal
and bounded universal quantifiers
quantifiers to
to II� -formulas.
II+-formulas.
(3) II� + l is
II++l is the
the set
set offormulas
of formulas obtained
obtained byby prep ending an
prepending an arbitrary
arbitrary block
block of
of universal
universal
quantifiers
quantifiers and bounded existential
and bounded existential quantifiers
quantifiers to
to I:� -formulas.
E+-formulas.
 Proof Theory
Proof Theory of
of Arithmetic
Arithmetic 85
85

Thus EE�
Thus and HlI�
+ and are defined
+ are defined analogously
analogously to to EnEn and
and Hn,
lIn ' except
except arbitrary
arbitrary bounded
bounded
quantifiers may be
quantifiers may be inserted
inserted without
without adding
adding toto the
the quantifier complexity.
quantifier complexity.
It isis straightforward
It straightforward to to prove
prove thatthat EEn-REPL proves that
~ - R E P L proves that every E� -formula isis
every E+-formula
equivalent to
equivalent to aa E~-formula,
En -formula, using
using induction
induction onon the
the number
number of of unbounded
unbounded quantifiers
quantifiers
which are
which are in
in the
the scope
scope of
of aa bounded
bounded quantifier,
quantifier, with
with aa sub-induction
sub-induction onon the
the number
number of
of
bounded quantifiers
bounded quantifiers which
which have
have thethe outermost
outermost unbounded
unbounded quantifier
quantifier in
in their
their scope.
scope.
Therefore, /E
Therefore, rr;� is equivalent
+ is equivalent ttoo / Err;n and BE
~ and BE� is equivalent
+ is equivalent toto BEn.
BEn .

1.2.6. BBootstrapping
1.2.6. It:.o , PPhase
o o t s t r a p p i n g IA0, h a s e 11

The axioms
The axioms of of Q Q areare veryvery simplistic
simplistic and, and, by by themselves,
themselves, do do not
not implyimply many many
elementary facts
elementary facts about
about addition
addition and and multiplication,
multiplication, such such as as commutativity
commutativity and and as- as­
sociativity. When
sociativity. When combined
combined with with induction
induction axioms, axioms, however, however, the the axioms
axioms of of QQ imply
imply
many basic
many basic facts facts about
about the the integers.
integers. The The process
process of of establishing
establishing such such basicbasic facts
facts as as
commutativity and
commutativity associativity of
and associativity of addition
addition and and multiplication,
multiplication, the the transitivity
transitivity of of <�, ,
the totality
the totality of of subtraction,
subtraction, etc. etc. is is called
called bootstrapping,
bootstrapping, named named after after the the expression
expression
"to lift
"to lift oneself
oneself by one's bootstraps".
by one's bootstraps" . TThat h a t isis toto say,
say, in in order
order to to use the full
use the full power
power of of
aa set
set of axioms, itit is
of axioms, is necessary
necessary to to do do some some relatively
relatively tedious tedious work work establishing
establishing that that
the axioms
the axioms of of Q Q are
are sufficient
sufficient as as a base theory.
a base theory.
This section
This section will will give
give a sketch of
a sketch of the the bootstrapping
bootstrapping process process for for It:.o
IA0;; to to keep
keep
things brief,
things brief, only only an an outline
outline will will be be given,
given, with with most most of of the proofs left
the proofs left to the
to the
reader. Because
reader. Because It:.o IA0 is is aa sub theory of
subtheory of allall thethe strong fragments defined
strong fragments defined above, above, this this
bootstrapping
bootstrapping applies applies equally
equally well well to to all all of of them.
them.
To
To beginbegin the the bootstrapping
bootstrapping process, process, show show that that the the following
following formulas formulas are are It:.o
IA0
provable.
provable.
(a)
(a) Addition
A d d i t i o n is
is commutative:
commutative: (\Ix, (Vx, y) y ) ((xx + + y y = = y y + + x) x ) . . In
In order
order to to prove
prove this,this, first
first
prove
prove the the formulas
formulas (a.l) (a.1) (\Ix)
(Vx)(0 (0 ++ x x = - x) x) and and (a.2)(a.2) (\Ix, (Vx, y) Sx +
y ) ((Sx + yy = - SS(x (x + + y))y)). . In
In
order
order to to prove
prove (a.l),(a.1), use induction on
use induction on the the formula
formula 00 + + x x = = x x,, andand to to prove
prove (a.2)(a.2),,
use induction on
use induction on Sx Sx + + y y =- SS(x (x + + y) y) with with respect
respect to to the
the variable
variable y y.. NoteNote thatthat thethe
variable
variable x x is is being
being used used as as a a parameter
parameter in in thethe latter induction. From
latter induction. From these these two,
two, one one
can
can use induction on
use induction on x + § y= - y+ + x x andand prove prove the the commutativity
commutativity of of addition.
addition.
(b)
(b) Addition
Addition is is associative:
associative: (\Ix, (Vx, y, y , zz)
) ( ((x
(x + + y) y) + + zz = = x x + + (y (y + z)).. Use
+ z)) Use induction
induction
onon (x( x ++y y) ) + z+= zx +=( yx++ z ) (y
. + z) .
(c)
(c) Multiplication
Multiplication is is commutative:
commutative: (\Ix, (Yx, y)(xy ) ( x ·. yy = = y y .. x)x ) . . Analogously
Analogously to to (a),
(a), first
first
prove
prove (c.l)(c.1) O0 .·xx = = 00 and
and (c.2)
(c.2) (Sx)( S x ) . y· y = - X x ·. yY ++y y by induction with
by induction with respect
respect to to x x and
and
y, respectively.
y, respectively.
(d)
(d) Distributive
Distributive law: law: (\Ix,
(Vz, y, y, z)
z ) (((x
(x + + y) y) .. zz = - X x ·. Zz + + yy . . z) z).. UseUse induction.
induction.
(e)
(e) Multiplication
Multiplication is is associative:
associative: (\Ix, (Vx, y, y , zz)((x
) ( ( x , · y)y) .. zz = = X ( y . . z))
x . · (y z)).. UseUse induction.
induction.
(f)
(f) Cancellation
Cancellation laws laws for .for addition:
addition: (\Ix, (Vx, y, y, z)z ) ((x
x + + zz = = Y y + + zz +-+~ x x = = y) y) and
and
(\Ix,
(Vx, y, )(x+z �
y , zz)(x+z y + z +-+
<_ y+z ++ x x � y).. Use
<_ y) Use induction
induction w.r.t. w.r.t, zz for for the the forward
forward implications.
implications.
(g)
(g) Discreteness
Discreteness of of � <_": (\Ix, y)(x �
(Yx, y)(x < Sy Sy J D x x � <_ Y yV Vx x = -- Sy) S y ) . . This
This can can be be proved
proved
from
from Q without any
Q without any induction:
induction: if if x x � <_ Sy S y , , then
then x x + + zz = - Sy S y forfor somesome zz;; either
either zz = - 0
soso x x = - Sy S y , , or
or there
there is is aa u u such
such that that u u = - Sz S z and and so so x x + + Su Su = - SyS y , , in
in which
which case case
xx + + u u -= - yy andand thusthus x x � _ y y..
86
86 s.
S. Buss
Buss

(h) Transitivity
(h) Transitivity of of ::;
<": (Vx, y, z)
(Vx, y, z ) ((x
x ::;
< Yy /\
A Yy ::;
< zz :J
D x x ::; y).. Follows
< y) Follows from
from Q Q and
and
the
the associativity
associativity of of addition.
addition.
(i) Anti-idempotency
(i) Anti-idempotency laws: laws: (Vx, y)(x +
(Vx, y)(x + yy = -- 00 :JD x x = = 00 /\
A yY = 0) and
-- 0) and
(Vx, y ) ( x .. y
(Vx, y)(x y=- 0
0 :J
Dx -- 00 V
x = VYy= 0).. These
-- 0) These both
both follow
follow from
from Q Q without
without any
any induction.
induction.
Use
Use the
the fact
fact that
that if y =1=
if y 0, then
~= 0, then yy =- Sz S z for
for some
some zz..
(j)
(j) Reflexivity,
Reflexivity, trichotomy
trichotomy and and antisymmetry
antisymmetry of of the
the ::;
< ordering:
ordering: (Vx) (Vx)(x (x ::;
< x)x),,
(Vx,
(Vx, y)(x
y)(x ::;
< y yV Vy y ::;
_ x)x) and
and (Vx, (Vx, y)(x
y ) ( x ::;
< yy /\
Ay y ::;
<_ xx :J
D x x =
= y)y).. To
To prove
prove trichotomy,
trichotomy,
use induction on
use induction on y y;; the
the argument
argument splits splits intointo two
two cases, depending on
cases, depending on whether
whether x x ::;
< yy
or y +
or y + SS zz =: x x for
for some
some zz.. To To prove
prove antisymmetry,
antisymmetry, reason reason as as follows:
follows: if if x x ++ u u == yy
and
and y y++ vv =: x x,, then
then x x++ uu+ + vv =
: x x,, soso byby the
the cancellation
cancellation law law for
for addition,
addition, u u+ + vv =
- 00
and
and byby anti-idem
anti-idempotencypotency uu = : vv == 00 and and thus
thus x x = : yy..
(k)
(k) Cancellation
Cancellation laws laws for
for multiplication:
multiplication: (Vx, z)(z =1=
(Vx, yy,, z)(z ~: 00 /\
Axx . . zz =
= yy .. zz :J
D x x == y)
y)
and
and (Vx,
(Vx, y, z ) ( z =1=
y, z)(z ~ 0 0 /\
Ax x .. zz ::;
<__yy .. zz :JD x x ::; y) .. These
<_ y) These can can be
be proved
proved usingusing (j) (j) to
to have
have
xx =
= y y or
or x x ++ Sv Sv = = y or yy +
y or + SvSv = = x x forfor some
some vv.. ThenThen use the distributive
use the distributive law, law, the
the
anti-idem potency of
anti-idempotency of multiplication,
multiplication, and
and the
the cancellation
cancellation laws
laws forfor addition.
addition.
(1)
(1) Strict < tt is
inequality: ss <
Strict inequality: is an
an abbreviation
abbreviation for ~_ tt.. Thus,
( s ) ::;
for SS(s) Thus, we
we cancan use use
bounded existential
bounded existential quantifiers (Vx <
quantifiers (Vx < tK . . ) to
t)(.-.) to mean
mean (Vx
(Vx ::;
< t) x <
t ) ((x D .. ... .)), , and
< tt :J and
similarly for
similarly bounded universal
for bounded universal quantifiers.
quantifiers.

h e o r e m . 1.6.
Theorem.
T IA f-~- .6.o-MIN.
Ao-MIN.

P r o o f . The
Proof. The minimization
minimization axiom
axiom for
for A x ) is
A ((x) is easily
easily seen
seen to
to be
be equivalent
equivalent to
to complete
complete
induction
induction on -~A(x),, namely
on ,A(x) namely to
to

(Vy) (((Vz <

(Vy)(((Vz < y),A(z))
y)-~A(z)) :J
D -,
~AA((y))
y ) ) :J
D (Vx)
( V x ),
~AA((x)
x ) ..

This
This is
is equivalent
equivalent to induction on
to induction on the bounded formula
the bounded formula (Vy
(Vy ::;
< x) ( ,A(y)) , and
x)(-~A(y)), and
therefore
therefore is
is provable
provable in
in 1.6.0
IA0..

1.2.7.
1.2.7. Extending
E x t e n d i n g the
t h e language
l a n g u a g e of
o f arithmetic.
arithmetic.

We
We now
now introduce
introduce two
two useful
useful means
means of
of conservatively
conservatively extending
extending the
the language
language of
of
arithmetic
arithmetic with
with defi nitions of
definitions of new
new predicate
predicate symbols
symbols and
and function
function symbols.
symbols. It
It will
will
be
be of
of particular
particular importance
importance that
that we
we can
can use
use the
the new
new function
function and
and predicate
predicate symbols
symbols
in
in induction
induction formulas.
formulas.

Definition. A
Definition. A predicate
predicate symbol R(~) is
symbol R(x) is .6. 0 -defined if
A0-defined if it
it has
has a
a defining
defining axiom
axiom

R(x) H cp(x)

with
with cp r a
a .6.o-formula
A0-formula with
with allall free
free variables
variables as
as indicated.
indicated.
The
The predicate
predicate RR is
is .6. 1 - defined by
A1-defined by a theory T
a theory T if
if there
there are
are �1
]El formulas
formulas cp(x)
r and
and
'If;(x)
r such
such that
that RR has
has the
the defining
defining axiom
axiom above
above and
and TT f-
~ (Vx) (cp H
(V~)(r ++ ''If;)
9r .
 of Arithmetic
Proof Theory of Arithmetic 87
87

Definition. Let
Definition. Let TT be
be aa theory
theory of
of arithmetic.
arithmetic. A
A function
function symbol
symbol ff (~) is E1
(x) is "'£. 1 -defined
- defined
by TT ifif itit has
by has aa defining
defining axiom
axiom

y = f (x) +-+ 4J(x, y),

where rcjJ is
where is aa 21
"'£. 1 formula
formula with
with all
all free
free variables
variables indicated,
indicated, such
such that
that TT proves
proves
(Vi) (3!y)cjJ(x,
(V~) (3!y)r y)
y) ~. 2
9

The ~l-definable
The "'£. 1 -definable functions
functions of
of aa theory
theory are
are sometimes
sometimes referred
referred to
to as
as the
the provably
provably
recursive or
recursive or provably total functions
functions ofof the
the theory.
theory. To see that
To see that this
this aa reasonable
reasonable
definition for
definition for "provably
"provably recursive",
recursive" , letlet MM be be aa Turing
Turing machine
machine which
which computes
computes aa
function yy -= M(x).
function M (x) . Also Also choose
choose some
some scheme
scheme for for encoding
encoding computations
computations of of M
M
and let
and let TM(X,
TM(x, w, y) y) be be the
the predicate
predicate expressing
expressing "w encodes aa computation
"w encodes computation of of M on
M on
input xx which
input which outputs
outputs y." From the
y ." From the bootstrapping
bootstrapping below, below, itit can
can bebe seen
seen that
that the
the
predicate TM can
predicate can be be aa bounded
bounded formula.
formula. Therefore,
Therefore, the the function
function computed
computed by by M
M
can be
can be "'£. 1 -defined by
~l-defined by the (true) formula
the (true) formula (Vx)(3!y)(3w)(TM(x,
(V'x) (3!y) (3w) (TM (X, w, y)). y)) . Conversely, for
Conversely, for
any
any true sentence (V~)(3!y)r
true sentence (V'x) (3!y)cjJ(x, y) with rcjJ aa "'£.
y) with 1 -formula, the
~-formula, function mapping
the function mapping ~x to to
yy can
can be computed by
be computed by aa Turing
Turing machine that, given
machine that, given input
input values for Z,
values for x, searches
searches for
for
aa value
value for
for y and and for values of
for values of the
the existential
existential quantified
quantified variables
variables inin rcjJ which
which witness
witness
the truth of
the truth of (3y)r
(3y)cjJ(x, y).y) .
In the case
In the case of "'£. 1 -definability of
of ~l-definability of functions
functions in in lfio
IA0,, it is possible
it is possible to
to give
give a stronger
a stronger
equivalent condition;
equivalent condition; this this isis based
based onon the following theorem
the following theorem of of Parikh
Parikh [1971]:
[1971]:

1.2.7.1
1.2.7.1.. Parikh's
Parikh's T Theorem.
heorem. Let A(~,y)
Let A(x, y) be a bounded formula
formula and TT be a
bounded theory. Suppose T
bounded T f- (V'x) (3y)A(x, y) . Then there is a term
~-(V~)(3y)A(~,y). term t such that
T also proves (V'x)
T (3y :0:;
(V~)(3y t)A(~, y)
_ t)A(x, y)..

The
The above
above theorem
theorem isis stated
stated with
with y aa single
single variable,
variable, but
but it
it also holds for
also holds for aa vector
vector ofof
existentially quantified variables.
existentially quantified variables. AA proof-theoretic proof of
proof-theoretic proof of aa generalization
generalization ofof this
this
theorem
theorem is is sketched
sketched inin section 1.4.3 below.
section 1.4.3 below.
It
It is
is easily
easily seen
seen that
that 1fio
IA0 is
is a
a bounded
bounded theory,
theory, since
since the
the defining
defining axiom
axiom for < may
for :0:; may
be replaced
be replaced by the ((IA0-provable)
by the Ifio-provable) formula
formula

x :0:; y +-+ (3z :O:; y) (x + z = y),

and the
and the induction
induction axioms
axioms may
may be
be replaced
replaced by
by the
the equivalent
equivalent axioms
axioms

V'z) (A(O) 1\
((Vz)(A(0) (Vx :0:;
A (V'x ) (A(x) �
_< zz)(A(x) A(Sx)) �
D A(Sx)) D A( z)) .
A(z)).

Thus
Thus applying
applying Parikh
Parikh's' s theorem
theorem gives
gives the
the following theorem. Its
following theorem. Its proof
proof is
is straightfor­
straightfor-
ward
ward and
and we
we leave
leave it
it to
to the
the reader.
reader.

2The
2The notation (3!y)(3!y) means
means "there
"there exists
exists a unique such that ....".
unique y such . . " . This
This is not part of the
syntax
syntax of
of fifirst-order
rst-order logic;
logic; but
but is
is rather
rather an
an abbreviation
abbreviation for
for aa more
more complicated
complicated first-order
first-order formula.
formula.
88
88 S. Buss

1.2.7.2.
1.2.7.2. Theorem.
Theorem. A
A function (Z) is �
function symbol ff (x) 1 -defined by
5]l-defined by 1fio
IAo if
if and only if
if it
has a defining axiom
= f (x) ++ </>(x,
yv=f(:) r y),
and it has a bounding
and bounding term
term t(x)
t(Z) such that </> r is a fio
A0 formula with all free variables
variables
and 1fio
indicated and IAo proves (V'x) (3!y ::;
(VZ)(3!y _ t)</>(x,
t)r y) .3
y).a
A
A predicate
predicate symbol
symbol R is fi
R is l -defined by
A1-defined by 1fio
IA0 ifif and
and only
only if
if it is fio
it is by 1fio
-defined by
A0-defined IA0
furthermore, 1fio
(and furthermore, IA0 can prove the equivalence of the two definitions).

The
The next
next theorem
theorem states
states the
the crucial
crucial fact
fact about
about � 1 -definable functions
5]:-definable functions that
that they
they
may
may be
be used
used freely
freely without
without increasing
increasing the
the quantifier
quantifier complexity
complexity of
of formulas,
formulas, even
even
when reexpressed
when reexpressed in the original
in the original language
language of
of arithmetic.
arithmetic.

1.2.7.3.
1.2.7.3. Theorem.
Theorem.
(Gaifman
(Gaifman and
and Dimitracopoulos 1982,Prop 2.3
Dimitracopoulos [[1982,Prop ] , see
2.3], see also
also Buss 1986,Thm 2.2
Buss [[1986,Thm ] .)
2.2].)
(a) Let T 2 B�l
T ;2 BE1 be a theory ofof arithmetic. Let T T be extended to a theory T+ T + in an
enlarged language L ++ by adding fi l -defined predicate symbols, �
A:-defined 1 -defined function
E1-defined function
symbols and their
their defining equations. Then T+ T + is conservative over T if i �
T.. Also, if > 11
and ifif A Ei- (respectively, IIi
A is a �i - Hi-)-) formula in the enlarged language L ++ , then there
is a formula
formula A A -- in the language of TT such that A Ei (respectively, IIi)
A is also in �i Hi) and
such that
that
T + f-
T+ F- (A ++
~ A-).
A-).
(b) The same results holds for for T
T ;2 +,.' and
~ Q a bounded theory in the language 0, S, +,
e . , for the class fio
i = 0O,, i.i.e., Ao..

Proof. We
Proof. We first
first sketch
sketch the
the proof
proof forfor part
part (b (b).) . The
The proof
proof shows
shows that
that the
the new symbols
new symbols
can
can bebe eliminated
eliminated from formula A by
from aa formula induction on
by induction on the
the number
number of of occurrences
occurrences
of
of the
the new
new fio-defi ned predicate
A0-defined predicate symbolssymbols and and � l -defined function
5]:-defined function symbols
symbols in in AA..
Firstly,
Firstly, any
any atomic
atomic formula
formula involving
involving aa fio-defined
A0-defined R may may just
just bbee replaced
replaced by
by the
the
defining
defining equation
equation for for RR.. Secondly,
Secondly, eliminate
eliminate � 1 -defined function
5]:-defined function symbols
symbols from
from
terms
terms inin quantifier
quantifier bounds,
bounds, by by replacing
replacing each each bounded
bounded quantifier
quantifier (V'x
(Vx ::;
_ t) (· · ·)
t)(...)
by
by (V'x
(Vx ::;
< t*)(x ::; _ t ::>D . . . )) where
• . . where t* is is obtained
obtained from from t byby replacing
replacing every
every new
new
� 1 -defined function
E:-defined function symbol
symbol with with its bounding term;
its bounding term; and and by similarly replacing
by similarly replacing
bounds
bounds on on existential
existential bounded
bounded quantifiers.
quantifiers. Thirdly, Thirdly, repeatedly
repeatedly replace
replace any
any atomic
atomic
formula
formula P P ((J ~ ) where
f ((S)) where s does does notnot involve
involve any any new
new function
function symbols
symbols by by either
either of
of the
the
formulas
formulas
(3zz ::;
(3 <_t ((S) A lf((~s, z) A/\ P
~ ))((A ( z))
P(z))
or
or
(Vz ::;
(V'z _< t(S))
t(s-*))(Al(~, DP
(Af( s, zz)) ::> (z )) ,
P(z)),
where AI is
where Af is the
the fio-formula
A0-formula which
which � l -defined ff,, and
El-defined and t is
is the
the bounding
bounding term
term of
of ff..
It
It is
is easy
easy to
to see
see that
that each
each step
step removes
removes new
new function
function and
and predicate
predicate symbols
symbols
from
from A and
and preserves
preserves equivalence
equivalence to and this
to A and this proves
proves (b ).
(b).
3The
3The notation
notation (3!y
(3!y :::; t ) ( .. ... ·)
___t)( ) means
means "there
"there is
is a
a unique
unique y
y such
such that
that "
. . .', , and
and this
this y is :::;
y is _< tt ""..
 Proof
Proo] Theory of
o] Arithmetic 89

The
The proofproof of part ((a)
of part a) is
is similar,
similar, but
but needs
needs aa little
little modification.
modification. MostMost notably,
notably,
there
there is is nono bounding
bounding termterm tt,, soso the
the two
two formulas
formulas which
which can
can replace P(f(s-)) use
replace P(J(S)) use an
an
unbounded quantification
unbounded quantification of of zz and
and are thus in
are thus in �
E1l and
and IT l , respectively.
H:, Since A
respectively. Since Aff isis
aa �i -formula, it
Ei-formula, it is
is necessary
necessary to to pick the correct
pick the correct one
one ofof the
the two
two formulas
formulas for
for replacing
replacing
~ ) : : since
( f ((S))
P(J
P since the
the first
first is �l and
is E: and the
the second
second is ITl there
is 17: there isis always
always an
an appropriate
appropriate
choice
choice that that does
does notnot increase
increase thethe alternation
alternation of of unbounded
unbounded quantifiers. Also, in
quantifiers. Also, in
order
order to to remove
remove newnew function
function symbols
symbols from
from the
the terms
terms in in bounded
bounded quantifiers,
quantifiers, it
it isis
necessary to
necessary to use
use the �l -replacement axioms.
the E:-replacement axioms. We We leave
leave the
the details
details to the reader.
to the reader. 0[::l

As
As an
an immediate corollary to
immediate corollary to the
the previous theorem, we
previous theorem, we get
get the
the following
following important
important
bootstrapping
bootstrapping fact.
fact.

Corollary. Let
Corollary. T be
Let T be 16.0
IAo,, �n
IEn or B�n for
or BEn for n
n �>_ 11.. Then
Then in
in the
the conservative
conservative
extension
extension of T with
of T �l -defined function
with E1-defined function symbols and 6.1
symbols and -defined function
A1-defined function symbols,
symbols,
the
the new
new function
function and
and predicate
predicate symbols
symbols may
may be
be used
used freely
freely in induction, minimization
in induction, minimization
and
and replacement
replacement axioms.
axioms.

1.2.8. Bootstrapping 16.0

1.2.8. Bootstrapping IA0~, Phase
Phase 2
2

To begin the
To begin the second
second phase
phase of
of the
the bootstrapping
bootstrapping for
for 16.0
IA0,, several
several elementary
elementary
functions
functions and relations are
and relations are shown
shown to
to be
be �l
El-- and
and 6.o-defi nable in
A0-definable in 16.
IA0.0,
((a)
a) Restricted subtraction. The
Restricted subtraction. The function
function x
x -'-
- y y which
which equals
equals max
max(0,{ O, xx -- y}
y} can
can
be
be � l -defined by
El-defined by 16.0
IA0 by
by the
the formula
formula

M(x,
M(x, y, z) ¢:>
y, z) r (y +
+ zz = x) V
- x) V (x
(x ::; A zz =
<_Yy 1\ -- 0).
The
The existence
existence of of zz follows
follows immediately
immediately fromfrom the
the trichotomy
trichotomy ofof ::;
<;; thus
thus 16.0
IA0 can can
prove
prove (\i x, y)
(Vx, (jz ::;
y)(3z < x)M(x, y, z) . Furthermore,
x)M(x, y,z). Furthermore, 16.0IA 0 can
can prove
prove the
the uniqueness
uniqueness of of zz
satisfying
satisfying M(x, ) using
M ( x , yy,, zz) using the
the cancellation
cancellation law
law for
for addition.
addition. This
This then
then is
is a a � l­
El-
definition
definition ofof the
the restricted subtraction function.
restricted subtraction function.
((b)
b) Predecessor.
Predecessor. The The predecessor
predecessor function
function isis easily
easily �l -defined by
El-defined by yy = x -'-
- x - l1..
((c)
c) Division.
Division. The The division
division function
function (x,
(x, y)
y) H Lx/yJ can
~ Lx/yJ can be
be �l -defined by
El-defined by 6.0
A0
using
using the
the formula
formula

M(x,
M ( x , yy,, zz) r (( yy ..zz<::;
) ¢:> _ xxA1\x <x y<( zy(z
+ l )+ ( y =VO(yA z==0O1\) .z = 0) .
) V1))
Note
Note thatthat in
in order
order toto make
make the division function
the division total, we
function total, we have arbitrarily defined
have arbitrarily defined
x/O to
x/O to equal
equal O0.. The The existence
existence ofof zz isis proved
proved using
using induction
induction on on the
the formula
formula
(jz
(3z ::;
<_ x)M(x, y, z) . The
x)M(x, y,z). The uniqueness
uniqueness of of zz is
is provable
provable as as follows,
follows, arguing
arguing inside
inside
16.0
IA0": suppose
suppose M(x,M(x, y, z) and
y, z) M(x, y,
and M(x, z'),, w.l.o.g.
y, z') w.l.o.g, zz ::;_< z'z';; thus,
thus, using
using restricted
restricted
subtraction
subtraction and and the
the distributive
distributive law,
law, (z'
(z' -'-
- z) (y +
z)(y + 11)) < y+
< y + 11;; and
and from this, z'
from this, - zz
z' =
follows
follows easily.
easily.
Two particularly useful
Two particularly special cases
useful special cases of division are
of division are when
when the divisor is
the divisor is two
two or
or
four,
four, i.e., L 89J and
i.e., L�x and L�x
~4xJJ .
((d)
d ) Remainder.
Remainder. The remainder function
The remainder function is is � l -definable in
El-definable in 16.
IA 00 since
since
xx mod
mod yy = - x - yy.. Lx/yJ
x -'- Lx/yJ.. The
The divides relation, xly,
divides relation, x[y, isis defi ned by
defined by y mod xx =
y mod - O0..
90
90 S. Buss
S. Buss

(e) Square
(e) Square root. The square
root. The square root
root function
function xx ~+ l v'xJ isis ~-definable
I-t [v/~J � 1 -definable IA0
I�o with
with
the formula
the formula
y ) r{:} yy .. yY <_
M(x, y)
M(x, (y ++ 1)(y
..:;. xx A/\ xx << (y l ) (y ++ 1).
1).
(f) Primes.
(f) The set
Primes. The set of primes is
of primes is �o-definable by the
A0-definable by the formula
formula
(Vy _<
(Vy x) (ylx D:::> yy == xx VV yy == 1)
..:;. x)(ylx /\ 11 << x.
1) A x.
I�o can
IA0 can prove many useful
prove many useful facts
facts about
about primes
primes and and remainders.
remainders. In In particular,
particular, itit
proves that
proves is prime
that ifif xx is prime andand xlab then xla
xlab then xla or or xlb. The sequence
xlb. The coding tools
sequence coding tools
developed below
developed below will
will enable
enable I�o to prove
IA0 to prove thethe unique
unique factorization
factorization theorem;
theorem; however,
however,
more bootstrapping is
more bootstrapping is needed
needed before
before we
we can can even
even express
express the the unique
unique factorization
factorization
theorem in
theorem in first-order logic.
first-order logic.
(g) Prime
(g) Prime powers.
powers. The The predicate
predicate "x
"x isis prime
prime and and yy is is aa power of x"
power of x" isis A0-
�o­
definable by
definable by
is prime
xx is prime and
and (Vz y )( l << zz A
..:;. y)(1
(Vz _< zlY D:::> xlz
/\ zly xlz))..
I�o can
IA0 can prove simple properties
prove simple properties about prime powers,
about prime powers, such
such as
as the
the fact that if
fact that if yy is
is aa
power of
power of the
the prime then x.
prime xx then is the
x yy is. the least
least power
power of
of xx greater
greater than
than y.
y . This
This fact
fact can
can
be proved
be proved by by using
using �o-minimization
A0-minimization with with respect to yy..
respect to
The bootstrapping
The bootstrapping is is not
not yet
yet sufficiently
sufficiently developed
developed forfor us to give
us to �o definitions
give A0 definitions ofof
powers of
powers of composite numbers; however,
composite numbers; however, wewe shall
shall next
next define
define powers
powers of
of prime
prime powers.
powers.
(h ) Powers
(h) Powers of two, of
of two, four, and
of four, and of powers. We
prime powers.
of prime already have
We already have shown
shown how
how
to define
to powers of
define powers of the
the prime two. For
prime two. For powers
powers of fours, we
of fours, we can
can give
give two
two equivalent
equivalent
definitions:
definitions:
is aa power
yy is of four
power of four r{:} yy is
is aa power
power of
of two
two and
and y mod 33 =
y mod 1,
- 1,
and
and
yy is
is a
a power
power of four {:}
of four r yy is
is a
a power
power ofof two
two and
and yy= lv'YJ ) 2 .
- (([v/-~J)2.
The
The equivalence
equivalence ofof these definitions can
these definitions can be be proved
proved using
using �o-induction
Ao-induction with with respect
respect
to y.. I�o
to y IA0 can
can also
also prove
prove that
that when
when y y< < y'y~ are
are aa powers
powers ofof four,
four, then
then yylyly'~ and
and that
that
when
when yy is
is a
a power
power ofof four,
four, then
then 4y
4y is
is the
the least
least power
power ofof four
four greater
greater then
then y y..
More
More generally,
generally, the predicate ""xx is
the predicate is aa prime
prime power
power and
and yy is
is a
a power
power of x" can
of x" can be
be
�o -defined by
A0-defined by
(3p
(3p ":;'
_< x) (p is
x)(p is prime,
prime, x and yy are
x and powers of
are powers of p and yy mod
p,, and mod (x (x -- 1) - 1)
1) = 1)..
((i)
i ) The L e n B i t function
The LenBit function is
is defined
defined so
so that
that LenBit(2i,
LenBit(2 i, x) x) is
is equal
equal toto the
the i-th
i-th bit
bit in
in
the
the binary
binary expansion
expansion of x,, where
of x where the
the least
least significant
significant bit
bit is
is by
by convention
convention thethe zeroth
zeroth
bit. This
bit. This is is � l -definable by
~l-definable by I�o
IA0 since
since LenBit(y,
LenSit(y, x) x) = Lx/y] mod
- lxjyJ mod 22.. Although
Although it it is
is
defined
defined for for all
all values
values yy,, we
we shall
shall use
use LenBit(y,
LenBit(y, x)x) only
only when
when yy is is aa power
power ofof two.
two.
The
The next
next theorem
theorem states
states that
that I�o
IA0 can
can prove
prove that
that the
the binary
binary representation
representation ofof
aa number
number uniquely
uniquely determines
determines the
the number.
number. This This theorem
theorem alsoalso introduces
introduces aa new
new
notation;
notation; namely,
namely, we
we will
will write
write quantifiers
quantifiers ofof the
the form (V2i) and
form (V2i) (32 ~) to
and (32i) to mean,
mean, "for
"for
all
all powers
powers of
of two"
two" and
and "there
"there exists
exists aa power
power ofof two."
two." ItIt is
is important
important to note that
to note that
although
although we
we use
use this
this notation
notation for
for quantifying
quantifying over
over powers
powers of of two,
two, we
we have
have not
not yet
yet
shown
shown how
how to
to �o -define ii in
A0-define in terms
terms of
of 2i
2i..
 Proof Theory of
of Arithmetic
Arithmetic 91
91

Theorem.
Theorem. ILlo
IA0 proves
proves ('</x)
(Yx)(Vy(,</y <
< x) 3 2 i/ <:::; x)
x ) ((32 (LenBit(2i , x)
x)(LenBit(2i, LenBit(2i,i , y))
x) > LenBit(2 y))..
To
To proveprove the
the theorem,
theorem, ILloIA0 uses
uses strong induction with
strong induction with respect
respect to x and
to x and argues
argues that
t h a t if
if
22ii isis the
the greatest
greatest power
power of
of two
two less
less tthan x, then
h a n x, LenBit(2 ii,, x)
then LenBit(2 x) equals
equals one,
one, and
and then,
then,
when
when LenBit(2LenBit(2 ii,, y)
y) also
also equals
equals one,
one, applies
applies the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis toto x - 22i/ and
x -'- and
i
yy --'-2 2~.. 0
[]
(j)
(j) We
We next
next show
show how how to
to Llo-define
A0-define the the relation
relation xx = Y as
= 22Y as aa predicate
predicate of x and
of x and y y..
As
As a a preliminary
preliminary step,
step, we
we consider
consider numbers
numbers of of the
the form
form

mp -- ~--~22v
i=0

for p
for > 00 and
p 2:: and show
show that
t h a t these
these numbers
numbers are
are Llo-definable.
A0-definable. In
In fact,
fact, the
the set {mp}p is
set {mp}p is
defi nable by
definable by the
the formula
formula

LenBit(l,
LenBit(1, x) x) == 00 /\
A LenBit(2,
LenBit(2, x) x) == 1/\
1A
/\(,</2 i
A(V2 i :::; x)(2 <
_< x)(2 i
< 22 iJD

[LenBit(2 i , x) =
[LenBit(2',x) = 11 ++ (2'i is
++ (2 is a
a power
power of
of 4
4 /\
A LenBit( l1 v2iJ/ ,x)x) == 1)])
LenBit(]vf~] '

As
As an
an immediate
i m m e d i a t e corollary
corollary we we get
get a a Llo-formula
A0-formula defining
defining the
the the
the numbers
numbers of of the
the
form
form xx = 2P ; namely,
- 222P; namely, they
they are
are the
the powers
powers ofof two
two for
for which
which LenBit(x,
LenBit(x, mp)
mp) = - 11 holds
holds
for
for some
some mp mp < < 2x
2x..
Now
Now the the general
general ideaidea of
of defi ning 22YY is
is to
to express
express y y in
in binary notation as
n�=l
defining binary notation as yy ==
2P1
2pl + 2p22 +
+ 2P + 2Pk
+ . .. .. . + 2pk with distinct values
with distinct Pj , and
values pj, and thus
thus define
define xx = 22Pj • To
- 1-I~-122p~. To carry
carry
this out,
this out, wewe definedefine anan extraction
extraction function
function Ext( x) which
u, x)
Ext(u, which will
will be
be applied
applied when
when u u is
is
of
of a
a number
n u m b e r of of the
the form 2P •. Formally
form 222p Formally wewe define
define

Ext(u, x) =
Ext(u,x) LxluJ mod
= lx/uJ m o d u.
u.

Note
Note that
t h a t when
when u u =
2 then Ext(
= 222pP ,, then Ext(u, x) returns
u, x) returns the the number
n u m b e r with
with binary
binary expansion
expansion
equal to
equal to the 2P-th bit
the 2P-th bit through the ((22Pp+I
t h r o u g h the +1 - ) -th bit
- l1)-th bit of of x x.. We will think
We will think ofof x x coding
coding
the
the sequence
sequence of of numbers
numbers Ext(2 2P, x) for
Ext(22P,x) for Pp - = 0, 0, 1,
1,2,2, .. ..... . We
We also
also define Ex](u,x)x) as
define Ext!(u, as
Ext(uu22,, x)
Ext( x);; this
this is
is of
of course
course the the number
n u m b e r which
which succeedssucceeds Ext( Ext(u, x) in
u, x) in the
the sequence
sequence of of
numbers
numbers coded coded by by xx..
We
We are are now
now ready
ready to to Llo-define
A0-define x x = = 2
i We define
2 i .. We define it it with
with a a formula
formula if;(x,
r ii)) which
which
states
states there
there are
are numbers
numbers a, b, b, c,
c, dd :::; 2
<_ xx 2 such
such that t h a t the
the following
following hold: hold:
(1)
(1) a a is
is of
of the
the form
form mp mp and and a a >>x x..
(2) Ext(2,
(2) Ext(2, b)b)== 1,1 , Ext
Ext(2, ( 2, cc)=
) = 00 and and Ext(2,
Ext(2, dd)= ) = 1. 1.
(3) For
For all u of
all u of the form 222~
the form 2P such
such thatthat a > u u 22,, Ext!
Ex~(u, (u, b)b) == 22. Ext(
. u, b)
Ext(u, b),,
(4) For
(4) For all u of
all u of the
the form
form 222p 2P such
such thatthat a a > > u u 22,, either
either
((a)
a) Ext!(u,
Ex~ (u, c)c) == Ext(u,
Ext(u, c) c) and
and Ext!(u,
Ex~ (u, d) d) = = Ext(u,
Ext(u, d) d),, or
or
b ) Ext!
((b) Ex~ ((u,
u, c)
c) == Ext(
Ext(u, u, cc)) +
+ Ext(
Ext(u, b) and
u, b) and Ext! (u, d)
Ex~ (u, d) == Ext( d) .. Ext(
u, d)
Ext(u, Ext(u, u, a)a)..
(5) There
(5) There is is a
a uu << a a ofof the
the form
form 222p 2P such
such thatt h a t Ext(
Ext(u, u, c) c) =- ii and
and Ext(
Ext(u,u, d)
d) = - xx..
92
92 s.
S. Buss

Obviously
Obviously this this is is aa �o-formula;
A0-formula; we we leave
leave it it to
to the
the readerreader the the nontrivial
nontrivial task task of of
checking
checking that that I�oIA0 can can prove
prove simple
simple facts
facts about about this this definition
definition of of 22ii ,, including
including (1) (1) the
the
fact
fact that
that ifif ¢>(x,
r i) and
i) and ¢>(x,
r both hold,
j) both
j) hold, then then ii = (2) the
= jj ,, (2) the fact that 22ii.. 22jj =
fact that - 22ii+j
+j ,
(3) the
(3) the fact
fact that
that if if xx is
is aa power
power of of two,
two, then then xx = i
-- 22i forfor some
some ii < < x x,, and
and (4)(4) that
that if if
i) and
r¢>(x, i) and ¢>(y,
r i ) tthen
i) hen x x= = yy..
((k)
k) Length function. The
Length function. The length
length functionfunction is is Ixl
Ixl = = f[log2(x
log2 (x + + 1)1 1)~ and
and cancan be be
�o-defi
A0-definedned in in I�o
IA0 as as the
the value
value ii such
such that that yy = - 22ii isis thethe least
least power
power of of two
two greater
greater
than
than x x.. Note
Note thatthat 101 101 == 00 and and forfor x x > > 00,, IxlIxl isis the
the number
number of of bits
bits in in the binary
the binary
representation
representation of of x x..
The
The reader
reader should
should check check that that I�o IA0 can can prove
prove elementary
elementary facts facts aboutabout the the IxlIxl
function,
function, including
including that that Ixl Ixl ::;
_ x x and
and thatthat 36 36 < < x x :JD IxlIxl22 < < xx..
(1)
(1) The
The Bit( i, x ) function
Bit(i,x) function is is definable
definable as LenBit(2i,i , x)
as LenBit(2 x).. This
This is is equivalent
equivalent to to aa
�o-definition,
A0-definition, since since when i
when 22~ > x x,, Bit( x ) -= oO.. Bit(
B i t (i,i ,x) Bit(i,x)i, x) isis the
the i-th
i-th bit bit of
of the
the binary
binary
representation
representation of of x x;; by
by convention,
convention, the the lowestlowest order
order bit bit is is bit
bit number
number o0..
((m)
m) Sequence
Sequence coding.coding. Sequences
Sequences will will be be coded
coded in in the the base
base 44 representation
representation used used
by
by Buss [1986]; many
Buss [1986]; many prior prior works
works have have usedused similar
similar encodings.
encodings. A A number
number x x is
is viewed
viewed
as
as aa bit
bit string
string in in which
which pairspairs of of bits
bits code
code one one of of the
the threethree symbols
symbols comma, comma, "0" "0" oror
"1".. The
"1" i-th symbol
The i-th symbol from from the the endend is is coded
coded by by thethe two two bits Bit(2i +
bits Bit(2i x) and
+ 11,, x) and
Bit(2i,
Bit(2i, x)x).. This
This is is best
best illustrated
illustrated by by an an example:
example: consider consider the the sequence
sequence (3, (3, 0,
0, 4)
4)..
Firstly,
Firstly, aa comma
comma is is prep ended to
prepended to the
the thethe sequence
sequence and and the the entries
entries areare written
written in in base
base
two,
two, preserving
preserving the the commas,
commas, as as the string: ",11,,100"
the string: ",11,,100";; leadingleading zeroszeros are are optionally
optionally
dropped
dropped in in this
this process.
process. Secondly,
Secondly, each each symbolsymbol in in thethe string
string is is replaced
replaced by by a a two
two
bit encoding
bit encoding by by replacing
replacing each each "I" with "11"
"1" with "11",, each
each "0" with "10"
"0" with "10",, and and each
each comma
comma
with
with "01""01".. This
This yieldsyields "01111 101011 11010" in
"0111110101111010" in our
our example.
example. Thirdly,Thirdly, the the result
result is is
interpreted
interpreted as as a a binary
binary representation
representation of of aa number;
number; in in our
our example
example it it is
is the
the integer
integer
32122. This then
32122. This then is is a Godel number
a Ghdel number of of the the sequence
sequence (3, (3, 0,0, 4)
4)..
This
This scheme
scheme for encoding sequences
for encoding sequences has has the
the advantage
advantage of being relatively
of being relatively efficient
efficient
from
from an an information
information theoretictheoretic point point of of view
view and and of making it
of making it easy
easy to to manipulate
manipulate
sequences.
sequences. It It does
does have have the the minor
minor drawbacks
drawbacks that that not not every
every number
number is is the
the Godel
Ghdel
number
number of of aa sequence
sequence and and that
that Godel
Ghdel numbers numbers of of sequences
sequences are are non-unique
non-unique since since it it
is
is allowable
allowable that that elements
elements of of the
the sequence
sequence be be coded
coded with with excess
excess leading
leading zeros.
zeros.
Towards
Towards arithmetizing
arithmetizing Godel Ghdel numbers,
numbers, we we define
define predicates
predicates Comma(i, Comma(i,x) x) and
and
Digit( x) as
Digit(i,i, x) as

Comma(i, x) ¢}
Comma(i, x) Bit(2i +
r Bit(2i 1, x)
+ 1, = 00 /\
x) = A Bit(2i,
Bit(2i, x) = 11
x) =

Digit(i, x)
Digit(i,x) =
= 22.· (1
(1 -'- Bit(2i +
- Bit(2i x ) ) ++ Bit(2i,
1, x))
+ 1, Bit(2i, x).
x).

Note Digit equals

Note Digit equals zero
zero or
or one
one for
for encodings
encodings of and "I"
"0" and
of "0" "1" and
and equals
equals 22 or
or 33 otherwise.
otherwise.
It
It is
is now
now fairly
fairly simple
simple to
to recognize
recognize and
and extract
extract values
values from
from a
a sequence
sequence's 's Godel
Ghdel
number.
number. WeWe define
define I sEntry( i, j,
IsEntry(i, x) as
j, x) as

(i - 00 V
(i = v Comma(i - 11,x))
Comma(i -'- , x)) /\A Comma(j,
C o m m a ( j , xx)
) /\ (Vk <
A (Vk < j)(k > ii :J
j)(k � D Digit(j,
Digit(j,x)x) ::;
< 1)1)

which
which states
states that
that the
the i-th
i-th through (j -
through (j ) -st symbols
- l1)-st symbols coded
coded by x code
by x code an
an entry
entry in
in
 Proof Theory
Proof Theory of
of Arithmetic
Arithmetic 93
93

the sequence.
the sequence. And
And we
we define
define Entry(i,
Entry( i, j,j, x) by
x) == yy by
lYl
Iyl <-::; Jj --'- ii A/\ (Vk
(\fk << jj --'- ii)) ((Bit(k, Digit(i ++ k,k, x)).
y) == Digit(i
B i t ( k , y) x)).
When IsEntry(i,
When IsEntry(i, j, x) is
j, x) true, then
is true, then Entry(i,
Entry(i, j, equals the
x) equals
j, x) the value
value of that entry
of that entry in the
in the
sequence coded
sequence coded by by x. x . CheckingChecking that that Entry
Entry isis A0-definable
�o -definable by by IA0
I�o is is left
left to to the
the
reader; note
reader; note that
that thethe quantifier
quantifier (Vk (\fk << jj --'- i)i) may
may be be replaced
replaced by by aa sharply
sharply bounded
bounded
quantifier since, w.l.o.g.,
quantifier since, w.l.o.g., jj <_ Ixl .
::; Ixl.
(n) Length-bounded
(n) Length-bounded counting counting and and Numones.
Numones. Although Although we we have defined Entry
have defined Entry
already, we
already, we areare not
not quitequite done done withwith arithmetizing
arithmetizing sequence sequence coding; coding; in in particular,
particular, we we
would like
would like to to define
define the the G5del G6del betabeta function,
function, /3(i,x), which equals
f3(i, x) , which equals the the i-thi-th entry
entry
of the
of the sequence
sequence coded coded by by x. One way
x . One way toto dodo thisthis would
would be be byby encoding
encoding aa sequencesequence
of numbers
of numbers (an, (an ' aann -- iI,, ... .. ,. , a~)
al) as as the
the sequence
sequence (bn,..., (bn , . . . , bl) where bi
bl) where bi == (i, (i, ai).
ai) . TheThe
drawback of
drawback of this
this approach
approach isis that that when
when the the values
values ai are small,
ai are small, the the length
length of of the
the
G6del number
GSdel number encoding
encoding the the sequence
sequence (b) (b) is is longer
longer than than the the length
length of of the
the GSdelG6del
number encoding the
number encoding the sequence
sequence (ii) (~);; inin fact,
fact, it is longer
it is longer by by aa logarithmic
logarithmic factor factor and and
thus the
thus the function
function (d) (ii) f-7 ~-~ (b) (b) cannot
cannot be be A0-defined
�o-defined by by I�oIA0 by by virtue
virtue of of the function ' s
the function's
superlinear growth
superlinear growth rate. rate.
Upon reflection,
Upon reflection, one one sees that the
sees that the basic
basic difficulty
difficulty in defining the
in defining the f3 ~ function
function
is the
is the difficulty
difficulty of of counting
counting the the number
number of of commas
commas encoded encoded in in a a G6del
GSdel number number
of
of aa sequence.
sequence. This This basicallybasically the the same
same as as the
the problem
problem as as counting
counting of ones in
of ones in
the binary
the binary representation
representation of of aa number
number x. Supposing xx has
x . Supposing has binary
binary representation
representation
(X n Xn- 1 . . . XlX0)2,
(XnXn_l''" xlxoh , we we wouldwould like like toto be
be able
able toto letlet a0ao == Xo and ai
x0 and ai -= ai
ai-1 +xi and
- l +Xi and thenthen
let bi =
let bi ai) and
(i, ai)
= (i, and finallyfinally let let yy be be the
the GSdel
G6del numbernumber of of the
the sequence
sequence ((bbnn,, .. .. .., , bl).
bl) .
Now, I�o
Now, IA0 cancan prove
prove that, that, if if y exists, itit is
y exists, is unique,
unique, and and from
from yy the the number
number of of 1l's' s in the
in the
binary
binary representation
representation of of x x isis easily
easily computed.
computed. The The catch
catch is is that,
that, as above, (b)
as above, (b) will
will
in
in general
general not not bebe bounded
bounded by by a a term
term involving
involving x x since
since its its length
length is is not
not necessarily
necessarily
O(Ixl). . However,
O(lxl) However, the the length
length of of the
the G6del
G5del number
number of of (b)
(b-') is O(Ixl 22)) so
is O(lxI so this
this this
this method
method
does
does work
work whenwhen x x is is small;
small; in in particular,
particular, it it works
works if if xx = = IylYll for
for some
some y y.. Thus,
Thus, I�o IA0
can �l
can -define the
El-define the function
function LenNumones LenNumones defi defined ned soso that
that

LenNumones(y)
LenNumones(y) =
- the
the number of ll's's in
number of in the
the binary
binary representation
representation of lyl. .
of Iyl

To defi
To define ne aa NNumonesu m o n e s function
function thatthat works
works for for all
all numbers,
numbers, we we useuse a a trick
trick that
that
allows
allows more more efficient encoding of
efficient encoding of successive
successive numbers.
numbers. The The basic
basic ideaidea is is that
that a a
sequence
sequence aI, al, a2,a2, a3, ak of
ca, . 9. 9. 9, ak of numbers
numbers can can be encoded with
be encoded with fewer
fewer bits
bits if,
if, when
when writing
writing
the
the number
number ai+l ai+~,, one
one only only writes
writes thethe bits
bits ofof ai + l which
ai+l which areare different
different from from the
the
corresponding bits
corresponding bits in
in ai ai.. This
This works
works particularly
particularly well well when
when we we have
have ai ai ::;
<_ ai+l
ai+l ::; ai+ 11
<_ ai+
for
for all
all ii;; in
in this
this case
case we we formally
formally defi
define ne the
the succinct
succinct encoding
encoding as as follows:
follows: for for ii >> 00,,
defi ne ii** to
define to bbee thethe greatest
greatest power power of of 22 which
which divides
divides ii;; and
and defi ne 00** to
define to equal
equal o0.. NowNow
define
define a� a~ = = ao a0 and
and defi
define ne a;a i' to
to be a i* if
be at if ai
ai =1=
:/: ai or to
ai-- l1 or to be
be 00 otherwise.
otherwise 9(Example:
(Example~. if if
aa = 24,, then
- 24 then a' a' =- 88.).) ThenThen the the sequence
sequence ii can be
d can be more
more succinctly
succinctly described
described by by (t
a'..
It is
It is now
now important
important to to seesee that
that I�o IA0 cancan extract
extract thethe sequence
sequence (ii) (~) from
from the
the
sequence ((t)
sequence ( s , at at least
least in in aa certain
certain limited
limited sense.
sense. In In particular,
particular, we we have
have that
that ifif
xx = ( a'k, . . .",, a�
- (a�, ..
a~) and
al,, a�)
'
and if IsEntry(i,i, j,
if IsEntry( x) and
j, x) and if if this
this entry
entry isis the
the entry
entry forfor a�a~,, then
then the
the
94
94 S. Buss

value
value at at can
can bebe E I -defined in
~1-defined in terms
terms of i, j,
of i, x.. To
j, x describe this
To describe this E I -definition, note
~l-definition, note that that
the
the k-thk-th bit
bit of
of the
the binary
binary representation
representation of of at
at is
is computed
computed by by finding
finding thethe maximum
maximum
values
values io i0 << jo _< ii such
j0 :::; such that
that IsEntry(io,
IsEntry(io,jo, x) and
jo, x) and such
such that
that IEntry(io,
[Entry(io, jo, x)[1 > kk
jo, x)
and letting the
and letting the k-th
k-th bitbit of
of at
ae equal
equal the k-th bit
the k-th bit of
of Entry(io, jo, x)
Entry(io, jo, x)..
The
The whole
whole point
point of of using
using (~) (rt) is
is to
to give
give aa sufficiently
sufficiently succinct
succinct encoding
encoding of of (il)(~).. Of Of
course,
course, the the fact
fact that
that the the encoding
encoding is is sufficiently
sufficiently succinct
succinct also
also needs
needs to to be
be provable
provable
in
in 1.6.0
IA0., ItIt is
is easily
easily checked
checked that that the G6del number
the Ghdel number of of the sequence ((0",
the sequence 0* , 1*,
1 " , .. .. .., , x*)
x*)
uses
uses exactly
exactly 6x 6x - - 2Numones(x)
2Numones(x) + + 22 many bits; this
many bits; this is
is proved
proved by by first
first showing
showing that that
there
there are are 2x gumones(x) bits
2 x -- Numones(x) bits in
in the
the numbers
numbers in in the
the sequence,
sequence, i.e.,i.e., L~i~0�=o W 1i*]I ==
2x
2x - Numones(x), , and
- Numones(x) and second
second noting
noting that
that there
there areare xx++ 11 commas,
commas, and noting that
and noting that
each
each bit bit and
and comma
comma is is encoded
encoded by by two
two bits
bits in
in the
the G6del
Ghdel number.
number. Furthermore,
Furthermore, when when
xx = ]Yl for
= Iyl for some
some yy,, 1.6.0
IA0 cancan prove
prove this
this fact,
fact, using LenNumones in
using LenNumones in place
place of of Numones.
Numones.
We
We areare now
now ableable to to E l -define the
~l-define the function Numones(x) equal
function Numones(x) equal to to the
the number
number of of
1l's's in
in the
the binary
binary representation
representation of x. This
of x. This is is done
done byby defining
defining the
the sequence
sequence

uu =
= (( k* ,, aa~),
((k* �) , (( ) * , a�' _ I ) , . . . , ((0,0, a�))
( (kk -- 11)*,

such
such that
that k k=- Ix I , ao
Ix[, a0 == 0,0, and
and each
each ai + ! is
ai+l is equal
equal toto ai
ai ++ Bit(
Bit(i,i, x)x).. By By the the consider­
consider-
ations
ations in in the
the previous
previous paragraph,
paragraph, 1.6. IA00 can
can prove
prove that
that this
this sequence
sequence is is bounded
bounded by by aa
term
term involving
involving onlyonly x x;; also, IA0 can
also, 1.6.0 can compute
compute the the values
values ofof 0,
0 , .. .. .., , kk from
from 0* 0 ",, .. .. .., , k*
k*
and
and therefore
therefore can can compute
compute the the values
values ofof aiai as
as aa function
function ofof ii and
and u u..
(0)
(o) Sequence coding. Once
Sequence coding. Once we we have
have the Numones function,
the Numones function, it it is is an
an easy easy matter
matter
to
to define
define the Ghdel/3f3 function
the G6del function by by counting
counting commas.
commas. The The/3f3 function
function is is defi ned so
defined so
that f3(m, x)
that/3(m, x) == amam provided
provided x x is
is the
the G6del
Ghdel number
number of sequence ((al
of aa sequence a~)) with
a l ,, ." . .", ak with
mm :::;
_ k k.. It
It is
is also
also useful
useful toto define
define the
the length
length function Len(x) which
function Len(x) which equals equals kk when when
xx is
is as
as above.
above. These
These are are defined
defined easily
easily inin terms
terms of of the Numones function:
the Numones function: the the valuevalue
x) equals
f3( m, x)
fl(m, equals Entry(
Entry(i,i, j, x) where
j, x) where there
there areare mm -- 11 commas
commas encoded
encoded in in x x to to the
the left left
of bit ii;; and
of bit Len(x) equals
and Len(x) equals the the number
number commascommas codedcoded byby xx..
Once
Once sequence
sequence encoding
encoding has
has been
been achieved,
achieved, the
the rest
rest of
of the
the bootstrapping
bootstrapping process
process
is
is fairly
fairly straightforward.
straightforward. The The next
next stage
stage in
in bootstrapping
bootstrapping is is to
to arithmetize
arithmetize meta­
meta-
mathematics,
mathematics, and and this
this is
is postponed
postponed until
until section
section 22 below.
below. Stronger
Stronger theories,
theories, such
such asas
IE I , can
/511, define all
can define all primitive recursive functions:
primitive recursive this is
functions" this is discussed
discussed in
in section
section 11.2.10.
.2.10.

1.2.9.
1.2.9. Relationships
R e l a t i o n s h i p s amongst
a m o n g s t the
t h e axioms of PA
a x i o m s of PA

We are
We are now
now ready
ready to
to sketch
sketch the
the proofs
proofs of
of the
the relationships
relationships between
between the
the
various
various fragments
fragments ofof Peano
Peano arithmetic
arithmetic pictured
pictured inin paragraph
paragraph 1.2.4
1.2.4 above.
above.

T h e o r e m . Let
Theorem. Let nn 2:
> OO..
((a)
a) BrIn
BII. F ~ BEn+
B~.+~.!'
(b) /~n-l-1! F~ BEn+
(]9) IEn+ BEn+I. !.
((c)
c) If A(x, 'Iii) Ee r..
En and tt is a. term, then Br.. can prove that
th n B�n <__t)A(x, 'Iii) is
that ('<Ix :::;
equivalent
equivalent toto aa �n -formula.
~,-formula.
 Proof Theory
Theory of Arithmetic
Arithmetic 95
95

Proof. To
Proof. To prove
prove (a),
(a), suppose
suppose A(x, y) is
is aa formula
formula in
in �n + 1 . We
~n+l. We want
want to
to show
show that
that
(Vx �
<_u) (3y)A(x, y) :::>
u)(3y)A(x, D (3v) (Vx �
(3v)(Vx <_u) (3y �
u)(3y _ v)A(x, y).
is
is aa consequence
consequence of of BIln
BIIn.. This This isis proved
proved by by the
the following
following trick:
trick: taketake all
all leading
leading
existential
existential quantifiers
quantifiers (3Z) (3~ from
from thethe beginning
beginning of of A A and
and replace
replace these
these quantifiers
quantifiers
and
and thethe existential
existential quantifier
quantifier (3y) (3y) by by aa single
single existential
existential quantifier
quantifier (3w) (3w) whichwhich
is
is intended
intended to to range
range over
over G6del
Gbdel numbers
numbers of of sequences
sequences codingcoding values
values forfor all
all of
of the
the
variables yy and
variables and z, ~', say
say by by letting ,8(1, w)
letting/~(1, w) =- yy and
and letting ,8(i +
letting f~(i + 11,, w)
w) be
be aa value
value for
for
the i-th
the i-th variable
variable in in z ~*.. Since
Since yy = - ,8(1, w) <
fl(1, w) < w w,, it
it follows
follows that
that the the collection
collection axiom
axiom
for
for this
this new
new formula implies the
formula implies collection axiom
the collection axiom for for AA..
Part
Part (c)(c) is
is proved
proved by by induction
induction on on n n.. Note
Note that
that (c)(c) is
is obvious
obvious when when n = - O0.. For
For
n > 00,, (c)
(c) is proved by
is proved by noting
noting that,
that, by using aa sequence
by using sequence to to code
code multiple
multiple values,
values, wewe
may
may assume
assume without
without loss loss ofof generality
generality thatthat there
there isis only one (unbounded)
only one (unbounded) existential
existential
quantifier
quantifier at at the
the front
front of of A A,, so
so AA is is (3y)B withwith B B E Il n - 1 . Then
IIn_x. Then (Vx � <_t)A isis
equivalent
equivalent to to (3u)
(3u)(Vx(Vx � _ t) (3y �
t)(3y u)B;; and
_ u)B and finally
finally byby using
using the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis
that
that (c)(c) holds
holds for for n n - 11,, we
- we have
have that
that (3y(3y � _ u)B is is equivalent
equivalent to to aa Iln_ 1 -formula.
Ha_l-formula.
From
From thisthis (3u)
(3u)(Vx(Vx � <_t)A is is equivalent
equivalent to to aa �n-formula.
En-formula.
We
We prove
prove (b) (b) by
by induction
induction on on n n.. Suppose
Suppose A(x, y) is is aa �n + l -formula, possibly
5]n+~-formula, possibly
containing
containing other other free
free variables.
variables. We We need need toto show
show thatthat .IT:n
/En+l + l proves
proves thethe formula
formula
displayed
displayed above,
above, andand by by part
part (a)(a) we
we maymay assume
assume thatthat A A isis aa Iln-formula.
Ha-formula. We We argue
argue
informally
informally inside .IT:n+ 1 , assuming
inside/En+~, assuming that that (Vx � <_u) (3y)A(x, y) holds.
u)(3y)A(x, holds. Let Let r4>(a) bebe the
the
formula
formula
(3v) (Vx �
(3v)(Vx _ a) (3y �
a)(3y < v)A(x, y)
y)..
It
It follows
follows from
from our
our assumption
assumption that
that 4>(0)
r and
and that
that 4>(a)
r :::>
D r4>(a + + 11)) for
for all
all aa <
< u
u..
The
The induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis that
that .IT:n
/En F B~n together
~ B�n together with with part
part (c)(c) implies
implies that
that the
the
formula
formula (Vx
(Vx � u) (3y <� v)A is
_ u)(3y is equivalent to aa Iln
equivalent to - 1 -formula and
H~_~-formula and thus
thus 4>r is
is equivalent
equivalent
to
to aa �n -formula. Therefore,
~-formula. Therefore, by
by induction
induction on
on 4>,
r r4>( u) holds;
holds; this
this is
is what
what we we needed
needed
to
to show.
show. D []

With
With the the aid
aid of
of the
the above theorem, the
above theorem, the other relationships between
other relationships between fragments
fragments of of
Peano
Peano arithmetic
arithmetic are are relatively
relatively easy easy to
to prove.
prove. To To prove
prove that
that .IT:/~nn implies
implies Il n-IND,
IIn-IND,
let
let A(x) be be aa Iln formula and
Hn formula and argue
argue informally
informally insideinside .IT:n
/En assuming
assuming A(O)A(0) and and
(Vx) (A(x) :::>
(Vx)(A(x) ~ A(x + 1)) 1)).. Letting
Letting aa be be arbitrary,
arbitrary, and and letting
letting B(x) be be the
the formula
formula
A (a � x)
...,~A(a- x),, one
one has
has ..., B (a) and
-~S(a) B(x) :::>
and S(x) D B(x + 11).) . Thus,Thus, by by induction,
induction, ..., B (O) ,
~S(0),
and
and thisthis is is equivalent
equivalent to to A(a)
A(a).. SinceSince aa was
was arbitrary,
arbitrary, (Vx)A(x) follows. follows. A A similar
similar
argument
argument shows shows that
that/IInmn implies
implies �n-IND.
En-IND.
To
To show
show that that thethe �n -MIN axioms
En-MIN axioms areare consequences
consequences of o f /.IT:n
E n , , note
note that
that by
by the the
argument
argument given given atat the
the end
end of of section .2 . 6 above,
section 11.2.6 above, thethe minimization
minimization axiom axiom for
for A(x)
follows
follows from from induction
induction on on the
the formula
formula (Vx � <_y)..., A (x) with
y)-~A(x) with respect
respect to to the
the variable
variable yy..
If
If A A E �n En, then
' then from
from partpart (c) (c) of the
of the above
above theorem,
theorem, the the formula
formula (Vx (Yx <_
� y)(...
y)(-~A),A) is
is
equivalent
equivalent to to aa Iln-formula,
IIn-formula, so so the minimization axiom
the minimization axiom for
for A A isis aa consequence
consequence of of
m
/1-In n== / .IT:n
En.·
It
It is
is easy
easy to to derive
derive thethe induction
induction axiomaxiom for for AA from
from the
the minimization
minimization axiom axiom for
for A A,,
so
so L�nLEa = = LIln
LIIn = = / .IT:n
En = =/m I / nn. ·
96
96 Buss
S. Buss

Finally, the theorem

Finally, the theorem of of Clote
Clote [1985]
[1 985] that
that the
the strong
strong En-replacement
�n -replacement axioms
axioms are
are
consequences ooff / E�n
consequences can be
n can be proved
proved as as follows.
follows. Assume
Assume nn >� 11 and
and A �n and
A EE E~ and
consider the
consider the strong
strong replacement
replacement axiom
axiom
( :Jw)(\fx <_
(3w)(Vx a) [( :Jy)A(x, y) ~t-+ A(x,
:::; a)[(3y)A(x, ,8(x ++ 1,
A(x, fl(x 1 , w))].
w ))] .

for A.
for (Note A
A . (Note may have
A may have free variables other
free variables other than
than x, y .) Let
x, y.) NumA (u) be
Let NumA(u) be aa E~-
�n ­
formula which
formula which expresses
expresses the the property
property thatthat there
there exists
exists aa w
w for which A(x,
for which A(x, ~(x+ 1 , w))
,8(x+ 1, w ))
holds for
holds for at least uu many
at least many values
values ofof xx <:::; a. NumA (0)
Clearly NumA
a . Clearly (O) holds
holds and NumA(a
and gumA (a + + 2)
2)
fails. So,
fails. So, by
by E~-maximization
�n-maximization (which follows easily
(which follows easily from
from E~-minimization),
�n-minimization), there
there is is
aa maximum
maximum value Ua _<
value u0 :::; aa ++ 11 for
for which
which NumA NumA (Uo)(Ua) holds.
holds. A A value
value w that works
w that works forfor
this Ua satisfies
this u0 satisfies the
the strong
strong replacement
replacement axioms axioms for
for A.
A.

1.2.10. D
1.2.10. Definable
e f i n a b l e ffunctions
u n c t i o n s oof E~..
f / �n

When bootstrapping theories

When bootstrapping theories stronger than lila
stronger than IA0,, such
such as
a s /�n for nn >
~ n for > 00,, the
the main
main
theorem of
theorem section 1.2.7
of section 1.2.7 still applies, and
still applies, and AIll1-definable
-definable predicates
predicates and and �l -definable
El-definable
functions may
functions may be be introduced
introduced intointo the
the language
language of arithmetic and
of arithmetic used freely
and used in
freely in
induction axioms,
induction axioms, without
without increasing
increasing the
the strength
strength of the theory.
of the theory. Of Of particular
particular
importance is
importance is the
the fact
fact that
that the
the primitive
primitive recursive functions can
recursive functions can be
be � l -defined in
El-defined in
(any theory
(any theory containing)/Ei.
containing) �l '

Definition. The
Definition. The primitive functions are
recursive functions
primitive recursive functions on
are functions on 1NN and are induc-
and are induc­
tively
tively defined
defined as as follows:
follows:
(1)
(1) The constant function
The constant function with with value
value 00 is
is primitive
primitive recursive.
recursive. We can view
We can this aa
view this
nullary
nullary function.
function.
(2) The
(2) The unary
unary successor
successor function
function S(x) = = xx++ 11 is
is primitive
primitive recursive.
recursive.
(3) For
(3) For each
each 11 :::; < n
_ kk :::; n,, then
then n-ary projection function
n-cry projection function 7l"k(Xl , , xn ) =
r'~(Xl,...,xn)
• • . = Xkxk is
is
primitive
primitive recursive.
recursive.
(4) If 9g is
(4) If is an n-ary primitive
an n-cry primitive recursive
recursive function
function andand hi > " " hn are
hl,...,hn are m-ary
m-cry
primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions,
functions, then then the m-ary function
the m-cry function 1 defined by
f defined by
1(31) (hl (31), . . . hn(31))
f(~) = gg(hi(~),.., hn(~)) is is primitive
primitive recursive.
recursive.
(5) If
(5) If n
n �_> 11 and
and 9 g isis anan (n( n -- 1) -ary primitive
1)-cry primitive recursive
recursive function
function andand h h is
is an
an
(n
(n +
+ 1) -ary primitive
1)-cry recursive function,
primitive recursive then the
function, then n-ary function
the n-cry function 1 f defi ned by:
defined by:

1(0, (31)
x) = gg(e)
j'(o,e)
l(m
f (m +
+ 1, :F,) = h(m,
1, 31) h(m, I(m,
f (m, x)
:~),, x)
:~)

is
is primitive
primitive recursive.
recursive.
The
The only
only use
use of
of the
the projection
projection functions
functions isis as
as aa technical
technical tool
tool to
to allow
allow generalized
generalized
substitutions
substitutions with
with case (4) above.
case (4) above.
A
A predicate
predicate is
is primitive recursive if
primitive recursive if its
its characteristic
characteristic function
function is
is primitive
primitive recur­
recur-
sive.
sive.
 Proof Theory
Theory of Arithmetic 97
97

Theorem. �l can
T h e o r e m . /El �l -define the
can E1-define the primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions.
functions.
The
The converse
converse to
to this
this theorem
theorem holds
holds as
as well;
well; namely, �l can
namely, /El can �l -define exactly
El-define exactly the
the
primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions.
functions. This
This converse
converse is
is proved
proved later
later as
as Theorem
Theorem 3.1.1.
3.1.1.

Proof. It
Proof. It is
is obvious
obvious thatthat the
the base
base functions,
functions, zero,
zero, successor
successor and
and projection,
projection, areare
�l -definable iinn /�l
El-definable It is
E l . . It is easy
easy to
to check
check that
that set
set of
of functions �l -definable by
functions El-definable E l is
b y /�l is
closed under composition.
closed under composition. FinallyFinally suppose
suppose that
that gg and
and hh are �l -definable in
are/El-definable i n /�l
E l ..
Then, the
Then, the function
function f f defined
defined from
from gg and h by
and h by primitive
primitive recursion
recursion can
can be �l -defined
be El-defined
with
with the
the following
following formula
formula expressing
expressing ff (m,
(m, i) = yy::
3) =

(3w)
(3w)[Len(w) - m
[Len(w) = m++ 11 /\
Ay y= ~(m +
-- (3(m + 11,, w)
w) /\
A (3(1,
~(1, w
w)) = g(Z) /\
-- g(i) A
(Vi <
(Vi < m) ({3(i +
m)(~(i 2, w)
+ 2, w)== h(i, (3(i +
h(i,/~(i + 11,, w),
w), i))].
~))].

This
This formula
formula expresses
expresses the the condition
condition that
that there
there is is aa sequence,
sequence, coded
coded byby w,w, containing
containing
all
all the
the values
values f ) , . . . , f(m,
(O, xx),...,
f(O, Z),, such
f(m, i) such that
that each
each value
value inin the
the sequence
sequence is is correctly
correctly
computed
computed fromfrom the
the preceding
preceding value value and
and such
such that
that the the final
final value
value is y.. The
is y The theorem
theorem of
of
section .2.7 shows
section 11.2.7 shows thatthat the the above
above formula
formula defi ning ff is
defining is ((equivalent
equivalent toto)) aa El-formula.
�l -formula.
We
We leave
leave it
it to
to the
the reader
reader to to check
check that �l can
that /El can prove
prove thethe requisite
requisite existence
existence and
and
uniqueness
uniqueness conditions
conditions for for this definition of
this definition of f
f .. 0[:3

As
As an
an easy consequence, we
easy consequence, we have
have

Corollary. Every
Corollary. Every primitive
primitive recursive
recursive predicate
predicate is �l -definable by
is A1-definable by �l
IE1..
In the
In the theories
theories � /Enn with
with nn >> 11,, even
even more
more functions
functions are �l -definable. A
are El-definable. A
characterization of
characterization of the
the functions �l -definable in
functions El-definable E nn is
i n /� is given
given in
in Chapter III of
Chapter III of this
this
volume.
volume. Other
Other proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic characterizations
characterizations of of these
these functions
functions can
can be
be found
found
in
in Takeuti [1987],, Buss
Takeuti [1987] [1994] and
Buss [1994] and in
in references
references cited
cited therein.
therein.

1.3.
1.3. Fragments
F r a g m e n t s of
of bounded
b o u n d e d arithmetic
arithmetic

A
A subtheory
subtheory ofof Peano
Peano arithmetic
arithmetic is is called
called aa bounded
bounded theory
theory of
of arithmetic,
arithmetic, oror aa
theory
theory of
of bounded arithmetic, if
bounded arithmetic, if it is axiomatized
it is axiomatized by by Ill -formulas. The
IIl-formulas. The potential
potential
strength
strength of
of such
such theories
theories depends
depends partly
partly on on thethe growth
growth rates
rates of
of the
the function
function symbols
symbols
in
in the
the language,
language, andand usually
usually bounded
bounded arithmetic
arithmetic theories
theories have
have only
only functions
functions of
of
subexponential
subexponential growth
growth rate,
rate, including
including addition,
addition, multiplication
multiplication and
and possibly
possibly polyno­
polyno-
mial
mial growth
growth rate
rate functions
functions such
such as as WI
Wl oror # # . . These
These theories
theories are
are typically
typically weaker
weaker than
than
the
the strong
strong theories
theories considered
considered in in section 1.2, but
section 1.2, but stronger
stronger than
than the
the theories
theories QQ and
and RR
discussed
discussed in
in section
section 1.1.
1.1.
There
There are
are two
two principal
principal approaches
approaches to to bounded
bounded arithmetic.
arithmetic. The
The original
original approach
approach
involved
involved theories
theories such
such as
as I�o
IA0 and IA0 +
and I�o + nlgtl;; more
more recently,
recently, bounded
bounded theories
theories such
such
as S~ and
as S� and T�T~ have been extensively
have been studied. One
extensively studied. One ofof the
the main
main motivations
motivations for
for
studying
studying bounded
bounded arithmetics
arithmetics is is their
their close
close connection
connection to
to low-level
low-level computational
computational
complexity,
complexity, especially
especially regarding
regarding questions
questions relating
relating expressibility
expressibility and
and provability
provability in
in
98
98 S.S. Buss
Buss

bounded arithmetics
bounded arithmetics to
to questions
questions about
about the
the linear
linear time
time hierarchy
hierarchy and
and the
the polynomial
polynomial
time hierarchy.
time hierarchy.

1.6.0 aand
1.3. 1. I5o
1.3.1. nn
n d ~n

We have
We have already
already defined
defined IA01.6.0 and
and described
described its its bootstrapping
bootstrapping process
process in in fairly
fairly
complete detail
complete detail in
in section
section 1.2. One corollary
1 .2. One corollary ofof the
the bootstrapping
bootstrapping process
process isis that
that the
the
of exponentiation
graph of
graph exponentiation isis A0-definable
.6.o-definable in in IA0;
1.6.0 ; that
that isis to
to say,
say, there
there isis aa bounded
bounded
formula exp(x,
formula exp(x, y,y, z) which expresses
z) which expresses thethe condition
condition xY xY -= zz and
and such
such that
that IA0 1.6.0 can
can
prove facts
prove facts like
like exp(x,
exp(x, O, 1) , exp(x,
0, 1), exp(x, 1,l, x),
x) ,
y' , z')
exp(x, y,y, z) ^1\ exp(x, y', y' , z.z · z' )
z') => exp(x, yy ++ y',
and that
and that for
for any
any xx and and y, there isis at
y , there at most
most one one zz suchsuch thatthat exp(x,
exp(x, y,z). The
y, z) . The
underlying idea
underlying idea of
of the
the A0-definition
.6.o-definition of of exp(x,
exp(x, y, z) isis to to defne
define thethe sequence (x Ly/2i J )i
sequence (xty/2'J)i
where ii ranges
where ranges from
from lYl down to
Iyl down to 0; however, we
0 ; however, we leave
leave it it to the reader
to the reader to supply
to supply
the details
the details behind
behind this
this A0-definition.
.6.o-definition. The The fact
fact that
that exponentiation
exponentiation is is A0-definable
.6.o-definable
is essentially
is essentially due
due toto Bennett
Bennett [1962][1962] and
and waswas first ( and independently)
first (and independently) provedproved in in the
the
setting
setting of
of 1.6.0
IA0 by by Gaifman
Gaifman and and Dimitracopoulos
Dimitracopoulos [1982]. [1982].
Once
Once the graph of
the graph exponentiation has
of exponentiation has been
been shown
shown to to be
be .6.o-definable,
A0-definable, one one can
can
formulate
formulate the axioms n
the axioms ~k.k • Firstly,
Firstly, when working in
when working in bounded
bounded arithmetic,
arithmetic, we we define
define
log
log x to equal
x to equal thethe greatest
greatest yy such such that
that 2Y2Y <:5 x Then the
x.. Then the function
function Wl Wl (x, y) isis defined
(x, y) defined
to
to equal
equal x1og
x l~ y .. Since Iwl (x, y)
Since IW1(X, y)l1 = O(Ixl.' lyl)
- 8(lxl lyl),, it
it is
is evident
evident W Wll (X, y) cannot
(x, y) cannot be be bounded
bounded
by aa polynomial
by polynomial of of xx and
and y y.. Therefore,
Therefore, by Parikh's's Theorem
by Parikh Theorem 1.2.7.1,
1.2.7.1, the
the function
function W Wll
is
is not
not E1 -definable in
~El-definable in 1.6.0
IA0.• As As we shall see
we shall later, it
see later, it is
is often
often very desirable to
very desirable to have
have
the
the WWll function
function be be total;
total; therefore
therefore itit is
is common
common to to extend
extend 1.6.0
IA0 toto aa stronger
stronger theory
theory
containing
containing the the axiom
axiom

n1 : (\ix)(\iy) (3z) (z = Wl (X, y))

= y))..

This
This stronger
stronger theorytheory is is called
called 1.6.0 IA0 + + n
~1.1.
The
The function
function W Wll has
has whatwhat is is called
called polynomial
polynomial growthgrowth rate,rate, i.e.,
i.e., for
for any
any term
term t(ii)
t(~)
constructed
constructed with with the the functions
functions S S,, ++ ,, . 9and
and W wll there
there is is aa polynomial
polynomial Pt pt such
such that
that
for
for all
all ii,
g, It( t ( lal l , . . . , Ian
ii) I :5___Ppt(lall,...,
It(g)l I) . There
lanl). There is is also
also aa hierarchy
hierarchy of of functions
functions Wn wn,, n _> 11,,
n ::::
which
which have have subexponential
subexponential growth growth rates,
rates, defined
defined by by Wn+1
wn+l(x, (x, y)
y) = = 2wn (log x,logy) . 9The
2~"0~176 The
axioms
axioms nn ~ areare Ih-axioms
II2-axioms which which say say that
that thethe function
function Wn w~ is is total.
total. By By using
using Parikh's
Parikh's
Theorem
Theorem 1. 2. 7.1, it
1.2.7.1, it is
is immediate
immediate that that 1.6.
IA00 + + nn
~ y: ~ n++11.'
tz n
Although
Although the the Wn wn functions,
functions, for for nn ::::
>__22,, are
are superpolynomial,
superpolynomial, they they are
are much
much moremore
similar
similar in in nature
nature to to polynomial
polynomial growth growth rate rate functions
functions than than to to exponential
exponential growth
growth
rate
rate functions.
functions. Using Using aa technique
technique due due to to Solovay
Solovay [1976],
[1976], it it can
can bebe shown
shown that,that,
for each nn,, 1.6.0
for each IA0 can can define
define an an inductive
inductive cut cut onon which
which the the Wnw~ function
function is is provably
provably
total;
total; forfor anan explanation
explanation of of this
this construction,
construction, see see Pudhik
Pudl~k [1983],
[1983], Nelson
Nelson [1986]
[1986] or or
Chapter
Chapter VIII of this volume. However, Paris and Dimitracopoulos [1982] showed
VIn of this volume. However, Paris and Dimitracopoulos [1982] showed
that
that itit is
is not
not possible
possible to to define
define an an inductive
inductive cut cut on
on which
which the the exponentiation
exponentiation functionfunction
isis provably
provably total.
total. For For thisthis reason,
reason, we we view
view thethe Wnw, functions
functions as as being
being more
more akin
akin to to
 Proof
Proof Theory
Theory of
of Arithmetic
Arithmetic 99
99

feasible
feasible polynomial
polynomial growth
growth rate
rate functions
functions than
than to
to the
the infeasible
infeasible exponential
exponential function
function
(see
(see Nelson
Nelson [1986]
[1986] for
for aa strong
strong expression
expression of
of this
this viewpoint).
viewpoint).

1.3.2.
1.3.2. �o-formulas
A0-formulas and
and the
the linear-time
linear-time hierarchy
hierarchy

There
There is is aa very close connection
very close connection between
between �o-expressibility
A0-expressibility and and computational
computational
complexity.
complexity. Recall
Recall that
that the
the linear
linear time
time hierarchy
hierarchy consists
consists ofof those
those predicates
predicates which
which
can
can be be recognized
recognized by by some
some 'lUring
Turing machine
machine which
which runs
runs inin linear
linear time
time andand which
which
makes
makes aa bounded
bounded number
number of of alternations
alternations between
between existential
existential and and universal
universal states.
states.
Lipton
Lipton [1978,sect.
[1978,sect. 4],
4], building
building on on work
work of of Smullyan,
Smullyan, Bennett
Bennett and and Wrathall,
Wrathall, proved
proved
that
that thethe �o
A0 definable
definable predicates
predicates on on N 1N are
are precisely
precisely the
the subsets which are
subsets which are in
in the
the
linear time hierarchy.
linear time hierarchy.
The
The original
original motivation
motivation for for the
the definition
definition ofof the
the theory
theory I�oIA0 by Parikh [1971]
by Parikh [1971]
was
was to to give
give aa proof
proof theory
theory that
that would
would be be appropriate
appropriate to to linear
linear bounded
bounded automata,
automata,
i.e.,
i.e., to
to predicates
predicates computable
computable by by linear
linear space bounded 'lUring
space bounded Turing machines.
machines. It It is
is still
still
an
an open
open problem
problem whether
whether thethe linear
linear time
time hierarchy
hierarchy equals
equals linear
linear space;
space; although
although it it
is
is commonly
commonly conjectured
conjectured that
that they
they are
are not
not equal.
equal. It
It is
is known
known thatthat the
the linear
linear time
time
hierarchy
hierarchy contains
contains log
log space,
space, and
and also
also contains
contains the
the predicates
predicates which
which can
can bebe computed
computed
by
by aa 'lUring
Turing machine
machine which
which simultaneously
simultaneously polynomial
polynomial time
time and 1-~ space
and nn1-f space forfor aa
constant
constant €e > > 00 (see Bennett [1962]
(see Bennett [1962] and NepomnjaSCii [1970])
and Nepomnja~ii [1970])..

11.3.3.
.3.3. The theories S�
The theories and TJ
S~ and T~ of
of bounded
b o u n d e d arithmetic
arithmetic

The
The second
second approach
approach to to theories
theories ofof bounded
bounded arithmetic
arithmetic is is due
due to to Buss
Buss [1986] [1986]
and
and gives
gives aa (conjectured)
(conjectured) hierarchy
hierarchy of of fragments
fragments of IA0 +
of I�o + 0 1 , which
~1, which are are very
very closely
closely
related
related to to the
the computational
computational complexity
complexity classes
classes of of the
the polynomial
polynomial time time hierarchy.
hierarchy.
These fragments, S�
These fragments, and TJ
S~ and T~ andand others,
others, use
use the language 00,, S
the language S,, ++ ,,. ,. , ## , , lx
Ixl, L 89J ,
i , L�x
and �
and _;; where
where thethe ## function 'smash')' ) is
(pronounced 'smash
function (pronounced is defined
defined so so that
that x#y x#y = - 2 Ixl - lyl .
21xl.lyl.
The
The # # function
function waswas first introduced by
first introduced by Nelson
Nelson [1986],
[1986], andand itit is
is evident
evident that that the the # #
function
function has has essentially
essentially the
the same
same growth
growth rate
rate as
as the
the W I -function.
wl-function.
The
The second
second difference
difference between
between the the S�
S~ and
and thethe T� T~ theories
theories and and the the I�o IA0 + + 01 ~1
approach
approach is is that
that the
the former
former theories
theories are
are based
based onon restricting
restricting the the power
power of of induction;
induction;
firstly
firstly by
by further
further restricting
restricting thethe formulas
formulas forfor which
which induction
induction holds,
holds, and and secondly
secondly by by
using
using (apparently)
(apparently) weaker
weaker forms
forms ofof induction.
induction. It It is
is for
for this
this reason
reason thatthat the the functions
functions
Ixl and
and L~xJ 1 are
L�xj are included
included in in the non-logical language,
the non-logical language, sincesince they
they are are needed
needed to to
elegantly
elegantly state
state the
the axioms
axioms of of the theories S�
the theories S~ and
and TJ T~..
Before
Before defining
defining the theories S�
the theories S~ and
and T4T~,, we
we define
define thethe classes
classes �� E~ and and rr� II~ of of
formulas,
formulas, which
which are
are defined
defined by by counting
counting alternations
alternations of of bounded
bounded quantifiers,
quantifiers, ignoring ignoring
sharply
sharply bounded
bounded quantifiers.
quantifiers. (Bounded
(Bounded and and sharply
sharply bounded
bounded quantifiers
quantifiers are are defined
defined
in
in section
section 11 above.)
above.)

Definition. The
Definition. The set
set �
A~g =
= �g
2~ = H~ is
= rrg is equal
equal to
to the
the set
set of
of formulas
formulas inin which
which all
all
quantifiers
quantifiers are
are sharply bounded. For
sharply bounded. _ 11,, the
For ii 2:: the sets ~ and
sets �� II~ are
and rr� are inductively
inductively
defined
defined by
by the
the following
following conditions:
conditions:
100
100 s. Buss
S.

(a) If
(a) A and
If A and BB areare E~-formulas,
E� -formulas, thenthen so so are
are AAVV BB andand A A At\ B.
B . If A isis aa II~
If A Il� formula
formula
and BB isis aa E~-formula,
and E�-formula, then
then A A D:::> BB and
and ~A...,A are
are E~-formulas.
E�-formulas.
(b) If
(b) A isis aa II~_l-formula,
If A IlL -formula, then
then A A isis aa E~-formula.
E� -formula.
(c) If
(c) If AA isis aa E~-formula and tt isis aa term,
E�-formula and term, then ("Ix <_
then (Vx :::; Itl)A
Itl)A isis aa E~-formula.
E�-formula.
(d) If
(d) A isis aa E~-formula
If A and tt isis aa term,
E�-formula and term, then (3x <:::; t)A
then (3x t)A isis aa E~-formula.
E�-formula. Note Note this
this
quantifier may
quantifier may be
be sharply
sharply bounded.
bounded.
The four
The four inductive
inductive conditions
conditions defining
defining II~ are dual
Il� are dual to to (a)-(d)
(a)-(d) with
with the the roles
roles of
of
existential and
existential and universal
universal quantifiers
quantifiers and and the the roles
roles of of II~ and Z~
Il� and Ef reversed.
reversed.
This is
This is aa good
good place
place to
to justify
justify the
the presence,
presence, inin bounded
bounded arithmetic,
arithmetic, of
of the
the ##
function or
function or the
the equivalently
equivalently growing
growing wl. There are
WI . There are essentially
essentially three
three reasons
reasons why
why itit
is natural
is natural to to include
include ## or
or wl. Firstly, itit gives
WI . Firstly, gives aa natural
natural bound
bound to to the
the Gbdel
G6del number
number
of aa formula
of A(t) in
formula A(t) in terms
terms of
of the
the Gbdel
G6del numbers
numbers of of AA and
and t;t ; namely,
namely, the
the number
number
of symbols
of symbols in A(t) is
in A(t) is bounded
bounded byby the
the product
product of of the
the numbers
numbers of of symbols
symbols in
in A A and
and
in t.t . This
in This allows
allows aa smooth arithmetization of
smooth arithmetization of metamathematics. Secondly, itit arises
metamathematics. Secondly, arises
naturally from
naturally consideration of
from consideration of bounded
bounded versusversus sharply
sharply bounded
bounded quantifiers,
quantifiers, since
since
it has exactly
it has exactly the
the growth rate necessary
growth rate necessary to to make
make the following quantifier
the following quantifier exchange
exchange
property hold:
property hold:

(("Iwx :::; l al) (3y :::;

< lal)(3y b)A(x, y)
_< b)A(x, y)
+4 (3w
++ (3w :::; SqBd(b, a))
< SqBd(b, a))(Vx < lal)
(Vx :::; (A(x, (3
lal)(A(x, Z(x(x + 1, y)) t\
1, y)) A (3 (x +
~(x 1, y)
§ 1, y) :::;
<_b) b)
where SqBd
where SqBd is is aa term
term involving
involving # # . . In
In fact,
fact, the
the size
size ofof ww can
can bebe bounded
bounded in in
terms
terms of of aa and
and b, b, by
by noting
noting thatthat w w must encode lal
must encode + 11 many
lal + many numbers
numbers of of at
at most
most
Ibl
Ibl bits
bits each; therefore, w
each; therefore, w :::; 2c'lal'lbl for
< 2c·lal·lbl for some
some constant
constant c, c, and
and SqBd
SqBd can can easily
easily
be
be expressed
expressed usingusing # # . . The
The quantifier
quantifier exchange
exchange property
property allows
allows sharply
sharply bounded
bounded
quantifiers
quantifiers to to bebe pushed
pushed inside
inside non-sharply
non-sharply bounded
bounded quantifiers
quantifiers (at(at least
least when
when the
the
(3 function
function is is available).
available). Thirdly,
Thirdly, thethe use
use of
of ## function
function meansmeans that
that any term t(x)
any term t(x)
can
can be be bounded
bounded by by 221Ixl~
x1c for
for some constant cc,, and
some constant and conversely,
conversely, any 2 Ixlc can
any 21x1c can bebe
bounded
bounded by term t(x)
by aa term t(x) in in the
the language
language of of bounded
bounded arithmetic.
arithmetic. In In other
other words,
words,
the
the terms
terms define
define functions
functions of of polynomial
polynomial growthgrowth rate.
rate. This
This leads
leads to to the
the principal
principal
importance
importance of of the
the classes
classes E� E~ and II~ of
and Il� of formulas,
formulas, which
which is is that
that they
they express
express precisely
precisely
the
the corresponding
corresponding classes classes of of the
the polynomial
polynomial time time hierarchy.
hierarchy. This This fact
fact isis discussed
discussed in in
more
more depthdepth in in section
section 11.3.6
.3.6 below,
below, but but inin brief,
brief, aa set
set of
of natural
natural numbers
numbers is is definable
definable
by
by aa E�-formula
E~-formula (respectively,
(respectively, aa m-formula)
II~-formula) if if and
and only
only ifif the
the set
set is
is recognizable
recognizable by by
aa predicate
predicate in in the
the class
class Ef E~ (respectively,
(respectively, Ilf II~)) from
from the the polynomial
polynomial time time hierarchy.
hierarchy.
This
This is is essentially
essentially due due to to Wrathall
Wrathall [1976]
[1976] and
and Stockmeyer
Stockmeyer [1976] [1976] and
and waswas first
first proved
proved
in
in this
this exact
exact form
form by by Kent
Kent and
and Hodgson
Hodgson [1982].
[1982]. Thus Thus we we have that N
have that NP,P , the
the set
set
of
of nondeterministic
nondeterministic polynomial
polynomial time time predicates,
predicates, consists
consists of of precisely
precisely thethe predicates
predicates
expressible
expressible by by Et -formulas, etc.
E~-formulas, etc.

1.3.3.1.
1.3.3.1. The
The theory T~ will
theory T� will be
be defined
defined by
by restricting
restricting induction
induction to
to Ef-formulas,
E~-formulas,
where by induction we mean the usual 'IND' flavor of induction. For S�
where by induction we mean the usual 'IND ' flavor of induction. For S~,, we
we need
need
some additional varieties of induction:
some additional varieties of induction:
 Proof Theory of Arithmetic 101
101

D e f i n i t i o n . Let
Definition. Let <I>9 be
be a
a set
set of
of formulas.
formulas. The
The <I>-PIND
O-PIND axioms
axioms are
are the
the formulas
formulas

A(O) V'x) (A( l�89xJ ) =>

A ((Vx)(A(L
A(O) 1\ A(x)) =>
D A(x)) V'x)A(x)
D ((Vx)A(x)

for
for all formulas A
all formulas E <I>
A E O.. As usual, A
As usual, A may
may have
have other
other free
free variables
variables in
in addition to x
addition to x
that
that serve
serve as parameters. The
as parameters. The length-induction
length-induction <I>-LIND
O-LIND axioms
axioms are
are the
the formulas
formulas

A(O) V'x)(A(x)
A ((Vx)(A(x)
A(O) 1\ =>
D A(Sx)) =>
A(Sx)) V'x)A(lx l )
D ((Vx)A(Ixl)

for all A
for all A E <I>
O.. The
The length-minimization
length-minimization axioms,
axioms, <I>-LMIN,
O-LMIN, are
are the
the formulas
formulas

(3x)A(x) =>
(3x)A(x) D (3x) (A(x) 1\A (V'
(3x)(A(x) y)( l y lI <
(Vy)([y < Ix
Ixll =>
D ..., A (y)))
~A(y)))

for all A
for all E <I>.
A E O.

In
In addition
addition to
to induction
induction and
and minimization
minimization axioms,
axioms, there
there are
are replacement
replacement axioms
axioms
that will be
that will defined below
be defined below after
after the
the Godel
GSdel/3(3 function
function has been introduced.
has been introduced. All
All of
of
these
these axiom schemes are
axiom schemes are used in conjunction
used in with aa set
conjunction with set of purely universal
of purely universal axioms
axioms
called
called the
the BASIC axioms. The
BASIC axioms. The set
set of
of BASIC
BASIC axioms consists of:
axioms consists of:
aa s< bb J D aa S< SbSb llaal I=- IIbl
bl J
~ a#ca#c = = b#c
aa =I
~ Sa Sa al =
llaI bl +
= IIbI + lIclei J :::)aa#d
id = = (b#d)
(b#d).. (e#d)
(c#d)
O0 <Sa a
m
aa <Saa++b b
aa <SbbA1\a ra =I b t-+ Sa S a <Sbb aa <sbbAl\a a~ b=lDb J
aa ~=l: 00 JD 22.· aa =l~: 00 S(2
S(2 . 9a)a) S < 22 .· bbA1\SS(2( 2 . a. a)
) =1
~ 22.5
·b
aa <sbbVVb b<sa a aa ++bb==b b++a a
aa <SbbAl\b b<Sa Da aJ=ab = b aa + +OO ==aa
aa s< bbAl\bb<sc e J Daa s < cc aa ++SSb b ==S S(a
( a ++ b )b)
01 =
1101 = 0 0 (a
(a + + b)b) +
+ c c = - a a+ + (b(b +
+ c)c)
SO I =
IISOI = SOSO aa + + bb s < aa + + ce +-~ t-+ bb s < ec
aa =I
=/= 00 J 2 · al =
~ 112-al - S( l a l ) 1\
S(lal) A I15'(2. a)l 1 =
S(2 · a) - S( lal )
S(lal) aa . · Oo =- 0 o
aa S< bb J al S
~ llal bl
< IIbl aa - ·( S(Sb)
b) = = (a ( a . · b)
b) ++ a a
a#bl =
lla#bl = S(
S(lal" bl )
l a l . IIbl) aa . · bb == b ·a
b.a
O#a
o#a = = SO
so aa . · (b(b +
+ c)c) == (a ( a . · b)
b) ++ (a
(a.. c)
aa =I
~ 00 J D 1#(2
1#(2. · a) a) = = 22.. (l#a)
(l#a) SO
SO S < aa JD (a(a.· bb S < aa.· ec t-+
o bb S < e)
c)
AI#(S(2 .. a))
1\1#(S(2 a)) = 22. . (l#a)
(l#a). . aa =I ~ 00 J l a l = S(
Dlal I L� aJ I )
S(IL~aJl)l
a#b
a#b = = b#a
b#a aa = = L� L b89J t-+
~ 2 2 . .aa = = b bVV s(2.
S(2 . a) a) =
= b
b

These
These BASIC
BASIC axioms axioms serve
serve the
the same
same role for S�
role for S~ and T~ that
and T4 that the
the axioms
axioms of
of QQ served
served
for
for the
the fragments E n of
f r a g m e n t s /�n of Peano arithmetic. There
Peano arithmetic. There is
is a certain amount
a certain amount of
of flexibility
flexibility
in
in the
the choice
choice of of BASIC
BASIC axioms;
axioms; essentially
essentially any
any finite
finite set
set of
of purely
purely universal
universal axioms
axioms
which both are
which both are sufficiently
sufficiently strong
strong toto carry
carry out
out the bootstrapping of
the bootstrapping of Si
S~ and
and are
are
contained
contained in in the theory Si
the theory S~ would
would serve
serve as
as well
well for
for the BASIC axioms.4
the BASIC axioms. 4

4We have given

given the BASIC axioms as
BASIC axioms as defined
defined by Buss
Buss [1986].
[1986]. This choice
choice is not entirely
optimal, since, second axiom aa s
since, for instance, the second <_S (a ) , follows
S(a), follows from the first, fourth and sixth
axioms.
axioms. An
An alternative,
alternative, and
and weaker,
weaker, set
set of
of BASIC
BASIC axioms
axioms areare given
given by
by Cook
Cook and
and Urquhart
Urquhart [1993];
[1993];
see
see Buss
Buss [1992]
[1992] for
for aa discussion
discussion of
of their BASIC axioms.
their BASIC axioms. Buss
Buss and
and Ignjatovic
Ignjatovid [1995]
[1995] propose
propose that
that
laI S
lal <_a
a should
should be
be added
added to to the BASIC axioms.
the BASIC axioms.
102
102 s.
S. Buss

Definition. Let
Definition. Let ii �
_> o0.. S�S~ is is thethe theory
theory axiomatized
axiomatized by
by the
the BASIC
BASIC axioms
axioms plus
plus
E~-PIND. T4
I:�-PIND. T~ is is the
the theory
theory axiomatized
axiomatized by by BASIC
BASIC plus
plus I:�-IND.
E~-IND. The theories S�
The theories
l
S~--1))
and T
and - l ) are
TJ(-1) are equal equal to
to just
just BASIC.
BASIC.
S2 is U
$2 is i ;:::
Ui>oS~ O S� and
and T2
T2 is
is U i ;:::o T4 . Section
t.li>oT~. Section 11.3.5
.3.5 shows that S2
shows that and T2
$2 and T2 are
are the
the same
same
theory.
theory.

11.3.3.2. Bootstrapping and I:t

.3.3.2. Bootstrapping -definable functions.
E~-definable functions. The
The bootstrapping
bootstrapping
of Si
of and Ti
S 1 and T21 is
is analogous
analogous to to the
the bootstrapping
bootstrapping of of 1.600
IA0 as as described
described in in sections
sections
1.2.6-1.2.8
1.2.6-1.2.8 above.
above. There
There isis now
now thethe additional
additional difficulty
difficulty that
that the
the induction
induction axioms
axioms
are
are more
more severely restricted; but
severely restricted; but onon the other hand,
the other hand, the language of
the language of S� and T4
S~ and T~
is
is richer
richer since
since it
it contains
contains the
the function
function symbol
symbol Ixl
Ixl and
and its
its BASIC
BASIC axioms
axioms and
and this
this
makes
makes thethe defi nition of
definition of the
the graph
graph ofof yy =
x essentially trivial,
-- 22x essentially trivial, and
and thereby
thereby helps
helps with
with
defining Ghdel
defining G6del numbering
numbering of of sequences.
sequences. The The most
most outstanding
outstanding difference
difference between
between the
the
bootstrapping of
bootstrapping of Si and Ti
S~ and T~ and
and the
the above bootstrapping of
above bootstrapping of 1.600
IA0 is is that
that quantifiers
quantifiers
are
are more
more carefully counted; namely,
carefully counted; namely, whereas
whereas 1.600 could use
IA0 could use .6oo-defined predicates and
Ao-defined predicates and
I:l -defined functions,
El-defined functions, the theories Si
the theories and Ti
S~ and T~ can
can introduce
introduce .6ot -defined predicates
A~-defined predicates
and
and I:t -defined functions.
E~-defined functions. Accordingly,
Accordingly, we we make
make the
the following
following important
important definitions:
definitions:

Definition. A
Definition. A predicate symbol R(x)
predicate symbol R(Z) is is .6o� -defined by
A~-defined by aa theory
theory TT if
if there
there is
is aa
E~-formula </J(x)
I:�-formula r and II~-formula 'Ij;(x)
and aa rr�-formula r such that R
such that has defining
R has defining axiom
axiom

R(x) ++ </J(x)
and
and such that T
such that F- (VX)
T I- (VZ)((r</J ++
+4 'Ij;)
r .

Definition. Let
Definition. Let TT be
be aa theory
theory of arithmetic. A
of arithmetic. A function symbol ff (x)
function symbol (Z) is
is I:� -defined
E~-defined
by
by T
T if
if it
it has
has aa defining
defining axiom
axiom

yy ==f (f(x) 4-~ </J(x,

~ ) ++ r y),
where </J
where r isis aa I:�
E~ formula
formula with
with all
all free
free variables
variables indicated
indicated such that T
such that T proves
proves
(Vx)
(V~) (3 ! y)
(3!y)r </J(x, y)
y)..
By Parikh's's theorem
By Parikh theorem 11.2.7.1, when f
.2.7.1, when f is
is I:�-defined then T
E~-defined then ~ (Vx)
T I- (3y �
(VZ)(3y < t(x))</J(x,
t(Z))r y)
y)
for
for some term tt..
some term
The
The analogue
analogue of of Theorem
Theorem 1.2.7.3
1.2.7.3 for
for fragments
fragments ofof bounded
bounded arithmetic
arithmetic isis the
the
following theorem.
following theorem.

1.3.3.3.
1.3.3.3. Theorem.
Theorem. (Buss
(Buss [1986,Thm
[1986,Thm 2.2]) 2.2]) Let
Let T T ;2
D_ B BASIC
A S I C bebe aa theory
theory ofof
arithmetic.
arithmetic. LetLet TT bebe extended to aa theory
extended to theory T T++ in in an
an enlarged
enlarged language
language L L++ byby
adding
adding .6o� -defined predicate
A~-defined symbols, E~-defined
predicate symbols, I:t -defined function
function symbols
symbols andand their
their defining
defining
equations.
equations. Then
Then T T+
+ is
is conservative
conservative over
over T T.. Also,
Also, if if A
A is
is aa E~
I:� (respectively,
(respectively, aa rr�)
H~)
formula
formula in
in the
the enlarged
enlarged language
language LL++ ,, then
then there
there is
is aa formula
formula A A -- in
in the
the language
language of of T
T
such that
that AA-- is also in I:�
r4 (respectively, nm) and such that that

T + k (A ~ A-).
 Proof
Proof Theory
Theory of
o/ Arithmetic 103
103

An
An immediate
immediate corollary
corollary to to this
this theorem
theorem is is that, for ii 2:
that, for > 11,, theories
theories such as S�
such as and T4
S~ and T~
can introduce ��
can introduce -defined function
E~-defined function symbols
symbols and and .D.. � -predicate symbols
A~-predicate symbols and
and use
use them
them
freely
freely inin induction
induction axioms.
axioms.
With
With the the aid
aid of Theorem 1.3.3.3,
of Theorem 1.3.3.3, the
the bootstrapping
bootstrapping for for S� and Ti
S~ and T~ isis analogous
analogous
to
to the
the bootstrapping
bootstrapping for for I.D..
IA0o in section 1.2.8;
in section 1.2.8; indeed,
indeed, everyevery single
single function
function andand
predicate
predicate symbol
symbol which
which was
was claimed
claimed to be �
to be 1 -definable
El-definable or
or .D.. o -definable
A0-definable (respectively)
(respectively)
in I.D..
in IA0o in section 1.2.8
in section 1.2.8 is likewise ��
is likewise -definable or
E~-definable or .D.. � -definable in
A~-definable in each
each ofof the
the six
six
theories S
theories i , Ti
S~, T~,, BASIC
B A S I C + IT� -PIND, BASIC
II~-PIND, B A S I C + �� -LIND, BASIC
E~-LIND, B A S I C + IT� -LIND
II~-LIND
and BASIC
and B A S I C + IT� -IND. We
II~-IND. We shall
shall omit
omit the
the details
details ofof this
this bootstrapping
bootstrapping here;here; they
they
can
can bebe found
found in Buss [1986,1992)
in Buss [1986,1992] and and Buss
Buss and Ignjatovi(~ [1995)
and Ignjatovic [1995]..
One
One consequence
consequence of of the
the bootstrapping
bootstrapping process
process is is that
that some
some of of the
the other
other forms
forms ofof
induction
induction follow from �-PIND
follow from E-PIND and and IT-IND:
H-IND"

11.3.3.4.
.3.3.4. Theorem.
Theorem. (Buss [1986))
(Buss [1986]) Let Let ii 2:
>_11..
(1) T4
(1) T~ proves
proves IT�-IND
II~-IND and T~ 1==~ S�
and T4 S~ ..
(2) S;
(2) S~ proves
proves ��-LIND,
E~-LIND, ITf-PIND
I-Ibi-PIND and
and IT�-LIND.
IIbi-LIND.

1.3.4.
1.3.4. Polynomial
P o l y n o m i a l time
t i m e computable
c o m p u t a b l e functions in S
functions in S~i

The
The last section discussed
last section discussed the the fact that ��
fact that -definable functions
~-definable functions and and .D.. � -defined
A~-defined
predicates
predicates cancan be
be introduced
introduced into into theories
theories of
of bounded
bounded arithmetic
arithmetic and and used
used freely
freely
in induction axioms.
in induction axioms. Of Of particular
particular importance
importance is is the
the fact
fact that
that these
these include
include all all
polynomial
polynomial timetime computable
computable functions
functions andand predicates.
predicates.
A function or
A function or predicate
predicate is is said to be
said to polynomial time
be polynomial time computable
computable provided
provided there there
exists
exists a 'lUring machine
a Turing machine M M andand aa polynomial p( n) , such
polynomial p(n), such that
that M M computes
computes the the
function
function oror recognizes
recognizes thethe predicate,
predicate, andand such
such that
that M runs in
M runs p( n) for
time <::; p(n)
in time for all
all
inputs of
inputs of length
length n. n. The
The inputs
inputs and outputs for
and outputs for M M areare integers coded in
integers coded binary
in binary
notation, thus
notation, the length
thus the length ofof an
an input
input is
is proportional
proportional to to the
the total
total length of its
length of its binary
binary
representation.
representation.
For our
For purposes, it
our purposes, is convenient
it is convenient to to use
use an alternative definition
an alternative definition ofthe
of the polynomial
polynomial
time
time computable functions; the
computable functions; the equivalence
equivalence of this definition
of this definition is is due to Cobham
due to [1965) .
Cobham [1965].

Definition. The
Definition. polynomial time
The polynomial time functions on N
functions on N are inductively defined
are inductively defined by
by
(1) The
(1) The following
following functions
functions are
are polynomial
polynomial time:
time:
• The nullary
9 The constant function
nullary constant function 0.
o.
• The successor
9 The function xx ~-+
successor function S(x) .
H S(x).
• The doubling
9 The function xx ~H 2x.
doubling function 2x .
• The conditional
9 The conditional function Cond(x, y,
function Cond(x, z) =
y, z) = { y
z
{; if x = 0
if x = 0
otherwise.
otherwise.
(2) The
(2) The projection
projection functions
functions are
are polynomial
polynomial time
time functions
functions and
and the
the composition
composition of
of
polynomial time
polynomial time functions
functions is
is aa polynomial
polynomial time
time function.
function.
104
104 s.
S. Buss

(3) If is aa ((nn -- 11)-cry

If 9g is ) -ary polynomial
polynomial time
time function
function and
and hh is (n +
is aa (n 1) -ary polynomial
+ 1)-cry polynomial
time
time function
function and and pp is
is aa polynomial,
polynomial, then
then the
the following
following function
function ff, , defined
defined by
by
limited
limited iteration
iteration on on notation
notation from
from 9g and h, is
and h, is also
also polynomial
polynomial time:
time:

f(O, Y,) -- g(x)

f (O, x) g(Y,)
f(z, x) = h(z,
f(z,Y,) h(z , x,
Y,, f(
f ( L�zJ
1 , x)) for zz 7'=
# 00

provided
provided If(z, )l 1 �
I / ( z , ex) lel) for all z,
p(lzl, Ixl)
<- P(Izl, x.
z,e.
A
A predicate is polynomial
predicate is polynomial time
time computable
computable provided
provided its
its characteristic
characteristic function
function is
is
polynomial
polynomial time.
time. The
The class
class of
of polynomial
polynomial time
time functions
functions is
is denoted i , and
denoted DD~, and the
the
class
class of
of polynomial
polynomial time
time predicates
predicates is denoted �i
is denoted A~..

1.3.4.1. T h e o r e m . ((Buss
1.3.4.1. Theorem. Buss [1986])
[1986])
((a)
a) Every
Every polynomial
polynomial timetime function
function is
is �t -definable in
~-definable in Si
S 1 ..
((b)
b) Every
Every polynomial
polynomial timetime predicate
predicate is �t -definable in
is A~-definable in Si
S 1 ..

Once
Once oneone has
has bootstrapped
bootstrapped Si S 1 sufficiently
sufficiently to intensionally introduce
to intensionally introduce sequence
sequence coding
coding
functions,
functions, it it is
is fairly
fairly straightforward
straightforward to to prove
prove this
this theorem
theorem using Cobhams's's inductive
using Cobhams inductive
definition
definition of of polynomial
polynomial time time computability.
computability. The main case
The main case in the proof
in the proof byby induction
induction
is
is the
the case where f
case where f is
is defined
defined from
from 9g andand hh byby limited
limited iteration
iteration onon notation:
notation: in in this
this
case
case the
the predicate
predicate f(z, f(z, x)
s = : Yy is
is defined
defined similarly
similarly toto the
the way
way ff ((m,
m , x)
s = : yy was
was defi ned
defined
in
in the
the proof
proof ofof Theorem
Theorem 11.2.10;
.2.10; the
the main
main difference
difference nownow is that �t
is that -PIND is
Z;b~-PIND is used
used toto
prove w
prove w exists,
exists, andand for
for this
this it
it is
is necessary
necessary to bound w
to bound w with
with aa term.
term. Fortunately,
Fortunately, the the
bounding condition
bounding f(z, x) 1 �
condition I[f(z,~)[ I~[) makes
p([z[,, Ixl)
_ p(lzl makes it it possible
possible to bound the
to bound the elements
elements
of w
of w,, and hence w
and hence w,, with
with aa term.
term. We We leave
leave the
the details
details toto the
the reader.
reader. 0 E]
A
A second
second way way to to approach
approach defi ning the
defining polynomial time
the polynomial time function
function in $21 is
in Si is to
to di­
di-
rectly
rectly formalize polynomial time
formalize polynomial time computability
computability usingusing Turing
Turing machine
machine computations,
computations,
instead
instead of of using Cobham's's definition.
using Cobham definition. This
This can
can also
also be
be formalized
formalized in S~;; furthermore
in Si furthermore
S 1 can
Si can prove
prove thethe equivalence
equivalence of of the
the two
two approaches.
approaches. See Buss [1986]
See Buss [1986] for
for more
more details.
details.
For ii 2:
For >_ 11,, S�
S~ ;2 S 1 and
_D Si and also,
also, byby Theorem
Theorem 1.3.5 below, T4
1.3.5 below, T~ ;2 S 1.. Therefore,
_D Si Therefore, thethe
above
above theorem,
theorem, combined
combined with with Theorem
Theorem 1.3.3.3 gives: gives:

11.3.4.2. T h e o r e m . ((Buss
.3.4.2. Theorem. Buss [1986])
[1986]) Let
Let ii 2:
>_ 11.. The
The theories Si2 and
theories S� and T4
Ti2 can
can introduce
introduce
symbols for
symbols for polynomial time computable
polynomial time computable functions
functions andand predicates
predicates and
and use
use them
them freely
freely
in
in induction
induction axioms.
axioms.

We
We shall
shall show later ((Theorem
show later Theorem 3.2)
3.2) that
that the
the converse
converse to
to Theorem
Theorem 11.3.4.1
.3.4.1 also
also holds
holds
and
and that
that Si can �t
S 1 can Ebl-define and �t
-define and -define precisely
A~-define precisely the
the polynomial
polynomial time
time computable
computable
functions
functions and
and predicates,
predicates, respectively.
respectively.

1.3.5.
1.3.5. Relating S~ and T4
Relating S� T~
It
It is
is clear
clear that S� ;2
that S~ :D S and T4
Si1 and T~ :)
D Ti
T1 ,, for
for ii 2:
> 11.. In
In addition we have
addition we have the
the following
following
relationships
relationships among
among these
these theories:
theories:
 Proof Theory
Proof Theory of
ofArithmetic
Arithmetic 105
105

(Buss [1986])
Theorem. (Buss
Theorem. [1986]) Let 1.
Let ii >� 1.
(1) T~
(1) T� ~;2 S~.
S� .
(2) S~
(2) S� ~;2 T~ -l .
T�-~
ItIt isis however
however open
open whether
whether the
the theories
theories

St C_ T~ C_ S~ C T~ C_ Sg C_ ...

are distinct.
are distinct.

Proof. A
Proof. A proof
proof of
of (1)
(1) can
can be
be found
found in
in Buss
Buss [1986,sect
[1986,sect 2.6]:
2.6] : this
this proof
proofmostly
mostly involves
involves
bootstrapping of
bootstrapping of T~, and we
T� , and we shall
shall not
not present
present itit here.
here.
The proof
The proof of
of (2)
(2) uses
uses aa divide-and-conquer
divide-and-conquer method.
method. Fix Fix ii >� 11 and
and fix
fix aa E~_
I:L1-
l­
formula A(x);
formula we must
A(x) ; we must prove
prove that
that S~ proves the
S� proves the IND
IND axiom
axiom for
for A.
A . WeWe argue
argue
informally inside
informally inside S~, assuming (Vx)(A(x)
st assuming (V'x) (A(x) D A(x +
:J A(x 1)) . Let
+ 1)). Let B(x,z) be the
B (x, z) be the formula
formula

(V'w _<
(Vw ::; x)(Vy ::; zz ++ 1)(A(w-
x) (V'y _< l) (A(w -'- y)
y) D
:J A(w)).
A(w)).
Clearly B
Clearly is equivalent
B is equivalent to
to aa m-formula. By the
II~-formula. By the definition
definition of B, it
of B, follows that
it follows that

(V'x)(V'z) (B(x, l�zJ

(W)(Vz)(B(~, [~'zJ)) :JD B(x, z)) ,
and
and hence
hence by
by m-PIND
II~-PIND oonn B(x,
B(x, zz)) with
with respect
respect to
to zz,,

(V'x) (B(x, 00)) :J

(W)(B(,, ~B (x, x)).
B(,,,)).
Now, (Vx)B(x, 00)) holds
Now, (V'x)B(x, holds as
as it
it is
is equivalent
equivalent to
to the
the assumption
assumption (V'x) (A(x) :JD A(x
(Vx)(A(x) A(x +
+ 1))
1)),,
and
and therefore
therefore (V'x)B(x,
(Vx)B(x, x) x) holds.
holds. Finally,
Finally, (V'x)B(x, x) immediately
(Vx)B(x, x) immediately implies
implies
(V'x) (A (0) :JD A
(Vx)(A(0) (x) ) : this
A(x))" this completes
completes the the proof
proof of
of the
the IND
IND axiom
axiom for
for A
A..

The
The theorem
theorem immediately
immediately implies
implies the
the following
following corollary:
corollary:

C o r o l l a r y . (Buss
Corollary. (Buss [1986])
[1986]) S2 - T2
$2 = T2..

In
In the
the proof
proof of
of the
the above
above theorem,
theorem, itit would
would suffice
sufficefor A(x) to
for A(x) to be
be b..
A~ � with
with respect
respect
to S~.. Therefore,
to S� S~ proves
Therefore, S� proves b.. � -IND.
A~-IND.

1.3.6.
1.3.6. Polynomial
Polynomial hierarchy
hierarchy functions
functions in
in bounded
b o u n d e d arithmetic
arithmetic

The
The polynomial
polynomial time
time hierarchy
hierarchy isis aa hierarchy
hierarchy ofof bounded
bounded alternation
alternation polynomial
polynomial
time
time computability;
computability; thethe base
base classes
classes are
are the class P
the class P =- b..
A~� of
of polynomial
polynomial time
time recog­
recog-
nizable
nizable predicates,
predicates, the class F
the class FPP == D�[]~ofofpolynomial
polynomial time
time computable
computable functions,
functions, the
the
class N
class NP EVlof
P =- I:i of predicates
predicates computable
computable in in nondeterministic
nondeterministic polynomial
polynomial time,
time, the
the
class coN
class coNPP == IIi
IIp of
of complements
complements of of N NPP predicates,
predicates, etc.
etc. More
More generally,
generally, b..
f , Of
A~, ,
[l~,
E~ and
I:f II~ are
and IIf are defined
defined asas follows:
follows:
106
106 s.
S. Buss

Definition. The
Definition. The classes A~ and
classes �� and O[]~
� have
have already been defined.
already been defined. Further define, by
Further define, by
induction on ii,,
induction on
(1) E~ is
(1) �f is the
the class
class of predicates R(i)
of predicates R(s definable
definable by
by

R(i) ¢:}
r (3y
(3y :::;
_< s(i)) (Q(i, y))
y))

for
for some term ss in
some term in the
the language
language of
of bounded
bounded arithmetic,
arithmetic, and
and some
some �f A~ predi­
predi-
cate Q
cate Q..
(2)
(2) IT
I]ff is
is the
the class
class of
of complements
complements ofof predicates
predicates in
in �f.
E~.
(3) O[li+
(3) fP+ !1 is
is class
class of
of predicates
predicates computable
computable onon aa Turing
Turing in
in polynomial
polynomial time
time using
using anan
oracle from
oracle from �f
E~.s.5

( 4)
(4) �f
Ai+lP+ l is
is the
the class
class of
of predicates
predicates which
which have
have characteristic
characteristic function
function in fP+ !1.
in O[1~+

The
The connection
connection between
between the syntactically defined
the syntactically defined classes
classes of
of formulas
formulas � defined by
E~� defined by
counting
counting alternations
alternations of
of quantifiers and the
quantifiers and the computationally
computationally defined
defined classes E~ is
classes �f is
given by
given the next
by the next theorem.
theorem.

T h e o r e m . ((Wrathall
Theorem. Wrathall [1976]
[1976],, Stockmeyer
Stockmeyer [1976],
[1976], Kent
Kent and Hodgson [1982])
and Hodgson [1982])
A predicate
A predicate is E~ if
is �f if and
and only
only if
if there
there is
is aa �
E tb-formula
-formula which
which defines
defines it.
it.

Proof. The
Proof. The easier
easier part
part ofof the proof is
the proof is that
that every
every � � -formula defines
Z~-formula defines aa �f -predicate.
E~-predicate.
For this, start
For this, start by noting that
by noting that aa sharply bounded formula
sharply bounded formula defines
defines aa polynomial
polynomial time time
predicate,
predicate, even even when
when thethe/~f3 function
function and and pairing
pairing functions
functions are are present.
present. Then,
Then, given
given
aa � t -formula, one
E~-formula, one can
can use
use thethe quantifier
quantifier exchange
exchange property
property to to push sharply bounded
push sharply bounded
quantifiers
quantifiers inward
inward and
and cancan useuse pairing
pairing functions
functions to to combine
combine adjacent
adjacent like
like quantifiers;
quantifiers;
this
this transforms
transforms the the formula
formula into into an an equivalent
equivalent formula
formula which which explicitly
explicitly defi nes aa �
defines E~f
property according to
property according to the
the above
above definition.
definition.
For
For thethe reverse
reverse inclusion,
inclusion, use use induction
induction on on ii.. To
To start
start the
the induction,
induction, note note that
that
Theorem 1.3.4.1
Theorem 1.3.4.1 already
already implies
implies that that every
every �� A~ predicate
predicate is is defined
defined by by both
both aa � E tb-­
and
and aa IT t -formula. For
II~-formula. For the
the first
first part
part of of the
the induction
induction step, step, assume
assume thatthat every
every �f A~
predicate
predicate is definable by
is definable both aa �t
by both Ebl and
and aa IT � -formula. Then
II~-formula. Then it it is immediate that
is immediate that
every
every � E~f predicate
predicate is is definable
definable by by aa � t -formula. For
E~-formula. For thethe second
second part
part ofof the
the induction
induction
step,
step, we we must
must prove
prove that
that every
every �f+ P
! -predicate is
Ai+l-predicate is definable
definable by by both
both aa �f+ P
Ei+ l1-- and
and aa
IT f+ ! -formula. For
IIiP+l-f~ this, note
For this, note that that it it suffices
suffices to to prove
prove that that every
every ODiP+l-function
f+ l -function has has
its
its graph
graph defined
defined by by aa � �b+ ! -formula. To
Ei+l-formula. To prove
prove this
this last
last fact,
fact, use
use induction
induction on on the
the
definition
definition of of the
the functions
functions in in O[li+
fP+ !1: 9 it
it is
is necessary
necessary to to show
show that
that this
this condition
condition is is
preserved
preserved by by definition
definition using composition as
using composition as well
well asas by
by definition
definition by limited iteration
by limited iteration
on
on notation.
notation. The The proofs
proofs of of these
these facts
facts are are fairly
fairly straightforward
straightforward and and cancan eveneven bebe
formalized
formalized by by S�
S~,, which
which gives
gives the the following
following theorem:
theorem:

An oracle
5SAn from Ef
oracle from E~ is
is just
just a
a predicate from Ef
predicate from E~.. For
For our
our purposes,
purposes, the
the most
most convenient
convenient way
way
to
to define the class
define the class of
of functions
functions polynomial
polynomial time relative
relative to an oracle R is
oracle R is as the smallest
as the smallest class
class of
of
functions
functions containing
containing all
all polynomial time functions
polynomial time functions and
and the
the characteristic
characteristicfunction
function of
of R and closed
R and closed
under
under composition
composition and
and limited
limited iteration
iteration on
on notation.
notation.
 Proof Theory
Proof Theory of
ofArithmetic
Arithmetic 107
107

TTheorem. [1986] ) ) Let

( Buss [1986]))
h e o r e m . (Buss Let ii >_ 1.
� 1.
Every O~
( a) Every
(a) Of function
function isis E~-definable
I:t -definable in
in S~.
S� .
Every A~
( b) Every
(b) �f predicate
predicate isis A~-definable
�� -definable in
in S~.
S� .
Proof. The
Proof. The proof
proof proceeds
proceeds by by induction on i.i . The
induction on The basebase case
case has
has already
already beenbeen done
done
as Theorem
as 1.3.4.1. Part
Theorem 1.3.4.1. Part (b)
( b) isis implied
implied by
by (a),
(a) , so
so itit suffices
suffices toto prove
prove (a).
( a) . To
To prove
prove thethe
inductive step,
inductive step, we we must
must show
show the the following
following three
three things
things (and( and show
show they
they areare provable
provable
S� ) :
in S~):
in
If ff(x,
(1) If
(1) ( ~ , yy)) i s is aa 0,_l-function,
OPf_ I -function, thenthen the the characteristic
characteristic function
function X x(x
( ~)) o of
f
(3y ::; t(2))(f(2,
(3y <_ t(x)) ( J (x, yy)) -= 0)0) isis E~-definable.
I:t -definable. To To prove
prove this,
this, wewe have
have by by the
the induc-
induc­
hypothesis that
tion hypothesis
tion f(x, y)
that f(2, y) -= zz isis equivalent
equivalent to I:L
to aa Ei_ b
formula A(2,
~ formula A(x, y, z) . The
y, z). The
I:� -definition of
E~-definition x(x) isis thus
of X(2) thus6 6

x(x) == zz r{:} (z
X(Z) (z == 00 A t )A(x, y,
(3y _::; t)A(Z,
/\ (3y y, 0)) (z == 11 A/\ -~(3y
0)) V (z ..., ( 3y <_ t )A(x, y,y, 0))
::; t)A(Z, 0) )
which is
which is clearly
clearly equivalent
equivalent to I:t -formula by
to aa E~-formula by prenex
prenex operations.
operations.
(2 ) If
(2) If functions
functions g9 and h have
and f~ graph defnable
have graph definable by
by E~-formulas,
I:t -formulas, then
then so
so does
does their
their
composition.
composition. As As an
an example
example of of how
how toto prove
prove this,
this, suppose
suppose f(2) h(x)) ; then
g(x, h(2));
f(x) == g(2, then
the graph
the graph ofof ff can
can be
be defined
defined byby

f(x) =
f(~) y {:}
= y ~ (3z th(X)) (h(x) =
(3z ~::; th(Z))(h(Z) = zz /\ g(x, z)
A g(Z, = y)
z) = y),,

where tthh iiss aa term

where term bounding
bounding the function h
the function h..
(3) If f
(3) If f iiss defined
defined by
by limited
limited iteration from 9g and
iteration from and hh with
with bounding polynomial p,
bounding polynomial p,
and and h
and 9g and have I:�
h have -definable graphs,
E~-definable graphs, then
then so does f
so does f. . To
To prove
prove this,
this, show
show that
that
ff (z,
(z, x) - Yy is
3) = is expressed
expressed by
by the
the formula
formula

3w ::;< SqBd(2
((3w ( lzl,IXI ) , z)
SqBd(2 Pp(Izl'l~), ) [,8 (lzlI +
z))[/~(Iz 1, x)
+ 1, - Yy /\
3) = A ,8 (1, w
~(1, -- g(x
w)) = )/\
g(~)A
(Vi <
/\A(Vi < Izl ) (,8 (i + 2,
Izl)(Z(i w )) -= min
2, w { h( l2Izl:;�1 J , x,
min{h([2.z.~,.,J, ~, ,8
~(i + 1,
(i + 1, w
w)), P( Ii+ I I,IXI ) } ) ).
)) , 22P(1'+11'1~)})].
Here
Here the term SqBd(
the term . . . ) has
SqBd(...) has been
been chosen
chosen sufficiently
sufficiently large
large toto bound
bound the
the size
size of
of the
the
sequence
sequence w w encoding
encoding the
the steps
steps in
in the
the computation
computation of of ff (z,
(z, x)
3).. The
The formula
formula is is clearly
clearly
in I:�
in E~,, and
and the theory S;
the theory S~ cancan prove
prove the
the existence
existence and
and uniqueness
uniqueness of of ww byby PIND
PIND
up to .
induction up to zz. C:]
induction 0

AA more
more complicated
complicated proofproof can
can establish
establish the
the stronger
stronger result
result that
that T
T~�--1I can
can also
also
I:E~-define the Of
� -define the -functions:
0~-functions:

Buss [1990)
Theorem. ((Buss
Theorem. [1990])) Let
Let ii >
> 11..
a) Every
((a) O~function
Every Of function is
is I:� -definable in
2~-de.finable in T�--1I ..
T~
b ) Every
((b) Every �f
A~ predicate
predicate is
is �� -definable in
A~-definable in T�--1I ..
T~
6We
6We use
use thethe convention
convention that
that aa characteristic
characteristic function
function of
of aa predicate
predicate equals
equals zero
zero when
when the
the
predicate
predicate isis true.
true.
108
108 s.
S. Buss

It
It is
is aa very
very interesting
interesting question
question whether
whether the possible collapse
the possible collapse ofof the
the polynomial­
polynomial-
time
time hierarchy
hierarchy is is related
related toto the
the possible
possible collapse
collapse ofof the
the hierarchy
hierarchy of of bounded
bounded
arithmetic
arithmetic theories.
theories. So So far
far what
what isis known
known is is that
that if
if S
$22 is
is finitely
finitely axiomatized
axiomatized
(more
(more precisely,
precisely, if if T� = S�
T~ = S~++11 for
for some > 11),
some i 2': ) , then
then the polynomial time
the polynomial time hierarchy
hierarchy
collapses
collapses provably
provably in in TT22 (see Krajicek, Pudlak
(see Kraji~ek, Pudl~k and Takeuti [1991]
and Takeuti [1991],' Buss
Buss [1995],
[1995],
Zambella [1996],
Zambella [1996], and section 3.3.2)
and section 3.3.2).. This
This means
means that
that the
the hierarchy
hierarchy of of theories
theories of
of
bounded
bounded arithmetic
arithmetic collapses
collapses if if and
and only
only if
if the
the polynomial
polynomial time
time hierarchy
hierarchy collapses
collapses
S 2 -provably.
S2-provably.

1.3.7.
1.3.7. The theories PVi
T h e theories PVi

Since
Since T�
l and S�
T~--t and S~ can
can �r-defi
E~-definene thethe Of 0~ functions,
functions, it it is
is often
often convenient
convenient to to
conservatively
conservatively extend
extend the
the language
language of of bounded
bounded arithmetic
arithmetic with with symbols
symbols forfor these
these
functions. Accordingly,
functions. Accordingly, we we define
define T�-
l ( Of) and
T~-t(0~) and S�( Of) to
S~(0~) to be
be the
the (conservative)
(conservative)
extensions
extensions of of T�
l
T~--t and
and S�
S~ toto the
the language containing symbols
language containing symbols forfor the
the Of -functions
0~-functions
with
with their
their � � -defining equations
E~-defining equations as as new
new axioms.
axioms. For For i == 11,, the
the theory
theory Tf ( Of) has
TO(0~) has
to
to be
be defined
defined slightly
slightly differently,
differently, since
since Tf T~ does
does not not have
have sufficient
sufficient bootstrapping
bootstrapping
power
power to to �� -define the
E~-define the polynomial
polynomial time time functions.
functions. Instead,
Instead, Tf ( On is
TO(0~) is defined
defined to to
have
have first-order
first-order language
language consisting
consisting of of symbols
symbols for for all
all polynomial
polynomial time time functions
functions andand
predicates,
predicates, andand to to have
have as axioms (1)
as axioms (1) the
the BASIC
B A S I C axioms,
axioms, (2) (2) axioms
axioms that
that define
define
the
the non-logical
non-logical symbols
symbols in in the
the spirit
spirit of Cobham's' s definition
of Cobham definition of of the
the polynomial
polynomial timetime
and (3)
and (3) IND
IND for
for all
all sharply
sharply bounded
bounded (equivalently,
(equivalently, all all atomic)
atomic) formulas.7
formulas. ~
One
One must
must be be careful
careful when
when working
working with with T�- l ( Of) and
T~-I(0~) and S�( Of) since,
S~(0~) since, for
for i > > 11,,
the
the functions
functions symbols
symbols forfor Of []~ cannot
cannot be be used
used freely
freely in in induction
induction axioms
axioms (modulo
(modulo
some
some open
open questions).
questions).
Since
Since the
the notation
notation T�- l ( Of) is
T~-I(0~) is so
so atrocious,
atrocious, it it is
is sometimes
sometimes denoted
denoted PVi PVi instead.
instead.
Krajicek,
Krajfhek, Pudlak
Pudls and Takeuti [1991]
and Takeuti [1991] prove
prove that
that PViPVi cancan bebe axiomatized
axiomatized by by purely
purely
universal
universal axioms:
axioms: to to see
see the
the main
main idea
idea ofof the
the universal
universal axiomatization,
axiomatization, note note that
that ifif AA
is A~,, then
is b.� then PVi proves A
PVi proves A is
is equivalent
equivalent to to aa quantifier-free
quantifier-free formula
formula via via Skolemization
Skolemization
and
and thus
thus induction
induction on on A(x,
A(x, C) ~, , can
can be
be obtained
obtained fromfrom the the universal
universal formula
formula

((V~(Vt)[A(0,
\iC) (Vt)[A(O, C) A ...,
~ 1\ ~A(t,A (t, c-'))
C)) J D A( JA (t, C)
A(fA(t, 1, C)
~ = 1,
-'- A ...,
c--)1\ A (JA (t, C),
-~A(fA(t, ~, C)]
~]
where fA
where fA is
is computed
computed byby aa binary
binary search
search procedure
procedure which
which asks A~ queries
asks b.f queries to
to find
find
value bb for
aa value for which
which AA(b 1, C)
( b - 1, - is true
~ is true and A(b, C)
and A(b, c-*)is
is false.
false. Of
Of course, this f
course, this f is
is aa
Of -function and
0~-function and therefore
therefore is
is aa symbol
symbol in the language
in the language of of PVi.
PVi.

1.3.8.
1.3.8. More
M o r e axiomatizations
a x i o m a t i z a t i o n s of
of bounded
b o u n d e d arithmetic
arithmetic

For
For any
any theory
theory T T inin which
which the
the Gi:idel
Ghdel (J fl function
function is
is present
present oror is
is �� -definable,
E~-definable,
in
in particular,
particular, for
for any
any theory
theory TT 2_DSJ
S 1 ,, there
there are
are two
two further
further possible
possible axiomatizations
axiomatizations
that
that are
are useful
useful for bounded arithmetic:
for bounded arithmetic:
7The
7The original
original definition this type was
definition of a theory of this was the definition equational theory PV
definition of equational
of polynomial
polynomial time
time functions Cook [1975).
functions by Cook [1975]. T�( On can also
TO(D~) defined as
also be defined as the conservative
conservative
extension of PV to first-order
extension first-order logic.
logic.
 Proof Theory of Arithmetic 109
109

Definition. Let cp
Definition. Let (I) be
be aa set
set of
of formulas.
formulas. The
The cP -replacement axioms
(I)-replacement axioms are
are the
the formulas
formulas

((w
\:Ix :S s \ ) ( :Jyy :S
< IIsl)( < t)A(x, y) �
t)A(x, y) D (:Jw)(
(3w)(Vx ~ Isl)
\:Ix :S (A(x, (3
Isl)(A(x, Z(x(x +
+ 1, w)) A (3
w)) 1\ (x +
~(x + 1, w) :S
1, w) t)
_ t)

for
for all formulas A
all formulas A E cP(I) and
and all
all appropriate and tt.. As
semi) terms ss and
appropriate ((semi)terms usual A
As usual A may
may
have other free
have other free variables
variables inin addition to x
addition to x that
that serve
serve as
as parameters.
parameters.
The strong
The strong cP -replacement axioms
O-replacement axioms are
are similarly
similarly defined
defined to
to be
be the
the formulas
formulas

(:Jw)(\:Ix
(3w)(V~ :S 1 l)[(3y
<__Isl) _ t)A(x,
[ ( :Jy :S t)A(x, y) ++A(x,
y) ++ A(x, (3
~(x 1, w))
(x + 1, A (3
w)) 1\ ~(x + 1,
(x + 1, w) _< t]
w) :S t]..

The
The replacement
replacement and and strong
strong replacement
replacement axiomsaxioms contain
contain an
an apparently
apparently unbounded
unbounded
quantifier
quantifier ((3w); however, Si
:Jw ) ; however, can always
S~ can always boundbound w w by term SqBd(t,
by aa term SqBd(t,s) s) which
which
is
is large
large enough
enough to to bound
bound aa sequence
sequence of of lIs[ + 11 values
si + values :S_ tt.. For
For example,
example, setting
setting
SqBd(t,
SqBd(t, s)s) equal
equal to (2t +
to (2t + 1)#(2(2s
1)#(2(2s + 1) 22)) will
+ 1) will work
work for
for the
the sequence encoding given
sequence encoding given
in section 11.2.8.
in section .2.8.
It
It is
is known
known thatthat thethe � � -replacement axioms
E~-replacement axioms areare consequences
consequences ofof the
the � � -PIND
E~-PIND
axioms,
axioms, and
and that
that the
the strong
strong � � -replacement axioms
E~-replacement axioms areare equivalent
equivalent toto the
the � � -PIND
E~-PIND
axioms for ii �
axioms ((for >_ 11,, and
and over the base
over the theory Si
base theory ). Figure
$21). Figure 11 shows
shows these
these and
and other
other
relationships
relationships among
among the axiomatizations of
the axiomatizations bounded arithmetic.
of bounded arithmetic.

1.4.
1.4. Sequent
Sequent calculus
calculus formulations
formulations of
of arithmetic
arithmetic

This
This section
section discusses
discusses the
the proof
proof theory
theory ofof theories
theories of
of arithmetic
arithmetic inin the
the setting
setting
of
of the
the sequent
sequent calculus:
calculus: this
this will
will be
be an
an essential
essential tool
tool for
for our
our analysis
analysis of
of the
the
proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic strengths
strengths ofof fragments
fragments of of arithmetic
arithmetic and
and ofof their
their interrelationships.
interrelationships.
The
The sequent
sequent calculus
calculus used
used for
for arithmetic
arithmetic is is based
based on
on the
the system LK~ described
system LKe described in
in
Chapter
Chapter II of
of this
this volume; LK~ will
volume; LKe be enlarged
will be enlarged with
with additional
additional rules
rules of
of inference
inference
for
for induction,
induction, minimization,
minimization, etc.,
etc., and
and for
for theories
theories of bounded arithmetic,
of bounded arithmetic, LKe is is
enlarged
enlarged to include inference
to include inference rules
rules for bounded quantifiers.
for bounded quantifiers.

1.4.1. Definition.
1.4.1. Definition. or LKBe
LKB ((or LKB~)) is
is the
the sequent
sequent calculus respectively,
LK ((respectively,
calculus LK
LK~)) extended
LKe extended as
as follows:
follows: First, the language
First, the language of
of fi rst-order arithmetic
first-order arithmetic is
is expanded
expanded
to
to allow bounded quantifi
allow bounded ers as
quantifiers as aa basic part of
basic part of the
the syntax.
syntax. Second,
Second, the
the following
following new
new
rules
rules of
of inference
inference are
are allowed:
allowed:
Bounded
B o u n d e d quantifier
quantifier rules
rules

V< :left A(t)

A(t),, r-+� bb :S
_ s,
s, r-+�,
F---+A, A(b)
A(b)
\:I <_:left
- F--+A \:IV <
~ :right
- :right
tt :S s, (\:Ix
< s, (vx :S< s)A(x),
s)A(x), r-+�
r--+A r-+�,
F---+A, ((Vx _< s)A(x)
\:Ix :S
bb :S s, A(b) , r-+� r-+�, A(t)
A(t)
:J3 :S :left
<_:left <_s,A(b), F--+A <
:33 - :right
~:right
(:Jx
(3x :S_< s)A(x), r-+�
s)A(x),F--->A tt :S
<_ s,
s, r-+�,
F---+A, ((3x <_s)A(x)
:Jx :S s)A(x)
where
where the variable bb is
the variable is an
an eigenvariable
eigenvariable and
and may
may not
not occur
occur in in ss or
in in in r,
or in F, �
A..

The
The Cut
Cut Elimination
Elimination and
and Free-cut
Free-cut Elimination
Elimination Theorems
Theorems still
still hold
hold for
for LKB
and LKBe,, in
and LKBe in the
the exact
exact same
same form
form as
as they
they were
were proved
proved to
to hold
hold for LK and
for LK and LKe
110
110 s.
S. Buss
Buss

E~-IND ¢=:}
I:f-IND ~ m-IND
II~-IND ¢=:}
~ E~-MIN ¢=:}
I:f-MIN r .6.f+1-IND
A~+I-IND

R
P~-PIND ¢=:}
I:�-PIND r rI~-PIND ¢=:}
rr�-PIND ~ E~-LIND ¢=:}
I:�-LIND ~ m-LIND
II~-LIND

I:f-L�IN ¢=:}
2~-LMIN , = , (I:r
(E~b+~ n rrr+1
+1 n )-PIND
II~+~)-PIND

I: i
R
b_cIND
E~_I-IND

EL1-MIN ~ II~-MIN

S~ )-
S� T~--1l +
~- T� I:r-replacement
+E~-replacement
B(E�)
B(r.~)
I:� -PIND + I:r
E~-PIND+ + 1 -replacement ===>
E~+l-replacement ==v I:r-replacement
E~-PIND ===>
==~ I:r-PIND E~-replacement

E~-PIND ¢=:}
I:r-PIND ~ I:� -PIND + strong
E~-PIND strong I:r-replacement
E~-replacement

Figure
Figure 11
Relationships among
Relationships among axiomatizations
axiomatizations for for Bounded
Bounded Arithmetic
Arithmetic relative
relative
to
to the
the base
base theory BASIC with
theory BASIC with ii ;:::
_ 11;; T� should be
T~ should be interpreted
interpreted as
as
PV1 . See
PV1. Buss [1986,1990]
See Buss [1986,1990], Buss
Buss and
' and Ignjatovic [1995] for
Ignjatovid [1995] for proofs.
proofs.

in Chapter I.I. The

in Chapter The principal
principal formulas of the
formulas of the bounded
bounded quantifier
quantifier inferences are the
inferences are the
formulas tt <:::; ss and
formulas (Qx <
and (Qx :::; s)A introduced in
s)A introduced the lower
in the sequent; as
lower sequent; as usual,
usual, aa cut
cut on
on aa
direct descendent
direct descendent of of aa principal
principal formula
formula is anchored.
is anchored.

1.4.2. R
1.4.2. Rule
u l e forms
forms of induction. We
of induction. We next introduce inference
next introduce rules which
inference rules which are
are
equivalent
equivalent toto induction axioms; the
induction axioms; the reason
reason for using rules
for using rules of
of inference
inference for induction
for induction
in place of
in place of induction
induction axioms
axioms is that the
is that the use
use of free-cut free
of free-cut free proofs
proofs provides
provides aa powerful
powerful
proof-theoretic tool
proof-theoretic tool for
for the
the analysis
analysis of
of fragments
fragments ofof arithmetic.
arithmetic.

Definition. Let
Definition. Let W9 be
be aa class
class of
of formulas.
formulas. Then
Then ~-IND induction rules
w-IND induction rules are
are the
the
inferences of
inferences of the
the form
form
A(b), r ~� .6.,
A(b), F A(b + 1)
A, A(b 1)
r � .6.,
A(O), F'--~ A, A(t)
where A E w9 and
where A and where
where the eigenvariable bb does
the eigenvariable not occur
does not except as
occur except as indicated.
indicated.
The ~-PIND
The induction rules
w- PIND induction rules are
are the
the inferences
inferences of
of the
the form
form
 Proof Theory
Theory of Arithmetic 1111
11

A(
A(LL�bJ
89j),) , r
F --+
~ 1l,
A, A(b)
A(b)
A(O)
A(O),, r F --+ A,, A(t)
--~ 1l A(t)
where
where again
again A and bb occurs
A E w9 and occurs only
only as
as indicated.
indicated.

We
We leave
leave it
it to
to the
the reader
reader toto check
check that
that the
the induction
induction rules
rules w-IND
~-IND and and w-PIND
~-PIND
are
are equivalent
equivalent to to the
the induction
induction axioms
axioms w-IND
~-IND and w-PIND ((respectively);
and ~-PIND respectively) ; in in fact,
fact,
this is
this is true for any
true for any class
class W9 of formulas. The
of formulas. The fact
fact that
that the induction rules
the induction rules areare
equivalent
equivalent to to the induction axioms
the induction axioms depends
depends crucially
crucially onon the
the presence
presence of of the
the the
the side
side
formulas
formulas r F and
and IIA inin the
the inference;
inference; whenwhen side
side formulas
formulas areare not
not allowed,
allowed, thethe inference
inference
rules
rules are
are often
often slightly
slightly weaker
weaker thanthan thethe induction axioms; see,
induction axioms; see, e.g., Parsons [1972]
e.g., Parsons [1972]
and
and Sieg
Sieg [1985]
[1985].. It It follows
follows that
that theories
theories such
such asas lllo
IA0,, �n/En,' mn and T�
S~ and
/IIn,, S� T~ can
can
be
be equivalently
equivalently formulated
formulated using induction rules
using induction rules instead
instead of induction axioms.
of induction axioms. For For
the
the rest
rest of
of this
this chapter,
chapter, we will presume
we will presume that that these
these theories
theories areare formulated
formulated with with thethe
induction rules.
induction rules.
As
As was
was discussed
discussed in in Chapter
Chapter I, the free-cut
I, the elimination theorem
free-cut elimination theorem holds
holds for
for theories
theories
such
such as as IL;n
IE~,, IIIn
IH~,, S� and T4
S~ and T~.. In
In particular,
particular, we we have
have the
the following
following corollary
corollary to to the
the
free-cut elimination theorem,
free-cut elimination theorem, which
which generalizes
generalizes thethe subformula
subformula property
property to to fragments
fragments
of
of arithmetic.
arithmetic. For this theorem,
For this theorem, w9 must must bebe aa class
class of
of formulas
formulas which
which is closed under
is closed under
the
the operations
operations of taking subformulas
of taking subformulas and and freely
freely substituting
substituting termsterms forfor variables.
variables.
Strictly speaking, classes
Strictly speaking, classes such
such as as L;iEi are
are not
not closed
closed under
under subformulas,
subformulas, since since a a
L;i -formula may
Ei-formula contain aa ((negated)
may contain negated) IIi-subformula;
IIi-subformula; however,
however, one one may
may instead
instead use use
the
the class
class of
of L;i-formulas
Ei-formulas in in which
which all all negation
negation signs
signs are
are in
in front
front of atomic subformulas.
of atomic subformulas.
This
This cancan be
be done
done without
without lossloss of
of generality
generality and and then
then this
this class
class ofof formulas
formulas is is closed
closed
both
both under
under sub formulas and
subformulas and under
under termterm substitution.
substitution.

T h e o r e m . Let
Theorem. Let W9 be
be aa class
class of
of formulas
formulas closed
closed under
under subformulas
sub formulas and
and under
under term
term
substitution
substitution and and containing
containing thethe atomic
atomic formulas.
formulas. Let R be
Let R be aa fragment
fragment of
of arithmetic
arithmetic
axiomati
axiomatized zed by
by W9-IND (or
(or by
by W9 -PIND) plus
plus initial
initial sequents
sequents containing
containing only
only formulas
formulas
from
from w ~.. Also
Also suppose
suppose that
that the
the sequent
sequent r
F --+ A contains
~ II contains only
only formulas
formulas from
from w9 and
and
that
that R R f- ~- r
F --+
~ llA.. Then
Then there
there is
is an
an R -proof of
R-proof of r
F --+
~ IIA such
such that
that every
every formula
formula
appearing
appearing in in the
the proof
proof is
is aa W9 -formula.

The
The proof
proof ofof this
this theorem
theorem isis of
of course
course based
based on
on the
the fact
fact that
that every
every formula
formula
appearing
appearing in in an
an R-proof
R-proof either
either is
is aa direct
direct descendent
descendent of of aa formula
formula in in an
an initial
initial
sequent
sequent or
or is
is an ancestor ((and
an ancestor and hence
hence subformula
subformula in
in the
the wide sense)) of
wide sense of either
either aa cut
cut
formula
formula or
or aa formula
formula inin the
the endsequent.
endsequent. Furthermore,
Furthermore, in
in aa free-cut
free-cut free
free R-proof,
R-proof, all
all
cut-formulas
cut-formulas areare in
in w
~ and
and by
by free-cut
free-cut elimination,
elimination, r A has
--+ II
F--~ has aa free-cut
free-cut free
free proof.
proof.
The
The above
above theorem
theorem turns
turns out
out be
be an
an extremely
extremely powerful tool for
powerful tool for the
the proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic
analysis
analysis of
of fragments
fragments of of arithmetic.
arithmetic.

1.4.3. We
1.4.3. We now
now state
state and
and prove
prove aa generalization
generalization of of Theorem
Theorem 1.2.7.1
1.2.7.1 which
which applies
applies to
to
very
very general
general bounded
bounded theories R, possibly
theories R, possibly including
including induction
induction inferences
inferences for
for bounded
bounded
formulas.
formulas. Assume
Assume that
that RR contains
contains ::;
_ in
in its
its language
language andand that
that R R proves
proves that
that ::;
< is is
reflexive
reflexive and
and transitive.
transitive. Also
Also suppose
suppose that
that for
for all
all terms and ss,, there
terms rr and there is
is a term tt so
a term so
1112
12 S.
S. Buss
Buss

that
that R proves rr �
R proves and ss �
< tt and _ tt.. Further
Further suppose
suppose that
that for
for all terms t(
all terms a, b)
t(d, b) and
and r(ii)
r(g),,
there
there is term ss so
is aa term so that
that R
R proves that bb �
proves that (a) :J
_ rr(~) D t(a, b) �
t(g, b) _ s(a)
s(~)..

Parikh's T h e o r e m . Let
P a r i k h ' s Theorem. Let RR bebe aa bounded
bounded theory
theory satisfying
satisfying the
the above
above conditions
conditions and
and
A(Z, y)
A(x, y) aa bounded
bounded formula.
formula. Suppose
Suppose R R f-F ('v'x) (3y)A(x, y)
(VZ)(3y)A(Z, y).. Then
Then there
there is
is aa term
term tt
such
such thatthat R R also
also proves
proves ('v'x)
(VZ)(3y(3y �<_t)A(x,
t)A(Z, y)
y)..

1.4.4.
1.4.4. Proof.
Proof. Sketch) . By
((Sketch). By the
the free-cut
free-cut elimination
elimination theorem,
theorem, there
there isis aa free­
free-
cut
cut free R-proof P
free R-proof P of of (3y)A(b,
(3y)A(b, y)
y),, where
where the '
the bb'ss are
are new
new free
free variables.
variables. By By the
the
subformula
subformula property,
property, every
every sequent
sequent f -t �
F--+ A inin the proof P
the proof P contains
contains only
only bounded
bounded
formulas
formulas in in its
its antecedent
antecedent f F and
and its antecedent �
its antecedent A contains
contains only
only bounded
bounded formulas
formulas
plus
plus possibly
possibly occurrences
occurrences of of the formula (3y)A(b,
the formula (3y)A(b', y)y).. Given such aa �
Given such A and
and given
given aa
term tt,, let
term �:5t
let A <t denote
denote thethe result
result of
of removing
removing all all occurrences
occurrences ofof (3 Y)A(b, y)
(3y)A(b, from �
y) from A
and
and adding
adding thethe formula
formula (3y(3y �< t)A(b,
t)A(b, y)y).. It
It is
is straightforward
straightforward to to prove
prove by
by induction
induction
on
on the
the number
number of of inferences
inferences inin PP that,
that, forfor each
each sequent
sequent f -t �
F---+ A in in P
P ,, there
there isis aa
term tt such
term such that
that RR proves
proves fF -t
~ A �:5t
<t.. 0[]

1.4.5.
1.4.5. Inference
Inference rules
rules for collection. Just
for collection. Just as
as it possible to
it possible to replace
replace induction
induction
axioms
axioms with
with induction
induction inferences,
inferences, it
it is
is also
also possible
possible to
to formulate
formulate the
the collection
collection axioms
axioms
of B'2:.; as
of B~i rules of
as rules of inference.
inference. The
The '2:.; -collection inferences,
~i-collection inferences, '2:.;-REPL,
~i-REPL, are are

fF--~
-t A, (Vx �
�, ('v'x <_t)(3y)A(x,
t)(3y)A(x, y)
y)
-t �,
fF---~ A, (3z) ('v'x �
(3z)(Vx <_t) (3y �
t)(3y <_z)A(x,
z)A(x, y)
y)

It
It is
is not
not difficult
difficult to
to check
check that the inference
that the inference rule
rule for
for collection replacement) is
collection ((replacement) is
equivalent
equivalent to the axiom
to the axiom form
form of of collection.
collection. Furthermore,
Furthermore, the free-cut elimination
the free-cut elimination
theorem
theorem holds
holds as before; however,
as before; however, thethe notion
notion of 'free-cut ' is
of 'free-cut' is changed
changed by by also declaring
also declaring
every direct descendent
every direct descendent of of the
the principal
principal formula
formula of of aa collection
collection inference
inference toto be
be
anchored.
anchored.
One easy
One consequence of
easy consequence free-cut elimination
of free-cut elimination for
for collection
collection inferences
inferences is is that
that
Parikh's' s Theorem
Parikh Theorem 11.4.3
.4.3 holds also for
holds also for theories
theories R R that
that contain
contain '2:. 1 -REPL; compare
E1-REPL; compare
this to Theorem
this to Theorem 3.4.1
3.4.1 about
about the
the conservativity
conservativity of of B'2:.i
BEi+I + l over IL.; .
over/~i.

2 . Godel
2. G h d e l iincompleteness
ncompleteness

Godel ' s incompleteness

Ghdel's incompleteness theorems,
theorems, onon the
the impossibility
impossibility ofof giving
giving an
an adequate
adequate and
and
complete axiomatization
complete axiomatization for for mathematics,
mathematics, were
were ofof great
great philosophical
philosophical andand founda-
founda­
tional importance
tional importance to to mathematics.
mathematics. TheyThey are
are arguably
arguably the
the most
most important
important results
results in
in
mathematical logic
mathematical logic since
since the
the development
development of of first-order
first-order logic.
logic. Loosely
Loosely speaking,
speaking, the
the
incompleteness theorems
incompleteness theorems state
state that
that any
any sufficiently
sufficiently expressive,
expressive, consistent
consistent theory
theory with
with
aa decidable
decidable axiomatization
axiomatization is is not
not complete;
complete; and
and furthermore,
furthermore, for
for any such theory,
any such the
theory, the
second incompleteness
second incompleteness theorem
theorem gives an explicit,
gives an explicit, non
non self-referential
self-referential true
true statement
statement
which is
which is not
not aa consequence
consequence ofof the
the theory.
theory. More
More generally, the set
generally, the set of
of IIl-sentences
III -sentences true
true
 Proof Theory of Arithmetic 1113
13

about
about thethe integers8
integers s is
is not
not recursively
recursively enumerable,
enumerable, soso there
there is
is no
no way
way to
to generalize
generalize or
or
replace
replace first-order
first-order logic
logic with
with any
any other
other kind
kind of
of formal
formal system
system which
which both
both admits
admits a a
decidable notion
decidable notion of
of 'provability'
'provability' and
and is
is complete
complete in
in the
the sense
sense of
of 'proving'
'proving' every
every true
true
II I -sentence of
Hi-sentence of the
the integers.
integers.

2.1.
2.1. Arithmetization
A r i t h m e t i z a t i o n of
ofmmetamathematics
etamathematics

The
The usual methods of
usual methods of proving
proving G6del's
GSdel's incompleteness
incompleteness theorems
theorems involve
involve coding
coding
metamathematical
metamathematical conceptsconcepts (i.e., coding the
(i.e., coding the syntax
syntax ofof first-order
first-order logic)
logic) with
with integers
integers
and
and then
then using
using a a self-referential
self-referential or or diagonal
diagonal construction
construction to obtain non-provable
to obtain non-provable
true statements;9
true statements; ~ this this process
process of of coding
coding syntactic
syntactic aspects
aspects of of logic with integers
logic with integers
is called 'arithmetization'.
is called 'arithmetization'. There
There are are essentially
essentially two
two different
different approaches
approaches to to the the
arithmetization
arithmetization of of syntax.
syntax. The
The first
first approach
approach usesuses numeralwise
numeralwise represent ability as
representability as
aa means
means of of representing computable functions:
representing computable functions: a a numeralwise
numeralwise representation
representation of of aa
function
function gives
gives a characterization of
a characterization the function's
of the function's values
values for particular choice
for particular choice of of
inputs to
inputs to the function. To
the function. To be
be precise,
precise, a a formula A(Z, yy)) numeralwise
formula A(x, numeralwise represents
represents aa
function
function f (Z) =
f (x) - yy in
in a
a theory
theory T T if
if and
and only
only if,
if, for
for every integers n
particular integers
every particular n ll ,, .. ... ., , nk
nk
with
with f g) =
f ((ii) m, the
-- m, the theory
theory TT proves
proves

(Yy)(A(SnlO,..., S nk, y) ++ y = SmO).

It turns out
It turns out that
that every recursive function
every recursive function is is numeralwise
numeralwise representable
representable even even inin
very
very weak
weak theories
theories such
such as as R R and
and Q Q;; and
and conversely,
conversely, onlyonly recursive
recursive functions
functions areare
numeral wise representable
numeralwise representable in in any
any axiomatizable
axiomatizable theory, theory, nono matter
matter how
how strong.
strong.
However,
However, numeralwise
numeralwise representation
representation of of f f inin the
the theory
theory T T only
only implies
implies that
that T T can
can
'represent'
'represent' allall particular,
particular, fi xed values
fixed values of f ;; this
of f this inin no
no way
way implies
implies that
that TT can
can prove
prove
general properties
general properties ofof the
the function
function f This in
f . . This in isis in contrast to
in contrast to the
the second approach to
second approach to
the
the arithmetization
arithmetization of of syntax which involves
syntax which giving intensional
involves giving intensional definitions
definitions ofof certain
certain
(but not
(but not all)
all) recursive
recursive functions.
functions. In In the
the intensional
intensional approach
approach to to arithmetization
arithmetization
of
of metamathematics,
metamathematics, one one gives
gives formulas
formulas which which defi ne concepts
define concepts such
such asas "formula"
"formula",,
"term"
"term",, "substitution"
"substitution",, "proof"
"proof",, "theorem"
"theorem",, etc; etc; these definitions are
these definitions are said
said to
to be
be
intensional provided
intensional provided thethe theory
theory T T can
can prove
prove simple
simple properties
properties ofof these concepts. For
these concepts. For
instance,
instance, one one wants
wants the theory T
the theory T to
to bebe able
able to define the
to define the notion
notion of
of substituting
substituting a term
a term
into
into a a formula
formula andand prove
prove thethe result
result is is aa formula;
formula; similarly,
similarly, TT should
should be be able
able toto prove
prove
that the set
that the set of
of theorems
theorems is is closed
closed under
under modusmodus ponens;
ponens; etc.
etc. (See Feferman [1960]
(See Feferman [1960] for
for
aa comprehensive discussion of
comprehensive discussion intensionality.)
of intensionality.)
It
It is significantly more
is significantly more workwork toto carry
carry outout the the details
details an intensional arithmetiza­
an intensional arithmetiza-
tion
tion ofof syntax
syntax than
than a a numeral
numeralwise wise representation
representation of of recursive
recursive functions; indeed, an
functions; indeed, an
8SBy
By MatijaceviC's
Matijacevi~'s theorem,
theorem, the
the same
same holds
holds for
for the
the true,
true, purely
purely universal
universal sentences
sentences (in
(in the
the
language of P A).
PA).
9There
~ are approaches to the first
first incompleteness
incompleteness theorem
theorem that avoid
avoid this arithmetization of
metamathematics; for instance,
instance, one can directly
directly prove
prove that the true II1
III sentences
sentences of arithmetic
do not form a recursively
recursively enumerable set,
set, say by encoding
encoding Turing
Turing machine
machine computations with
integers.
integers. For somewhat
somewhat different
different approaches based
based on Berry's paradox,
paradox, see Chaitin [1974]
[1974] and
Boolos
Boolos [1989].
[1989].
114
114 s . Buss
S. Buss

intensional definition
intensional definition of of aa function
function isis typically
typically aa numeralwise
numeralwise representation
representation of of the
the
same function.
same function. Furthermore,
Furthermore, the the intensional
intensional representation
representation requires
requires the
the additional
additional
verification that
verification that the
the underlying
underlying theory
theory cancan prove
prove simple
simple facts
facts about
about thethe function.
function.
Nonetheless, the
Nonetheless, the intensional
intensional definition
definition hashas significant
significant advantages,
advantages, most
most notably,
notably, inin
allowing aa smoother
allowing smoother treatment
treatment of of the
the Ghdel
Godel incompleteness
incompleteness theorem,
theorem, especially
especially the
the
second incompleteness
second incompleteness theorem.
theorem.
Since many
Since many textbooks
textbooks discuss
discuss the the first
first approach
approach based
based onon numeralwise
numeralwise rep- rep­
resentability and
resentability and since
since wewe prefer
prefer thethe intensional
intensional approach,
approach, this
this article
article will
will deal
deal
only with
only with the
the intensional
intensional approach.
approach. The The reader
reader whowho wants
wants toto see
see the
the numeralwise
numeralwise
representability approach
representability approach can can consult
consult Smorynski
Smorynski [1977]
[1977] and
and any
any number
number of of textbooks
textbooks
such as
such as Mendelson
Mendelson [1987].
[1987] . The
The intensional
intensional approach
approach is is due
due to
to Feferman
Feferman [1960].
[1960]. AnAn
effective unification
effective unification of of the
the two approaches can
two approaches can bebe given using the
given using the fact
fact (independently
(independently
due to
due to Wilkie
Wilkie and
and toto Nelson
Nelson [1986])
[1986]) that
that IA0-t-g/~
I �O+OI and and Si are interpretable
S~ are interpretable in in Q;
Q ; since
since
both IA0
both I �o ++ f~l and S~
01 and admit aa relatively
Si admit straightforward intensional
relatively straightforward intensional arithmetization
arithmetization
of metamathematics
of metamathematics (see (see Wilkie
Wilkie and Paris [1987]
and Paris [1987] and
and Buss
Buss [1986])
[1986]),, this
this allows
allows strong
strong
forms
forms of incompleteness obtained
of incompleteness obtained viavia the
the intensional approach to
intensional approach to apply
apply also
also to the
to the
theory Q;
theory Q ; paragraph
paragraph 2.1.4 below sketches
2.1.4 below sketches howhow thethe interpretation
interpretation of Si in
of S~ in Q can be
Q can be
used to
used to give
give an intensional arithmetization
an intensional arithmetization in in QQ.. The
The book
book ofof Smullyan
Smullyan [1992]
[1992] gives
gives
aa modern,
modern, in-depth
in-depth treatment
treatment of Godel' s incompleteness
of Ghdel's incompleteness theorems.
theorems.

2.1.1.
2.1.1. Overview O v e r v i e w of of an
an intensional
i n t e n s i o n a l arithmetization
a r i t h m e t i z a t i o n of
of metamathematics.
metamathematics.
We
We now now sketch sketch some some of of the
the details
details of of anan arithmetization
arithmetization of of metamathematics;
metamathematics; this this
arithmetization
arithmetization can can bebe carried
carried out out intensionally
intensionally in in I�oIA0 + + 01f~l and and in S~.. Detailed
in Si Detailed
explanations
explanations of of similar
similar arithmetizations
arithmetizations in in these
these theories
theories can can be be found
found in
in Wilkie
Wilkie and and
Paris
Paris [1987] [1987] and and in in Buss
Buss [1986].
[1986]. We We shall
shall always
always work work in in the
the (apparently)
(apparently) weaker weaker
theory
theory Si S~..
To
To arithmetize
arithmetize metamathematics,
metamathematics, we we need
need to to assign
assign GodelGhdel numbers
numbers to to syntactic
syntactic
objects
objects such such as as 'terms', 'formulas',' , 'proofs',
'terms', 'formulas 'proofs', etc. etc. Each
Each such such syntactic
syntactic objectobject is is viewed
viewed
as
as an an expression
expression consisting
consisting of of string
string of of symbols
symbols from from aa finite
finite alphabet.
alphabet. This This finite
finite
" "
alphabet
alphabet contains contains logical
logical connective
connective symbols symbols ""A", "V",, ""~",
1\ " , "V" :J , "3"
..., " , "D", "V",, etc.,
"3",, "\I" etc.,
and
and the the comma comma symbol symbol and and parentheses;
parentheses; it it also
also contains
contains non-logical
non-logical connective
connective
symbols
symbols for for the
the function
function and and relation
relation symbols
symbols of of arithmetic.
arithmetic. The The alphabet
alphabet alsoalso needs
needs
symbols
symbols for for variables:
variables: for for this
this there
there is is aa variable
variable symbolsymbol ""x" x
"
(and
(and possibly
possibly "a"
for
for free free variables)
variables) and and there
there are are symbols
symbols "0" "0" andand ""1" I " used
used to to write
write the
the values
values of of
subscripts
subscripts of of variables
variables in in binary
binary notation.
notation. In In addition,
addition, when when first-order
first-order proofs
proofs are are
formalized
formalized in in the
the sequent
sequent calculus,
calculus, it it will
will contain
contain aa symbolsymbol ""---~" --t " for
for the
the sequent
sequent
connective
connective and and thethe semicolon
semicolon symbol symbol for for separating
separating sequents.
sequents. At At times,
times, it it will
will be be
convenient
convenient to to enlarge
enlarge the the finite
finite alphabet
alphabet with with other
other symbols
symbols that that can
can be be used
used for for
describing
describing the the skeleton
skeleton of of aa proof.
proof.
Since
Since the the alphabet
alphabet is is finite,
finite, we we cancan identity
identity the the alphabet
alphabet with with some
some finite
finite set set
{O,
( 0 , .. .. ..,, s}s) ofof integers,
integers, thereby
thereby givinggiving each each alphabet
alphabet symbol symbol aa aa G6del number which
Ghdel number which
isis denoted
denoted rraT. a-' . Then,
Then, given
given an expression Q
an expression a which
which consists
consists of of thethe symbols
symbols aa1la2 m,
a 2 . . , aam,
. . •

let nn ll ,, .. .. .., , nnm

let m bebe their
their Godel
Ghdel numbers,
numbers, then then the the least
least Godel
Ghdel number
number of of the
the sequence
sequence
m ) is,
( n l , .. .. ..,' nrim)
(nl' is, byby definition,
definition, the the G6del number of
Gh"del number of the expression Qa.. The
the expression The Godel
Ghdel
 Proof
Proof Theory
Theory of
of Arithmetic
Arithmetic 115
115

number
number of of an expression 0
an expression a is is denoted
denoted ro'. ra7. There
There is is aa subtle
subtle difference
difference between between
the
the Godel
Godel numbernumber of symbol (J
of symbol a and
and the the G6del
Gbdel number
number of of the
the expression
expression containing containing
just (Ja;; these ' and it should always be clear from context which
just these are are both
both denoteddenoted rra~ (J and it should always be clear from context which
10
one
one isis intended.
intended. 1~
Since
Since we we have
have alreadyalready discussed
discussed that that intensional
intensional definitions
definitions of of G6delGbdel numbers
numbers of of
sequences
sequences can can be be given;
given; it it is
is straightforward
straightforward to to further
further give
give intensional
intensional definitions definitions of of
(G6del
(Gbdel numbers
numbers of) of) syntactic
syntactic objects;objects; in in particular,
particular, Si S~ can
can A� -define the
A~-define the following
following
predicates:
predicates:
FreeVar(w)
F r e e V a r ( w ) -- w w codes
codes aa free free variable
variable
BdVar(w)
BdVar(w) -- w w codes
codes aa bound bound variable
variable
Term(w)
Term(w) -- ww codes
codes aa term term
Fmla(w)
Fmla(w) -- w w codes
codes aa formula
formula
Sequent(
Sequent(w) w) -- w w codes
codes aa sequent
sequent
For
For example,
example, the the formula F r e e Y a r ( w ) asserts
formula FreeVar(w) asserts thatthat either
either w w = -- (a' (ra7,, ro ' ) (which
r07) (which
codes
codes the the free
free variable
variable "ao "Co") " ) or
or w w is is of
of the
the form
form (a',
(ra7, fl.',
rlT, wl
w l ,, .. ... ., , Wk)
wk> withwith k k �> 00
and
and with
with eacheach Wi wi equal equal to to ro' tO7 oror rl' (this encodes
r17 (this encodes "a; "ai"" where
where ii > > 00 hashas binary
binary
representation
representation lW l Wll ". . . ·wWk
k )). . TheThe A� definitions of
Ab1 definitions of Term,
Term, Fmla F m l a and Sequent are
and Sequent are
somewhat
somewhat more more complicated:
complicated: they depend crucially
they depend crucially on on the
the fact
fact that
that length-bounded
length-bounded
counting
counting is is ��
~ - d-definable
e f i n a b l e and
and that that therefore
therefore terms terms and and formulas
formulas may may be be parsed
parsed by by
means
means of of counting
counting parentheses.
parentheses. Counting Counting commas commas also also allows
allows notions
notions such such as as the
the
i-th formula
i-th formula of of aa sequent
sequent to to be be � � -defined.
~-defined.
In
In keeping
keeping with with the the convention
convention that that allall syntactic
syntactic objects
objects are are coded
coded by by expressions,
expressions,
we
we let
let the
the G6del
Gbdel numbernumber of of a a proof
proof be be defined
defined to to the
the G6del
Gbdel number
number of of an
an expression
expression
consisting
consisting of of aa sequence
sequence of of sequents
sequents separated
separated by semicolons. A
by semicolons. A proofproof is is intended
intended to to
be valid
be valid provided
provided ""that that each
each sequent
sequent in in the
the proof
proof cancan bebe inferred
inferred by by aa valid
valid rule
rule ofof
inference
inference from from sequents
sequents appearingappearing earlier earlier in in the proof. Of
the proof. course the
Of course the notion
notion of of v alid
valid
inference depends
inference depends on the formal
on the formal proof proof system
system in which the
in which proof is
the proof is being
being carried
carried
out. Accordingly,
out. Accordingly, for for an
an appropriate
appropriate fixed fixed formal
formal system
system T T,, we
we wish wish Si $21 to be able
to be able
to A�
to -define the
A~-define the predicate
predicate to to define
define PrOOfT(W
ProofT (w)) whichwhich states
states thatthat w w codes
codes a a valid
valid
T -proof. For
T-proof. this to
For this to bebe possible,
possible, there there mustmust be be aa polynomial
polynomial time time procedure procedure which which
determines
determines whetherwhether w codes aa valid
w codes valid T-proof;
T -proof; in in general,
general, thisthis will will be be based
based on on aa
polynomial time
polynomial procedure which
time procedure which checks
checks whether
whether a a given
given inference
inference is is valid
valid for
for T T..
The theories TT that
The theories that we we willwill consider,
consider, such such as S� , T�
as S~, T~,, �/Ei,i ' B�iB~i,' etc., etc., will
will have
have
only axioms
only axioms and and unary
unary and and binary
binary inference
inference rules,rules, and
and these
these will
will be be specified
specified by by aa
11
finite set
finite set of
of schemes.
schemes. For For such
such schematic
schematic theories,
theories, SSi1 can can A~-define
A� -define the the relation
relation11
Validlnferencer(u,, v,v , w)
ValidInferenceT(u w) -- ww can can be be inferred
inferred withwith aa single
single T-inference
T-inference
from zero, one
from zero, one oror both
both of of uu and
and v.v.

lOWe have defined rAT

1~ rA" in a nonconventional manner: the usual definition is to let rAT rA" represent
aa closed term whose
whose value is equal to the Gbdel
Godel number of A. A . We shall represent this alternative
alternative
rA" that
rA" . The definition for rA7
concept with the notation rA7. that we are using is better
better for our intensional
intensional
development.
11
11 situation for non-schematic theories below
We discuss the situation below in section 2.1.3.
1116
16 s.
S. Buss

With this, it
With this, it is
is easy
easy for S~ to
for Si to At -define Proo!T(w)
A~-define PrOOfT(W) .. In
In addition, S~ can
addition, Si can At -define
A~-define
the predicate Pr!T(w,
the predicate PrfT(W , u)
u) which
which states that ProO!T(W)
states that and Fmla(u)
PrOOfT(W) and Fmla(u) and that W
and that w is
is aa
proof of
proof of the
the sequent
sequent � --~ A where u
A where u=- rrA7
A' (i.e., that W
(i.e., that w is
is a
aT -proof of
T-proof of the formula A).
the formula A).
Finally,
Finally, the
the set
set of
of theorems
theorems of
of T
T can
can be
be defined
defined byby

ThmT(u) {:}
Thmr(u) r (3w)Prfr(w, u) .
(3w)PrfT(W,U).
However, Thmr
However, ThmT isis not
not generally
generally �t -definable, since
A~-definable, since it it not
not generally
generally even
even decidable
decidable
(a
(a consequence
consequence of of G6del
GSdel's' s incompleteness
incompleteness theorems,
theorems, see see below)
below).P12
A particularly important
A particularly important syntactic
syntactic operation
operation is is the substitution of
the substitution of a a term
term into
into
aa formula.
formula. Let Let A A bebe a a formula
formula and let tt be
and let be aa term;term; because
because of of the
the sequent
sequent
calculus'' conventions
calculus conventions on on free
free and bound variables,
and bound variables, one one can
can always
always form
form the
the formula
formula
A(t/ao),, which
A(t/ao) which isis A with tt substituted
A with substituted in in for
for thethe free variable ao
free variable a0,, merely
merely by by
replacing
replacing each
each occurrence
occurrence of of ao
a0 asas aa sub expression of
subexpression of AA with
with the expression tt..
the expression
This
This is is clearly
clearly I:t -definable in
E~-definable in Si and Sub(
S~ and Sub(u,u , vv)) denotes
denotes the the function
function suchsuch that
that
Sub(A',
Sub(rA7, rt') - rrA(t/ao)
rtT) = A(t/ao)'7 for
for all formulas A
all formulas A and terms tt..
and terms
One
One final
final simple,
simple, but
but important
important formalization,
formalization, is is the
the definition
definition of closed canonical
of closed canonical
terms
terms rrn which
which represent
represent an integer n
an integer n.. The
The term
term Q 0 is
is just
just the
the constant
constant symbol
symbol o0..
And
And inductively,
inductively, the term 2m
the term 2m isis (SSO)
(SSO).m m and
. and the term 2m
the term 2m + is 2m
+ 11 is 2m + SO.. Note
+ SO Note
that
that the
the number
number ofof symbols
symbols in in rr
n is
is O(Jnl)
O(Inl) ;; also,
also, SiS~ can
can I:t -define the
E~-define the map
map n nH~ rrr'
rn7.·

2.1.2.
2.1.2. Intensionality
I n t e n s i o n a l i t y of
of the arithmetization. In
the arithmetization. In order
order for
for the
the above-sketched
above-sketched
arithmetization
arithmetization to to be
be considered intensional, it
considered intensional, it is
is necessary
necessary that
that Si$21 can
can prove
prove basicbasic
facts
facts about
about thethe arithmetization.
arithmetization. To To simplify notation, we
simplify notation, shall use
we shall use abbreviations
abbreviations such such
as ('v'rA,)
as (- · · rA'
(VrA7)(..- · · ·), which
rA7...), which abbreviates
abbreviates the formula (Vu)
the formula (Fmla(u) J
(Vu)(Fmla(u) · · · uu...)).
D ((... · · · )) .
Some examples
Some examples of of what
what Si $21 can
can prove
prove include:
include:

1. (Vu,
1. v, w)
(Vu, v, (Fmla(u) 1\
w)(Fmla(u) A Term(v)
Term(v) J D Fmla(Sub(u,
Fmla(Sub(u, v)))
v)))..
2. (vr
2. AI) (vrB') ( Thmr(r
(VrA7)(VrB7)( AI)
Thrnc(rA A Thmr(r
7) 1\ AJ
ThmT(rA D B') D Thmr(rB')).
B 7) J ThmT(rS7)).
3. (VU) (ProO!T(U) J Thms� (Proo!T(yJ' )).
3.
4. (vrA') (Vu) (Prfr(u, rrAt)
(VrA~)(Vu)(PrfT(U, D Thm
AI) J s� (
Thms~ (rprf(u, A')')).
Pr!(g, rrA7)7)).
5. (vr
5. (WAA')) ( Thmr(AI) J Thms� (Thmr(AI) )). '

These
These five
five formulas
formulas require
require some
some explanation.
explanation. TheThe first
first just
just states
states that
that when
when aa term
term
is
is substituted
substituted into
into a
a formula,
formula, a a formula
formula isis obtained.
obtained. TheThe second
second codes
codes the
the fact
fact that
that
the
the consequences
consequences of of the
the sequent
sequent calculus
calculus are
are closed
closed under
under modus ponens. Si
modus ponens. S~ proves
proves
this
this by
by the
the simple
simple argument
argument that
that if
if there
there are
are sequent
sequent calculus
calculus proofs
proofs of --~ A
of � A andand
�--~ A
A JD B B,, then
then these
these can
can be
be combined
combined with
with the
the simple
simple sequent calculus proof
sequent calculus proof ofof
A, A
A, AJ DB �B
B--+ using two
B using cuts to
two cuts to obtain
obtain a a sequent
sequent calculus of B
proof of
calculus proof B.. The
The third
third
formula
formula states
states that any u
that any u which
which encodes
encodes a a T-proof
T-proof cancan inin fact
fact be
be proved
proved toto be
be
aa T -proof. The
T-proof. The intuitive
intuitive idea
idea behind
behind the
the fact
fact that S~ can
that Si can prove
prove this
this formula
formula is is
12Even
12Even for
for decidable
decidable theories
theories T if T .It
T,, if ~ (IIx)(IIy)(x
(Vx)(Vy)(x = y)
y),, then
then the
= the predicate
predicate ThfTlT(u) is
ThmT(u) is
PSPACE-hard.
PSPACE-hard.
 of Arithmetic
Proof Theory of Arithmetic 117
117

that, given
that, encoding aa proof
given uu encoding proof as
as aa string
string of symbols, it
of symbols, is possible
it is possible toto construct
construct aa
S� -proof of
S~-proof of the
the statement
statement PrOOfT(U
Proofr(y,)) that
that uu codes
codes aa T-proof.
T-proof. In In fact,
fact, the
the S~-proof
S� -proof
of PrOOfT(U
of Proofr(y')) ,, proceeds
proceeds byby verifying
verifying that
that u, viewed as
u , viewed as aa string
string of
of symbols,
symbols, satisfies
satisfies
all the
all the properties
properties of of being
being aa valid
valid T-proof.
T -proof. TheThe provability
provability of of the
the fourth
fourth and
and fifth
fifth
formulas in
formulas in S~
S� is is similar
similar to
to the
the provability
provability ofof the
the third.
third.
The fact
The fact that
that S� can prove
S~ can prove the
the third
third formula
formula is is aa special
special case of aa more
case of general
more general
fact:
fact:

h e o r e m . (Buss
Theorem.
T [1986,Thm 7.4])
(Buss [1986,Thm 7.4]) Let
Let A(b)
A(b) be
be aa E~
I:t -formula
-formula with
with only
only the variable bb
the variable
free. Then,
free. Then, S~S� can
can prove
prove
:J Thms~
(\iu)(A(u) D
(Vu)(A(u) (A(yJ')) .
Thms� (rA(u_)7)).
Hilbert-Bernays-Lob
H i l b e r t - B e r n a y s - L S b dderivability
e r i v a b i l i t y cconditions. The following
o n d i t i o n s . The following three
three derivability
derivability
conditions, introduced
conditions, introduced by by Hilbert
Hilbert and and Bernays
Bernays [1934-39]
[1934-39] and
and L6b
Lob [1955],
[1955], give
give suffi-
suffi­
cient conditions on
cient conditions on anan arithmetization
arithmetization for the second
for the second incompleteness theorem to
incompleteness theorem to hold
hold
for
for aa theory
theory T, T, with
with respect
respect to to aa given
given formalization
formalization Thrrvr ThmT ofof provability:
provability:

HBL1: For
HBLI: For all
all A and B
A and Thrrvr (rA')
B,, TT ~f- ThmT(rA A Thrrvr(
~) /\ ThmT(rAA :J B ~) :J
D B') Thrrvr(rB') .
D ThmT(rB~).
HBL2: For all
HBL2: For all A
A,, if
if T A , then
f- A,
T F- T F-
then T f- ThmT(rA~).
Thrrvr(A') .
HBL3: For all
HBL3: For all A, f- Thrrvr(r
A , TT F- ThmT(FA A')
~) D:J Thrrvr(
ThmT( Thrrvr(
ThmT(rAT~)) ).) .
Assuming
Assuming T T2 Si , the
2 S~, the first
first and third conditions
and third follow from
conditions follow the fact
from the fact that
that formulas
formulas
22 and
and 55 above
above are provable in
are provable in S~.
Si . The
The second
second condition
condition is the fact
is the fact that formula 55
that formula
is true; which
is true; which ofof course
course is an immediate
is an immediate consequence
consequence ofof fact
fact that formula 55 above
that formula above is
is
provable
provable inin Si
S 1 and
and hence
hence is
is true.
true.

2.1.3.
2.1.3. Arithmetization
A r i t h m e t i z a t i o n of
of syntax
s y n t a x for
for non-schematic
n o n - s c h e m a t i c theories.
theories. So
So far,
far, we
we
have considered
have considered only only schematically
schematically axiomatized
axiomatized theories.
theories. This This is is not
not unreason­
unreason-
able,
able, since
since many
many of of the
the theories
theories we we areare interested
interested in, in, such
such as as Peano arithmetic are
Peano arithmetic are
schematically
schematically axiomatized.
axiomatized. Many Many other theories such
other theories such as as S�S~,, 1,6, 0 , II:
IA0, /El, 1 , etc.
etc. are
are
not schematic but
not schematic but are are at at least
least nearly
nearly schematic
schematic in in that
that they
they areare axiomatized
axiomatized by by aa
finite
finite set
set of
of schemes
schemes with substitution restricted
with substitution restricted to to certain
certain formula
formula classes.
classes. The The
metamathematics
metamathematics for for these
these latter
latter theories
theories cancan be be arithmetized
arithmetized with with only
only a a slight
slight
modification
modification of of the
the above
above methods.
methods.
A
A theory
theory is is said
said to to be axiomatizable provided
be axiomatizable provided that that itit has
has aa recursive
recursive (i.e.,
(i.e., decid­
decid-
able)
able) set
set of
of axioms.
axioms. By By aa theorem
theorem of of Craig 's this
Craig's this isis equivalent
equivalent to to having
having aa recursively
recursively
enumerable
enumerable set set of
of axioms.
axioms. In In general,
general, there
there are
are many
many axiomatizable
axiomatizable theoriestheories which
which
are
are not schematic; nonetheless,
not schematic; nonetheless, the arithmetization of
the arithmetization of metamathematics
metamathematics can can bebe
modified
modified to to apply
apply to to any
any axiomatizable
axiomatizable theory theory as as follows.
follows.
Let
Let TT bebe an an axiomatizable
axiomatizable theory. theory. Since
Since the
the predicate ValidInferenceT may
predicate Validlnferencer may no no
longer
longer bebe polynomial-time,
polynomial-time, it it may
may not not be
be ,6,t -definable in
A~-definable in Si S~.. However,
However, it it is
is possible
possible
to
to express
express Validlnferencer(u,
ValidInference~(u, v, v, ww)) inin equivalent
equivalent form form asas
(:3a)
(3a) ValidlnfEvidence( a, u,
ValidlnfEvidence(a, v, w
u, v, ),
w),
118
118 s
S.. Buss

where ValidInfEvidence is
where ValidlnfEvidence A~ w.r.t.
is �� w.r.t. Si 13 With
S~ ..13 With this,
this, aa T-proof
T-proof isis then
then coded
coded asas
aa sequence
sequence containing
containing the the lines
lines of
of the
the proof,
proof, plus
plus any
any necessary
necessary evidence
evidence values,
values, aa,,
justifying
justifying the
the steps
steps iinn the
the proof.
proof. IInn this
this way,
way, the
the predicates
predicates Proof T (W)) and
ProofT(w PrfT(W , uu))
and Prfr(w,
are
are �t -definable in
A~-definable in SiS~;; likewise, Thor is
likewise, Thrrltr is definable
definable from
from PrfPrfTT as
as before.
before.
It
It is
is easy
easy to
to check
check that
that formulas
formulas 1-5 1-5 are
are still
still provable
provable in S~.. Also,
in Si Also, ifif T
T ;2 S~,, the
_~ Si the
Hilbert derivability
Hilbert derivability conditions
conditions hold
hold asas well.
well.

2.1.4.
2.1.4. Arithmetization
A r i t h m e t i z a t i o n in
in theories
t h e o r i e s which
w h i c h contain
c o n t a i n only
only Q Q.. All
All our
our proofs
proofs
of incompleteness
of incompleteness theorems theorems will will assume
assume that that thethe theory
theory T T under
under consideration
consideration con­ con-
tains
tains SiS~.. However,
However, the the results
results allall hold
hold as as well
well for
for theories
theories which
which only
only contain
contain Q Q.. The
The
intensional
intensional arithmetization
arithmetization in in SiS~ cancan be be extended
extended to to an an intensional
intensional arithmetization
arithmetization
in Q
in Q based
based on on the
the fact
fact that
that SiS~ is is interpretable
interpretable in in Q Q.. The
The interpretation
interpretation of S~ in
of Si in Q Q
is
is aa very
very special
special kind kind based
based on on an an ind uctive cut
inductive cut J J;; namely,
namely, there
there isis aa formula
formula J ( a)
J(a)
such
such that
that Q Q proves
proves J J isis closed
closed downwards
downwards and and is is closed
closed under
under 00,, SS,, ++ ,, . 9and
and # # . . In
In
addition,
addition, forfor 4> r any
any sentence,
sentence, the the sentence
sentence 4> J
CJ,, 4>r relativized
relativized by by JJ,, is
is obtained
obtained from from 4> r
by
by replacing
replacing everyevery quantifier
quantifier (Qx) with (Qx. J (x )) . Then,
with (Qx.J(x)). Then, we we have
have that
that Q Q f- CJJ for
~- 4> for
all theorems 4>r of
all theorems of Si
S~..
The
The first
first useuse ofof inductive
inductive cuts cuts for for interpretations
interpretations was was byby Solovay.
Solovay. The The factfact that
that
IA0 can
I�o be interpreted
can be interpreted in Q was
in Q was firstfirst discovered
discovered by by Wilkie;
Wilkie; aa local
local interpretation
interpretation
of IA0 in
of I�o Q was
in Q independently discovered
was independently discovered by by E.E. Nelson.
Nelson. For For more
more details
details ofof inductive
inductive
cuts
cuts and
and this
this interpretation
interpretation of of SiS~ in in Q Q see
see Theorem
Theorem 4.3.3 below, or
4.3.3 below, Pudlak [1983],
or Pudl~k [1983],
Nelson
Nelson [1986]
[1986] or or Chapter
Chapter VIII VIII of of this
this volume.
volume. Pudlak Pudls [1983] [1983] gives
gives aa very
very general
general
form
form of of the
the interpretation
interpretation of IA0 in
of I�o in Q Q..
An
An intensional
intensional arithmetization
arithmetization of of metamathematics
metamathematics can can be
be given
given in in QQ by by replac­
replac-
ing
ing predicates
predicates such such as Proof(w) with
as Proof(w) with their
their relativizations
relativizations J(w) J(w) 1\A (ProOf T
(PrOOfT(w))(W)V J .. The
The
reader
reader cancan check
check thatthat the the proofs
proofs givengiven in in the
the next
next sections
sections all all still
still work
work withwith these
these
relativized predicates.
relativized predicates.

2.2.
2.2. The
T h e Godel
G h d e l incompleteness
i n c o m p l e t e n e s s theorems
theorems

In this section,
In this section, we
we discuss
discuss the diagonal, or
the diagonal, fixpoint, lemma,
or fixpoint, lemma, the
the first
first and
and second
second
incompleteness
incompleteness theorems,
theorems, and
and Lob's theorem.
Lhb's theorem.

2.2.1.
2.2.1. The
T h e Godel
G h d e l diagonal
d i a g o n a l lemma.
lemma. The
The Godel
Ghdel diagonal,
diagonal, or fixpoint, lemma
or fixpoint, lemma
is
is aa crucial
crucial ingredient
ingredient in in the
the proof
proof of
of the
the incompleteness
incompleteness theorems.
theorems. ThisThis lemma
lemma
states
states that,
that, for
for any
any first-order
first-order property
property A A,, there
there is
is aa formula
formula BB that
that states
states that
that the
the
property
property A A holds
holds ofof the
the Godel
Ghdel number
number of B.. Thus,
of B Thus, since
since we
we know
know that
that provability
provability is
is
aa first-order
first-order property,
property, it will be
it will be possible
possible to
to construct
construct aa formula
formula which
which asserts
asserts "I
"I am
am
not
not provable"
provable"..

130ur
13Our formulation
formulation works
works for any decidable set of axioms
axioms and rules
rules of inference;
inference; we do require
always
always that all the usual
usual logical
logical axioms
axioms and rules
rules of inference present. A similar
inference are present. similar construction
will
will work
work for inference
inference rules with any finite
finite number
number of hypotheses.
 Proof
Proof Theory
Theory of
of Arithmetic
Arithmetic 119
119

Godel's
Ghdel's Diagonal L e m m a . Let
Diagonal Lemma. Let A(ao) be
be aa formula.
formula. Then
Then there
there is
is aa formula
formula B
B
such
such that S~ proves
that Si proves
BH
+-~ ArB').
A(rB-~).
Furthermore,
Furthermore, if A is
if A is aa ��
E~,, II� Eii or
II~,, � Hi formula
or IIi formula (respectively),
(respectively), then
then so
so is B;; and
is B and if
if
A involves
A involves free
free variables
variables other
other than
than ao
Co,, then
then so
so does
does B
B..

Proof. This
Proof. This proof
proof quite
quite simple
simple but
but rather
rather tricky
tricky and
and difficult
difficult to
to conceptualize.
conceptualize. We
We
fifirst
rst define
define aa diagonalization
diagonalization function f which
function f which satisfies
satisfies

for
for all
all formulas
formulas eC,, where C(rC 7) means
where erG') C(rC~/ao). To
means erG'lao). To define
define ff , , recall
recall that
that the
the
function n
function ~ N
n H um(n) =
Num(n) 1lcI is
- rrn_n is �t -definable in
E~-definable S~.. Then
in Si Then the
the function
function ff is
is
�t -definable by
E~-definable S~ since
by Si since

Sub(x, Num(x))
ff (x) = Sub(x, Num(x) )..

Next,
Next, we we wish
wish to
to let
let the
the formula A(f(ao));; however,
C(ao) bbee A(J(ao))
formula e(ao) however, since
since ff is
is not
not aa
function
function symbolsymbol inin the
the language
language of S 1 , we
of Si we must
must be be more
more careful
careful in defining e
in defining C.. Let
Let
(a) =
ff(a) = bb be
be �t -defined with
E~-defined with the formula G
the formula f (a, b)
G/(a, b) which
which defines
defines the
the graph
graph of
of ff and
and
let tt f/ bbe
let e aa term
term such
such that S~ proves
that Si proves f (a) :::;
f(a) f . Now
<_tt/. Now the
the formula
formula e C can
can be
be taken
taken toto
be
be either
either

(3x < tf)(Gf(ao, x) A A(x)) or

or (Vx <_ t/)(G/(ao, x) D A(x)).

(With aa little
(With little more
more care,
care, we
we can
can choose
choose e C to
to be
be in
in the
the same
same quantifier
quantifier complexity
complexity
class
class as
as A.) Finally,
Finally, define
define B to be the
to be the formula
formula erG')
C(rCT)..
We
We claim
claim that
that Si proves B H
S 1 proves A(rBT).. The
++ A(rB') The proof
proof of
of this
this claim
claim is
is almost
almost
immediate. First, by
immediate. First, by the definitions of
the definitions f and
of f and BB,, we
we have
have rB'
rB7 is
is equal
equal to
to frG ') ;
f(rCT);
of
of course
course SiS~ proves
proves this
this fact. Second, by
fact. Second, by the definition of
the definition C,, B is
of e is Si -provably
S~-provably
equivalent
equivalent toto A(J rG')) . Therefore,
A(f(rCT)). Therefore, B is is Si -provably equivalent
S~-provably equivalent to
to A(rB')
A(rBT)..
Q.E.D.
Q.E.D.

2.2.2.
2.2.2. The
T h e first
first incompleteness
i n c o m p l e t e n e s s theorem.
theorem. Godel ' s first
Ghdel's first incompleteness
incompleteness
theorem
theorem states
states that
that there
there is is no
no complete,
complete, axiomatizable,
axiomatizable, consistent
consistent theory T ex­
theory T ex-
tending
tending Q
Q.. We shall prove
We shall prove several
several variants
variants of this in
of this this section.
in this section.

Definition. Let
Definition. Let T T be
be an
an axiomatizable
axiomatizable theory. theory. CO'Tlrr
Cor~ is is the
the V ilt -formula
VA~-formula
....,-~Thmr(O
ThmT(O #- 0) which
~ 0) which expresses
expresses the
the condition
condition "T "T is
is consistent."
consistent."
T is
T is said
said to
to be
be w-consistent
w-consistent if if there
there does does not
not exist
exist aa formula
formula B(a) such such that
that
T I-
T (3x)B(x) and
F- (3x)B(x) and such that T
such that T I- ,B(1lc) for
F- ....-~B(n) all n
for all n �_ O0.. T T 2 S~ is
_3 Si is weakly
weakly
w -consistent provided
w-consistent provided there
there is no such
is no formula B which
such formula which is ilt W.r.t.
is A~ S~.. Since
w.r.t. Si Since every
every
true ilt
true -sentence is
A~-sentence provable in
is provable in SJ
S~,, TT is weakly w-consistent
is weakly w-consistent if and only
if and only ifif T
T is
is
consistent
consistent and and proves
proves only
only true 3ilt -sentences.
true 3A~-sentences.
120
120 S. Buss

Godel's
G6del's First
First Incompleteness T h e o r e m . Let
Incompleteness Theorem. T be
Let T be an
an consistent,
consistent, axiomatizable
axiomatizable
theory
theory containing
containing Q
Q.. Then
Then there
there is
is aa true
true sentence
sentence ifJ
r such
such that T }.!
that T }z ifJ
r . Further,
Further, if
if
T
T is weakly w
is weakly -consistent, then
w-consistent, then T }z -.ifJ
T }'! -1r .

The
The formula r is
formula ifJ is explicitly constructible from
explicitly constructible from the
the axiomatization
axiomatization of
of T
T..

Proof. We
Proof. ' ll prove
We'll prove this
this theorem
theorem under
under the
the assumption
assumption that
that T
T ;2 S~.. Choose
_D S� r to
Choose ifJ to
aa formula
formula such
such that
that
S~ F- r ~-~ThmT(rr

Intuitively,
Intuitively, the the formula
formula ifJ r isis asserting
asserting "I "I amam not
not provable
provable in in T" T";; the
the Diagonal
Diagonal
Lemma
Lemma 2.2.1 2.2.1 guarantees
guarantees that that ifJr exists.
exists.
First, let
First, let's 's show
show that
that ifJr is
is true.
true. Suppose
Suppose ifJ r were
were false. Then, by
false. Then, by the
the choice
choice of of ifJ
r
and
and since
since S� S~ is is aa true
true theory,
theory, T T I- r Therefore,
t-- ifJ. Therefore, Si S 1 I-
F- Th'TTl
ThmT(rr lr (ifJ') ;; and
and again,
again, by by the
the
choice
choice of of ifJr , Si S~ I- -~r Since
b -.ifJ. Since T T ;22 S� S~,, we
we also
also have
have T T I- -~r �
b -.ifJ hich contradicts
which contradicts the the
consistency of
consistency of TT.. SoSo ifJ
r cannot
cannot be be false.
false.
Second,
Second, we we show
show that
that T V rifJ. Suppose,
T }'! Suppose, for for sake
sake ofof aa contradiction,
contradiction, T T I- F- rifJ. Then
Then
S~ I-
S� F- Th'TTl
ThmT(rr lr (ifJ' ) . By
By choice
choice of of rifJ, S�
S~ I- -.ifJ. So
F -~r So also
also TT I- -~r which
F- -.ifJ, which again
again contradicts
contradicts
the
the consistency
consistency of of TT..
Third,
Third, we we assume
assume T T is
is weakly
weakly w-consistent
w-consistent and and prove
prove thatthat T T }'! 9r . Suppose
jz -.ifJ Suppose
T does
T does proveprove -.ifJ. 9r Then Then since
since T T ;2 _D SiS~ and
and by by choice
choice of of ifJ
r, T T I- F Th'TTl
ThmT(rrlr (ifJ' ) . But
But
Th'TTl lr (-
ThmT(rr ifJ'7)) is is aa false
false :l.�t -sentence, which
3A~-sentence, which contradicts
contradicts the the weak
weak w-consistency
w-consistency of of T
T..
Q.E.D.
Q.E.D.

The
The obvious
obvious question
question at
at this
this point
point is
is whether
whether the
the hypothesis
hypothesis of
of weak
weak w-consistency
w-consistency
can
can be
be removed
removed from
from the
the First
First Incompleteness
Incompleteness Theorem;
Theorem; i.e.,
i.e., whether
whether there
there is
is aa
consistent, axiomatizable,,
consistent, axiomatizable,' complete
complete theory
theory extending
extending QQ.. ItIt turns
turns out
out that
that this
this
hypothesis
hypothesis can
can be
be removed:
removed:

Rosser's T h e o r e m . (Rosser
Rosser's Theorem. (Rosser [1936])
[1936]) There
There is
is no
no consistent,
consistent, axiomatizable,
axiomatizable, complete
complete
theory
theory T D_ Q
T ;2 Q..

The
The proof
proof of
of this
this theorem
theorem will
will give
give aa constructive
constructive method
method ofof obtaining
obtaining aa formula
formula ifJ
r
from
from the
the axiomatization
axiomatization of
of aa consistent
consistent theory T such
theory T such that r is
that ifJ independent of
is independent of T
T..

Proof. As
Proof. As before,
before, we
we give
give the
the proof
proof assuming
assuming T T ;2 S~.. We
2 Si We need
need to
to define
define aa modified
modified
notion
notion ofof provability called "Rosser
provability called "Rosser provability"
provability".. Let Neg be
Let Neg be the
the unary
unary function,
function,
� t -definable in
E~-definable S~,, such
in SJ such that
that Neg(rA') r-~A7 for
-- r-.A'
Neg(rA 7) = for all
all formulas
formulas A A.. Then
Then we we define
define
the
the predicate
predicate R-Prf
R-PrfT(w a) as
T (w,, a) as

R-Prf
R-PrfT(W a) {::>
T (w,, a) r Prf T (w,, a)
Pr.fT(w A ('<Iv
a) 1\ (Vv :::;
_ w) (-.PrfT (v, Neg(a))).
w)(-~PrfT(v, Neg(a))).

Intuitively, A has
Intuitively, A has aa Rosser
Rosser proof
proof if
if and
and only
only if A has
if A has aa (ordinary)
(ordinary) proof
proof such
such that
that itsits
negation,
negation, -.A
-~A,, has
has no
no smaller
smaller proof.
proof. Note
Note that,
that, since
since TT is
is consistent,
consistent, R-PrfT (n,, rrA7)
R-PrfT(n A')
 Proof Theory of
of Arithmetic 121
121

is
is true
true exactly
exactly when
when Prf A') is;
T (n,, rrA'~)
PrfT(n is; however,
however, this
this fact
fact is
is not
not provable
provable in
in Si 14 The
S~ ..14 The
predicate
predicate R- Thmr(u) is
R-Thm,r(u) is defined
defined to to be
be the
the 3IIt -formula (3w)
3II~-formula (R-PrfT (w,, u))
(3w)(R-PrfT(W u))..
Now
Now use
use the
the Diagonal
Diagonal Lemma
Lemma to to choose sentence </>
choose aa sentence r so
so that
that
S� f- </> ++ -,R- Thm(</>') .
As
As before,
before, we have </>
we have r is
is true.
true. In
In fact,
fact, thethe same
same proofproof works
works as
as iinn the
the proof
proof ofof the
the First
First
Incompleteness
Incompleteness Theorem, Theorem, sincesince Thmr
ThmT and and R- Thmr are
R-ThmT are extensionally
extensionally equivalent.
equivalent.
Secondly,
Secondly, T tz </>
T }£ r again
again byby the
the same
same argument
argument as as in
in the
the previous
previous theorem;
theorem; in in brief:
brief: ifif
T k </>
T f- r , then
then </>r is
is false
false by choice of
by choice of </>,
r but
but we
we just claimed </>
just claimed r isis true.
true.
Thirdly,
Thirdly, we we want
want to to show
show T T y: jz -,</>.
9r Suppose
Suppose T T does prove -'</>
does prove 9r ; let
let n n be
be aa
Ghdel number
G6del number of of aa T-proof
T-proof of of -,</>
9r . Since
Since T T is is consistent,
consistent, wewe have
have that
that there
there isis no
no
T-proof
T-proof of of r</>; thus
thus SJ S~ proves
proves the
the truetrue �o-sentence
Ao-sentence ("Iv (Vv :::; n)gPrfT(V , rrr</>,) . And
_< n)-,Pr!r(v, And
since
since PrfPrfT(n Neg(r ) is
T (n,, Neg(</» is true, $21 also
true, Si also proves
proves (Vv)(v
(Vv)(v > >nn :J
D -,R-Prf T (v, r</>4)f Hence,
9R-PrfT(v,rr Hence,
S~ proves
Si proves -,R- Thmr(</>' ) . By
9R-ThmT(rr By the
the choice
choice of of </>
r andand since
since TT 2_DSiS~,, this
this implies
implies T k </>
T f- r,
which contradicts the
which contradicts consistency of
the consistency of T T..
Q.E.D.
Q.E.D.

2.2.3. The
2.2.3. T h e second
second incompleteness
incompleteness theorem.
theorem. G6del
Ghdel's 's second
second incompleteness
incompleteness
theorem
theorem improves
improves onon his
his first
first incompleteness
incompleteness theorem
theorem by by giving
giving anan example
example of of aa true
true
formula
formula with
with an
an intuitive
intuitive meaning
meaning which
which is
is not
not provable
provable by by aa decidable,
decidable, consistent
consistent
theory
theory T T.. This
This formula
formula isis the
the formula
formula COTVr
ConT which
which expresses
expresses thethe consistency
consistency of of T
T..
Note,
Note, however, that unlike
however, that the the
unlike the formula </>
the formula r iinn the
the first
first incompleteness
incompleteness theorem,
theorem,
CoTVr
ConT is is not
not necessarily
necessarily independent
independent of of T
T since
since there
there are
are consistent
consistent theories
theories thatthat
prove
prove their
their own
own inconsistency.
inconsistency. An An example
example ofof such
such aa theory
theory is T + -,
is T C0TVr .
9ConT.

Godel's Second
G6del's Second IIncompleteness
n c o m p l e t e n e s s Theorem. Let T
T h e o r e m . Let be aa decidable,
T be decidable, consistent
consistent
theory and
theory suppose T
and suppose T 2 Q . Then
D_Q. Then T T/}£ ConT.
COTVr .
Proof. As
Proof. usual, we
As usual, we assume
assume T T2_DSJ Let </>
S~.. Let r bebe the
the formula
formula from the proof
from the proof of G6del ' s
of Ghdel's
First Incompleteness
First Incompleteness TheoremTheorem which which is is Si -provably equivalent
S~-provably equivalent to -, Thmr(</>') .
to -~ThmT(rr
Recall that
Recall that we
we proved
proved T }£ r</> . We
T Jz shall prove
We shall that Si
prove that S~ proves
proves COTVr
ConT D :J r</> ; which will
which--will
suffice to
suffice to show
show that
that T T /y: ConT,
COTVr , since
since T T _D
2 S~.
Si .
By
By choice of r</> , Si
choice of S~ proves
proves 9r -'</> D Thmr(</>' ) . Also,
:J ThmT(rr Also, by the formula
by the formula 55 in sec­
in sec-
tion 2.1.2,
tion 2.1.2, SJ proves Thmr(</>
S~ proves ThmT(rr 7) ') D Thmr(Thmr(</>')') . Also,
:J ThmT(rThmT(rr Also, byby choice of r</>
choice of
and by formula
and by formula 11 of section 2.1.2,
of section S~ proves
2.1.2, Si ThmT(rThmT(rr '-~)) D
proves Thmr(Thmr(£) Thmr(-'</>') .
:J ThmT(r-~r
Putting these
Putting these together
together shows
shows that
that S~ proves that
Si proves that
-'</> D
9r [Thmr(</>7)
:J [ThmT(rr ') A Thmr( r-,</>')].
1\ ThmT(~r
From whence
From whence 9r :J -~ConT
-'</> D -,COTVr is easily proved.
is easily proved. Therefore,
Therefore, S~ proves ConT
Si proves :J r</> . [:]
COTVr D 0
14This is a good
14This good example (see Feferman
example (see Feferman [1960])
[1960]) of an extensional
extensional definition which is not an
definition which
definition. For consistent
intensional definition. consistent theories T , R-Pr]T
theories T, R-Prfr and R-ThmT provide
provide an extensionally
definition of provability,
correct definition R-Prfr (n,, rAT)
provability, since R-PrST(n rA') has the correct truth value
value for all particular
rA'. However,
n and rA7. However, they are not intensionally
intensionally correct;
correct; since,
since, in general,
general, T cannot
cannot prove
prove that
R-ThmT(rA')
R-ThmT(rA R-Thmr(rA D
7) and R-ThmT(rA :::> B
B')
7) implies R-Thmr(B) .
implies R-ThmT(B).
122
122 s.
S. Buss

The
The formula
formula <I>
r not
not only implies COTltr
only implies ConT,, but
but is
is actually
actually Si -equivalent to
S~-equivalent to COTltr
ConT..
For this, note
For this, note that
that since
since <I>
r implies
implies ..., Thmr(<I>' ) , it
~ThmT(rr it can
can be
be proved
proved in S 1 that
in Si that <I>
r
implies
implies ...,
-~Thmr(ro
ThmT(q) =- P)
1~).. (Since
(Since if
if aa contradiction
contradiction is is provable,
provable, then
then every
every formula
formula is
is
provable.)
provable.)

2.2.4.
2.2.4. Lob's
L6b's theorem.
theorem. The
The self-referential
self-referential formula
formula constructed
constructed forfor the
the proof
proof of
of
the
the First
First and
and Second
Second Incompleteness
Incompleteness Theorems
Theorems asserted
asserted "I
"I am
am not
not provable"
provable".. A A
related problem would
related problem would bebe to
to consider
consider formulas
formulas which
which assert
assert "I
"I am provable"
provable".. AsAs the
the
next
next theorem
theorem shows,
shows, such
such formulas
formulas areare necessarily
necessarily provable.
provable. In In fact,
fact, if
if aa formula
formula
is
is implied
implied byby its
its provability,
provability, then
then the
the formula
formula isis already
already provable.
provable. ThisThis gives
gives aa
strengthening of
strengthening of the
the Second
Second Incompleteness Theorem, which
Incompleteness Theorem, which implies that, in
implies that, in order
order
to
to prove
prove aa formula
formula A,A , one
one is
is not
not substantially helped by
substantially helped by the
the assuming
assuming thatthat A isis
provable.
provable. More
More precisely,
precisely, the
the assumption
assumption Thmr(r
ThmT(rA 7) will
A') will not
not significantly
significantly aid
aid aa
theory
theory TT in
in proving
proving A A..

Lob's
L6b's Theorem.
T h e o r e m . Let T
T 2D Q be aann axiomatizable
axiomatizable theory and A
A be any sentence.
sentence. If
If
T ThmT(rA "1) J
T proves Thmr(rA') DA A,, then T
T proves AA..

Proof. As
Proof. As usual,
usual, we
we assume
assume TT 2 S~.. Let
_DSi Let T' be be the
the axiomatizable
axiomatizable theorytheory T u { ...,A} .
TU{-~A}.
The
The proof
proof of Lob's Theorem
of Lhb's Theorem uses
uses the
the fact
fact that
that T'T ~ is
is consistent
consistent if if and
and only
only if
if T
T }L]z AA;;
and
and furthermore,
furthermore, that S 1 proves
that Si Con(T') is
proves Con(T') is equivalent
equivalent to to ..., ThmTfA') . From
-~ThmT(rAT). From
these
these considerations,
considerations, the
the proof
proof is
is almost immediate from
almost immediate from the second incompleteness
the second incompleteness
theorem.
theorem. Namely,
Namely, since T proves
since T proves ...,
~A AJ D ..., ThmT(rA 7) by
-~ThmrfA') by choice
choice of of A T also
A,, T also proves
proves
,A J
...~A Con(T').. Therefore,
D Con(T') Therefore, byby the Deduction Theorem,
the Deduction Theorem, T' T' f- Con(T') so
F- Con(T') so by
by Godel's
Ghdel's
Second
Second Incompleteness
Incompleteness Theorem,
Theorem, T' T ~ is
is inconsistent,
inconsistent, i.e., T f-
i.e., T kAA..

2.2.5.
2.2.5. Further
F u r t h e r reading.
reading. The
The above
above material
material gives
gives only
only anan introduction
introduction to to the
the
incompleteness
incompleteness theorems.
theorems. Other
Other significant
significant aspects
aspects of
of incompleteness
incompleteness include: (1) the
include: (1) the
strength
strength ofof reflection
reflection principles
principles which
which state
state that
that the
the provability
provability ofof aa formula
formula implies
implies
the
the truth
truth of
of the
the formula,
formula, see,
see, e.g.,
e.g., Smorynski
Smorynski [1977]; (2) provability
[1977]; (2) provability and
and interpretabil­
interpretabil-
ity
ity logics,
logics, for
for which
which see
see Boolos [1993], Lindstrom
Boolos [1993], [1997],, and
Lindstrhm [1997] and Chapter
Chapter VII VII of
of this
this
handbook; and
handbook; and (3) (3) concrete,
concrete, combinatorial
combinatorial examples
examples ofof independence
independence statements,
statements,
such
such as
as the
the Ramsey
Ramsey theorems
theorems shown
shown by by Paris
Paris and
and Harrington [1977] to
Harrington [1977] to be
be independent
independent
of
of Peano
Peano arithmetic.
arithmetic.

3. O
3. Onn tthe
h e sstrengths
t r e n g t h s of
o f fragments
f r a g m e n t s of
o f arithmetic
arithmetic

3.1.
3.1. Witnessing
W i t n e s s i n g theorems
theorems

In
In section .2.10, it
section 11.2.10, it was
was shown
shown that that every
every primitive
primitive recursive
recursive function
function is
is � 1-
~l-
definable
definable by
by the
the theory D:1 . We
theory/~1. We shall
shall next
next establish
establish the
the converse
converse which
which implies
implies that
that
the �1 -definable functions
the ~l-definable functions of ~ 1 are
o f / D:l are precisely
precisely the
the primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions.
functions.
The
The principal
principal method
method of
of proof
proof isis the
the 'witnessing
'witnessing theorem
theorem method': D:l provides
method': 1511 provides the
the
simplest
simplest and
and most
most natural
natural application
application of of the
the witnessing
witnessing method.
method.
 Proof Theory
Theory of Arithmetic 123
123

3.1.1.
3.1.1. Theorem.
Theorem. ((Parsons
Parsons [1970]
[1970],, Mints [19731 and
Mints [1973] and Takeuti
Takeuti [1987]).
[1987]). Every
Every
�l -definable function
E1-definable function of IE11 is
of rr: is primitive
primitive recursive.
recursive.
Parsons'' proof
Parsons proof of
of this
this theorem
theorem was
was based
based on
on the G6del Dialectica
the Ghdel Dialectica theorem
theorem and
and aa
similar proof
similar proof is
is given
given by
by Avigad
Avigad and
and Feferman
Feferman in
in Chapter
Chapter VV in
in this volume. Takeuti
this volume. 's
Takeuti's
proof
proof was
was based
based onon aa Gentzen-style
Gentzen-style assignment
assignment of ordinals to
of ordinals to proofs.
proofs. Mints's
Mints's proof
proof
was
was essentially
essentially the
the same
same asas the
the witness
witness function
function proof
proof presented
presented next;
next; except
except his
his
proof
proof was
was presented
presented with
with aa functional
functional language.
language.

3.1.2.
3.1.2. The
T h e Witness
W i t n e s s predicate
p r e d i c a t e for
for �lE l --formulas.
formulas. For
For each
each �l -formula A(b)
El-formula A(b),,
we
we define
define a
a boo -formula WitnessA
A0-formula WitnessA (w, (w, b)
b) which
which states that w
states that w is
is aa witness
witness for
for the
the truth
truth
of A
of A..

Definition. Let A(b)

Definition. Let A(b) bbee aa formula
formula of
of the form (3Xb
the form . . . ,,x~)B(Xl,...
(3Xl,... Xk, b) , where
xk)B(Xl, . . . ,,x~,b), where
WitnessA(w, b)
-.#

B
B is
is a
a boo-formula.
A0-formula. Then
Then the formula WitnessA(w,
the formula b) is
is is
is defined
defined to
to be
be the
the formula
formula

B(f3( w), .. .. .. ,, f3(

l , w),
B(/~(1, k , w),
/~(k, w), b)
b)..

If
If bo
A = bo', A is
= A',A is aa succedent, then Witness
succedent, then V 11 (w, C) is
Witnessva(w,~ is defined
defined to
to be
be

WitnessA(f3(l,
WitnessA(/~(1, w),
w), C) V Witness
c--)V V l1' (13(2, w),
WitnessvA,(~(2, w), C).
c-].

Dually, if r
Dually, if F = A, r'
= A, F' is
is an
an antecedent, then Witnessl\r
antecedent, then Witness Ar is
is defi ned similarly
defined similarly as
as

WitnessA (f3(l, w),

WitnessA(~(1, w), C) A Witnessl\r'
~ 1\ (f3(2, w),
WitnessAr,(~(2, w), C).
~.

Note
Note the
the different
different conventions
conventions on
on ordering
ordering disjunctions
disjunctions and
and conjunctions;
conjunctions; these
these are
are
not
not intrinsically
intrinsically important,
important, but
but merely
merely reflect
reflect the
the conventions
conventions for
for the
the sequent
sequent calculus
calculus
are
are that
that active
active formulas
formulas of
of strong
strong inferences
inferences are
are at
at the
the beginning
beginning of
of an
an antecedent
antecedent
and
and at
at the
the end
end of
of a
a succedent.
succedent.

It
It is,
is, of
of course,
course, obvious that WitnessA
obvious that WitnessA is
is a
a boo-formula,
A0-formula, and
and that
that lboo
IA 0 can
can prove
prove

A(b) f-+
A(b) ~ (3w)
(3w) WitnessA (w, b)
WitnessA(w, b)..

3.1.3.
3.1.3. Proof.
Proof. ((Sketch
Sketch ofof the
the proof
proof of of Theorem
Theorem 3.1.1.) Suppose rr:
3.1.1.) Suppose PE11 proves
proves
(V'x) (3y)A(x, y)
(Vx)(3y)A(x, where A
y) where A E El.. Then
E �l Then therethere is is aa sequent calculus proof
sequent calculus proof P P in
in the
the
theory
theory rr: /El1 of
of the sequent (3y)A(c,
the sequent (3y)A(c, y) y).. WeWe must
must prove
prove that
that there
there is
is a
a primitive
primitive
recursive function f
recursive function such that
f such that A(n,A( n , ff(n))
(n)) isis true,
true, in the standard
in the standard integers,
integers, for all
for all
nn 2 >__ o0.. InIn fact,
fact, wewe shall
shall prove
prove moremore than than this:
this: wewe will
will prove
prove that
that there
there is
is a
a
primitive
primitive recursive function f
recursive function f , , with
with aa � l -definition
El-definition in
in rr:
/El,1 , such
such that
that rr:
/El 1 proves
proves
(V'x)A(x, f(x))
(Vx)A(x, f(x)). . This
This will be aa corollary
will be corollary to to the
the next
next lemma.
lemma.

Witnessing
W i t n e s s i n g Lemma
L e m m a for E l1. • Let
f o r /rr: Let r
F and A be
and bo be cedents
cedents of E1 -formulas
of �l -formulas and
and suppose
suppose
IE11 proves
rr: proves the the sequent
sequent r A.. Then
---t bo
F---+ Then there
there is
is aa function
function hh such
such that
that the
the following
following
hold:
hold:
124
124 s. Buss
S.

(1) h is E1-defined
(1) n:: 1 and is primitive
�l -defined by IE1 primitive recursive, and
(2) n::
(2) /El1 proves

(VCj (Vw)[ Witnessl\ r ( w, Cj ::) Witness V Do (h( w, Cj , Cj].

Note that
Note that Theorem
Theorem 3.1.1 3.1.1 isis an
an immediate
immediate corollary
corollary to to the
the lemma,
lemma, since since wewe may
may taketake
Fr to
to be
be the
the empty
empty sequent,
sequent, A L\ to
to be
be the
the sequent
sequent containing
containing just just (3y)A(c,
(:3y)A(c, y), and let
y) , and let
f(x) == ~(1,
f(x) ,8(1, ~(1,
,8(1, h(x))) where hh isis the
h(x))) where the function
function guaranteed
guaranteed to to exist
exist byby the
the lemma.
lemma.
This isis because
This because h(x) will be
h(x) will be aa sequence
sequence of of length
length one one witnessing
witnessing the the cedent (:3y)A,
cedent (3y)A,
so its first
so its first and
and only
only element
element is is aa witness
witness for
for the
the formula
formula (3y)A, and the
(:3y)A , and the first
first element
element
of that
of that isis aa value
value forfor yy that
that makes
makes A true.
A true.
It remains
It remains to to prove
prove the the Witnessing
Witnessing Lemma.Lemma. For For this,
this, wewe knowknow by by the
the CutCut
Elimination Theorem
Elimination Theorem 1.4.2, that there
1.4.2, that there isis aa free-cut
free-cut free proof PP of
free proof of the
the sequent
sequent
r ---+ A
F--+ L\ in in the
the theory
theory /El;n::1 ; in
in this
this proof,
proof, every
every formula
formula in in every
every sequent
sequent can can bebe
assumed to
assumed be aa El-formula.
to be �l -formula. Therefore,
Therefore, we may prove
we may prove the Witnessing Lemma
the Witnessing Lemma by by
induction on
induction on the number of
the number of steps
steps inin the proof P.
the proof P.
The
The base case iiss where
base case where there
there areare zero
zero inferences
inferences iinn the proof P
the proof and ssoo r
P and ---+ L\
F---} A
is an
is an initial
initial sequent.
sequent. SinceSince thethe initial
initial sequents allowed in
sequents allowed in aann /n:: proof contain
E l 1 proof contain onlyonly
atomic formulas, the
atomic formulas, the Witnessing
Witnessing Lemma Lemma is is trivial
trivial for
for this case.
this case.
For
For the induction step,
the induction step, thethe argument
argument splitssplits into
into cases,
cases, depending
depending on on the final
the final
inference
inference of of the
the proof.
proof. There
There are are aa large
large number
number of of cases,
cases, one
one for
for each
each inference
inference rulerule
of
of the
the sequent
sequent calculus;
calculus; forfor brevity,
brevity, we we present
present onlyonly three
three cases
cases below
below and and leave
leave thethe
rest
rest for
for the
the reader.
reader.
For
For the
the first
first case,
case, suppose
suppose the the fi nal inference
final inference of of the proof P
the proof P is
is an
an :33 :right inference,
inference,
namely,
namely,
. ... .
. . . 9

rF---}
---+ L\,
A, A(t)
---+ L\
rF---} A,, (:3x)A(x)
(3x)A(x)
Let
Let cc be
be the
the free
free variables
variables in
in the
the upper
upper sequent.
sequent. The
The induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis gives
gives aa
� l -defined, primitive
El-defined, primitive recursive
recursive function
function g(w, Cj ~ such
such that
t h a t /n::
E l1 proves
proves

Witnessl\
WitnessAr(W, ~ ---+
r ( w, Cj ~ Witness V{ Do,A{t)} (g(
Witnessv{A,A(t)} w, Cj,
(g(w, ~, Cj .
C-").
IInn order
order for
for Witness V{Do ,A{t)} (g(
Witnessv{A,A(t)} w, Cj
(g(w, c-) to
c-),, Cj to hold,
hold, either ~)) witnesses
,8(2, g(w, Cj
either/?(2, V L\
witnesses V A
or
or ,8(l, c-)) witnesses
~(1, g(w, Cj) A(t).. So
witnesses A(t) So letting
letting h(w, Cj c-*)be
be � l -defined by
El-defined by

h(w, Cj~ =
= ((t(~) *9,8(1,
((t(Cj) ~(1, g(w, Cj),
~), ,8(2,
/3(2,g(w, Cj»,
~)),
where
where *9 denotes
denotes sequence concatenation. It
sequence concatenation. It is
is immediate
immediate from
from the
the definition
definition of
of
Witness that
that

Witnessl\ r ( w, Cj ---+ Witness V{ Do,( 3x)A(x)} (h( w, Cj , Cj.

(h(w,
For
For the
the second
second case,
case, suppose
suppose the
the final
final inference
inference of
of the proof P
the proof P is
is an
an :33:left
:left
inference,
inference, namely,
namely,
 Proof
Proof Theory
Theory of
of Arithmetic
Arithmetic 125

9 . o

A(b)
A(b),, rF -+
~ � A
(3x)A(x)
(3x)A(x), , r -+ �
F---+ A
where
where b is
is an
an eigenvariable
eigenvariable which
which occurs
occurs only
only as
as indicated.
indicated. The
The induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis
gives
gives us
us aa � I -defined, primitive
El-defined, primitive recursive
recursive function g, b) such
g( w, C,
function g(w, such that
t h a t /ll:
E l1 proves
proves

Witnessl\ { A(b) ,r} (w,

WitnessA{A(b),r} (w, C)
c-) -+
---} Witnessv � (g(w,, C,
WitnessvA(g(w ~, b)
b),, C)
c-)..

Let
Let tail( w ) bbee the
tail(w) the �I -defined function
El-defined function so that tail( ((wo,
so that = ((wl,
wn)))) =
wi,I , .. .. .. , Wn
WO , W wn).) .
W I , .. .. .. , Wn
Letting
Letting h(w,
h(w, C)c') be
be the
the function
function g((tail(,8(1
g((tail(~(1, , w)), ,8(2, w))
w)),/~(2, w)),, c, w))),, it
,8(1 , ,8(1 , w)))
~,/?(1,/~(1, it is is easy
easy
to
to check
check that
that h satisfi es the
satisfies the desired conditions of
desired conditions of the Witnessing Lemma.
the Witnessing Lemma.
For
For the
the third
third case,
case, suppose
suppose the
the final
final inference
inference ofof P
P isis aa � I -IND inference:
EI-IND inference:
9 9 .

. . 9

A(b),
A(b), r -+ �,
F---+ A, A(Sb)
A(Sb)
A(O) , r -+ �, A(t)
A(0), F ~ A, A(t)
where
where b is
is the
the eigenvariable
eigenvariable and and does
does not
not occur
occur in
in the
the lower
lower sequent.
sequent. The The induction
induction
hypothesis
hypothesis gives
gives aa � I -defined, primitive
El-defined, primitive recursive
recursive function g(w, C,
function g(w, g, b) such
such that
that ll:
PE11
proves
proves
Witnessl\ { A(b) ,r} (w, C,
WitnessA{A(b),r} g, b) -+ Witnessv{ �,A(Sb)} (g(
--+ Witnessv{A,A(Sb)} w, C,
(g(w, ~, b)
b),, c,
~, b)
b)..
Let k(g, v, w) be
Let k(c, be defi ned as
defined as

k(e, v, w)
k(c, = { v
= {: W
if
if Witness
otherwise
otherwise
V{ �
Witnessv{ ~ }} (v, C)
c')

Since Witness is
Since Witness is aa �o-predicate,
A0-predicate, kk is
is � I -defined by
El-defined by ll:
FE1.1 . Now
Now defi ne the
define primitive
the primitive
recursive
recursive function
function f g, b) by
f (w, c, by

(w, c,
ff(w, g, 0)
0) = (,8(l
(fl(1,, w),
w), O)
0)
ff ((w,
w , ~c,, bb++ 1)
1) = (,8 (1, 9g((~(1,
(~(1, ( w, C, b) ), ,8 (2, w)),
( (,8 (1, ff(w,g,b)),~(2, c, b) ) ,
w)),~,b)),
w, c,
(c, ,8 (2, ff ((w,
kk(g,/~(2, g, b)
b)),) , ,8 ( (,8 (1, ff ((w,
(2, 9g((/~(1,
/~(2, w, c,
~, b)
b)),) , ,8 w)), C,
(2, w)),
fl(2, g, b) )))
b))))

By Theorem
By Theorem 1.2.10, f is
1.2.10, f E1I definable
is � definable by
b y /ll:
E l1, , and
and since
since ff may
may be
be used
used in
in induction
induction
formulas,
formulas, �
E1I can
can prove
prove

Witnessl\
WitnessA{A(o),r 5) -----}
{ A(O) ,r }} (w, C) + Witness
Witnessv{A,A(b)} (f (w, C,
V{ �,A(b)} (f(w, g, b)
b),, c,
g, b)
b)..

using
using � I -IND with
EI-IND with respect
respect to Setting h(w,
to bb.. Setting h(w, C) -- ff(w,
~ = (w, c, establishes the
g, t) establishes the desired
desired
conditions of
conditions of the
the Witnessing
Witnessing Lemma.
Lemma.
Q.E.D.
Q.E.D. Witnessing
Witnessing Lemma
Lemma andand Theorem
Theorem 3. 1.1.
3.1.1.

3.1.4.
3.1.4. Corollary. The The �I - definable predicates
A1-definable of ll:
predicates of IE11 are precisely
precisely the
the primitive
primitive
recursive
recursive predicates.
predicates.
126
126 S. Buss

Proof. Corollary
Proof. .2.10 already
Corollary 11.2.10 already established
established that
that every
every primitive
primitive recursive
recursive predicate
predicate
is
is 6. 1 -definable by
Al-definable by � 1 ' For
/El. For the
the converse,
converse, suppose A(c) and
suppose A(c) B(c) are
and B(c) are I; l -formulas
El-formulas
such
such that
t h a t /�
E l1 proves
proves (V'x) (A(x) ++
(Vx)(A(x) ~B(x)).) . Then
++ -,B(x) Then the
the characteristic
characteristic function
function of of the
the
predicate
predicate A(c) A(c) is
is I; l -definable in
El-definable i n /�
E l1 since
since �1El1 can
can prove
prove

(V'x) (:J!y) [(A(x) /\A Yy = 0)

(Vx)(3!y)[(A(x) O) V (B(x)
(B(x) /\
A yy =
= 1)].
1)].

By
By Theorem 3.1.1, this
Theorem 3.1.1, this characteristic
characteristic function
function is
is primitive
primitive recursive,
recursive, hence
hence so
so is
is the
the
predicate
predicate A(c)
A(c)..

3.1.5.
3.1.5. Total
Total functions
functions of E n . . Theorem
o f /�n Theorem 1.2.1 1.2.1 provided
provided aa characterization
characterization of of the
the
I; 1 -definable functions
El-definable functions of o f /�
E l1 as
as being
being precisely
precisely the the primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions.
functions.
It
It isis also
also possible
possible to to characterize
characterize the the I; 1 -definable functions
Ey-definable functions of o f /�n
E n forfor n n >> 11 inin
terms
terms of of computational
computational complexity;
complexity; however, however, the the n n > > 11 situation
situation is is substantially
substantially
more
more complicated.
complicated. This This problem
problem of of characterizing
characterizing the the provably
provably total
total functions
functions of of
fragments
fragments of of Peano
Peano arithmetic
arithmetic is is classically
classically one one of of the central problems
the central problems of of proof
proof
theory;
theory; and and a a number
number of of important
important and and elegant
elegant methods
methods are are available
available to to solve
solve it.
it.
Space
Space prohibits
prohibits us us from
from explaining
explaining these these methods,
methods, so so we we instead
instead mention
mention only only a a few
few
references.
references.
The
The first
first method
method of of analyzing
analyzing the the strength
strength of of fragments
fragments of of Peano
Peano is is based
based on on
Gentzen
Gentzen's 's assignment
assignment of of ordinals
ordinals to to proofs;
proofs; Gentzen [1936,1938] used
Gentzen [1936,1938] used Cantor
Cantor normal
normal
form
form to to represent
represent ordinals
ordinals less less than
than fO e0 and
and gave
gave aa constructive
constructive methodmethod of of assigning
assigning
ordinals
ordinals to to proofs
proofs in in such
such aa way way thatthat allowed
allowed cutscuts and inductions to
and inductions to be
be removed
removed
from
from PA-proofs
PA-proofs of sentences. This
of sentences. This can can then
then bebe used
used to to characterize
characterize the the primitive
primitive
recursive
recursive functions
functions of of fragments
fragments of of Peano
Peano arithmetic
arithmetic in in terms
terms ofof recursion
recursion on on ordinals
ordinals
less
less than
than fOe0.. The
The textbooks
textbooks of of Takeuti [1987] and
Takeuti [1987] and Girard [1987] contain
Girard [1987] contain descriptions
descriptions
of
of this
this approach.
approach. A A second
second version
version of of this
this method
method is is based
based onon the
the infinitary
infinitary proof
proof
systems
systems of of Tait:
Tait: Chapter
Chapter III III of
of this
this volume
volume describes
describes this this for
for Peano
Peano arithmetic,
arithmetic,
and
and Chapter
Chapter IV IV describes
describes extensions
extensions of of this
this ordinal
ordinal assignment
assignment methodmethod to to much
much
stronger
stronger second-order
second-order theories
theories of of arithmetic.
arithmetic. The The booksbooks of of Schutte [1977] and
Schiitte [1977] and
Pohlers [1980] also
Pohlers [1980] also describe
describe ordinal
ordinal assignments
assignments and and infinitary
infinitary proofs
proofs for for strong
strong
theories
theories of of arithmetic.
arithmetic. A A further
further use use ofof ordinal
ordinal notations
notations is is to
to characterize
characterize naturalnatural
theories
theories of of arithmetic
arithmetic in in terms
terms of of transfinite
transfinite induction.
induction.
A
A second
second approach
approach to to analyzing
analyzing the the computational
computational strength strength of of theories
theories of of arith­
arith-
metic
metic is is based
based on model-theoretic constructions;
on model-theoretic constructions; see see Paris
Paris and Harrington [1977],
and Harrington [1977],
Ketonen
Ketonen and and Solovay [1981], Sommer
Solovay [1981], Sommer [1990],[1990], and
and Avigad
Avigad and and Sommer
Sommer [1997].
[1997].
A
A third
third method
method is is based
based on the Dialectica
on the Dialectica interpretation
interpretation of of Geidel [1958] and
Ghdel [1958] and
on
on Howard
Howard's 's [1970]
[1970] assignment
assignment of ordinals to
of ordinals to terms
terms that that arise
arise inin the
the Dialectica
Dialectica
interpretation.
interpretation. ChapterChapter V V ofof this
this volume
volume discusses
discusses the the Dialectica
Dialectica interpretation.
interpretation.
A
A fourth
fourth method,
method, due due to to Ackermann
Ackermann [1941] [1941] uses
uses an an ordinal
ordinal analysis
analysis of of f-calculus
e-calculus
proofs.
proofs.
More
More recently,
recently, Buss [1994] has
Buss [1994] has given
given aa characterization
characterization of of the
the provably
provably total total
functions
functions of of the
the theories
theories/E~ �n basedbased on on anan extension
extension of of the
the witness
witness function
function method
method
used
used above.
above.
 Proof Theory
Theory of Arithmetic 1127
27

3.2. Witnessing
3.2. Witnessing theorem for S�
theorem for S~

Theorem
Theorem 1.3.4.1
1.3.4.1 stated
stated that
that every
every polynomial
polynomial time
time function
function and
and every
every polynomial
polynomial
time
time predicate
predicate is
is E�
E~-definable or �
-definable or � -definable (respectively)
A~-definable (respectively) byby 8}
S~.. More
More generally,
generally,
Theorem
Theorem 1.3.6
1.3.6 stated
stated that every Of
that every -function and
0~'-function every �f
and every -predicate is
A~-predicate is E� -definable
E~-definable
or ��
or -definable by
A~-definable by S�
S~.. The
The next
next theorem
theorem states
states the
the converse;
converse; this
this gives
gives aa precise
precise
characterization
characterization of of the
the E� -definable functions
E~-definable functions ofof Si
S 1 and
and of
of the
the E� -definable functions
E~-definable functions
of
of S�
S~ in
in terms
terms of
of their
their complexity
complexity inin the
the polynomial
polynomial hierarchy.
hierarchy. The
The most
most interesting
interesting
case
case is
is probably
probably the
the base case ii =
base case 1 , where
- 1, where Si S~ is
is seen
seen to
to have
have proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic strength
strength
that
that corresponds
corresponds precisely
precisely to
to polynomial
polynomial time.
time.

T h e o r e m . (Buss
Theorem. (Buss [1986])
[1986])
(1) Every
(1) Every E� -definable function
E~-definable function of S~ is
of Si is polynomial
polynomial time
time computable.
computable.
(2) Let
(2) Let ii � >_ 11.. Every
Every Et -definable function
E~-definable function of S~ is
of S� is in
in the
the ii-th
-th level,
level, Of
0~,, of
of the
the
polynomial
polynomial hierarchy.
hierarchy.
Corollary. (Buss [1986])
Corollary. (Buss [1986])
(1) Every
(1) Every �� -definable predicate
A~-definable predicate of S 1 is
of Si polynomial time.
is polynomial time.
(2) Let
Let ii �
>_ 11.. Every
Every �� -definable predicate
A~-definable predicate of S~ is
of S� is in
in the
the ii-th
-th level,
level, �f
A~,, of
of the
the
polynomial
polynomial hierarchy.
hierarchy.
The corollary
The corollary follows
follows from the theorem
from the theorem by exactly the
by exactly the same
same argument
argument as as was used
was used
to
to prove
prove Corollary
Corollary 3.1.4
3.1.4 from
from Theorem
Theorem 3.1.1.
3.1.1. To
To prove the theorem,
prove the theorem, we we shall
shall use
use aa
witnessing
witnessing argument
argument analogous
analogous toto the
the one
one use
use for lE I above.
for/El First, we
above. First, we need
need aa revised
revised
form
form of the Witness
of the predicate; unlike
Witness predicate; unlike the
the usual definition of
usual definition the Witness
of the Witness predicate
predicate
for
for bounded
bounded arithmetic
arithmetic formulas,
formulas, wewe define the Witness
define the Witness predicate
predicate only
only for
for prenex
prenex
formulas,
formulas, since
since this
this provides
provides some
some substantial
substantial simplifi cation. This
simplification. This simplification
simplification is
is
obtained without
obtained without loss
loss of
of generality
generality since
since every
every Et -formula is
E~-formula is logically
logically equivalent
equivalent to
to
aa E� -formula in
E~-formula in prenex
prenex form.
form.

3.2.1. Definition. Fix

3.2.1. Definition. Fix ii � Let A(C)
>_ 11.. Let A(~ be
be aa E�-formula
E~-formula which
which isis in
in prenex
prenex form.
form.
Then Witness�(w,
Then WitnessiA(w, C) ~ is
is defined
defined by by induction
induction on
on the
the complexity
complexity of of A
A asas follows:
follows:
(1) If
(1) A is
If A is aa TIL
Hb then Witness�(w,
-formula, then
i_ 1-f~ Witness~(w C) ~ is
is just
just the formula A(C)
the formula A(~, ,
(2) If A(C)
(2) If A(~ is is not
not in
in TILb
II~_ 1 and
and isis of
of the form (3x
the form (3x :::;
<_t)B(c,
t)B(g, x) then Witness�
x),, then Witness~(w,(w, C)
~ is
is
the
the formula
formula

Witnessk(c,b ) C8(2, w),

Witness~(e,b)(~(2, w), c,
~, .8(1,
~(1, w)) A .8(
w)) 1\ 1, w)
~(1, w) :::;
< t. t.

Intuitively,
Intuitively, aa witness for (3x
witness for (3x :::;
<_t)B(x)
t)B(x) is pair w
is aa pair w,, the
the fi rst element
first element of
of the
the pair
pair
giving
giving aa value for x
value for x and
and thethe second
second element
element witnessing
witnessing the the truth of B
truth of (x) for
B(x) for
that
that value of x
value of x..
(3) If A(C)
(3) If A(c') is
is not
not in
in TIL
II~_1 and
and is is ofof the form (Vx
the form (Vx :::;
<_ ItI)B(c,
Itl)B(~, x)
x),, then
then Witness�(w,
Witness~(w, C)
is
is the
the formula
formula
(Vx
(Vx :::; It I) Witnessk
<_ Itl) c,d (.8(x + 1,
Witness~(e,d)(~(x 1, w),
w), c,
~, x)
x)..
( )
128 S. Buss

Intuitively,
Intuitively, aa witness
witness for for (Vx Jtl)B(x) is
<_ ItI)B(x)
(Yx ::; sequence W
is aa sequence w of
of length It I +
length Itl + 11,,
W
w = (WO,
(wo, W I , . . . , W ltl ) such
wt,...,wltl) such that each Wx
that each wx witnesses
witnesses the
the truth
truth of B(x),, for
of B(x) for
_< x
o0 ::; _< Itl
z ::; Itl..

L e m m a . Let
Lemma. Let ii ;:::
>_ 1l and
and AA E 2:�
E~.. Then
Then
((a)
a) Witness�
Withes4 isis �A~� with
with respect
respect to
to Si
S~.. If
If ii > 11,, then
then Witness� is aa ITL
Witness~ is II~_I1-formula.
-formula.
(b) Witness�
(b) Witness~ defines
defines aa �f -predicate.
A~-predicate.
(c)
(c) S�
S~ proves
proves
A(~ +-+
A(C) ~ (3w)
(3~) Witness� , C).
w i t ~ 4 ( ~(w, c-).
(d)
(d) There
There is
is aa term tA and
term tA and aa polynomial time, 2:�
polynomial time, -definable function
E~-definable function ggA
A such
such that
that
Si
S~ proves
proves

Withes 4 (w, ~ D gA (w) < tA (~ A Withes 4 (gA (w), ~.

The lemma is
The lemma is easily
easily proved
proved by induction on
by induction on the
the complexity
complexity of A.. For
of A For part
part (d),
(d), the
the
function gA(w) merely
function gA(W) merely computes
computes aa succinct
succinct G5del
GSdel number
number of w;; this
of w this just
just involves
involves
removing unnecessary
removing unnecessary leading
leading zeros
zeros and removing unnecessary
and removing unnecessary elements
elements from
from the
the
witness.
witness.
We
We extend
extend thethe witness
witness predicate
predicate to
to cedents
cedents ofof prenex
prenex form
form formulas
formulas as
as follows.
follows. If
If
�
A = A is
A',, A
= �' is aa succedent,
succedent, then
then Witnesi
WitnessivA�( W, C) is defined to be
V (w, ~ is defined to be

Witness�CB(l, w), C)
Witness~(~(1, w), 5) V
V Witness
i � CB(2, w),
w), C).
v /
Witnessi\/~,(fl(2, ~.

Dually,
Dually, if
if r
F=- A, F ~ is
A, r' is an
an antecedent,
antecedent, then Witness~rr is
then Witness� is defi ned similarly
defined similarly as
as

Witness�(,B(l,
Wit,~es4(Z(1 , w),
w), C) A Witnesi
~ 1\ W i t n ~ ~l\, (pZCB(2,
( 2 , w),
w), C).
~.

3.2.2.
3.2.2. Proof.
Proof. (Proof
(Proof sketch
sketch for
for Theorem
Theorem 3.2.) We We shall
shall prove
prove Theorem
Theorem 3.2
by
by proving
proving aa slightly
slightly more
more general
general witnessing
witnessing lemma
lemma that
that applies
applies to
to sequents
sequents of
of
2:�-formulas.
E~-formulas. Although
Although the lemma holds
the lemma holds for
for sequents
sequents of general 2:�-formulas,
of general E~-formulas, we
we
state it
state it only
only for
for formulas in prenex
formulas in prenex form,
form, since this simplifies
since this the Witness
simplifies the Witness predicate
predicate
and
and the
the proof.
proof.

Witnessing
W i t n e s s i n g Lemma for S�
L e m m a for S~2.. Let
Let ii ;:::
>_ 11.. Let
Let r A be
---+ �
F---+ be aa sequent
sequent of
of formulas in 2:�
formulas in Eb
in
in prenex
prenex form,
form, and
and suppose
suppose S�S~ proves
proves r A.. Let
---+ �
F---} Let c6 include
include allall free
free variables
variables in
in the
the
sequent. Then
sequent. Then there
there is
is aa Of -function h(w,
Dr-function h( w, C)
~ which
which isis 2:� -defined in
E~-defined in S�
S~ such
such that
that S�
S~
proves
proves
Witness�
w~t~~,~(~, r (w, C)
~-+---+ Witness\t �(h(w, ~,
w~t~&~(h(~, C), C)
~..
The
The proof
proof of
of the
the Witnessing
Witnessing Lemma
Lemma is is by
by induction
induction oonn the
the number
number ofof sequents
sequents iinn aa
free-cut
free-cut free proof P
free proof P of
of r A.. Since
---+ �
F---+ Since every
every 2:� -formula is
E~-formula is equivalent
equivalent to
to aa 2:� -formula
E~-formula
in
in prenex
prenex form,
form, we we may
may assume
assume w.l.o.g.
w.l.o.g, that
that every
every induction
induction formula
formula in
in the
the free-cut
free-cut
free proof P
free proof P is
is aa prenex
prenex form
form 2:� -formula. Then,
E~-formula. Then, byby the
the subformula
subformula property,
property, every
every
formula
formula appearing
appearing anywhere
anywhere in in the
the proof
proof is
is also
also aa 2:� -formula in
E~-formula in prenex
prenex form.
form. TheThe
base
base case
case of
of the induction proof
the induction proof isis when
when r A is
---+ �
F--} is an
an initial
initial sequent;
sequent; inin this
this case,
case,
 Proof Theory of
of Arithmetic
Arithmetic 1299
12

every
every formula
formula in in the
the sequent
sequent is atomic, so
is atomic, so the
the Witnessing
Witnessing LemmaLemma trivially
trivially holds.
holds.
The
The induction
induction stepstep splits
splits into
into cases
cases depending
depending on on the
the fi nal inference
final inference ofof the
the proof.
proof.
The
The structural
structural inferences
inferences andand the
the propositional
propositional inferences
inferences areare essentially
essentially trivial,
trivial, thethe
latter
latter because
because of of our
our assumption
assumption that that all
all formulas
formulas are are in
in prenex
prenex form.
form. So
So it
it remains
remains
to
to consider
consider the the quantifier
quantifier inferences
inferences andand the
the induction
induction inferences.
inferences 9 The
The cases
cases where
where
the
the final
final inference
inference of P is
of P is an
an :3
3 � :right inference
___:right inference or or an
an :33 � :left inference
_<:left inference are
are similar
similar
to
to the
the :33 :right and
and :33 :left cases
cases of
of the
the proof
proof of of the
the Witnessing
Witnessing LemmaLemma 3. 1 .3 for
3.1.3 f o r /.IT:
E ii, ,
so
so we
we omit
omit these
these cases
cases too.
too.
Now
Now suppose
suppose thethe final
final inference
inference of P is
of P is aa I:�-PIND
E~-PIND inference:
inference:
9 9 .
9
9 . .

A( � bJ ) , r---+
A([l 89 r--+ b.,
A, A(b
A(b))
A(O
A(0), ) , r---+
F---} b.,
A, A (t )
A(t)
where A
where E~ \\ ITL
A E I:� II~_I1 and
and where
where bb is
is the
the eigenvariable
eigenvariable and and does
does not
not occur
occur in
in the
the lower
lower
sequent.
sequent. The induction hypothesis
The induction hypothesis gives
gives aa I:�-defined,
E~-defined, Of -function g(w,
[l~-function g, bb)) such
g(w, C, such
that S~ proves
that S� proves

Witness ! bJ ),r} (w, c,

\{A( l89
WitnessiA{A([ ~, b) ---+ Witness
b)-'+ iV{D.,A (b)} ((g(w,
Witnessiv{A,A(b)} b),, c,
g (w, C,g, b) g, b).

Let k(c,
Let v, w
k(5', v, be defined
w)) be defined as
as

k(c,
k(~', v,
V,wW)) = {/ :
f v
w
if Witnessiv~D. ((v,
if Witnesst;
otherwise
otherwise
v, C)
c')

Since
Since Witness is aa b.�
Witness i is -predicate, kk is
A~-predicate, is I:� -defined by
E~-defined S~;; and
by S� and since Witness i is
since Witnesi in b.
is in Afp,,
kk isis in
in Of
[]~.. Define
Define the 0P-function f(w,
the Of-function f(w, c,g, bb)) by
by

f(w,
f(w, c,
5', OO)) = (,8
(~(1, w),, OO))
(l, w)
f(w, 5', bb))
f(w, C, = (,8
(/~(1,g({/~(1, (w, c,g, l[~� bJ )) ,, ,8 (2, w ) ) ,, C, b)) ,,
( 1, g ( (,8 ( 1, ff(w,
k(c, ,8 (2, f( f ( ww, � bJ )) , ,8 (2 , g ( (,8 ( 1, ff(( ww,, C, l � bJ )) , ,8 (2,, w ) ) ,, C, b))) )
, C, l[Xbj)),
for
for bb > > O.O.

Since f
Since f is
is defined
defined by
by limited
limited recursion
recursion on
on notation from g
notation from g,, and
and since is I:�
since gg is -defined
E~-defined
by S~,, f
by S� f is also I:�
is also -defined by
E~-defined by S� Therefore, f
S~.. Therefore, f may
may be
be used
used in
in induction
induction formulas
formulas
and S~ can
and S� can prove
prove

Witnesil\{A (O),r} (w, C) ---+ WitnessiV{D.,A(b)} (J(w , C, b) , C, b) .

using
using I:�-PIND
E~-PIND with
with respect
respect to Setting h(w,
to bb.. Setting h(w, C) = f(w,
5) = f (w, c, t) establishes
~, t) establishes thethe desired
desired
conditions
conditions ofof the
the Witnessing
Witnessing Lemma.
Lemma.
Finally,
Finally, we
we consider
consider the
the inferences
inferences involving
involving bounded
bounded universal
universal quantifiers.
quantifiers. TheThe
cases
cases where
where the
the principal
principal formula
formula of of the
the inference is aa ITL
inference is I -formula are
II~_l-formula are essentially
essentially
trivial, since
trivial, since such
such formulas
formulas do
do not
not require
require aa witness
witness value,
value, i.e.,
i.e., they
they areare their
their own
own
witnesses.
witnesses. This
This includes
includes any
any inference
inference where
where the
the principal
principal connective
connective is is aa non-sharply
non-sharply
130
130 s. Buss
S. Buss

bounded universal
bounded universal quantifier.
quantifier. AAV :lejt where
\I <:::; :left where the the principal
principal formulaformula isis in
in ~E� must
must
have aa sharply
have sharply bounded
bounded universal
universal quantifier
quantifier as as its
its principal
principal connective;
connective; this
this case
case of
of
the Witnessing
the Witnessing Lemma
Lemma isis fairly
fairly simple
simple and and we
we leave
leave itit to to the
the reader.
reader. Finally,
Finally, we
we
consider the
consider the case
case where
where the
the last
last inference
inference of of PP isis aa V :right inference
\I _:::; :right inference

bb <:::; Itl,
Itl, rr--+ �, A(b)
+ zx, A(b)
r -+ zx,
r--+ �, ((\Ix It I )A(t)
w <:::; Itl)A(t)
where A
where A EE 2E�~ \\ IIi_
ITL
b 1I and where the
and where eigenvariable bb occurs
the eigenvariable occurs only as indicated.
only as indicated. The
The
induction hypothesis
induction hypothesis givesgives aa ~-defined,
E�-defined, []~-function
Of -function g9 such
such that
that S�
S~ proves
proves

bb _< Itl ^A Witness\rCB(2, w),

:::; Itl w) , C) -+
Witness�(b) (,8 (1, g(w,
WitnessiA(b)(~(1, g( w, g, b)), ~,
c, b)), c, b) Witness�� (,8 (2, g(w,
b) VV Witness~/~(~(2, g( w, g, b)) , c-).
c, b)), C) .
Let h
Let (w, ~C) bbee defined
fl (w, defined to
to equal ,8 (2, g(w,
equal /~(2, g(w, g, b)) for
c, b)) for the
the least
least value value bb _:::; ItlIt I such
such
this value
this value witnesses
witnesses V V�A,, or
or ifif there
there isis no
no such
such value
value ofof bb _<:::; tt,, let h (w, c--)
let fl(w, C) = O.
= O.
Since the
Since predicate Witnesi
the predicate V �(,8 (2, g(w,
Witness~/~(~(2, g(w, c, g, b))
b)),, ~C) is
is �f and iiss ��-defined
A~ and A~-defined by by S~, the
sL the
function h
function fl is in []~
is in and is
Of and is Z~-defined
E� -defined by by S~. Also, let
s� . Also, h (w, ~C) equal
let f2(w, equal

((~(1, 9 ( w, g,
,8 (1, g(w, C, 0) ,8 (1, g(w,
0)),), ~(1, 9 ( w, if, 1)), ~(1,
C, 1)), ( w, C,
,8 (1, 9g(w, g, 22)),
) ) , .. ... ., , ~(1, c, IItl))>.
( w, g,
,8 (1, 9g(w, t I) ) .
It is
It is easy
easy to
to verify that h
verify that f2 also is in
also is in []~ and is
Of and is E� -definable by
~-definable s� . Now
by S~. Now let h( w, C)
let h(w, c')
equal (h((O,
equal w), c), h ((O, w), C) . It
(f2((O,w>,c-),fl((O,w),c-)>. It is
is easy
easy toto check that hh satisfies
check that the desired
satisfies the desired
conditions
conditions of the Witnessing
of the Witnessing Lemma.
Lemma.
Q.E.D. Witnessing
Q.E.D. Lemma and
Witnessing Lemma and Theorem 3.2.
Theorem 3.2.

3.3.
3.3. Witnessing
W i t n e s s i n g theorems
t h e o r e m s and
a n d conservation
c o n s e r v a t i o n results
results for
for T4
T~

This
This section
section takes
takes upup the
the question
question of of the
the defi nable functions
definable functions of T~.. For
of T4 For these
these
theories, there
theories, there areare three
three witnessing
witnessing theorems,
theorems, one one for
for each
each of of the
the E� -definable,
E~-definable,
the
the E� b -definable and the E�b -definable functions. In addition, there is a close
+l
E~+l-definable +2
and the Ei+2-definable functions. In addition, there is a close
connection
connection between
between S�+lS~+1 and
and T4T~;; namely,
namely, the
the former
former theory
theory is is conservative
conservative over
over the
the
latter. We
latter. ' ll present
We'll present most
most of these results
of these results without
without proof,
proof, leaving
leaving the
the reader
reader toto look
look
up
up the
the original
original sources.
sources.
The
The results
results stated
stated inin this
this section will apply
section will apply to for ii �
T~ for
to T4 _ 00;; however,
however, forfor ii =
- 00,,
the
the bootstrapping
bootstrapping processprocess does
does not
not allow
allow us
us to
to introduce
introduce manymany simple
simple functions.
functions.
Therefore,
Therefore, when when ii = = 00,, instead
instead of T~ , we
of T� we must
must useuse the theory PVI
the theory PV1 = - T� ( DD as
TO([]~) as
defined
defined in section 1.3.7.
in section 1.3.7. To
To avoid
avoid continually
continually treating
treating ii == 00 as special case,
as aa special case, we
we let
let
T� denote PVI
T ~ denote PV1 forfor the
the rest
rest of
of this
this section.
section.

3.3.1.
3.3.1. The
The E �b+ l -definable functions
~i+l-definable functions of
of T4
T~

T h e o r e m . (Buss
Theorem. [1990]) Let
(Buss [1990]) Let ii �
>_OO..
(1)
(1) T4T~ cancan E �+ l -define eve
Eib+l-define ry Df
every +l -function.
[]iP+l-function.
 Proof
Proof Theory
Theory of
of Arithmetic
Arithmetic 131
131

(2) Conversely,
(2) Conversely, every every �� + l -definable function
Eib+l-definable function of T~ is
of T� is aa Df + l -function.
[]iP+l -function.
i +1l Zi8.S Y]ibl-conservative
S~2+ L.. i l -conservatwe
(3) S
(3) ",b
+ 2i '
over T,
' over T~.
S~++1l is
(4) S�
(4) is conservative
conservative over over TJ + ��
T~ + + I -replacement with
~ib+l-replacement with respect
respect toto Boolean
Boolean combi­
combi-
nations
nations of of �� b formulas.
l+I
Ei+ formulas.

We
We'll' ll just
just state
state some
some of of the
the main
main ideas
ideas of of the
the proof
proof ofof this theorem, and
this theorem, and let
let
the
the reader
reader referrefer toto Buss
Buss [1990]
[1990] or
or Krajicek
Kraji~ek [1995][1995] for
for the details. Part
the details. Part (1)(1) with
with
ii =
- 00 isis trivial
trivial because
because of of the
the temporary
temporary convention
convention thatthat T�T~ denotes
denotes PVI PV1.. To To
prove
prove part
part (1) for ii >
(1) for > 00,, one
one shows
shows that
that T�T~ can can "Qi every Df
-define" every
"Qi-define" +l
[]iP+l formula,
formula,
where
where Qi-definability
Qi-definability is is aa strong
strong form
form ofof �� + l -definability. The
Eib+l-definability. The general
general idea
idea ofof aa Q;­
Qi-
defi nable function
definable function is is that
that itit is
is computed
computed by by aa Turing
Turing machine
machine with
with aa �f -oracle such
E~-oracle such
that
that every
every "yes"
"yes" answer
answer of of the
the oracle
oracle must
must be be supported
supported by by aa witness.
witness. InIn the
the correct
correct
computation,
computation, the the sequence
sequence of of "yes/no"
"yes/no" answers
answers is is maximum
maximum in in aa lexicographical
lexicographical
ordering,
ordering, and and thus
thus TJ T~ can
can prove
prove that
that the
the correct
correct computation
computation exists
exists using
using ��-MAX
E~-MAX
axioms
axioms (which
(which can can bebe derived
derived similarly
similarly to
to minimization
minimization axioms).
axioms). This
This proof
proof of (1) is
of (1) is
reminiscent
reminiscent of of the
the theorem
theorem of of Krentel
Krentel [1988]
[1988] that
that MINSAT
MINSAT is is complete
complete forfor Df~. .
Part
Part (2) of of the
the theorem
theorem is is immediate
immediate from from Theorem
Theorem 3.2 and and thethe fact
fact that
that
T� C_S�
T~ � S~+
l Part (3) is
+1 .. Part is based
based on on the
the following strengthening of
following strengthening of the Witnessing
the Witnessing
Theorem 3.2.2 for
Theorem S~+
for S�
l
+1":

Witnessing
W i t n e s s i n g Lemma S~+
for S�
L e m m a for +1l .. Let
Let ii � > 11.. Let
Let r ~ �
F -7 A bebe aa sequent
sequent ofof formulas
formulas in
in
�� in prenex form, and suppose S� ++1l proves r -7 � ; let include all free variables
+
Eib+ll in prenex form, and suppose si2 proves F ~ A; let C
~ include all free variables
in
in the
the sequent.
sequent. ThenThen there
there is
is aa Df P+ l -function
[]i+1 h( w, C)
-function h(w, ~ which
which is is QiQi -defined
defined in T~2 such
in T� such
that
that T�T~ proves
proves
WitnessiA� (w, C) -7 Witnessi.;j� (h(w, C) c-),, C) .
The
The proof
proof of of this
this Witnessing
Witnessing Lemma
Lemma is is almost
almost exactly
exactly thethe same
same as as the
the proof
proof of of
the
the Witnessing
Witnessing Lemma Lemma in section 3.2.2; the
in section only difference
the only difference is is that
that thethe witnessing
witnessing
functions
functions areare now
now proved
proved to
to be
be Qi-defi nable in
Qi-definable in T�
T~.. In
In fact,
fact, (1)
(1) implies
implies the
the necessary
necessary
functions
functions areare Q;-defined
Qi-defined byby T�
T~ since
since we
we already
already know
know they
they are
are �� S~+
l
+ l -defined by
Eib+l-defined by S� +1 ..
So
So the
the main
main newnew aspect
aspect is
is showing
showing that
that T�
T~ can
can prove
prove that
that the witnessing functions
the witnessing functions
work.
work.
Part (3)
Part (3) of
of thethe theorem
theorem isis an
an immediate
immediate consequence
consequence of of the
the Witnessing
Witnessing Lemma.
Lemma.
Part (4) can
Part (4) can also also be
be obtained
obtained from the Witnessing
from the Witnessing Lemma
Lemma using using thethe fact
fact that
that
T� + ��
T~9+ b -replacement can prove that A(C) is equivalent to (:3w) Witness� + l (w, C) for
+l
Ei+l-replacement can prove that A(~ is equivalent to (3w) Witness~+l(w, c--) for
any A
any AE E �� + I
E~b+l. '

3.3.2.
3.3.2. The
The � �b+2-definable functions
Ei+2-definable of T�
functions of T~

The
The �� +2 -definable functions
Eib+2-definable functions of
of T�
T~ can
can be
be characterized
characterized by
by the
the following
following theorem,
theorem,
due
due to
to Krajicek,
Kraji~ek, Pudlak
Pudls andand Takeuti
Takeuti [1991].
[1991].

KPT
K P T Witnessing T h e o r e m . Let
W i t n e s s i n g Theorem. Let ii � O. Suppose
>_ O. T~ proves
Suppose T� proves

(Vx) (:3y) (Vz �

(w)(sy)(Vz _<t(x))A(y, x, z)
132
132 S. Buss
s. Buss

where
where A IIbi .. Then
A E II� Then there
there is
is aa kk > 0 andand there
there are
are E� + l -definable function
Eib+l-definable function symbols
symbols
ffl(x),
l (x) , h(x,
f2(x, Zzl),...,
I )' . . . ' fk(x, l , . . . Zk-l) such
f~(x, Zzt,...zk_t) such that
that T�
Ti2 proves
proves

(Vx) _< t)[A(!I(X)

(VZ1 ::;
(Vx)(VZl , X, ZI ) V (Vz2
t)[A(fl(X),X,Z,)V (Vz2 ::;
_< t)[A(h(x, zd , x, Z2)
t)lA(f2(x,z,),x, z2)
V(VZ3
V(Vza ::;
_< t)[A(f3(x, z,,, Z2)
t) [A( h (x, Zl z2),, x,
x, Z3)
z3)
V
V .· ... . V
V (VZk
(Vzk ::; t)[A(fk(x, Zl
_< t)[A(fk(X, , . . . , Zk- l ) , x, Zk)J . . .J ]]
Zl,...,Z~_l),X,Z~)]...]]]

Conversely,
Conversely, whenever
whenever the the above
above formula
formula is
is provable,
provable, then
then T�
T~ can
can also
also prove
prove
(Vx)
(Vx) (3y) _< t)A(y,
(Vz ::;
(By)(Vz t)A(y, x,
x, z)
z)..

The variables x
The variables x,, yy and
and Zz could
could just
just as
as well
well have
have been
been vectors
vectors ofof variables,
variables, since
since
the
the replacement
replacement axioms
axioms and
and sequence coding can
sequence coding can be
be used
used toto combine
combine adjacent
adjacent like
like
quantifiers. Also, the
quantifiers. Also, the first
first half
half of
of the
the theorem
theorem holds
holds even if tt involves
even if both x
involves both and yy..
x and
The
The proof
proof of
of the
the KPT
KPT Witnessing
Witnessing Theorem
Theorem is is now
now quite
quite simple:
simple: byby the
the discussion
discussion
in
in section .3.7, we
section 11.3.7, we can
can replace each T�
replace each T~ by
by its
its conservative,
conservative, universally
universally axiomatized
axiomatized
extension PV/+I,, and
extension PV;+l and now
now the
the theorem
theorem is is an
an immediate
immediate corollary
corollary ofof the corollary to
the corollary to
the
the generalized
generalized Herbrand's
Herbrand's theorem
theorem in section 2.5.3
in section 2.5.3 of
of Chapter
Chapter I. I.

3.3.2.1.
3.3.2.1. Applications
Applications to to the
the polynomial hierarchy. The
polynomial hierarchy. The above
above theorem
theorem hashas
had
had aa very
very important
important application
application inin showing
showing an
an equivalence
equivalence between
between the
the collapse
collapse of
of
the hierarchy
the hierarchy of theories of
of theories of bounded
bounded arithmetic
arithmetic and
and the
the (provable)
(provable) collapse
collapse of the
of the
polynomial time hierarchy.
polynomial time hierarchy. This equivalence was
This equivalence was first
first proved
proved by
by Krajicek,
Kraji~ek, Pudhik
Pudls
and Takeuti [1991J;
and Takeuti [1991]; we
we state
state two
two improvements
improvements to
to their
their results.
results. (We
(We continue
continue the
the
convention that Tf
convention that T ~ denotes
denotes PV1
PV1.).)

(Buss [1995J,
T h e o r e m . (Buss
Theorem. Zambella [1996])
[1995], Zambella [1996]) Let
Let ii 2: O. If
>_ O. If T4 si2++tl ,, then
~ 8�
Ti2 F then (1) Ti2 =
(1) T4 = 82
$2
and
and therefore
therefore 82 $2 is
is finitely axiomatized, and
finitely axiomatized, and (2)
(2) T4T~ proves the polynomial
proves the polynomial hierarchy
hierarchy
collapses, and
collapses, and in
in fact,
.fact, (2.
(2.a)a) T4
T~ proves
proves that
that every
every E� +3 -formula is
~ib3-formula equivalent to
is equivalent to
aa Boolean
Boolean combination of
combination of ~+2b E�+ 2 -formulas
-formulas and
and (2. b)
(2.b) T4
T~ proves
proves the
the polynomial
polynomial time
time
hierarchy
hierarchy collapses
collapses to
to Ef + l /poly .
~+l/poly.

Corollary. 82
Corollary. 5'2 is
is finitely
finitely axiomatized if
axiomatized if and
and only
only if
if 82 proves the
$2 proves the polynomial
polynomial hierar­
hierar-
chy
chy collapses.
collapses.

Let g(x)
Let g(x) be be aa Et -definable function
~-definable of T4
function of T~ such
such that
that for
for each n > 0 there
each n there is
is
an
an mm > 0 so that T4
so that ~- (Vx)
Ti2 I- (x > nn ::>
(Vx)(x D g(x)
g(x) > mm)) (for
(for example, g(n) = In
example, g(n) Inll or
or
g(n)
g(n) =
--]lull, etc.) Let
I l nl l , etc.) Let gg E�-IND
~ - I N D denote
denote the
the axioms
axioms

A(O) A (Vx)
A(O) 1\ (A(x) ::>
(Vx)(A(x) D A(x + 1))
A(x + D (Vz
1)) ::> <_g(x))A(z)
(Vz ::; g(x))A(z). .

Let Vm(N)
Let VIIi(N) denote
denote the
the set
set of all '1m
of all VII~ sentences (in the
sentences (in the language of 82
language of 5'2)) true
true about
about
the
the standard
standard integers.
integers.
 Proof Theory
Theory of Arithmetic 133
133

3.3.2.2. T h e o r e m . (essentially
3.3.2.2. Theorem. (essentially KrajIcek,
Krajihek, Pudlcik
Pudls and Takeuti [1991])
and Takeuti [1991])
If T� + v'II� {N) 1= g�� +l -IND,
gEi+I-IND , then
then the
the polynomial
polynomial time
time hierarchy
hierarchy collapses
collapses to
to
f+ l
!J..
p
/poly
Ai+l/poly. .
Note
Note that
that second
second theorem
theorem differs
differs from
from the
the first
first in
in that
that there
there is
is no
no mention
mention ofof the
the
provability of the
provability of the collapse
collapse of
of the polynomial hierarchy;
the polynomial hierarchy; on
on the
the other hand, the
other hand, the second
second
theorem
theorem states
states aa stronger
stronger collapse.
collapse. KrajIcek,
Kraji~ek, Pudlcik
Pudl~k and Takeuti [1991]
and Takeuti [1991] prove
prove the
the
second
second theorem with g{n)
theorem with g(n) = nl and
= IInl and without
without the
the presence of VII�{N)
presence of VIIi(N)": their
their proof
proof
gives
gives the
the stronger
stronger form
form stated
stated here
here with
with only
only minor modifications.
minor modifications.

3.3.3. T h e ��
3.3.3. The -definable functions
E~-definable of Ti
f u n c t i o n s of T21

Buss
Buss and Kraji6ek [1994]
and KrajIcek [1994] characterize the ��
characterize the -definable functions
E~-definable functions of T~ as
of Ti as being
being
precisely
precisely the
the functions
functions which
which are
are projections
projections of
of PLS
PLS functions.
functions.

Polynomial
P o l y n o m i a l Local Search. Johnson,
Local Search. Johnson, Papadimitriou
Papadimitriou and Yannakakis [1988]
and Yannakakis [1988] defined
defined
aa Polynomial
Polynomial LocalLocal Search
Search problem (PLS-problem)) L
problem (PLS-problem L to
to be
be aa maximization
maximization problem
problem
satisfying
satisfying the the following
following conditions:
conditions: (we(we have
have made
made some
some inessential
inessential simplifications
simplifications
to
to their definition))
their definition
(I
(1)) For
For every instance x
every instance x E {a, 1}* , there
{0,1}*, there is set FL{x)
is aaset of solutions,
FL(X) of solutions, an
an integer
integer valued
valued
cost function cds,
cost function x) and
CL(S,X) and aa neighborhood function Nds,
neighborhood function x) ,
NL(S,X),
(2) The
(2) The binary predicate ss E FL{X)
binary predicate FL(X) and
and the functions cds,
the functions CL(S,X) and NL{s,
x) and x) are
NL(S,X) are
polynomial
polynomial time
time computable.
computable. There
There is polynomial PL
is aa polynomial PL so
so that
that for all ss E
for all E
FL{X) , ls i � < pd l xl) . Also,
A so, °0 E e Fdx) .
(3)
(3) For all ss E {a,
For all {0, 1}*
1}*,, Nds,
YL(s,x) x) E FL{X)
Fn(x)..
(4) For
(4) all ss E FL
For all {x) , if
Fn(x), if NL{s,
Nn(s,x) x) =1=
r ss then
then cds, x) <
CL(S,X) < cL{NL {s, x), x) .
CL(NL(S,X),X).
(5) The
(5) The problem
problem is is solved
solved by finding aa locally
by finding optimal ss E FL{x)
locally optimal Fn(x),, i.e., an ss such
i.e., an such that
that
NL{s,
NL(s, x) = s .
It
It follows
follows from
from these conditions that
these conditions all ss E Fdx)
that all Fn(x) areare polynomial
polynomial size.size.
A P LS-problem L
A PLS-problem L can
can be expressed as
be expressed as aa II� -sentence saying
II~-sentence saying that
that thethe conditions
conditions
above hold; if
above hold; if these
these are
are provable
provable in in Ti
T21 then
then we say L
we say is aa PLS-problem
L is PLS-problem in in Ti
T~.- The
The
formula OptL{X, s)
formula OptL(x, s) is the !J..
is the � -formula NL(s,
A~-formula Nn(s,z)x) == ss.. AA multivalued
multivalued function
function 9g such such
that
that for all x
for all z,, NL
NL (g(x),
(g(x), x)x) =
= g(x)
g(z),, is called aa PLS
is called function; 9g must
PLSfunction; must be total, but
be total, but may
may
be
be multivalued, since there
multivalued, since there may
may exist exist more
more than
than one optimal cost
one optimal cost solution.
solution. The The next
next
theorem states,
theorem states, loosely
loosely speaking,
speaking, that (multivalued)) ��
the (multivalued
that the -definable functions
E~-definable functions of of Ti
T2~
are
are precisely
precisely the functions f
the functions f which
which can can be
be expressed
expressed in in the form f
the form f =- 1f
r Oo gg,, where
where 9g isis
aa PLS
PLS function
function and where 1f
and where r is is aa polynomial
polynomial timetime function
function (in fact, 1f(
(in fact, r(y)Y) = ,8 (1, y)
=/~(1, y)
can always
can always bebe used
used).).

h e o r e m . ((Buss
Theorem.
T Buss and Kraji~ek [1994])
and KrajIcek [1994])
(1) For
(1) For every
every PLS problem L
PLS problem L,, Ti
T~ can
can prove
prove (Vx) (:Jy)OptL(X,
(Vx)(3y)OptL (x, y)
y)..
134
134 S. Buss

(2) If
I / AA E E~ and
e �� and if
i/ Ti proves (V'
T~ proves i) (3y)A(i, y)
(VZ)(3y)A(Z, y),, then
then there
there is
is aa polynomial
polynomial time
time
(projection)
(projection) function
function 7l'(y)
r(y) and
and aa PLS
PLS problem
problem L L such
such that
that Ti
T~ proves
proves

V'i) (V'y) (OptL (i, y)

((YZ)(Vy)(OptL(2, ~ A(i,
y) :J A(Z, 7l'( Y)).
r(y)).

In
In other
other words, i/g9 is
words, if is aa PLS
PLS function
function solving L,, then
solving L then A(i,
A(Z, 7l'
~ 0o g(i))
g(Z)) holds for
holds/or
all i
all and all
~ and all values
values of
o/ g(i)
g(Z)..

Natural Proofs. The

N a t u r a l Proofs. The above
above theorem
theorem characterizing
characterizing the the ��
IE~ consequences
consequences of of Ti
T~ in
in
terms
terms of PLS functions
of PLS functions waswas used
used in
in an
an important
important way way toto establish
establish thethe independence
independence
of
of some
some computational
computational complexity
complexity conjectures
conjectures fromfrom S�(a)
$2(c~).. Razborov
Razborov and and Rudich
Rudich
[1994] introduced
[1994] introduced aa notion
notion of of "P-natural
"P-natural proofs"
proofs" ofof PP =I
~ NP
NP;; which
which intuitively
intuitively areare
proofs
proofs which
which provide
provide aa polynomial
polynomial time time method
method of of separating
separating outout truth
truth tables
tables of
of
Boolean
Boolean functions
functions that
that do
do not
not have
have polynomial
polynomial size size circuits.
circuits. They
They thenthen showed
showed that
that
under
under aa certain
certain strong
strong pseudo-random
pseudo-random numbernumber generator
generator conjecture
conjecture (henceforth:
(henceforth: thethe
SPRNG conjecture)
SPRNG conjecture) thatthat there
there cannot
cannot be be P-natural
P-natural proofs
proofs ofof P
P =I ~ NPN P . . Razborov
Razborov
[1995]
[1995] then
then showed
showed thatthat SHa)
S~(c~) cannot
cannot prove
prove superpolynomial
superpolynomial lower bounds on
lower bounds on the
the
size
size of
of circuits
circuits for
for predicates
predicates in in the polynomial hierarchy
the polynomial hierarchy unless
unless there
there areare P-natural
P-natural
proofs that P
proofs that P =I
~ N P . This
NP. This latter
latter condition
condition of of course
course implies
implies the
the SPRNG
SPRNG conjecture
conjecture is is
false;
false; however,
however, most most researchers
researchers in in cryptography
cryptography apparently
apparently do do believe
believe the the SPRNG
SPRNG
conjecture.
conjecture. Thus Thus commonly
commonly believed
believed cryptographic
cryptographic conjectures
conjectures imply
imply thatthat S�(a)
S~(c~)
cannot
cannot prove
prove superpolynomial
superpolynomial lower lower bounds
bounds forfor NP
NP predicates.
predicates. A A further
further observation
observation
of
of Widgerson
Widgerson is is that
that S�S 2 cannot
cannot prove
prove the SPRNG conjecture.
the SPRNG conjecture. Razborov's
Razborov's proofproof
used
used thethe conservativity
conservativity of of S� over Ti
$22 over T1 ,, and
and the
the above characterization of
above characterization of the
the ��
E~-­
consequences
consequences of of Ti
T~;; he
he then
then combined
combined this
this with
with aa communication
communication complexity
complexity result
result
(analogous to
(analogous to Craig
Craig interpolation)
interpolation) to to extract
extract aa P-natural
P-natural proof
proof from
from thethe resulting
resulting
PLS
PLS function.
function.
Razborov [1994]
Razborov [1994] hashas subsequently
subsequently given
given aa simpler
simpler proof
proof of
of the
the above-discussed
above-discussed
theorem
theorem which which uses
uses the translations from
the translations bounded arithmetic
from bounded arithmetic intointo propositional
propositional
logic
logic (see
(see Chapter
Chapter VIII
VIII of
of this
this volume)
volume) plus
plus interpolation
interpolation theorems
theorems for for propositional
propositional
logic. A
logic. A complete
complete account
account of of this
this simpler
simpler proof
proof can
can bebe found
found inin our
our survey
survey article,
article,
Buss [1997]
Buss [1997]..

3.4. Relationships between B�n

Relationships between a n d /.rr:
B ~ and ~n

Recall
Recall from section 1.2
from section . 9, that
1.2.9, that B�n
BEn+l+ l f-~- .rr:
/E~n f-
~- B�n
BEn.' We
We show
show in
in the
the next
next
paragraphs that
paragraphs that these three theories
these three theories are
are distinct
distinct and
and that
that B�n +
BE~+I l is
is conservative
conservative over
over
.rr:
~n. n·

3.4.1.
3.4.1. Conservation of B�n
C o n s e r v a t i o n of BE,+1 over .rr:
+ l over / E n, .. In
In this
this section
section we outline aa proof
we outline proof of
of
the
the well-known
well-known theorem
theorem that that the
the B�n + l is
BE,+I is IIn + 2 -conservative
IIn+2-conservative over
over .rr:
/E,; n ; this
this was
was
first proved
first proved by Parsons [1970]
by Parsons [1970].. AA model-theoretic
model-theoretic proofproof was
was later given by
later given Paris and
by Paris and
Kirby [1978],
Kirby and we
[1978], and sketch below
we sketch below aa proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic proof proof from Buss [1994].
from Buss [1994].
 of Arithmetic
Proof Theory of Arithmetic 135
135

Theorem.
T BI:n+ 1 is
h e o r e m . B~n+l is Hn+2-conservative
IIn+2 -conservative over
over I~n.
lI:n .
Recall that
Recall that BEn+I
BI:n+ l isis equivalent
equivalent to
to the
the theory
theory BHn,
BIIn , which
which has
has IIn-REPL
IIn -REPL axioms
axioms
of the
of the form
form
(Vx _<
(Vx t) ( :Jy)A(x, y)--~
� t)(3y)A(x, (:Jz) (Vx
y) � (3z) (Vx _� t)(3y
t) (:Jy _� z)A(x,
z)A(x, y)
y)
where A
where A EE IIn.
IIn . In
In the
the above
above sequent,
sequent, there
there are
are unbounded
unbounded quantifiers
quantifiers in in the
the scope
scope
of bounded
of bounded quantifiers,
quantifiers, so
so the
the formula
formula in
in the
the antecedent
antecedent is I:�++ l -formula, not
is aa En+l-formula, not aa
I:n+ l -formula.
En+l-formula.

Definition. Fix
Definition. Fix nn and
and suppose
suppose A A EE ~n+l.
I:�+ l . +

(1) If
(1) A ~E 1-I
If A II�
+ ,, then
then AA";s is defined
~<s is defined to
to be A.
be A.
(2) If
(2) A is
If A (:Jx)B and
is (3x)B A r� H
and A II�
+ ,, then A";s
then A is defined
~<~ is defined to (:Jx <
to bbee (3x s)B .
� s)B.
(3) If A is
If A (Qx <_
is (Qx t)B then
� t)B then A A";s is defined
defined toto be (Qx <_
be (Qx t) (B";S) .
� t)(B<~).
r� . . . , Bl r,,;s
(3) ~<~ is
Let A be
Let F---} D.. be aa sequent A11,, .. .. .., , A~---}
Ak � B B1l l, . . . , B~ of I:�++ l -formulas. Then
of En+l-formulas. Then F ~<~ is
s V�=l Bfs.
sequent A is
the formula
the Af and
/\;= 1 A~<8
formula Aik__l--i and D.. "; s is
A ~<8 is thethe formula
formula V~=l B~ ~. This notation should
This notation cause
should cause
no confusion since
no confusion since antecedents
antecedents and and succedents
succedents are are always
always clearly distinguished.
clearly distinguished.

If e == CCll ,l. ... . . cs

If 5' Cs is
is aa vector of free
vector of free variables,
variables, then e _<
then 5*� uu abbreviates the formula
abbreviates the formula
Cl � uu A
C1 _ 1\ .. ... . 1\
of bounded
of
s
A cs
bounded quantifiers.
C _< u . (Vg_<
� u.
quantifiers.
(Ve � u)
u) and u ) abbreviate
(:Je � u)
and (3g_< abbreviate the corresponding vectors
the corresponding vectors

Lemma. Let nn _>

� 11 .. Suppose r�
D.. isis aa sequent
sequent of 1++l -formulas
of I:� -formulas that
that is
is provable
r�
L e m m a . Let Suppose F - - } A F.n+ provable
in BI:n+ 1 . Let
in BEn+I. Let ~e include
include all
all the free variables
the free variables occurring
occurring in A.. Then
in F---} D.. Then

u)(r D
Intuitively,
Intuitively, this
this theorem
theorem is is saying
saying that
that given bound u
given aa bound u on
on the
the sizes
sizes of
of the
the free
free
variables and on
variables and the sizes
on the sizes of the witnesses
of the witnesses for the formulas
for the formulas in
in rF,, there
there is bound vv
is aa bound
for
for the
the values
values of
of a
a witness
witness for
for a
a formula
formula in A.. The
in D.. The conservation
conservation theorem
theorem above
above is
is an
an
immediate
immediate corollary
corollary of
of the lemma, so
the lemma, so it
it remains
remains toto prove
prove the
the lemma.
lemma.

P r o o f . We
Proof. We give
give only
only aa short
short sketch
sketch of of the
the proof
proof of
of the
the lemma
lemma here; here; a a more
more detailed
detailed
version
version is is given
given inin Buss
Buss [1994]
[1994] although
although the the definitions
definitions areare slightly
slightly different
different there.
there.
Firstly,
Firstly, formulate
formulate BIIn -proofs in
BHn-proofs in the
the sequent
sequent calculus,
calculus, using using the the inference
inference rule
rule
form
form of of thethe IIn-REPL
1-In-REPL axioms
axioms described
described in in section
section 11.4.5.
.4.5. Secondly,
Secondly, since since BIIn
r
BIIn ==
BI:n
BEn+l, + l , we
we may
may assume
assume there
there is
is a
a BIIn -proof
BIIn-proof P
P of
of F �
~ D..
A, , and
and by
by the
the Free-cut
Free-cut
Elimination
Elimination Theorem, Theorem, we we may
may assume
assume that that every
every formula
formula appearing
appearing in in P P is
is aa
I:�
+
En+l+ l -formula.
-formula. Thirdly,
Thirdly, we
we shall
shall use
use induction
induction on
on the
the number
number of
of sequents
sequents in
in P
P to
to
prove
prove that that the
the Lemma
Lemma holds
holds for
for every
every sequent
sequent in in PP.. The
The induction
induction step step involves
involves aa
number
number of of cases;
cases; we we shall
shall do
do only
only the
the two
two cases
cases where
where the the final
final inference
inference of of PP is
is aa
replacement
replacement inferenceinference and
and where
where thethe fi nal inference
final inference ofof P P isis aa V:right
V :right inference.
inference. The
The
latter
latter casecase isis the
the hardest
hardest of
of all
all the
the cases;
cases; thethe rest
rest of
of the
the cases
cases are are left
left to
to the
the reader.
reader.
Suppose
Suppose the the final
final inference
inference ofof PP isis aa replacement
replacement inference:
inference:
136
136 s.
S. Buss

9 . 9 . 9

rF---+
-t �,A, ((Vx _< t)
V'x ::; (3y)A(x, y)
t)(Sy)A(x, y)
r-t �,
F--+ A, (3z)
(3z)(Vx (V'x ::; t)(3yy ::;
_ t)(3 <_z)A(x,
z)A(x, y)
y)
The
The induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis is
is that
t h a t / .IT:n
E n proves
proves

V'u)(3v)(V'C' ::; u)
((Vu)(3v)(Vg_< [r�U
u)[F D�
<~ J A �<"v V
V (V'x ___t)(3y
(Vx ::; <_v)A(x,
t)(3y ::; v)A(x, y)]
y)]..

From this, the

From this, the desired
desired result
result that
that

V'u)(3v)(V'C' ::; u)[r

((Vu)(3v)(V5'_ u)[s �U J�
<~ D �v V (9z
A-<'V <_v)
(3z ::; v)(Vx _< t)
(V'x ::; (3y ::;
t)(3y _ z)A(x,
z)A(x, y)].
y)].

follows
follows immediately.
immediately.
Now
Now suppose that P
suppose that ends with
P ends V :right
with a V' :right inference:
inference:
, . 9 . 9

rF---}
-t �,A, B(C',
S(g, dd))
rF---}
-t �,A, ((Vx)B(g,
V'x)B(C', x)
x)
Note
Note that B E II�
that B H + since V'x)B is
since ((Vx)B ��++ l1-formula.
is aa En+ -formula. We We reason
reason inside
inside I�n Let u
IEn . Let be
u be
arbitrary.
arbitrary. By
By strong
strong �n -replacement ((see
En-replacement see the
the end
end of section 1.2.9)
of section 1.2.9) there is aa u'
there is u ~ ::::
> uu
such
such that
( (V'x)B(C', x) H++(V'x u' ) ) .
that
(V'C' ::; u)
(Vg_ u)((Vx)B(g,x) (Vx ::; ')B(C', u')).
_< uu')B(~,
Let vv ::::
Let > u' u t be
be given
given by
by the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis so
so that
that

(w', _<u')(r D d)).

Now let C'
Now let <_ u
g ::; u be
be arbitrary
arbitrary such that r�u
such that . We
F ~<~. We need
need to show ��V
to show A ~<~V ((Vx)B(g,
V'x)B(C', x)x)..
Suppose V'x)B(C', x)
that ((Vx)B(5',
Suppose that x) is
is false:
false: then
then there
there is < u'
is aa dd ::; u' such
such that
that ...,
~B(5', ) , and
B (C', dd), and by
by
the induction
the hypothesis, ��
induction hypothesis, v holds.
A ~<" Thus ��
holds. Thus A~<'V V'x)B(C', x) holds.
v V ((Vx)B(g,x) holds.

3.4.2.. .IT:n
3.4.2 /En+~ + l properly contains B�n
p r o p e r l y contains +l
BEn+I

h e o r e m . ((Parsons
Theorem.
T Parsons [1970])
[1970]) Let
Let nn ::::
_> 11.. .IT:n
/~n+l + l is not equal
is not equal to
to B�n +1 .
B~n+l.

Proof. We'll
Proof. We'll give
give only
only aa quick
quick sketch
sketch ofof aa proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic proof
proof based
based on on Godel
Ghdel's 's
second incompleteness theorem;
second incompleteness theorem; see see Paris
Paris and Kirby [1978]
and Kirby [1978] for
for aa model-theoretic
model-theoretic
proof.
proof. The
The twotwo main
main steps
steps in in our
our proof
proof are:
are:
(1)
(1) .IT:l
/'21 f- Con(.IT:n) J
F Con(IEn) D Con(B�n
Con(BEn+l).+ 1) . This
This is is proved
proved byby formalizing,
formalizing, in in .IT:
/El,1 , the
the
proof
proof of Theorem 3.4.1
of Theorem 3.4.1 sketched
sketched above.
above. That That proof
proof was
was quite
quite constructive:
constructive:
any
any B�n
BEn+I + 1 proof
proof of of aa �n -formula can
En-formula can be
be transformed
transformed into
into aa free-cut
free-cut free
free proof
proof
by
by aa primitive
primitive recursive
recursive process.
process. Then
Then the the transformation
transformation of of the
the free-cut
free-cut freefree
B�n + 1 -proof into
BEn+l-proof into aa .IT:n-proof,
/En-proof, as as in the proof
in the proof of Lemma 3.4.1
of Lemma 3.4.1,, is
is primitive
primitive
recursive ((in
recursive in fact
fact it it is
is polynomial
polynomial time
time).).
Therefore,
Therefore, .IT: /Ell proves
proves thatthat ifif B� n+1 proves
BEn+I contradiction, 00 =
proves aa contradiction, = 11,, then
then so so
does .IT:n ; i.e.,
does/En; .IT: l proves
i.e.,/El proves that
that if
if B�n
BZn+l +1 is inconsistent, then
is inconsistent, then soso is .IT:n .
is/En.
 Proof
Proof Theory
Theoryof Arithmetic
Arithmetic 137

(2) �n Con(I~n).. To
t- Con(�n)
/ ~ ++1l f- To prove
prove this,
this, first
first note
note that,
that, since � 1 can
since/~1 can prove
prove the
the free-cut
free-cut
elimination
elimination theorem,
theorem, it it is
is sufficient
sufficient to to prove
prove that ~ + 1+ 1 can
t h a t /�n can prove
prove thatthat there
there is is
no
no free-cut
free-cut free
f r e e �n
/ ~ - p-proof of 0 =
r o o f of - 11;; inin particular,
particular, it it suffices
suffices to to show
show that
t h a t /�n
~ + 1+ 1
can
can prove
prove that
that there
there is is no
n o /�n
~ sequent calculus proof
sequent calculus proof of of 0 = - 11 inin which
which everyevery
formula
formula is is a
a En -formula. Second,
~-formula. Second,/~+1 �n+ 1 has has aa truth
truth definition
definition for for En -formulas;
~E~-formulas;
i.e.,
i.e., there
there is
is a formula Tr(x, y)
a formula y) such
such that
that when
when x x is
is the
the Godel
Ghdel number
number of of aa
En -formula and
~n-formula and yy is is aa sequence encoding values
sequence encoding values for for the
the free
free variables
variables of of the
the
formula,
formula, thenthen Tr(x, y) y) defi nes the
defines the truth
truth of of the
the formula
formula for for those
those values.
values. In In
addition,
addition,/~n+l�n+ 1 can can prove
prove thatthat the
the truth definition satisfies
truth definition satisfies the the usual
usual properties
properties
of truth, in
of truth, in that
that it it obeys
obeys the the meanings
meanings of of the
the logical
logical connectives.
connectives. Chapter Chapter VIII VIII
discusses
discusses truth
truth definitions
definitions in in depth,
depth, and and the
the reader
reader should
should referrefer toto that
that for
for more
more
details. Third,
details. Third, usingusing the the truth
truth definition
definition for for En -formulas, �n
5]~-formulas, / ~ ++11 can
can prove,
prove,
by
by induction
induction on on thethe number
number of of lines
lines in in the
the free-cut
free-cut free f r e e /�n-proof,
~ - p r o o f , that
that every
every
sequent
sequent in in the
the proof
proof is is valid.
valid. Therefore,
Therefore, it it cannot
cannot be be aa proof
proof of of 0 = - 11,, since
since
that
that isis not
not valid.
valid. So So by by this
this means, / ~ ++11 proves
m e a n s , �n proves the the consistency
consistency of o f /�n
~ n ..
(1) and immediately that
and (2) immediately that �n 1 proves
/ ~ ++1 proves the the consistency
consistency of of BEn
B ~ ++I 1; ; therefore,
therefore, by by
Godel 's incompleteness
Ghdel's incompleteness theorem, t h e o r e m , �n
/ ~ ++11 isis not equal to
not equal to BEn
B~n+l. +1 .
3.4.3. BEn
3.4.3. + 1 properly
B~n+l contains �n
p r o p e r l y contains /~n.. The
The fact
fact that / ~ . does
that �n does not
not prove
prove the
the
En +1 -replacement
En+l-replacement axioms
axioms was
was first
first established
established independently
independently by
by Lessan
Lessan [1978]
[1978] and
and
Paris
Paris and
and Kirby [1978]. Their
Kirby [1978]. Their proofs
proofs were
were model-theoretic;
model-theoretic; Kaye [1993] gave
Kaye [1993] gave aa
proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic proof
proof based
based onon an
an argument
argument analogous
analogous to
to the
the proof
proof ofof Theorem
Theorem 3.3.2.1
using
using aa Herbrand-style
Herbrand-style nocounterexample
nocounterexample interpretation.
interpretation.

4. Strong
4. S t r o n g incompleteness
incompleteness theorems
t h e o r e m s for IA0 +
f o r I�o + exp
exp

4.1.
4.1. Godel
Ghdel's 's Second
Second Incompleteness
Incompleteness Theorem
Theorem states that aa sufficiently
states that sufficiently strong,
strong,
axiomatized,
axiomatized, consistent
consistent theorytheory T T cannot
cannot prove
prove its
its own
own consistency.
consistency. One One way
way toto
strengthen
strengthen this this incompleteness
incompleteness theorem
theorem is is by
by working
working with
with two
two theories,
theories, S S and
and T,T,
such
such that
that S S is
is a a subtheory
subtheory of of T
T:: in
in some
some cases,
cases, one
one can
can establish
establish thatthat T T cannot
cannot
prove
prove thethe consistency
consistency of its subtheory
of its subtheory S S..
There
There areare many
many casescases iinn which
which this
this strengthening
strengthening of of the
the second
second incompleteness
incompleteness
theorem
theorem can can bebe achieved.
achieved. One One important
important situation
situation isis where
where T T is
is conservative
conservative overover SS;;
for
for example,
example, BEn B2n+l + 1 cannot
cannot prove the consistency
prove the consistency of �n ' since
of/~n, since BEn
B2~+l + 1 is
is conservative
conservative
over / ~ and
o v e r�n and the latter theory
the latter theory cannot
cannot prove
prove itsits own consistency. A
own consistency. second important
A second important
example
example is is where
where S S is interpretable in
is interpretable in T
T and
and thus Con(S) �
thus Con(S) ~ Con(T)
Con(T);; for example, it
for example, it
is
is known
known that
that S 5'22 is
is interpretable
interpretable in in Q
Q (see
(see Wilkie
Wilkie and
and Paris [1987] and
Paris [1987] and Nelson
Nelson [1986])
[1986])
and
and therefore
therefore S 5'22 cannot
cannot prove
prove Con( Q) .
Con(Q).
A third example,
A third example, and and thethe one
one that
that is is the
the main
main subject
subject ofof this
this section,
section, is
is the
the
theorem
theorem of of Wilkie
Wilkie and and Paris [1987] that
Paris [1987] that I.6.o
IA 0 ++ exp
exp cannot
cannot prove
prove the the consistency
consistency
of
of QQ.. This
This example
example does does notnot fall
fall into
into either
either of of the
the above
above examples,
examples, since
since I.6.o
IA0 ++ exp
exp
is
is not
not interpretable
interpretable in in QQ..
138
138 s.
S. Buss

4.2. Before
4.2. Before beginning
beginning aa discussion
discussion of
of the
the proof that It..
proof that IA0o +
+ exp
exp does
does not
not prove
prove
Con( Q) , we
Con(Q), discuss aa few
we discuss other extensions
few other extensions ofthe second incompleteness
of the second incompleteness theorem.
theorem. The
The
first extension is
first extension is that
that the second incompleteness
the second theorem applies
incompleteness theorem applies also
also to
to restricted
restricted
notions of
notions of provability,
provability, such
such as "bounded consistency"
as "bounded consistency" and
and "�k -consistency" .
"Ek-consistency".

Definition. Let
Definition. Let S S be
be aa theory, formalized in
theory, formalized in the
the sequent
sequent calculus.
calculus. We We say
say that
that
S is
S is bounded
bounded consistent
consistent if there is
if there is no
no S-proof
S-proof of of the
the empty
empty sequent
sequent � ---} in
in which
which
only
only bounded
bounded formulas
formulas appear.
appear. ForFor kk �>_ 0,
0, S
S isis �k -consistent provided
Ek-consistent provided there
there isis no
no
S-proof of
S-proof of the
the the
the empty
empty sequent
sequent inin which
which only
only �k -formulas appear.
E~-formulas appear. S is free-cut
S is free-cut
free
free consistent
consistent ifif there
there is
is no formula A
no formula A such
such that
that S S has
has free-cut
free-cut free
free proofs
proofs ofof both
both
�
---~AA and
and A �.
A---}.
The formulas BdCon(S)
The formulas BdCon(S),, ConEk
Con~k(S and FCFCon(S)
(S)) and FCFCon(S) are are 'v'IIt -formulas which
VIii-formulas which
express
express the bounded consistency,
the bounded consistency, the
the �k-consistency
Ek-consistency and and the
the free-cut
free-cut free
free consistency
consistency
of
of SS,, respectively.
respectively.

Of course, the
Of course, the cut-elimination
cut-elimination theorem
theorem implies
implies that
that aa bounded
bounded theory
theory SS satisfies
satisfies
these
these three
three notions
notions of
of consistency
consistency if
if and
and only
only if
if SS is
is consistent
consistent in
in the
the usual
usual sense;
sense;
however,
however, since
since the
the cut-elimination
cut-elimination theorem
theorem isis not
not provable
provable inin weak
weak theories
theories where
where
the
the superexponentiation
superexponentiation function
function is
is not
not provably
provably total,
total, these
these three
three new
new notions
notions of
of
consistency will not
consistency will generally be
not generally be provably
provably equivalent
equivalent to to each other or
each other to Con(S)
or to Con(S)..

Definition. We
Definition. We say
say that
that aa proof
proof isis bounded
bounded provided
provided every
every formula
formula in
in the
the proof
proof
is t..
is A0. o . Similarly
Similarly aa proof
proof is Ek,' if
is �k if every
every formula
formula in
in the
the proof
proof is
is in
in �k
Ek.. We
We write
write
S �
8 ~ A A and S �
and 8 ~ A A to
to denote
denote the
the condition that A
condition that A has
has aa sequent
sequent calculus
calculus 8-proof
S-proof
in
in which
which every
every formula
formula is in t..
is in A0o or
or �k
Ek,, respectively.
respectively.
Buss [1986]
Buss [19861 proved
proved that
that ifif 8
S isis aa bounded
bounded theory
theory (such
(such as as It.. o , 8�
IA0, S~,, T�
T~,, 8 2,
$2,
etc)
etc) then
then S S cannot
cannot prove
prove its
its own
own free-cut
free-cut free consistency; Le.,
free consistency; i.e., SS cannot
cannot prove
prove
FCFCon(S)
FCFCon(S) and hence S
and hence S j.l
~ BdCon(8)
BdCon(S) and and S S j.l
~ �k- Con for
E~-Con all kk > O0.. This
for all This was
was
later
later strengthened
strengthened to show that
to show that 8 does not
$22 does prove BdCon(BASIC)
not prove BdCon(BASIC),, the the bounded
bounded
consistency
consistency of of its
its induction-free
induction-free basebase theory:
theory: thisthis result
result first
first appeared
appeared in in Takeuti
Takeuti
[1990]
[1990] and
and Buss
Buss and Ignjatovid [1995]
and Ignjatovic [1995] building
building on on the
the earlier
earlier work
work of Pudl~k [1990].
of Pudllik [1990].
A
A related
related result,
result, proved
proved by
by Buss
Buss and Ignjatovid [1995],
and Ignjatovic [1995], isis that
that the theory PV
the theory PV (and
(and
hence
hence S� S~)) does
does not
not prove
prove the
the consistency
consistency of of aa finitely
finitely axiomatized,
axiomatized, induction-free
induction-free
fragment PV-
fragment PV- of of PV.
PV.
Like
Like the
the theorem
theorem of of Wilkie
Wilkie and Paris [1987]
and Paris [1987] that
that wewe discuss
discuss below,
below, these
these indepen­
indepen-
dence results
dence results provide
provide situations
situations where
where aa stronger
stronger theory
theory cannot
cannot prove
prove aa consistency
consistency
statement
statement about
about aa weaker
weaker theory.
theory. These
These results
results are
are interesting
interesting in in their
their ownown right
right of
of
course; but
course; but in
in addition,
addition, they
they are
are motivated
motivated by by aa yet-unfulfilled
yet-unfulfilled hope hope that
that indepen­
indepen-
dence
dence results
results of
of these
these kinds
kinds could
could lead
lead toto aa proof that P
proof that P f:.
~ N P . This
NP. This wistful
wistful hope
hope is
is
based
based onon the
the intuitive
intuitive idea that P
idea that P f:.
~ NNPP is is analogous
analogous to to aa finitary
finitary incompleteness
incompleteness
theorem.
theorem.

4.2.1. More
4.2.1. More strengthenings
strengthenings of
of Godel's
Ghdel's second
second incompleteness
incompleteness theorem
theorem can
can be
be found
found
in
in Chapters
Chapters VII
VII and VIII of
and VIII of this
this volume.
volume.
 of Arithmetic
Proof Theory o] Arithmetic 139
139

4.3. A
4.3. A ttheorem of W
h e o r e m of Wilkie
i l k i e aand
n d PParis
aris

This section
This section outlines
outlines aa proof
proof ofof the
the theorem
theorem that
that IA0
I1::.o ++ exp
exp cannot
cannot proveprove the
the
consistency of
consistency of IA0.
I1::.o . Earlier,
Earlier, we
we used
used the
the notation
notation exp(x,
exp(x, y,y, z) as aa Ao-predicate
z) as 1::.o -predicate
expressing the
expressing the condition
condition that
that xxyY == z. We also
z . We also define
define "exp"
"exp" to to be
be the
the sentence
sentence
(\fx) (Vy)(3z)
(W) (\fy) (3z)exp(x, y, z)
e~p(x, y, z)
stating that
stating that the
the exponentiation
exponentiation function
function isis total.
total.
Theorem.
T (Wilkie and
h e o r e m . (Wilkie and Paris
Paris [1987]) I1::.o ++ exp
[1987]) IA0 cannot prove
exp cannot prove Con(IAo).
Con(I1::.o ) . Therefore,
Therefore,
I1::.o ++ exp
IA0 exp cannot
cannot prove Con( Q) .
prove Con(Q).
It is
It is worth
worth noting
noting some
some theories
theories that
that are
are sufficiently
sufficiently strong
strong to
to prove the consis-
prove the consis­
tency of
tency of IA0.
I1::.o . First,
First, ifif one
one considers
considers bounded
bounded consistency,
consistency, we
we have that
have that

I1::.o +
IA0 exp r
+ exp ~ BdCon(I1::.
BdCon(IA).) .
To prove
To prove thisthis fact,
fact, one shows that
one shows that IA0
I1::.o ++exp can define
exp can define a
a truth
truth definition
definition for bounded
for bounded
formulas which
formulas which isis sufficient
sufficient to to allow I1::.o ++ exp
allow IA0 to prove
exp to the validity
prove the validity of every sequent
of every sequent
which has
which has aa bounded
bounded A0-proof.
1::.o -proof.
Second, let
Second, let 2% be the
2~ be superexponentiation function
the superexponentiation defined by
function defined by 202~ = = x and
x and
2; +1 =
2i~+1 2f . By
- 222f. By the bootstrapping techniques
the bootstrapping techniques used earlier, there
used earlier, there is
is aa 1::. o -formula
A0-formula
superexp(i,
superexp(i, x, z) which
x, z) which intensionally
intensionally expresses
expresses 2;2~ =
= zz.. Similarly,
Similarly, superexp(i,
superexp(i, x, x, z)
z)
is
is 1::. t -definable with
A~-definable with respect
respect to S~.. We
to Si We letlet "superexp"
"superexp" be be the
the axiom
axiom stating
stating

(\fx) y, z)
(w) (\fy) (3z)superexp(x, y, z)..
Since IA0o +
Since I1::. + superexp
superexp can
can prove
prove the
the free-cut
free-cut elimination
elimination theorem,
theorem, it
it can
can also
also prove
prove
that
that BdCon(I1::. o ) implies Con(I1::.
BdCon(IAo)implies Con(IAo). o ) . Therefore,
Therefore, I1::.
IA0o + superexp r
+ superexp F- Con(I1::.
Con(IAo). o) .
4.3.1. We
4.3.1. We are
are now
now ready
ready to
to outline
outline the
the proof
proof of
of Theorem 4.3. It
Theorem 4.3. It is
is more
more convenient
convenient
to
to work
work with
with S$22 instead
instead of IA0o and
of I1::. and soso we
we shall
shall prove
prove that
that S$22 + exp j.t
+ exp V Con(S
Con(S2).2) '
Note
Note that
that we
we still
still have
have S $22 +
+ exp
exp r ~- BdCon(S
BdCon(S2).2 ) . Also, S~ ((and
Also, Si and I1::.
IA0o +
+ D 1 ) proves
~1) proves
Con( Q) J
Con(Q) D Con(S
Con(S2),2 ) , so
so Con(S 2 ) and Con(I1::.
Con(S2)and Con(IAo)are equivalent. 115
o ) are equivalent. 5 We
We shall
shall prove
prove
Theorem 4.3, by proving a series of lemmas, theorems and
Theorem 4.3, by proving a series of lemmas, theorems and corollaries,
corollaries, namely,
namely,
Lemma 4.3.2 through
Lemma 4.3.2 through Theorem 4.3.10. The
Theorem 4.3.10. The proof
proof is is aa modified
modified version
version of of the
the original
original
proof of Wilkie and Paris [1987].
proof of Wilkie and Paris [1987].

4.3.2.
4.3.2. Lemma.
Lemma. Let
Let <jJ(x)
r be
be aa �
S 11-formula,
-formula, and
and suppose
suppose S$22 + exp r
+ exp F- (\fx)<jJ(x)
(Vx)r .
Then
Then there
there is constant kk > 00 such
is aa constant such that
that
S2 r (\fx) (2% exists
exi t J <jJ(x)) .

To
To improve
improve readability,
readability, we
we shall
shall often
often write,
write, as
as above,
above, aa shorthand
shorthand notation
notation such
such as
as
"2~ exists"
"2% exists" as
as an
an abbreviation
abbreviation for
for (3y)superexp(k,
(3y)superexp(k, x,
x, y)
y)..
15The
15The proof
proof below
belowthat $2 +
that S2 exp¥Y Can(S2)
+ exp Con(S2) can
can be
be understood
understood without
without knowing
knowinghow
how to
to prove
prove
in
in Si that I�o
S~ that IAo and
and S2
$2 are
are equiconsistent.
equiconsistent.
140
140 S. Buss
S. Buss

PProof. Without loss

r o o f . Without loss of generality, r¢>(x) isis of
of generality, of the
the form (3U)¢>M(X, u)
form (3U)r U) with ¢>M eE A0.
with CM �o .
The hypothesis
The hypothesis implies
implies that 82 proves
that $2 proves (Vy)(3z)(2 ('v'x)¢>(x) , which
('v'y) (3z) (2vY == z)z) D:J (Vx)r which can
can be
be
put in
put in prenex
prenex form
form as
as
('v'x)(3u)
(W) (3u)(~y)
(3y)(W) [2Y #=I zZ VV CM(X,
('v'z)[2' ¢>M(X, u)].
u) ] .
Now, momentarily
Now, momentarily enlarge enlarge $2 82 toto have
have Skolem
Skolem functions
functions for for all
all A0
�o formulas,
formulas, thereby
thereby
making $2
making 82 axiomatized
axiomatized by by purely
purely universal
universal formulas.
formulas. The The strong
strong form
form of Herbrand' s
of Herbrand's
theorem (section
theorem ( section 2.5.3 2.5.3 of Chapter I)I) implies
of Chapter implies that
that there an [£ >> 00 and
there isis an and there
there areare
terms Sl(U),
terms Sl (U) , tl(X), tl (X) , s2(x,
S2(X, ul, Yl) , t2(x,
Ul, yl), Ub Yl ) , . ' " s~(x,
t2 (X, ul,yl),..., Ub · · · , Ut- b Yl , · · · , Yt- l ) ,
St(X, ul,...,Ut-l,Yl,...,yl-1),
tt (x, uUll,, ... .. ,. , ul-t,
t,(x, Ut- l , YI,...,
Yb " . , Yl-1)
Yt- l ) so that $2
so that 82 proves
proves
(w)[(Vz,)[2 t 1(x) #=I ~,Zl vV r¢>M(X, ~,(x))
('v'X) [('v'zt } [2''~1 S l (X)) vV (Vz~)[2 t2 (x,zt l #=I z2
('v'z2 ) [2'~,'~'~ Z2 vV r¢>M(X, s~(x, S2(X, ~,))v Zl ))V
. ...9. vV (w~)[2,2~-,z, x ,
('v'zt ) [2t2 ( ,Zl ..... ,
. .. ",-,~
Zl-tl :/:=I z~
Zt vV r¢>M(X, s~.(x, , ) ) ])]. . .· ].] .]]]].
S2(X, zZl, ,,. ·. ..,. , ~Zl_-t} .

Since -,¢> D
Since 9r -'¢>M(X, s;(x,
:J -~r we immediately
Z)) , we
S,(X, ~), immediately have
have that 82 also
that $2 also proves
proves
('v'X) [¢>(X) vV (vZl)(2
(w)[r t 1(x) #=I Zl
('v'zl ) (2'1(~) Zl vV (w~)(2 t2 (x ,Zl ) #=I Z2V
('v'z2 ) (2'~(~,~1) ~v
. ...9. vV ('v'z
(Vz~)(2 l (x ,Zl"....." ,Zl-tl
t) (2t',(~,'' ",-,~ =I
# Zt) . . . ))]
z~)...))]

where each t;
where each ti is
is aa function
function with with polynomial
polynomial growth
growth rate
rate with
with graph defined by
graph defined by aa
�o-formula.
A0-formula. Thus, Thus, 82 $2 proves
proves that that ¢>(x)
r holds, provided
holds, provided there exists Zl
there exists Zl = 1 (x) ,
= 22ttl(~),
Z2 - 2h(
z2 = x, z d, . . . , Zzlt =
2t2(x'zl),..., tl x
- 22te(~'zl, Z l
( "..... " ,Zl-d
ze-~).. Since each t;
Since each ti has
has polynomial
polynomial growth
growth rate,
rate,
the
the values
values ofof the
the zzi's; ' s are bounded by
are bounded by 2: + 11 for
2~+ for sufficiently large x
sufficiently large x E E N;
N; therefore,
therefore,
82
$2 proves
proves that
that if if 2:2~++11 exists,
exists, then then ¢>(x)
r holds.
holds. Taking
Taking kk = = £[ +
+ 11,, Lemma 4.3.2 is
Lemma 4.3.2 is
proved.
proved.

4.3.3.
4.3.3. Theorem.
Theorem. ((Solovay [1976]) For
Solovay [1976]) For each
each n, >_ 0O,, there
n, kk � there is
is aa 8 i -proof P
S~-proof P ofof
(3x) ( superexp(k, 11, x)) with
(3x)(superexp(k,n,x)) with size polynomially
size polynomiaUy bounded
bounded in in terms
terms of
of IInl
n l and
and kk.. In
In
addition, P
addition, P is
is aa �2k + l -proof.
E2k+l-proof.
P r o o f . The
Proof. The proof
proof is
is based
based onon using
using formulas
formulas that
that define
define inductive
inductive cuts.
cuts. The
The
particular
particular ones
ones we
we need
need are formulas J;(x)
are formulas Ji(x) and
and K; (x) defined
Ki(x) defined as:
as:

o (x) {::}
JJo(x) = 00 ((always
r 00 = true))
always true
Ko (x) {::}
Ko(~) ,~ (3y) (2X = y)
(3v)(2~=v)
i+ l (X) {::}
JJ,+,(~) ,~ ('v'z) (K; (z) :J~ K;(z
(W)(K,(,) + x))
K,(z + ~))
Ki + 1 (X) {::}
Ki+l(X) (3y)(2X~ =
r (3y)(2 = Yy /\A Ji + 1 (y))
J,+l(y))

Lemma.
Lemma.
((~)
a) 8s~i I-F JJ~(0)
k (O)
((b)
b ) 8i
S~ I-k- Jk(x)
Jk(x) :JD Jk(x + 1)
Jk(x + 1)
 Proof
Proof Theory
Theory of
of Arithmetic
Arithmetic 141
141

(c) si
(c) s~ f-e Jk (X) 1\
J~(~) < x9 :J
^ Uu < ~ Jk( u)
J~(u)
(d) S~ f-
(d) Si Jk(x) :J
F- Jk(x) D Jk(x
J~(x + x)
+ x)
(e) Si
s~ f-~ Kk (O)
g~(o)
(f) S~ f-
(f) Si F- Kk Au
(x) 1\
Kk(x) u<
<x x :J
D Kk (U)
gk(u)
(g) Si
s] f-~ Kk (X) :J
g~(~) ~ Kk (X +
g~(~ + 1)
(h) S~ f-
(h) Si Kk(x) :J
R Kk(X) (3z)superexp(k +
D (3z)superexp(k + 11,x,z).
, x, z) .
Parts
Parts (a)-(g)
(a)-(g) are
are proved
proved simultaneously
simultaneously by by induction
induction on on k.k. Part
Part (h)
(h) is
is likewise
likewise proved
proved
using
using induction
induction onon kk.. Moreover,
Moreover, it it is
is easy
easy toto verify
verify that
that the
the S 2 -proofs of
S2-proofs of formulas
formulas
(a)-(g)
(a)-(g) are polynomial size
are polynomial in kk,, and
size in and involve
involve onlyonly � 2k+ 1 -formulas.
E2k+l-formulas.
By
By using (d) and
using (d) and (c)(c) of
of the
the lemma,
lemma, it it is
is straightforward
straightforward now now to to give
give find
find an
an
Si -proof of
S~-proof of Jk(rr)
Jk(n) of
of size
size polynomial
polynomial in In I and
in Inl and kk;; from
from this,
this, (e)
(e) and
and (h)(h) give
give the
the
desired
desired proof of P
proof of P of (3z )superexp(l£, rr,
of (3z)superexp(k, z) .
n, z).

4.3.4.
4.3.4. L Lemma.
emma. Suppose r¢>(x) Ee �l
Suppose and S
~]1 and $22 +
+ exp F- (V'x)¢>(x)
exp f- (Vx)r . Then,
Then, there
there is
is aa
kk �
> 00 such
such that
that
s~ r (w)(& % r

Lemma 4.3.4 is
Lemma 4.3.4 is proved
proved from
from Lemma 4.3.2 by
Lemma 4.3.2 by formalizing
formalizing the
the argument
argument of
of Lemma
Lemma 4.3.3
4.3.3
in
in Si
S~..

4.3.5. Lemma. Let

4.3.5. Lemma. Let ¢>(
r x ) be
be aa V'ITt
VII~ -formula,
-formula, which
which isis without
without loss
loss of
of generality
generality of
of
the form (V'
the form Y )¢>M(X, y)
(Vy)r y) where ¢>M Ee ITt
where CM II~.. Then
Then there
there is
is aa term
term tt such
such that
that

This
This lemma
lemma is
is aa special
special case
case of
of Theorem
Theorem 2.1.2.
2.1.2.

4.3.6.
4.3.6. Lemma.
Lemma. Let ¢>
Let be aa V'II�
r be -sentence such
VH~-sentence that S
such that $22 + exp f-
+ exp R ¢>
r . Then
Then there
there is
is aa
kk �
> 00 such that
such that
s~ ~ ~r --+ = Co~.~ ( & ) .

Proof. Without
Proof. Without loss
loss of
of generality,
generality, ¢>
r is
is of
of the
the form
form (V'X)¢>M(X)
(Vx)r with
with ¢>M
CM aa II�
1-It-­
formula.
formula. ByBy Lemma 4.3.4, S
Lemma 4.3.4, $22 proves V'X) (S2 �
proves ((Vx)(S2 ~ ¢>M(;[)) . On
CM(X__)). On the
the other
other hand,
hand,
Lemma 4.3.5 implies
Lemma 4.3.5 implies that
that S$22 proves
proves

~r D (& ~ - r

These two
These two facts suffice to
facts suffice to prove
prove Lemma
Lemma 4.3.6.
4.3.6.

4.3.7. L e m m a . Let
4.3.7. Lemma. Let kk >
> OO.. Then $22 +
Then S + exp
exp proves
proves Co nEk (S
Conr.~ 2) .
($2).
142
142 s.
S. Buss
Buss

Proof. ((Sketch).
Proof. Sketch) . The
The proof
proof of
of this
this has
has two
two main
main steps:
steps:
(1) Firstly,
(1) Firstly, one
one shows
shows that
that 8
$22 +
+ exp
exp proves
proves BdCon (82 ) J~ GonEk
BdCon(S2) ( 82 ) . This
Conr.k(S2). This is
is
done,
done, byby formalizing
formalizing the the following argument: ((a)
following argument: a) Assume that P
Assume that P isis aa �k-proof
E~-proof
of
of 00 =- 11 in in the
the theory
theory 8 2 • ((b)
$2. b) ByBy using
using sequence
sequence encoding
encoding to to collapse
collapse
adjacent
adjacent like
like quantifiers,
quantifiers, we we maymay assume
assume w.l.o.g.
w.l.o.g, that
that each
each formula
formula in in PP has
has
at most k +
at most + 11 unbounded quantifiers. ((c)
unbounded quantifiers. c) ByBy applying
applying thethe process
process usedused toto
prove
prove the
the Cut-Elimination
Cut-Elimination Theorem Theorem 2.4.22.4.2 of of Chapter
Chapter I, I, there
there isis aa bounded
bounded
8 2 -proof of
S2-proof of 00 =- 11 of
of size
size atat most �:!4 . Since
most 2911PII
"2k+4" Since only
only finitely
finitely many
many iterations
iterations ofof
exponentiation
exponentiation are are needed,
needed, the the last
last step
step can
can be be formalized
formalized in in 8$22 +
+ exp
exp..
((2)
2 ) Secondly,
Secondly, one
one shows
shows thatthat 8 $22 +
§ exp can
can prove
prove the bounded consistency
the bounded consistency of of 8 2 • The
$2. The
general
general idea
idea isis that
that if if there
there is is aa bounded
bounded 8 2 -proof
S2-proof P
P of
of 0
0 =
- 1
1,, then
then there
there is
is aa
aa fixed value £g so
fixed value so that
that allall variables
variables appearing
appearing in in PP can
can be
be implicitly
implicitly bounded
bounded
ize(p) where size(P) is the number of symbols in P. (In fact, g - 3
- 22~;ize(P)
by
by LL = where size (P) is the number of symbols in P . (In fact, £ = 3
works.)) Once
works. Once all all variables
variables are bounded by
are bounded by L, L, aa truth definition can
truth definition can bebe given
given
based
based on
on the
the fact
fact that 'iz« P) exists.
that 22 LLs~z~(P) exists. With
With thisthis truth
truth definition,
definition, 8 $22 +§ exp
exp can
can
prove
prove that
that every
every sequent
sequent in in the
the 8 2 -proof is
S2-proof is valid.
valid.

4.3.8.
4.3.8. Corollary.
Corollary. The
The theory
theory 8 $22 + exp is
+ exp is conservative
conservative over
over the
the theory
theory 8
$22 U
(J
Con~ k (($2)"
{{ GonEk 82 ) : k 2: 0} with
> O} with respect
respect to
to \lIlt
VHb -consequences.
-consequences.

P r o o f . The
Proof. The fact
fact that
that the
the first
first theory
theory includes
includes the
the second
second theory
theory is
is immediate
immediate from
from
Theorem
Theorem 4.3.7. The conservativity
4.3.7. The is immediate
conservativity is immediate from
from Lemma
Lemma 4.3.6.
4.3.6.

Incidentally,
Incidentally, since
since 8$22 is
is globally
globally interpretable
interpretable in Q, we
in Q, we also
also have
have that
that the
the theories
theories
$22 +
8 Con~ k (($2):
+ {{ GonEk 82 ) : kk 2: 0} and
_ O} and 8 + {{ GonEk
$22 + (Q) : kk 2:
Con~.~(Q): 0} are
>_ O} are equivalent.
equivalent.

4.3.9. T h e o r e m . $2 U {Con~ k(S2): k > 0} l/Con(S2).

It
It is
is an
an immediate
immediate consequence
consequence of
of Theorem 4.3.9 and
Theorem 4.3.9 and Corollary 4.3.8 that
Corollary 4.3.8 that 8
$22 +
+
exp j.t
exp ~ Gon(82)
Con(S2),, which
which is
is the
the main
main result
result we
we are
are trying
trying to establish. So
to establish. So it
it remains
remains toto
prove
prove Theorem
Theorem 4.3.9:
4.3.9:

P r o o f . Let
Proof. > 00 be
Let k > be fixed.
fixed. Use
Use Godel 's Diagonal
Ghdel's Diagonal Lemma
Lemma to
to choose
choose an
an 3� � -sentence
32~-sentence
<Pk
Ck such
such that
that
8i f- <Pk f-7 (82
( + ( ) � -'<Pk) .
+ GonEk (82)
Now <Pk
Now r is is certainly
certainly false,
false, since
since otherwise
otherwise 8 $22 + Con~ k (($2)
+ GonEk 82 ) proves
proves -'<Pk
~r , which
which would
would
be
be false if <Pk
false if Ck were
were true. Furthermore, 8
true. Furthermore, $22 +§ exp
exp can
can formalize
formalize thethe previous
previous sentence,
sentence,
since
since asas sketched
sketched above
above in in the part ((2)
the part 2 ) of
of the
the proof
proof ofof Theorem 4.3.7, 8
Theorem 4.3.7, $22 +
§ exp
exp
can
can prove
prove thethe validity
validity of of every formula appearing
every formula appearing in in aa bounded
bounded proofproof in
in the
the theory
theory
8
$22 + Con~.k (($2).
+ GonEk 82 ) . Therefore,
Therefore, 8 $22 +
+ exp proves -,<Pk
exp proves -~r .
Since -'<Pk
Since -~r isis aa \lII� -sentence, Corollary
Vl-I~-sentence, 4.3.8 implies
Corollary 4.3.8 implies that
that there
there is
is some
some m m > > 00
such
such that
that 8 + GOnE
$22 + Conr~mm (($2)
82 ) f-k -,<Pk
-~r . ItIt is
is evident
evident that
that 8 + GonEk
$22 + 82 ) cannot
Conr.~(($2) cannot prove
prove
C o n ~m (($2)
GOnE 82 ) since
since this
this would
would contradict
contradict thethe fact that <Pk
fact that Ck isis false, which implies
false, which that
implies that
 Proof
Proof Theory of
of A rithmetic
Arithmetic 143
143

$22 +
S + COnEk
C o n ~ (S 2 ) does
($2) does not
not prove
prove -,cPk
-~r . Therefore
Therefore S $22 +
+ ConEk
Con~ k (S2 ) also
($2) also cannot
cannot prove
prove
Con(S
C o ~ ( S ~ )2 ) ..
Since
Since this this argument
argument works
works for
for arbitrary
arbitrary kk,, the
the Compactness
Compactness Theorem implies
Theorem implies
that
that S $22 + + {{ ConEk
Con~ k (Q)
(Q):: k
k � cannot prove
O} cannot
> 0} prove Con(S
Con(S2). 2) '
The
The proofs
proofs above
above actually
actually proved
proved something
something slightly
slightly stronger
stronger than
than Theorem
Theorem 4.3.9;
4.3.9;
namely,
namely,

4.3.10. T h e o r e m . There is an m = O(k) such that S2+ Con~ (S2) jz Con~m (S2).

We conjecture that
We conjecture that m + 11 also
-- kk +
m = also works,
works, but
but do
do not
not have
have aa proof
proof at
at hand.
hand.

4.3.11.
4.3.11. A
A related
related result,
result, which
which was
was stated
stated as
as an
an open
open problem
problem by
by Wilkie
Wilkie andand
Paris [[1987]
Paris 1987] and
and waswas later
later proved
proved by
by Hajek
H~jek and
and Pudlak 1993,Coro. 5.34
Pudl~k [[1993,Coro. 5.34],] , is
is the
the fact
fact
that there
that there is
is aa 'v'm -sentence cP,
VH~-sentence such that
r such S1 +
that Si + exp F- cP
exp f- but such
r but such that S~ J.L
that Sl jz cP
r for
for all
all
kk >�0 O. .
A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s . We
Acknowledgements. We are
are grateful
grateful to
to JJ.. Avigad,
Avigad, C
C.. Pollett,
Pollett, and
and JJ.. Krajicek
Krajf~ek
for
for suggesting corrections to
suggesting corrections preliminary versions
to preliminary versions of
of this
this chapter.
chapter. Preparation
Preparation of
of
this article
this article was
was partially
partially supported
supported by NSF grant
by NSF grant DMS-9503247
DMS-9503247 and
and by
by cooperative
cooperative
research
research grant
grant INT-9600919/ME-103
INT-9600919/ME-103 of of the NSF and
the NSF and the
the Czech Republic Ministry
Czech Republic Ministry
of
of Education.
Education.

References
References

W. ACKERMANN
W. ACKERMANN
(1941) Zur
[1941] Zur Widerspruchsfreiheit
Widerspruchsfreiheit der
der Zahlentheorie, Mathematische Annallen, 1117,
Zahlentheorie, Mathematische 17, pp.
pp. 162-194.
162-194.
J. AVIGAD
AVIGAD AND R. SOMMER
AND R. SOMMER
[1997] A model-theoretic
(1997) model-theoretic approach
approach to ordinal analysis,
to ordinal analysis, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 3, pp.
Logic, 3, pp. 17-52.
17-52.
J. BARWISE
BARWISE
(1977) Handbook
[1977] Handbookof Logic, North-Holland,
of Mathematical Logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Amsterdam.
J. H
H.. BENNETT
BENNETT
[1962] On Spectra, PhD
(1962) PhD thesis,
thesis, Princeton
Princeton University.
University.
G
G.. BOOLOS
BOOLOS
1989) A
([1989] A new
new proof
proof of
of the
the G6del
Ghdel incompleteness
incompleteness theorem,
theorem, Notices of the American Mathematical
36, pp.
Society, 36, pp. 388-390.
388-390.
(1993) Logic of Provability, Cambridge
[1993] The Logic Cambridge University
University Press.
Press.
S.
S. R.
R. Buss
Buss
(1986) Bibliopolis, Napoli.
[1986] Bounded Arithmetic, Bibliopolis, Napoli. Revision
Revision of 1985 Princeton
of 1985 Princeton University
University Ph.D.
Ph.D.
thesis.
[1990] Axiomatizations
(1990) Axiomatizations and and conservation
conservation results
results for
for fragments
fragments of
of bounded
bounded arithmetic, in: Logic
arithmetic, in: Logic
and Computation,
Computation, proceedings
proceedings of a Workshop
Workshop held Carnegie-Mellon University, 1987,
held Carnegie-Mellon 1987,
W. Sieg,
W. Sieg, ed., vol. 106
ed., vol. 106 of Contemporary Mathematics,
of Contemporary American Mathematical
Mathematics, American Mathematical Society,
Society,
Providence, Rhode Island, pp. 57-84.
[1992] A
(1992) A note
note onon bootstrapping
bootstrapping intuitionistic
intuitionistic bounded
bounded arithmetic,
arithmetic, in:
in: Proof Theory: A
selection ofof papers Leeds Proof Theory Programme 1990,
papers from the Leeds 1990, P. H. G.
P. H. G. Aczel,
Aczel,
H. Simmons,
H. Simmons, andand S. S. Wainer,
S. S. eds., Cambridge
Whiner, eds., Cambridge University
University Press,
Press, pp.
pp. 149-169.
149-169.
144
144 s. Buss
S. Buss

The witness
[1994] The
[1994] witness function
function method
method and
and fragments
fragments ofof Peano
Peano arithmetic,
arithmetic, in:
in: Proceedings
Proceedings of
of
the Ninth
the Ninth International
International Congress
Congress on
on Logic, Methodology
Methodology and
and Philosophy
Philosophy of
of Science,
Science,
Sweden, August
Uppsala, Sweden, August 7-14, 1991, D. Prawitz,
1991, D. Prawitz, B.
B. Skyrms,
Skyrms, and
and D. Westerstahl, eds.,
D. Westersts eds.,
Elsevier, North-Holland,
Elsevier, North-Holland, Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, pp.
pp. 29-68.
29-68.
Relating the
[1995] Relating
[1995] the bounded
bounded arithmetic
arithmetic and
and polynomial-time
polynomial-time hierarchies,
hierarchies, Annals
Annals of
of Pure
Pure and
and
75, pp.
Applied Logic, 75,
Applied pp. 67-77.
67-77.
Bounded arithmetic
[1997] Bounded
[1997] arithmetic andand propositional
propositional proof
proof complexity,
complexity, in:
in: Logic
Logic of
of Computation,
Computation,
H. Schwichtenberg,
H. Schwichtenberg, ed.,
ed., Springer-Verlag,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
Berlin, pp.
pp. 67-121.
67-121.
S . R.
S. R. Buss
Buss AND A. IGNJATOVIC
AND A. IONJATOVIC
Unprovability of
[1995] Unprovability
[1995] of consistency
consistency statements
statements in
in fragments
fragments of
of bounded
bounded arithmetic,
arithmetic, Annals
Annals of
of
74, pp.
Pure and Applied Logic, 74, pp. 221-244.
221-244.
S. R.
S. R. Buss
Buss AND J. KRAJfCEK
AND J. KRAJiCEK
[1994] An application
[1994] An application of
of Boolean
Boolean complexity
complexity to
to separation
separation problems
problems in
in bounded
bounded arithmetic,
arithmetic,
of the London
Proceedings of 69, pp.
Society, 69,
London Mathematical Society, pp. 1-21.
1-21.
G. J. CHAITIN
G. J. CHAITIN
[1974] Information-theoretic
[1974] Information-theoretic limitations
limitations of
of formal
formal systems,
systems, J.
J. Assoc. 21,
Assoc. Comput. Mach., 21,
pp.
pp. 403-424.
403-424.
P. CLOTE
P. CLOTE
[1985] Partition
[1985] relations in
Partition relations in arithmetic, in: Methods
arithmetic, in: Methods in Mathematical Logic, C. A.
Logic, C. A. Di Prisco,
Di Prisco,
ed., Lecture Notes
ed., Lecture in Computer
Notes in Computer Science #1130, Springer-Verlag,
Science #1130, Berlin, pp.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 32-68.
32-68.
A . COBHAM
A. COBHAM
[1965]
[1965] The
The intrinsic
intrinsic computational
computational difficulty
difficulty of
of functions,
functions, in:
in: Logic,
Logic, Methodology and Philos­
Philos-
ophy of
of Science, proceedings
proceedings ofof the second International Congress,
Congress, held in Jerusalem,
Y. Bar-Hillel,
1964, Y. Bar-Hillel, ed.,
ed., North-Holland,
North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Amsterdam.
S. A
S. A.. COOK
COOK
[1975] Feasibly
[1975] Feasibly constructive
constructive proofs
proofs and
and the
the propositional
propositional calculus,
calculus, in:
in: Proceedings
Proceedings of the
Seventh Annual ACM
A CM Symposium on Theory of Association for
of Computing, Association for Computing
Computing
Machinery,
Machinery, New
New York,
York, pp.
pp. 83-97.
83-97.
SS.. A
A.. COOK AND A
COOK AND A.. URQUHART
URQUHART
[1993] Functional
[1993] Functional interpretations
interpretations of
of feasibly
feasibly constructive
constructive arithmetic,
arithmetic, Annals of
of Pure and
Logic, 63,
Applied Logic, 63, pp.
pp. 103-200.
103-200.
S. FEFERMAN
S. FEFERMAN
[1960] Arithmetization
[1960] Arithmetization of
of metamathematics
metamathematics in
in aa general
general setting,
setting, Pundamenta
Fundamenta Mathematicae,
49,
49, pp.
pp. 35-92.
35-92.
H
H.. GAIFMAN AND C
GAIFMANAND C.. DIMITRACOPOULOS
DIMITRACOPOULOS
[1982] Fragments
[1982] Fragments of
of Peano's
Peano's arithmetic
arithmetic and
and the
the MRDP
MRDP theorem,
theorem, in:
in: Logic
Logic and
and Algorithmic:
Ernst Specker, Monographie
An International Symposium held in honour of Ernst Monographie #30
#30 de
de
L'Enseignement
L'Enseignement Mathematique,
Math~matique, pp.
pp. 187-206.
187-206.
G.
G. GENTZEN
GENTZEN
[1936] Die
[1936] Die Widerspruchsfreiheit
Widerspruchsfreiheit derder reinen
reinen Zahlentheorie,
Zahlentheorie, Mathematische Annalen, 112,
Mathematische Annalen, 112,
pp.
pp. 493-565.
493-565. English
English translation
translation in:
in: Gentzen
Gentzen [1969],
[1969], pp.
pp. 132-213.
132-213.
[1938] Neue
[1938] Neue Fassung
Fassung des
des Widerspruchsfreiheitbeweis
Widerspruchsfreiheitbeweis fiir
fiir der
der reinen
reinen Zahlentheorie,
Zahlentheorie, Forschungen
Forschungen
zur Logik
zur Logik end
end zur Grundlegung der exacten
exacten Wissenschaften,
Wissenscha]ten, New Series, 4,
New Series, 4, pp.
pp. 19-44.
19-44.
English
English translation
translation in:
in: Gentzen
Gentzen [1969],
[1969], pp.
pp. 252-286.
252-286.
[1969]
[1969] Collected
Collected Papers
Papers of
of Gerhard Gentzen, North-Holland,
Gerhard Gentzen, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Amsterdam. Edited
Edited by
by M.
M. E.
E. Sz­
Sz-
abo.
abo.
JJ.-Y.
.-Y. G IRARD
GIRARD
[1987]
[1987] Proof
Proof Theory
Theory and
and Logical Complexity, vol.
Logical Complexity, vol. I,I, Bibliopolis,
Bibliopolis, Napoli.
Napoli.
 Proof
Proof Theory of
of A rithmetic
Arithmetic 145
145

K
K.. GODEL
GODEL
[1958] Uber
[1958] 0ber eine
eine bisher
bisher noch
noch nicht
nicht beniitzte
beniitzte Erweiterung
Erweiterung des
des finiten
finiten Standpunktes,
Standpunktes, Dialectica,
12, pp. 280-287.
12, pp. 280-287.
P. Hh.JEK
P. HAJEK AND P. PUDLAK
AND P. PUDLAK
[1993] First-order Arithmetic, Perspectives
[1993] Metamathematics of First-order Perspectives in
in Mathematical
Mathematical Logic,
Logic,
Springer-Verlag,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Berlin.
D. HILBERT
D. AND P
HILBERT AND P.. BERNAYS
BERNAYS
[1934-39] Mathematik, I1 fj
[1934-39] Grundlagen der Mathematik, 8~II,
II, Springer,
Springer, Berlin.
Berlin.
W. A.
W. A. HOWARD
HOWARD
[1970] Assignment
[1970] Assignment ofof ordinals
ordinals to
to terms
terms for primitive recursive
for primitive recursive functionals
functionals of
of finite type, in:
finite type, in:
Intuitionism and Proof Theory:
Theory: Proceedings
Proceedings of the Summer Conference
Conference at Buffalo
N. Y. 1968,
N.Y. A. Kino,
1968, A. J. Myhill,
Kino, J. Myhill, and
and R.
R. E.
E. Vesley,
Vesley, eds.,
eds., North-Holland,
North-Holland, Amsterdam,
Amsterdam,
pp.
pp. 443-458.
443-458.
D. S.
D. JOHNSON, C
S. JOHNSON, C.. H. PAPADIMITRIOU,
PAPADIMITRIOU, AND M. YANNAKAKIS
AND M. YANNAKAKIS
[1988] How
[1988] How easy
easy is
is local
local search?,
search?, Journal of
of Computer and System Science, 37, pp.
Science, 37, pp. 79-100.
79-100.
R. W.
R. W. KAYE
KAYE
[1991] Models of Peano arithmetic, Oxford
[1991] Models Oxford Logic
Logic Guides #15, Oxford
Guides #15, Oxford University
University Press.
Press.
[1993] Using
[1993] Using Herbrand-type
Herbrand-type theorems
theorems to
to separate
separate strong
strong fragments
fragments of
of arithmetic,
arithmetic, in:
in: Arith­
Arith-
metic, Proof Theory and Computational Complexity, P.
Computational Complexity, P. Clote
Clote and
and J. Krajicek, eds.,
J. Kraji~ek, eds.,
Clarendon
Clarendon Press
Press (Oxford
(Oxford University
University Press),
Press), Oxford.
Oxford.
C. F
C. F.. KENT
KENT AND
AND B.B. R.
R. HODGSON
HODGSON
[1982] An
[1982] An arithmetic
arithmetic characterization
characterization of
of NP,
NP, Theoretical Computer Science, 21,
21, pp.
pp. 255-267.
255-267.
J. KETONEN
J. KETONEN AND R. M.
AND R. M. SOLOVAY
SOLOVAY
[1981]
[1981] Rapidly
Rapidly growing Ramsey functions,
growing Ramsey Mathematics, 1113,
functions, Annals of Mathematics, 13, pp.
pp. 267-314.
267-314.
J.
J. KRAJICEK
KRAJICEK
[1995]
[1995] Bounded Arithmetic, Propositional Calculus Theory, Cambridge
Calculus and Complexity Theory, Cambridge Uni­
Uni-
versity
versity Press.
Press.
J. KRAJICEK,
J. KRAJICEK, P. PUDLAK, AND G
PUDLh.K, AND G.. TAKEUTI
TAKEUTI
[1991] Bounded
[1991] Bounded arithmetic
arithmetic and
and the
the polynomial
polynomial hierarchy,
hierarchy, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic,
52, pp. 143-153.
52, pp. 143-153.
M. W.
M. W. KRENTEL
KRENTEL
[1988] The
[1988] The complexity
complexity of
of optimization
optimization problems,
problems, Journal of
of Computer and System Sciences,
36, pp.
36, pp. 490-509.
490-509.
H. LESSAN
H. LESSAN
[1978] Models of Arithmetic, PhD
[1978] Models PhD thesis,
thesis, Manchester
Manchester University.
University.
P. LINDSTROM
P. LINDSTROM
[1997] Incompleteness, Lecture
[1997] Aspects of Incompleteness, Lecture Notes
Notes in
in Logic
Logic #10,
#10, Springer-Verlag,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Berlin.
R. J. LIPTON
R. LIPTON
[1978] Model theoretic
[1978] Model theoretic aspects
aspects of
of computational
computational complexity, in: Proceedin
complexity, in: 9s of the 19th
Proceedings 19th Annual
Symposium on Foundations
Foundations ofof Computer Science, IEEE
IEEE Computer
Computer Society,
Society, Piscataway,
Piscataway,
New Jersey,
New Jersey, pp.
pp. 193-200.
193-200.
M
M.. H
H.. L6B
LOB
[1955] Solution
[1955] Solution of
of aa problem
problem of
of Leon
Leon Henkin,
Henkin, Journal of Logic, 20,
of Symbolic Logic, 20, pp.
pp. 1115-118.
15-118.
E. MENDELSON
E. MENDELSON
[1987]
[1987] Introduction
Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Wadsworth
Mathematical Logic, Wadsworth &
& Brooks/Cole,
Brooks/Cole, Monterey.
Monterey.
146
146 s. Buss
S. Buss

G. E. MINTS
G . E. MINTS
[1973) Quantifier-free
[1973] Quantifier-free and
and one-quantifier
one-quantifier systems,
systems, Journal
Journal of
of Soviet
Soviet Mathematics, 1, pp.
Mathematics, 1, pp. 71-84.
71-84.
E. NELSON
E. NELSON
[1986) Predicative
[1986] Predicative Arithmetic, Princeton University
Arithmetic, Princeton University Press.
Press.
V . A.
V. A . NEPOMNJAS(~II
NEPOMNJASCII
Rudimentary predicates
[1970) Rudimentary
[1970] predicates and
and Turing
Turing calculations,
calculations, Kibernetika, 6,
6, pp.
pp. 29-35.
29-35. English
English
translation in
translation in Cybernetics 88 (1972)
(1972) 43-50.
43-50.
R. PARIKH
R. PARIKH
Existence and
[1971) Existence
[1971] feasibility in
and feasibility in arithmetic,
arithmetic, Journal of 36, pp.
of Symbolic Logic, 36, pp. 494-508.
494-508.
B . PARIS
J. B.
J. PARIS AND C . DIMITRACOPOULOS
AND C. D IMITRACOPOULOS
[1982) Truth
[1982] definitions for
Truth definitions for �o formulae, in:
Ao formulae, in: Logic
Logic and Algorithmic,
Algorithmic, Monographie
Monogmphie no 30 de
L 'Enseignement Mathematique,
L'Enseignement University of
Mathematique, University of Geneva,
Geneva, pp.
pp. 317-329.
317-329.
J. B.
J. B . PARIS
PARIS AND L. HARRINGTON
AND L. HARRINGTON
[ 1977) A
[1977] A mathematical
mathematical incompleteness
incompleteness in
in Peano
Peano arithmetic, in: Handbook
arithmetic, in: Handbook of Mathematical
of Mathematical
Logic, North-Holland,
North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 1133-1142.
Amsterdam, pp. 1 133-1142.
B. PARIS
J. B.
J. PARIS AND
AND L.L. A.
A. S.
S. KIRBY
KIRBY
[1978) !;n -collection schemes
[1978] ]En-collection schemes in arithmetic, in:
in arithmetic, in: Logic Colloquium
Colloquium '77, North-Holland, Amster­
'77, North-Holland, Amster-
dam, pp.
dam, pp. 199-210.
199-210.
C
C.. PARSONS
PARSONS
On aa number-theoretic
[1970) On
[1970] number-theoretic choice
choice schema
schema and
and its
its relation
relation to induction, in:
to induction, in: Intuitionism and
Proof Theory:
Theory: Proceedings
Proceedings ofof the Summer Conference
Conference at Buffalo N. Y. 1968,
N.Y. A. Kino,
1968, A. Kino,
Myhill, and
J. Myhill,
J. and R. E. Vesley,
R. E. eds., North-Holland,
Vesley, eds., North-Holland, Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, pp.pp. 459-473.
459-473.
[1972) On
[1972] On n-quantifier
n-quantifier induction,
induction, Journal of
of Symbolic Logic, 37, pp.
Logic, 37, pp. 466-482.
466-482.
W . POHLERS
W. POHLERS
[1980) Proof Theory: An Introduction,
[1980] Lecture Notes
Introduction, Lecture Notes in Mathematics #1407,
in Mathematics #1407, Springer-Verlag,
Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Berlin.
P. PUDLAK
P. PUDLAK
[1983] Some
[1983) Some prime
prime elements
elements in
in the
the lattice
lattice of
of interpretability
interpretability types,
types, Transactions of the
Society, 280,
American Mathematical Society, 280, pp.
pp. 255-275.
255-275.
A note
[1990]) A
[1990 note on
on bounded
bounded arithmetic,
arithmetic, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 136, 136, pp.
pp. 85-89.
85-89.
A
A.. A
A.. RAZBOROV
RAZBOROV
[1994 provably disjoint NP-pairs, Tech.
[1994]) On provably Tech. Rep.
Rep. RS-94-36,
RS-94-36, Basic
Basic Research
Research in
in Computer
Computer
Science
Science Center,
Center, Aarhus,
Aarhus, Denmark,
Denmark, November.
November. http://www.brics.dk/index.html.
http://www.brics.dk/index.html.
[199 5) Unprovability
[1995] Unprovability of
of lower
lower bounds
bounds on
on the
the circuit
circuit size
size in
in certain
certain fragments
fragments of
of bounded
bounded
arithmetic,
arithmetic, Izvestiya
Izvestiya of 59, pp.
of the RAN, 59, pp. 201-224.
201-224.
A. A. RAZBOROV
A. A. RAZBOROV AND S. RUDICH
AND S. RUDICH
[1994] Natural
[1994) Natural proofs, in: Proceedings
proofs, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual A CM Symposium on Theory
ACM
of Computing, Association
Association for
for Computing
Computing Machinery,
Machinery, New
New York,
York, pp.
pp. 204-213.
204-213.
J
J.. B.
B. ROSSER
ROSSER
1936) Extensions
[[1936] Extensions of
of some
some theorems
theorems of
of G6del
GSdel and
and Church,
Church, Journal of
of Symbolic Logic, 1,
Symbolic Logic, 1,
pp.
pp. 87-91.
87-91.
K.
g . SCHUTTE
SCHUTTE
[1977) Proof Theory, Grundlehren
[1977] Proof Grundlehren der
der mathematischen
mathematischen Wissenschaften
Wissenschaften #225,
#225, Springer-Verlag,
Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Berlin.
W
W.. SIEG
SIEG
[1985)
[1985] Fragments
Fragments of
of arithmetic, Logic, 28,
arithmetic, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 28, pp.
pp. 33-71
33-71..
 Proof
Proof Theory
Theory of
of AArithmetic
rithmetic 147
147

C.
C. SMORYNSKI
SMORYNSKI
[1977]
[1977] The
The incompleteness
incompleteness theorems,
theorems, in:
in: Barwise [1977], pp.
Barwise [1977], pp. 821-865.
821-865.
R.
R. M.
M. SMULLYAN
SMULLYAN
[1992]
[1992] Godel's
GSdel'sIncompleteness Theorems, Oxford
Incompleteness Theorems, Oxford Logic
Logic Guides
Guides #19,
#19, Oxford
Oxford University
University Press.
Press.
R.
R. M.
M. SOLOVAY
SOLOVAY
[1976]
[1976] Letter
Letter to
to P. Hdjek Unpublished.
P. Hajek
R. SOMMER
R. SOMMER
[1990]
[1990] Transfinite
TransfiniteInduction
Induction and
and Hierarchies
Hierarchies Generated
Generatedby
by Transfinite
Transfinite Recursion
Recursion within
within Peano
Peano
Arithmetic, PhD thesis, U.C. Berkeley.
Arithmetic, Berkeley.
LL.. JJ.. STOCKMEYER
STOCKMEYER
[1976]
[1976] The
The polynomial-time
polynomial-time hierarchy,
hierarchy, Theoretical Science, 3,
Theoretical Computer Science, 3, pp.
pp. 1-22.
1-22.
G
G.. TAKEUTI
TAKEUTI
[1987] Theory, North-Holland,
[1987] Proof Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, 2nd
2nd ed.
ed.
[1990] Some
[1990] Some relations
relations among
among systems
systems for
for bounded
bounded arithmetic,
arithmetic, in:
in: Mathematical
MathematicalLogic,
Logic, Pro­
Pro-
ceedings
ceedings of the Heyting 1988 School, P.
1988 Summer School, P. P.P. Petkov,
Petkov, ed.,
ed., Plenum
Plenum Press,
Press, New
New
York, pp. 139-154.
A
A.. TARSKI,
TARSKI, A. MOSTOWSKI,
MOSTOWSKI, AND
AND R. M. ROBINSON
ROBINSON
[1953]
[1953] Undecidable Theories, North-Holland,
UndecidableTheories, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Amsterdam.
A
A.. JJ.. WILKIE AND
AND JJ.. B
B.. PARIS
PARIS
[1987] On On the
the scheme
scheme of of induction
induction for
for bounded
bounded arithmetic
arithmetic formulas,
formulas, Annals of Pure
Pure and
Logic, 35, pp. 261-302.
Applied Logic,
C
C.. WRATHALL
WRATHALL
[1976] Complete
[1976] sets and
Complete sets and the
the polynomial-time
polynomial-time hierarchy,
hierarchy, Theoretical Science, 3,
Theoretical Computer Science, 3,
pp. 23-33.
D. ZAMBELLA
ZAMBELLA
[1996] Notes on
[1996] Notes polynomially bounded
on polynomially bounded arithmetic,
arithmetic, Journal of Symbolic Logic,
Logic, 61,
61, pp.
pp. 942-966.
942-966.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
 CHAPTER
CHAPTER III
III

Hierarchies
Hierarchies of
of Provably
Provably Recursive
Recursive Functions
Functions

Matt
Matt Fairtlough
Fairtlough
Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield,
She]field, Sheffield
She]field Sl
$1 4DP,
~DP, England

Stanley
Stanley S. Wainerl
Wainer 1
Department of
of Pure Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, England

Contents
Contents
1. Introduction
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
2. Structured
S t r u c t u r e d ordinals
ordinals and a n d associated
associated hierarchies
hierarchies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
3. Complete
3. C o m p l e t e w-arithmetic
w - a r i t h m e t i c .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
4. Provably
4. P r o v a b l y recursive
recursive functions
functions of of PA
PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
5. Independence
I n d e p e n d e n c e results
results for for PA
PA .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
6. The
6. T h e "true"
"true" ordinal
ordinal of of PA PA .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
7. Theories
Theories with with transfinite
transfinite induction
induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
References .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . 203

11The second author thanks the Department

Department of
of Philosophy at Carnegie Mellon University
for generous hospitality and
and the opportunity to teach some
some of this material, during his year
as a Fulbright Scholar 1992-93.
HANDBOOK
H A N D B O O K OF O F PROOF
P R O O F THEORY
THEORY
Edited
E d i t e d by S. R.
by S. R. Buss
Buss
© 1998 Elsevier
Elsevier Science
Science B.V.
B.V. All
All rights
rights reserved
reserved
150
150 M.
M. Fairtlough and S. Wainer
Wainer

1
1.. Introduction
Introduction

Since
Since thethe recursive
recursive functions
functions are are of
of fundamental
fundamental importance
importance in in logic
logic and
and computer
computer
science,
science, itit isis aa natural
natural pure-mathematical
pure-mathematical exercise exercise to
to attempt
attempt toto classify
classify them
them in in some
some
way
way according
according to to their logical and
their logical and computational
computational complexity.
complexity. We We hope
hope toto convince
convince
the
the reader
reader that that this
this isis also
also anan interesting
interesting andand aa useful
useful thing
thing to do: interesting
to do: interesting
because
because it it brings
brings to to bear,
bear, in in aa clear
clear and
and simple
simple context,
context, some
some of of the
the most
most basic
basic
techniques
techniques of of proof theory such
proof theory such as cut-elimination and
as cut-elimination and ordinal
ordinal assignments;
assignments; and and
useful because it
useful because it brings
brings outout deep
deep theoretical connections with
theoretical connections with program-verification,
program-verification,
program
program complexity
complexity and and finite
finite combinatorics.
combinatorics. One One might
might wonder
wonder why why this
this branch
branch of of
recursive function
recursive function theorytheory should
should mostmost appropriately
appropriately be be viewed
viewed in in aa proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic
light,
light, but
but this this is is simply
simply because
because the the underlying
underlying concerns
concerns areare ofof an
an intensional
intensional
character,
character, to to dodo with
with computations
computations or derivations of
or derivations of functions
functions according
according to to given
given
programs rather
programs rather than merely their
than merely their definitions
definitions in
in extenso
extenso as
as sets
sets of ordered pairs.
of ordered pairs.
The
The proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic connectionconnection is is immediately
immediately observable
observable byby considering
considering the the most
most
basic
basic recursive
recursive operation
operation of of all,
all, namely
namely composition:
composition: given
given functions
functions f and gg define
f and define
hh := ff oo gg byby the
the rule
rule

(g(x) = y)
(g(x) = -+ (f(y)
y)--+ ( f ( y ) == z) --+ (h(x)
z) -+ (h(x) =
= z)
z)..

Then the
Then the usual
usual quantifier
quantifier rules
rules of
of logic
logic yield
yield

\/V xx ..3:Jyy. (. g(g(x)

(x) == y)
y) -+ V yy .. 3:Jzz. (. f(f(y)
--+ \/ (y) =- z)
z) --~
-+ \/Vxx ..3:Jzz. (. h(h(x)
(x) =- z)
z)

and
and soso the
the totality/termination
totality/termination of h follows
of h follows from
from that of gg and
that of and ff respectively
respectively by
by
means
means of of two
two applications
applications ofof Cut.
Cut. As
As wewe shall
shall see,
see, cut-elimination
cut-elimination then
then yields
yields aa
"direct"
"direct" proof
proof from
from which
which the
the complexity
complexity ofof hh can
can be
be read
read off.
off.
It
It is
is the relationship between
the relationship between computational
computational complexity
complexity on on the
the one hand, and
one hand, and
logical
logical complexity
complexity (of
(of termination
termination proofs)
proofs) on
on the
the other,
other, which
which forms
forms our
our principal
principal
theme
theme here.
here. Put
Put simply,
simply, aa program
program satisfies
satisfies aa specification
specification

\/input. 3output. Spec

Vinput. :Joutput. (input, output)
Spec(input, output)

if
if for
for each
each input
input x x it computes an
it computes an output
output y y such
such that
that Spec(x, holds. Mere
y) holds.
Spec(x, y) Mere
knowledge
knowledge thatthat the
the specification
specification is is true
true tells
tells us
us only
only that
that there exists aa while­
there exists while-
program
program satisfying
satisfying it. it. ButBut toto gain
gain information
information about
about the possible structure
the possible structure andand
complexity
complexity of of such
such a a program
program we we need
need to to know why the
know why specification is
the specification is true,
true, in
in
other
other words
words we we need
need to to be
be given
given aa proof.
proof. Thus
Thus our
our primary
primary interest
interest will
will bebe with
with
those
those (recursively
(recursively enumerable)
enumerable) classes
classes ofof functions
functions which
which are
are "verifiably
"verifiably computable"
computable"
in
in given
given subsystems
subsystems of of arithmetic
arithmetic and and analysis
analysis whose
whose proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic strength
strength is is
well-understood.
well-understood. This This is is not
not to
to say
say that
that the
the problem
problem ofof classifying
classifying all
all recursive
recursive
functions
functions "in"in one
one go"go" is is uninteresting-far
uninteresting--far from from it.
it. The
The known
known general
general results
results of
of
Feferman [196
Feferman 2] in
[1962] in that
that direction-on
direction--on completeness
completeness and and incompleteness
incompleteness of of hierarchies
hierarchies
generated
generated along
along paths
paths in in Kleene
Kleene's' s O-raise
O--raise further
further deep
deep questions
questions which
which remain
remain
unanswered,
unanswered, e.g.e.g. "what
"what is is a
a natural
natural well-ordering?"
well-ordering?"
 Provably Recursive Functions 151
151

Our
Our aim aim thenthen is is toto find
find uniform
uniform scales scales against
against which which we we cancan measure
measure the the
computational
computational complexitycomplexity of of functions
functions verifiably
verifiably computable
computable in in "known"
"known" theories.
theories.
By
By "complexity"
"complexity" we we mean
mean "complexity
"complexity in in the
the large"
large",, as as measured
measured by by the
the rates
rates of of
growth
growth of of resource-bounding
resource-bounding functions irrespective of
functions irrespective of whether
whether they they be be polynomial,
polynomial,
exponential
exponential or or much
much worse.
worse. We We do do not
not wish
wish to to place
place prior
prior restrictions
restrictions on on their
their size,
size,
but
but rather
rather to to have
have thethe means
means of of comparing
comparing one one with
with another.
another. How How might
might this this be be
achieved?
achieved? What What formform should
should a a "subrecursive
"subrecursive scale" scale" take?
take? To To answer
answer thisthis we we need
need
first
first to
to ask
ask whatwhat kind
kind of of features
features of of recursive definitions we
recursive definitions we areare actually
actually trying
trying to to
measure and
measure and compare.
compare.
Suppose
Suppose given given a a number-theoretic
number-theoretic program program of of some
some kind, kind, together
together with with an an
operational semantics
operational semantics determining
determining for for each number n
each number space C(n)
n aa space C(n) consist­
consist-
ing
ing ofof all computations and
all computations sub-computations of
and sub-computations of the program, starting
the program, starting on on in­ in-
puts
puts � _ n n.. The sub-computation relation
The sub-computation relation induces
induces aa tree tree structure
structure on on C(n)C(n)
and
and we we willwill assume
assume further
further that that it it hashas beenbeen linearly
linearly ordered
ordered by by a a suit­
suit-
able
able Kleene-Brouwer
Kleene-Brouwer ordering ordering -<n - ~ no . Then
Then if if n nll < < n2 n2 there
there willwill be be an an
order-preserving
order-preserving embedding embedding C(n n2) :" (C(nt)
C(nl,l ' n2) , -<n l ) -+
(C(nl),-~nl) ~ (C(n2), -<n2 ) such that
(C(n2),~n2)such that
C(n2,
C(n2, n3)n3) oo C(nt
C(nl,, n2)
n2) = - C(n
C(nl,n3) whenever n
l , n3) whenever nll < < n2n2 < < n3 Thus C
ha.. Thus C isis a a functor
functor
from
from the category N
the category N =- {0 {O < < 11 < < 22 < < .-.}
. .
. } into
into the
the category
category of of linear
linear orderings
orderings with with
order-preserving
order-preserving maps, maps, and and thethe ideaidea is that C
is that C abstracts
abstracts the the uniform
uniform computational
computational
structure
structure fromfrom the the given
given program.
program.
Now C
Now C has
has a a direct limit. This
direct limit. This limit
limit willwill be be aa countable
countable linear linear ordering
ordering I 7= - (X, -<) -~)
together
together with maps g(n)
with maps g(n)": C(n)
C(n) -+ --+ X satisfying n
X satisfying nll << n2n2 -+--~ g(n
g(nl) l) =- g(n2)oC(n
g(n2)oC(nl,l ' n2) n2),,
and
and itit will
will bebe initial
initial among
among all all such objects. Therefore
such objects. Therefore I can be
~/can be represented
represented as as the
the
union
union of of aa nested,
nested, increasing
increasing sequence
sequence of of sub-orderings
sub-orderings I[n] := (Image
-),[n] "- (Image g(n)g(n),, -<) -~)..
Let
Let us us now
now makemake the the further
further assumption
assumption that that thethe given
given program
program always always ter­ ter-
minates. Then
minates. Then computations
computations are finite and
are finite and thethe sub-computation
sub-computation relation relation is is well­
well-
founded. So
founded. each C(n)
So each C(n) and and hencehence each each I[n] 7[n] will
will bebe fi nite and
finite and I 3' will
will be be a a well­
well-
ordering. In
ordering. In other
other words,
words, the computational structure
the computational structure of of terminating
terminating programsprograms can can
be described abstractly
be described abstractly in in terms
terms of of countable well-orderings 7,
countable well-orderings I, presented
presented as as the
the
unions
unions of of ascending
ascending chainschains of of finite
finite sub-orderings
sub-orderings 1[0] 7[0] C 711] C
C 1[1] 1[2] C
C 7[2] C ....
.
. . . This
This is is
our
our basis
basis for
for a a uniform
uniform theory
theory of of "ordinal
"ordinal assignments"
assignments" and and as as we
we shall
shall see,
see, it it applies
applies
equally
equally well
well to to proofs
proofs as as to computations, thus
to computations, thus providing
providing a a link
link between
between the the two.two.
There
There is is still
still more
more useful
useful structure
structure to to be be extracted
extracted from from the the above
above presentation
presentation
of
of aa well-ordering
well-ordering I7 = - (X,(X,-~)"-<): given
given an an arbitrary
arbitrary point point 0: a E e X X u {3'} and
tA b} and any any
number n,
number n, define
define Pn (O:) , the
Pn(a), the "n-predecessor"
"n-predecessor" of of a,0:, to
to bebe thethe topmost
topmost element
element of of
I[n] n
7In] {,B : ,Bfl -<
N {fl" a}} if
-~ o: this is
if this non-empty, and
is non-empty, and 00 ((thethe least
least element)
element) otherwise.
otherwise. Then Then
these
these predecessor
predecessor functions provide aa uniform
functions provide uniform methodmethod of of generating
generating hierarchies
hierarchies of of
number-theoretic
number-theoretic functions functions and and functionals,
functionals, by by transfinite
transfinite recursion:
recursion:
Let J
Let J :9 N NN -~ N
N -+ NN N bebe anyany givengiven operator
operator taking taking unary unary functions
functions to to unary
unary
functions.
functions. Then Then for each 0:
for each a � ~ I -y define
define the the 0:- th iterate
a-th iterate of of J,J,

j,~. N N ~ NN
152
152 M.
M. Fairtlough and S. Wainer

as
as follows:
follows:
{
Jo. (g) .. = An.J(JPn(a)(g))(n)
j~(g) .= { 9g
>'n . J(jPn(o.} (g)) (n) if
ifa
if a ==O 0
i f aa ;i
# O0
Two
Two simple
simple examples
examples spring
spring immediately
immediately to to mind,
mind, but
but the the reader
reader should
should not
not be
be
deceived
deceived by by their
their apparent
apparent simplicity
simplicity since
since they
they turn
turn out
out to to be
be fundamental
fundamental tools
tools of
of
the
the sub-recursive
sub-recursive hierarchy
hierarchy trade.
trade. Both
Both are
are obtained
obtained as as iterates
iterates ofof the
the composition
composition
operator J(g,
operator J(g, h) := g
h) "= g oo h,
h, the
the fi rst with
first with 9g fi and h
xed and
fixed h varying,
varying, the
the second with h
second with h
fifixed
xed and g varying.
and 9 varying.
II Fix gE
Fix 9 NNs and
E iN define Jg(h)
and define Jg(h) = = ggoh.
o h. Then
Then for every h
for every h E
E NN
iNs and every n
and every n E
ENiN,,

JJ~(h)(n)
; (h) (n) = l(h(n))
g~(h(n))
where
where kk is
is the
the length
length of
of the
the descending
descending chain
chain

... o.

In
In particular
particular with
with 9g the
the successor
successor function and h
function and h constantly
constantly zero
zero we
we obtain
obtain for
for
each a
each _ ,
a :; 7 the
the functions
functions

Go. (n) "=

Ga(n) least kk.. (P
:= least ; (a) = 0)
(P~(a) O)
constituting
constituting the so-called Slow-Growing
the so-called Slow-Growing Hierarchy.
Hierarchy. Notice that G-y(n)
Notice that G~(n) mea­
mea-
sures
sures the
the size
size of
of ,[nJ
7[n]..
II Fix h
II Fix hE NN and
E iNs define Jh(g)
and define = gg oo h.
Jh (g) = h. Then
Then for
for every gE
every 9 NN and
E iNs every n
and every n E
ENiN,,

J~(g)(n) = g(hk(n))
where
where kk is
is the
the length
length of
of the
the descending
descending chain
chain

O.

In
In particular with h
particular with h the
the successor
successor and g the
and 9 the identity
identity function
function we
we obtain
obtain for
for
every a
every ~ ,
a :; the functions
7 the functions

Ho. (n) "=

Ha(n) := least m.. (P
least m m- 1 Pm -2 · · · Pn
(Pm-lPm-2"'" + 1Pn(a) =
Pn+lPn(a) = 0)
0)

constituting the Hardy

constituting the Hierarchy ((so
Hardy Hierarchy so called
called because
because Hardy [1904] was
Hardy [1904J was the
the first
first
to
to make
make use
use of
of them,
them, inin "exhibiting"
"exhibiting" aa setset ofof reals
reals with
with cardinality
cardinality Nd. R1). AsAs
we
we shall
shall see
see however,
however, this
this hierarchy
hierarchy alsoalso contains,
contains, embedded
embedded within within it,
it, the
the
Fast-Growing
Fast-Growing Hierarchies
Hierarchies Bo. and Fo.
Ba and Fa which
which provide
provide crucial
crucial links
links between
between proof
proof
theory
theory on
on the
the one
one hand
hand andand recursive
recursive function
function theory
theory onon the
the other.
other.
This
This paper
paper is
is about
about these
these hierarchies,
hierarchies, their
their interconnections,
interconnections, and and their
their relation­
relation-
ships
ships with
with proof
proof theory
theory as
as displayed
displayed inin "subrecursive
"subrecursive classification
classification theorems"
theorems" of of the
the
following
following form
form
Given an
Given an arithmetical
arithmetical theory
theory TT with
with proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic ordinal I TIl , then
ordinal IIITII, then the
the
provably
provably recursive
recursive functions
functions ofof TT are
are exactly those functions
exactly those ]unctions computable
computable
within
within complexity-bounds
complexity-bounds HOI.Ha for a �
.for a -~ IITII
IITll..
 Provably Recursive Functions 153
153

We
We shall
shall concentrate
concentrate on on thethe cases
cases where
where T T isis Peano
Peano Arithmetic
Arithmetic (PA) (PA),, aa fragment
fragment
of
of it
it or
or anan extension
extension of of it
it by
by some
some axiom
axiom of of transfinite
transfinite induction.
induction. Pohlers,
Pohlers, in in this
this
volume,
volume, provides
provides an an ordinal
ordinal analysis
analysis for for many
many richer
richer theories,
theories, but but once
once thisthis is
is done
done
for
for aa theory
theory T T itsits subrecursive
subrecursive classification
classification may may then then be be reduced
reduced to to that
that ofof aa
corresponding
corresponding theory theory of of transfinite
transfinite induction
induction over over order
order types
types -< -~ IITII
IITII. . Thus
Thus the the
two
two papers
papers together
together supplysupply the the methods
methods one one needs
needs to to classify
classify thethe provably
provably recursive
recursive
functions
functions of of aa wide
wide spectrum
spectrum of of theories.
theories.
Throughout
Throughout this this paper
paper we we shall
shall only
only consider
consider theories
theories basedbased onon classical
classical logic.
logic. ItIt
is
is known
known by by e.g.
e.g. Friedman
Friedman [1978] [1978] that
that in in general,
general, the the provably
provably recursive
recursive functions
functions
will
will be
be the
the same
same whether
whether the the underlying
underlying logic logic isis intuitionistic
intuitionistic or or classical.
classical.
We
We viewview proof
proof theory
theory as as anan attempt
attempt to to analyse
analyse the the truth
truth definition
definition and and to to
classify
classify truths.
truths. Consequently
Consequently we we here
here useuse proof
proof theory
theory to to measure
measure the the complexity
complexity of of
recursive
recursive functions
functions according
according to to the
the logical
logical complexity
complexity of of the
the judgements
judgements that that they
they
terminate.
terminate. We We begin
begin by by developing
developing in section 22 aa general
in section general inductive
inductive class
class OS ~s ofof ordinal
ordinal
presentations,
presentations, togethertogether with with their
their arithmetic
arithmetic and and associated
associated function
function hierarchies.
hierarchies.
Section
Section 33 presents
presents arithmetic
arithmetic truth truth as as a a cut-free
cut-free infi nitary calculus
infinitary calculus in in the
the style
style ofof Tait
Tait
[1968],, with
[1968] with an an assignment
assignment of of ordinal
ordinal bounds
bounds based
based on on Buchholz [1987] but
Buchholz [1987] modified
but modified
and
and simplified
simplified here here following
following Fairtlough
Fairtlough [1991].[1991]. In In this
this presentation
presentation the the slow-growing
slow-growing
hierarchy
hierarchy arises
arises naturally
naturally as as the
the class
class of bounding functions
of bounding functions for for the
the truth
truth of of existential
existential
statements. Addition of
statements. Addition of the
the Cut
Cut rule
rule then
then yields
yields an infinitary proof
an infinitary proof theory
theory for for which
which
the
the fast-growing
fast-growing hierarchies
hierarchies now now supply
supply the bounding functions.
the bounding functions. In In section
section 44 we we
read off
read off classification
classification theorems
theorems for for PA
PA and and its
its fragments
fragments by embedding them
by embedding them intointo
the infinitary framework.
the infinitary framework. These These results
results are are subsequently
subsequently extended extended in in section
section 77 to to
theories
theories of of transfinite
transfinite induction.
induction. SectionSection 5 gives gives an an application
application to to aa well-known
well-known
mathematical independence result
mathematical independence result forfor PAPA duedue originally
originally to to Kirby
Kirby and
and Paris
Paris [1982]
[1982]..
However
However the the proof
proof given
given herehere is
is due
due toto Cichon
Cichon [1983]
[1983] andand displays
displays a clear connection
a clear connection
with the
with the Hardy
Hardy hierarchy. Section 66 reduces
hierarchy. Section fast- to
reduces fast- to slow-growing
slow-growing by by computing
computing aa
map
map a c~ ~ a+
I-t c~ such that
+ such that Bo. B~ -= Go+.G0.+ ' This
This amounts
amounts to to aa complete
complete cut-elimination
cut-elimination
since proofs of
since proofs of II
rrg~ sentences
sentences are now reduced
are now reduced to to their cut-free truth-definitions.
their cut-free truth-definitions. The The
result is
result is a new and
a new and more subtle ordinal
more subtle ordinal assignment
assignment to to theories
theories T which was
T which was first
first
discovered by
discovered by Girard [1981] . Only
Girard [1981]. Only thethe initial
initial stages
stages of of this
this reduction
reduction are are needed
needed
here (those
here appropriate for
(those appropriate for PA)
PA) but they already
but they already serveserve to to illustrate
illustrate the
the subtlety
subtlety and and
power of
power of ordinal
ordinal assignments
assignments in in providing
providing uniform
uniform measurements
measurements of of proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic
complexity.
complexity.

2. S
2. Structured
tructured oordinals
r d i n a l s aand
n d aassociated
s s o c i a t e d hhierarchies
ierarchies

A "structured"
A "structured" countable ordinal is
countable ordinal is one
one for
for which an arbitrary
which an but fixed
arbitrary but "fun­
fixed "fun-
damental sequence"
damental sequence" has
has been
been assigned
assigned toto each
each limit
limit below
below it.
it. The
The most
most convenient
convenient
way to introduce
way to introduce such
such ordinals
ordinals is
is in
in two
two stages.
stages. First
First the
the set of abstract
set ~0 of abstract "tree-
"tree­
ordinals" is
ordinals" is defined
defined inductively,
inductively, in
in aa manner
manner reminiscent
reminiscent of Kleene 's O
of Kleene's but with-
0 but with­
out any
out any conditions
conditions (effectivity
(effectivity or
or otherwise)
otherwise) being
being placed
placed on
on sequences.
sequences. Then
Then the
the
subset ~s
subset of "structured
OS of "structured tree-ordinals"
tree-ordinals" isis obtained
obtained byby requiring
requiring that
that fundamental
fundamental
154
154 M. Fairtlough
M. Fairt/otlgh and S. Wainer

sequences mesh
sequences mesh together
together inin an
an appropriate
appropriate way, as in
way, as in Schmidt
Schmidt [1976] and Ketonen
[1976] and Ketonen
and Solovay
and Solovay [1981].
[1981] .
It will
It will be
be intuitively
intuitively clear
clear from
from their
their uniform
uniform construction
construction that
that the
the particular
particular
tree-ordinals named
tree-ordinals named and
and used
used in
in what
what follows
follows are
are all
all recursive ones.
recursive ones.
2.1. DDefinition.
2.1. efinition. The set
The set ~n of
of countable
countable tree-ordinals
tree-ordinals a,
a, /~, 'Y, .. .. .., , A,
{3, 7, . . . is
A, ... is
generated inductively
generated inductively according
according to
to the
the rules:
rules:
• 0En
9 OEf~
•
9 aaEE~n ~::::} aa++l :1=:=
a Ua{Ua }{a}
E~E n
•
9 w ~ x eE ~n)) ~::::} ~a :=
Vx eE NN ((a := ((a~ )x~) NxE N eE n.
n.
2.2. Note.
2.2. N ote. A will always
A will always denote
denote aa "limit"
"limit" A (Ax ) E N . We
A == {Ax/xeN. usually write,
We usually write, more
more
suggestively, A
suggestively, sup Ax.
A == sup Ax . X

2.3. DDefinition.
2.3. efinition. The sub-tree
The sub-tree ordering -< is
ordering .< is the
the transitive
transitive closure
closure of
of the
the rules
rules
•a . -<
9a < aa++l f1o for
r a lall
l a Eaf tE n
• am .<
9 a.~ (ax ) for
-< (a~) all aa EE ~n and
for all and m
m EE N.
N.
2.4. RRemark.
2.4. emark. One of
One of the
the immediate
immediate consequences
consequences ofof this intensional approach
this intensional approach to to
ordinals
ordinals is that .<
is that -< is
is only partial ordering
only aa partial ordering on n. For
on ft. example, if
For example, if we identify xx EE N
we identify N
with
with 00 + + . .. .. . +
+ 11 + + ll(x times) EE f~
(x times) then we
n then we can
can define
define w0 and w
Wo and w EE fln by := (x)
Wo "=
by w0 and
(x) and
(1 ++ x)
:= (1
w := x).. Clearly
Clearly w0 and w
Wo and w are
are incomparable
incomparable under
under -<
.<..

2.5. fn-induction
2.5. Principle.
~-induction P rinciple. If Q isis aa property
If Q property of
of tree-ordinals
tree-ordinals such that
such that
•
9 Q(O)
Q(0)
• Q(a) ::::}
9 Q(a) =~ Q(aQ ( a ++l )1)
•
9 Vx
VxEE N
N.Q(A~) ~ Q(A)
. Q(Ax ) ::::} Q(A)..
then
then Q(a) holds for
Q(a) holds for every
every a
a E n.
E ft.

For
For each
each a
a E fl, the
E n, the ordering
ordering -< -%a is well-founded, where
is well-founded, where -<
-%a is
is the
the restriction
restriction of
of
.< below
-< below a. Henceforward, Il a
a. Henceforward, aI I denotes
denotes the
the set-theoretic
set-theoretic ordinal
ordinal height
height of
of -< a·
.<,.

2.6.
2.6. Definitions.
Definitions. For
For each
each nn EE N N and
and each each aa E
E nfl the
the finite
finite set a[n] of
set a[n] of n
n--
predecessors of
predecessors a is
of a is defined
defined recursively
recursively by
by
•9 O[n] := 0
0[n] := z
•9 (a
(a +
+ l)[n]
1)[n] :=
:= a[n]
a[n] U
U {a}
{a}
•9 A[n]
~[~] :=
.-- An[n]
~.[~1. .
The
The immediate
immediate n -predecessor of
n-predecessor a is
of a is Pn(a) = the
P ~ ( a ) ":= the -<-maximum
-<-maximum element
element of a[n] if
of a[n] if
a[n] =f.
a[n] 0, and
# 0, and 00 otherwise.
otherwise.

2.7.
2.7. Definition.
Definition. The
The set fls of
set ns of structured tree-ordinals consists
structured tree-ordinals consists of
of those
those a E n
a E gt
such
such that
that
VA � _ a . Vx Ee N
a.Vx N.. (A
(A,x E A[X
A[x +
+ 1]).
Note
Note that
that if
if a
a E f~s and
E ns and/~{3 -< a then
-< a then/?{3 EE nS
f~s..
 Provably
Provably Recursive
Recursive Functions
Functions 155
155

2.8.
2.8. TTheorem.
heorem. For
For every
every a a E
E ns
f~s we
we have
have
a[O] �
1. a[0]
1. C_ a[l]
a[1] � ..,�
C_... a[n] �
C_ a[n] a[n +
C_ a[n + 1] c _ .. ... .
1] �
2.
2. {3 -< a
~ -< a if
if and
and only
only if ~ E
if {3 E a[n]
a[n] for
for some
some n n..

P r o o f . We
Proof. We proceed
proceed by by n-inductions
~-inductions oonn a a":
1. If
1. If aa = - °0 then
then a[n]
a[n] = = 0 0 = = a[n
a[n + + 1]1].. For
For the the successor
successor case case assume
assume a[n]a[n] � C_
a[n
a[n + 1].. Then
+ l] Then (a (a + + l) [n] =
1)[n] = a[n]
a[n] U {a} �
U {a} C_ a[n
a[n + + l]
1] U
U {a}
{a} = = (a(a +
+ l)[n
1)In + 1].. For
+ l] For
the limit case
the limit case a a = = (a x ) , assume
(ax}, assume that that an[n]an[n] � an[n +
C_ an[n + 1]1].. The
The structuredness
structuredness
condition in
condition 2.7 gives
in 2.7 gives an an E E a[n
a[n + + 1] 1] and
and it it is
is easy
easy toto see
see that
that from
from definition
definition
2.6 that
2.6 that whenever
whenever 'Y ")' E a[x] then
E a[x] "y[x] C
then 'Y[x] a[x].. Therefore
C a[x] Therefore an[n an[n + + 1]1] C
C a[n
a[n + + 1]
1]
and
and hence
hence a[n]
a[n] = - an[n]
an[n] � an[n +
C_ an[n + 1] 1] C
C a[na[n + + 1]1] as
as required.
required.
2. The
2. The implication
implication from from rightright to to left
left is
is immediate.
immediate. The The converse
converse is is vacuously
vacuously truetrue
when
when a a = 0, and
= 0, and whenwhen a a is
is a
a successor,
successor, say say a' a ~++ 11 then
then {3fl -< a implies
-< a implies {3fl �~ a'
a~
so
so the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis gives gives an an n n E E N IN such
such thatthat {3
fl E
E a'[n]
a'[n] UU {a'}
{a'} == a[n]
a[n]..
Finally
Finally if if {3
fl -< aa where
where a a = : (a x ) EE ns
(ax) f~s thenthen {3 _~ a
fl � am -< a
m -< m+ 1 for
O/rnT1 for some
some m, m, so
so
by
by the
the induction hypothesis/~{3 E
induction hypothesis E am +
am+l[n] l [n] for
for some
some n.
n. By
By part
part 1
1 we
we may
may take
take
nn >> m m + + 11 so
so that
t h a t by
by the structuredness of
the structuredness of a,a, aam+l rm +
m+ 1 EE aaim + 2]
2] � a[n].. Then
C_ a[n] Then
since 'Y?' EE a[n]
since implies 'Y[n]
din] implies ?'[n] C a[n] we
C a[n] obtain {3
we obtain fl E
Ea m+ l [n] C
am+l[n] a[n] as
C a[n] as desired.
desired.

2.9.
2.9. Corollary.
Corollary. For
For each
each non-zero
non-zero a a EE nsf~s the
the set
set {{3 ~ -<
{~ :" {3 -< a}
a} is
is linearly
linearly and
and
hence well-ordered
hence well-ordered by -<,, with
by -< with least
least element
element 0 andand such
such that
that {3 -< a
fl -< a implies
implies {3
13+
+ 11 �
-< a
a..
This
This well-ordering
well-ordering is
is the
the direct
direct union
union of
of its
its finite
finite sub-orderings
sub-orderings a[n]
a[n] for n E
for n ENIN..

P r o o f . By
Proof. 2.8 if
By 2.8 i f f {30,
l 0 , ~{31
l -< aa then for some
then for some n n we
we have
have {30, fl: E
ri0, {31 a[n].. But
E a[n] But itit is
is
immediate
immediate from from definition 2.6 that
definition 2.6 a[n] is
that a[n] is linearly
linearly ordered
ordered by by -< -<,, so
so {30
fl0 -< ~: or
-< {31 or
{3fl00 = ~1 or
= {31 or {31
fll -< {30· A
rio. simple induction
A simple induction onon aa EE nf~ss shows
shows that
t h a t {3fl +
+ 11 �_ aa whenever
whenever
{3 -< a. The
-< a. final sentence
The final sentence isis just
just aa restatement
restatement of of theorem
theorem 2.8.1.
2.8.1.

2.10.
2.10. Note.Note. There
There are
are continuum-many
continuum-many -<-incomparable
-<-incomparable a a EE ns
f~s each
each with
with
a I] == w (j
I] a ust take
(just take a, (f(x)) for
:= (J(x))
a I := for each
each strictly
strictly increasing
increasing function
function f f: : N --+ N
1N -+ IN;;
then GOtf
then Gas =
- f f and
and hence
hence every
every such
such function
function already
already crops
crops up
up at
at the
the first
first limit
limit level
level
in n).
in f~). Some
Some ofof these
these are
are more
more "natural"
"natural" than
than others
others however,
however, the
the most natural being
most natural being
w0 and
Wo and w asas in 2.4. We
in 2.4. We will
will be
be concerned
concerned principally
principally with
with those
those tree-ordinals
tree-ordinals which
which
can
can be
be "constructed"
"constructed" from
from Wow0 or
or w
w..

2.11. Arithmetic
2.11. A f~. Any
o n n.
r i t h m e t i c on Any primitive
primitive recursive
recursive definition
definition over
over N
N,, say
say

f(a,
f ( a , O0)
) = fo {a)
fo(a)
f(a,
f ( a , bb++ 1) 1) : II (a, b, f(a, b))
fl(a,b,f(a,b))

can
can be
be extended
extended straightforwardly
straightforwardly toto n
~ by
by the
the addition
addition of
of aa third
third "continuity"
"continuity" clause.
clause.
Thus, using
Thus, using Greek
Greek letters
letters instead,
instead, we
we have
have the
the corresponding
corresponding definition
definition over
over n:
fl:

cp(a, 0) = CPo (a)

cp(a, (3 + 1)
+ 1) = CP1 (a, (3, cp(a, (3))
156
156 M. and S. Whiner
Fairtlough and
M. Fairtlough Wainer

v(., A) == sup
rp(a, ~) rp(a, ~).
sup v(.,
x
Ax).
X

The connection
The connection between and ~rp can
between ff and can be
be expressed
expressed simplysimply inin terms
terms of of the
the slow-growing
slow-growing
operator G. Recall
operator G. Recall that Go(n) ::=
that G~(n) - card a[n] , so
card a[n], so from
from definition
definition 2.6 2.6 we
we immediately
immediately
have Go(n) =
have Go(n) = O, GO+ 1 (n)
0, G~+~ (n) == G~(n)
Go(n) ++ 11 and GA (n) =
and Gx(n) = Gx,
GAJn (n).) . Since Go(n) is
Since G~(n) is defined
defined
pointwise-at-n, we
pointwise-at-n, we shall
shall sometimes
sometimes find
find itit notationally
notationally convenient
convenient to to write Gn(a)
write G,(c~)
instead of
instead Go(n) so
of G~(n) so that,
that, for
for each
each fixed
fixed n,
n, G Gn, :: ~n ~-+ 51.
N.
Now suppose
Now suppose we
we know
know already
already that
that for
for fixed
fixed n, n, and
and all a, ~(3 and
all ~, and "~, EE ~,
n,
Gn(rpo (a)) == fo(G.(~))
G.(~p0(~)) fo(Gn(a))
!I (Gn(a), Gn((3) , Gn(r)).
Gn(rpl (a, (3, ,)) = f~(G.(~),Gn(~),G.(~/)).
G.(~l(c~,/~,-),))

Then by
Then by aa simple
simple gt-induction on (3 we
n-induction on/~ we have
have for
for all a, ~(3 EE ~,
all a, n,
G.(~(c~, $)) = f ( G . ( ~ ) , G.(/~)).

Thus Gn
Thus G , is
is aa homomorphism,
homomorphism, collapsing
collapsing the the arithmetic
arithmetic of of n
~ onto
onto the the arithmetic
arithmetic of of
N
N..
For example,
For example, defining
defining addition, multiplication and
addition, multiplication exponentiation oonn n
and exponentiation ~ iinn the
the
obvious way:
obvious way:
Addition. a
Addition. c ~++ 00: :=
= a ;a; ca~++ (((3 : = (:=
~ ++l )1) c ~(a
+/+ (3)l ;+ 1 ; a
?)+ ~ ++AA: =:=s u sup(a
p(c~++ A xA)x)
Multiplication. a
Multiplication. c~.· 00 :=
:= 0; a ((3
0; a . · (~ + 1) :=
+ 1) (a · ~)
:= (~. (3) ++ a; c~; ~ a. · A
A ::=- sup(a Ax)
s u p ( a . Ax)
.

Exponentiation. aO
Exponentiation. a({J+
:= 11;; c~
c~~ := (s+l)l ) ::= c~s ..c~;
- af3 a; a c~Ax :: =
- sup(a Az )
sup(c~ x~)
we
we have for each
have for each fixed
fixed nn EE 51, N,
Gn(a
1. G
1. .(a + + (3)
j3) =
= Gn(a)
G.(a) + Gn((3)
+ G.(/~)
2. Gn(a
2. C . ( ~ . · (3)
~) = = Gn(a)
C . ( ~ ) . . Gn((3)
C.(~)
3. Gn(af3)
3. G.(~) = = Gn(a)Gn(
G.(~) ~"(~). f3) .
What
What wewe need
need to to know
know is is that
that these
these operations
operations are
are well-defined
well-defined on structured tree­
on structured tree-
ordinals.
ordinals.

2.12.
2.12. Lemma.
Lemma. For
For all a, (3
all ~, ~ andand , 7 EEn ~ we
we have
have
~ Ee (3
1. ,
1. [n] ===}
Z[n] ~. a + +, ~E e (a
(~ + + (3) [n] .
Z)[~].
2. ,
2. ~ E Z[~] ===}
e (3[n] ~ a e (a
- . ~· , E ( - . · (3) [n] if
Z)[~] e a
if 00 E [n] .
-[~].
3. , E (3 [n] ===} a'Y E af3[n] if 1 E a [n] .

P r o o f . We
Proof. We proceed
proceed by
by n-induction
f~-induction on (3. All
on/~. All three
three are
are similar
similar soso we
we just
just prove
prove (3)
(3)
assuming
assuming (2) (2).. The case (3
The case ~= = 00 is
is trivial
trivial since 0[hi =
since O[n] = 0.
O.
For
For the
the successor
successor step from (3
step from to (3
fl to + 1,
fl+ 1, suppose
suppose , E ((3
~/E + 1)
(fl+ [n] =
1)[n] = (3 [n] U {(3} . Then
fl[n]U{fl). Then
by
by the
the induction hypothesis, a'Y
induction hypothesis, a~ Ee af3[n]U{ af3} . Since
a~[n]U{aS}. e a
Since 11 E [n] we
a[n] we also
also have
have 00 Ee af3[ n]
aS[n]
by
by aa simple on (3
induction on
simple induction fl using
using (2),
(2), and hence af3
and hence as = a s . . 11 E
= af3 e (af3
(a s . . a) [n] =
a)[n] -- af3+ 1 [n]
aS+l[n]
again
again using
using (2).
(2).
For
For the
the limit
limit case suppose (3
case suppose ~ == supsup (3x
fix and
and ,~, E fl[n] =
e (3[n] = (3n [n] , so
~,[n], so that,
that, byby the
the
induction hypothesis, a'Y
induction hypothesis, a~ Ee a f3n [n]
a~"[n]. . But
But af3
a s =
= sup(af3z
sup(aSx), ) , so
so af3[n]
aS[n] =
= af3n [n]
aS"In] and
and
~ Ee af3
a'Y [n] .
~[~].
 Provably
Provably Recursive
Recursive Functions
Functions 157
157

2.13.
2.13. Theorem.
Theorem.
1. a,
1. c~, f3
~ EE OS =:~ a
f~s ==> ~ ++ f3~ EE OS
f~ s
2. a,
2. ~ , f3
~ E OS ==V a
f~s ==> c~.· f3
fl E
E OS provided 00 E a[l]
f~s provided c~[1]
3.
3. a,
c~, f3
~ EE OS = : , afJ
f~s ==> c~# EE OS provided 11 E a[l]
f~s provided c~[1]

P r o o f . We
Proof. We proceed
proceed by by O-induction
fMnduction on f3. Again,
on/~. Again, allall three
three are
are similar
similar so
so we
we prove
prove
(3) assuming
(3) assuming (2)
(2).. If r = 00 then
If f3 then afJ
a# == 11 and
and 11 E Os
f~s..
For the
For the successor
successor step step from
from/~f3 to
to f3
r + 11 assume
assume afJ
a # E Osf~s.. Then
Then afJ +l =
a #+1 a # .. a
= afJ a and
and
this
this belongs
belongs to to OS
f~s by
by (2),
(2), because
because thethe proviso
proviso 11 E a[l]
a[1] implies
implies 00 E afJ[l]
a#[1] from
from thethe
proof
proof ofof Lemma
Lemma 2.12.2.12.
For
For the
the limit case/~f3 =
limit case = sup f3x EE OS
sup/3x f~s we
we must
must check
check thethe structuredness
structuredness condition
condition
[n +
AA,n EE AA[n + 1]
1] for
for every
every limit
limit A
A� ~ afJa #.. This
This follows
follows immediately
immediately from from the
the induction
induction
hypotheses
hypotheses if if A -~ afJ
A -< a # because
because inin that
that case
case we
we have
have AA� ~ afJz
a #x for
for some
some x. x. It
It therefore
therefore
remains
remains to to verify
verify itit in
in the
the case
case AA = - afJa# =- sup(afJz
sup(a#x).) . But
But then
then for
for any
any fixed
fixed n n we
we
have
have f3~,n E f3[n +
E/3[n + 1] since f3 EE Os
1] since/3 f~s,, and
and 1 E a[1] C
E a[l] a[n +
C a[n 1] by
+ 1] by the
the proviso.
proviso. Therefore
Therefore
AAnn == afJn
a #" E afJ[n +
E a#[n + 1]1] =
= A[ n+
A[n 1] immediately
+ 1] immediately fromfrom part (3) of
part (3) Lemma 2.12.
of Lemma This
2.12. This
completes
completes the the proof.
proof.

2.14.
2.14. Notation.
Notation. In
In what
what follows
follows we shall often
we shall drop round
often drop round brackets
brackets from
from (a+f3) [n]
(c~+~)[n]
or
or (a
(c~.· f3) [n] and
~)[n] and write
write a
c~ +
+ f3[n]
~[n],, a · f3[n] instead.
~./~[n] instead.

2.15.
2.15. Examples.
Examples.
1. Wo
1. w0 E OS
f~s and w=
and w = 11 + w0o =
+ w = sup(1
sup(1 +
+ x)
x) E Os
f~s..
2. a
2. Olll ,, .. ... ,. , ak
Olk E OS ==>
E ~"~S ~ wwOOlal . n nll + + ." .. . + wa
-t- W akk . 9nk
nk E OS ~s..
=
9

3. wW
3. w ~ [[nn]] = w
n
w"+~[n] l
+ [n] == w n
w" . n . n + + w
n - •
w"-l 1 . n n + .
+... . +
. + W w ·. nn ++ nn ++ l[n]l[n].. Thus
Thus the the elements
elements
of
of co'~ wW [n] are are exactly
exactly those those ordinals ordinals of of the
the form
form w w"n . 9mo
mo + + .. ... . ++ ww . 9m l +
m ,n_-l + m m,n
where mmii <_
where ::::; nn for
for every
every ii _< n.
::::; n.
4. More generally,
4. More generally, by by induction
induction on on c~, a, thethe finite
finite set w a rn] consists
set w"[n] consists of of all
all tree­
tree-
ordinals of
ordinals of thethe form form wfJ co#~ 9moo . mo + +w I
WfJ#1 .9ml . .
ml ++ . . . ++ w. WfJk
#k . 9mk where f3k
mk where ~k -< . . . -<
-~ "'" -~ f30
~0
all
all lie lie in a[n] and
in c~[n] and mmii ::::; <_ nn for every ii ::::;
for every _< k.k.
5. co
5. eo = = ssup(l,
u p ( 1 , ww, ~ , w ~w,w. ."'. ,) • • • ) E
, x wW, Os . Thus
E f~s. Thus c~ a -~
-< (CO ) n if
(e0), and only
if and only if a is
if c~ expressible
is expressible
in
in Cantor
Cantor normal normal form form a c~ = = w wfJ#~o . 9mo
mo + +w WfJ#1I . 9mlml + + .. ... . + #k .9mk
+ wWfJk where f3k
m k where -<
~k -~
. 9". -. ~-< f3 0 -< (CO)n
#o -~ (~o).-1. - l .
6.
6. We
We define
define eXP a (f3) to
exp,(~) to be
be afJ and then
c~# and then the
the n-th
n-th iterate :=
exp� (f3) "=
iterate expX(r c~" ll n"~'"
a a's · ·a }
is also structured
is also structured provided a, ~f3 EE OS
provided c~, f~s and
and 11 E E a[I]
c~[1]..
7. For
7. For each
each c~
a EE f~s,
Os, e(c~):= sUPn (exp�(1 +c~
c(a) := sup,(exp~(1 +a+ + 1))
1)) eE f~s
OS isis aa natural
natural tree-ordinal
tree-ordinal
notation for
notation for the
the next
next e-number
c-number above 1 a I.
above I~l.

2.16. TThe
2.16. he F Function-Hierarchies.
unction-Hierarchies.
The SSlow-Growing
1. The
1. Ga :: N
functions G~
l o w - G r o w i n g functions -* N
N -+ N are
are defined
defined by
by the
the recursion
recursion
Go(n) :=
G0(n) . - 0,
0,
G,a+l
G + l ( (n)
n) .- G
:= G~a ((n)n ) ++l , 1,
cGA(n) .- GAn (n).
~ ( ~ ) := c ~ . ( ~ ).
158
158 M. Fairtlough
M. Fairtlough and S. Wainer
and S. Wainer

2. The
2. The Hardy
Hardy functions HOI :9NN --+
functions Ha N are
-+ 1N are defined
defined by
by the
the recursion
recursion

Ho(n)
Ho(n) :.-
-- n,
n,
Ha+1l (/~)
Ha+ . - HHa(n
(n) "--" 1),
+ 1),
a ( n --~
. - H~o(n).
H>.(n) .=
H~(~) H>.n (n) .

The Fast-Growing
3. The
3. Fast-Growing functions Ba ": IN
functions Ba N --+ N and
-+ N Fa :9IN
and Fa N -+ N are
-+ N are defined
defined by
by the
the
recursions
recursions

Bo(n) :=
Bo(n) . - nn +
+ l,1,
Ba+l(n) . - B~(Ba(n)),
Ba+ l (n) := Ba(Ba (n)) ,
B>. (n)
B~ . - B~,
(n) := B>.Jn)
(n)

Fo (n) .:=- nn +
Fo(n) + 1,l,
Fo+l(~) -
Fa+ l (n) .:= F: + l (n) ,
F:+l(~),
F~(~) .:=
F>.(n) - F >'n (n) .
F~o(~).

2.17. LLemma.
2.17. emma. For all
For all a, /3 EE n,
a, ~ gt,

Ha +/3 == Ha
H.+~ go o H/3
o H~

P r o o f . We
Proof. We proceed
proceed by
by n-induction
~-induction on /3. The
on ~. The case
case /3
~ - 00 is
= is obvious
obvious because
because Ho
H0
is the
is the identity. For the
identity. For the successor
successor case
case we
we have,
have, by
by the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis and
and
definition
definition 2.16
2.16 (2),
(2),

Ha+(f~+l)(n) = H(a+/3)+ l (n)

H(a+f~)+l(n)
- Ha +/3(n +
Ha+;3(n + 1)
1)
- Ha(H/3(n
Ha(Hz(n + + 1))
1))
= Ha (H/3+ l (n)) .
Ha(Hz+l(n)).

For
For the limit case
the limit case /3
~ =- sup
sup /3x
f~ we
we have
have

Ha
g .++~p(n)
(~ ) = Ha +pJn)
H.+~o(~)
= Ha (HPn (n))
Ho(H~o(n))
=
= Ha (Hp(n)).
H.(H~(~)).

2.18.
2.18. Theorem.
Theorem. For
For all E n,
a E
all a ~,

Ba = H2~ and F a - H ~
 Provably Recursive Functions 159
159

P r o o f . We
Proof. We proceed
proceed by
by O-inductions
t2-inductions on a . Both
on a. B o t h are
are similar
similar and
and we
we only
only do
do the
the
second.
second. If If a - 0
c~ = 0 then
then w
a - 11 and
wa = and it it is
is clear
clear that
t h a t both F0 and
b o t h Fo H1 are
and HI are the
the successor
successor
function.
function. For For the
the successor
successor case
case aa toto aa ++ 11 we
we have,
have, using
using the induction hypothesis,
the induction hypothesis,
2.17 and
2.17 and the
the fact
fact that
that w
a+ 1 =
w a+l = w
a w=
w a . 9W = sup
supw waa . 9((xx +
+ 1),
1),

Hw<>.(n+ 1 ) (n)
=

H;;;-I
~n+l =
(n)
F : ++l1 (n)
-- F� (n)
= Fa
Fa+l+ I (n)
(n)..

we have a = sup a and so

For
For the
the limit
limit case
case a = sup
c~ = sup ax , we
c~x, have w
wa = w a"• and
sup w so by
by the
the induction
induction
hypothesis,
hypothesis,

= H n (n))
H w<>oo(
= Fan
F . o ((n)
n)
- Fa (n).
Fa(n).

2.19. Theorem.
2.19. Theorem. For
For each
each a 0, define
a E ~, its descent
define its descent functional
functional Da
Da by
by

Da(f)(n) = least k . ( P s k - l ( n ) . . . Pp(~)Ps(~)Pn(~) = 0).

Then
Then
Ga(n) = Da
G a (n) = Da (identity) (n)
(identity)(n)
and
and
Ha(n) = Da(successor)
Ha(n) (n) +
Da(successor)(n) + n.
n.

P r o o f . Note
Proof. Note that Da satisfies
t h a t Da satisfies the
the recursion:
recursion:

Do (f) (n)
Do(f)(n) = o0
Da + (f)(n)
1
Da+l(f)(n) = Da(f) f(n)) +
D a ( f ) ((f(n)) + 1l
D>.(f)
Dx(f)(n) (n) = D>.JJ) (n)
D~ n(f)(n)

because
because Pn a +
P n ((a + 1)
1) = a and
- c~ and Pn(A)
Pn(A) = Pn(A~).. Then
= Pn(An) T h e n with
with f
f = identity we
= identity we get
get
exactly the
exactly the definition
definition of Ga,, and
of Ga with ff =
and with successor we
= successor we get
get exactly
exactly the
the definition
definition of
of
Ha ( n ) --n n.
H a (n) .

2.20.
2.20. Remark.
Remark. We
We are
are going
going to
to need
need various
various "majorization
"majorization properties"
properties" of of the
the
above
above hierarchies,
hierarchies, but
but these
these cannot
cannot bebe expected
expected to
to hold
hold for
for arbitrary
a r b i t r a r y tree-ordinals
tree-ordinals
O. However
a EE f/. However for
for structured
structured a
a EE OS
gl s they
they do.
do.

2.21.
2.21. Theorem.
Theorem. For
For all
all a
a EE Os,
~s,
1. Ga
1. Ga is
is increasing
increasing (strictly
(strictly if
if a
~ is
is infinite) and f3
infinite) and ~ E ~[n] ==>
E a[n] G~(n) <
- - ~ Gf3(n) < Ga (n)
Ga(n)
2.
2. Ha
Ha is
is strictly
strictly increasing
increasing and if f3
and if E a[n]
fl E a[n] then H~(n) <
then Hf3(n) < Ha(n)
Ha(n)
3.
3. Same
Same for
for Ea
Ba and
and for
for Fa
Fa provided
provided n n =I-
~ oO..
160
160 M. Fairtlough and S. Wainer
M. Fairllough Wainer

P r o o f . (1)
Proof. (1) is
is fairly obvious since
fairly obvious since G,,(n)
Ga(n) is
is the size of
the size a[n] and
of a[n] a[n] implies
and/3j3 E9 a[n] implies
~[~] C
j3[n] c a[n]
~[~]..
(2) is
(2) is proved
proved by
by n-induction.
f~-induction. The
The case
case a = 00 is
ce = trivial. For
is trivial. For the
the successor
successor case
case a
ce
to
to aa + + 11 we
we have
have by
by the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis

H,,+ l (n) =
go+~(,) H . ((n
= H,, < H,,
+ 11)) <
, + Ho(,(n +
+ 2)
2) = H . + , ((n
= H,,+1 n ++ 11))

and
and if j3 E9 ac~ +
if/~ + ll[n]
[n] =
-- a[n]
c~[n] U {c~} then
U {a} then

H/J (n)) :::;

He(n < H,, (n) <
Ha(n) < H,,
Ha(n(n +
+ 11)) == H"+ 1 ( n ) .
Ha+l(n).

For
For the limit case
the limit case a = sup
a = a~x E9 ns
sup a ~s we
we have
have a + 11]] =
a[n +
~nn E9 a[n = an + 11]] so
+ 1 [n +
a,+l[n so by
by the
the
induction hypothesis,
induction hypothesis,
Ha(n)) = H
H,,(n "n (n)
Ha,, <H
(n) < "n (n
Ha,, (n + < H
1) <
+ 1) "n+l (n
Ha.+, (n + = H,,
1) =
+ 1) Ha(n(n + 1)
+ 1)

and
and if j3 E9 a[n]
if/~ = an[n]
a[n] = a,[n],,

U~(~) < H.~ = uo(~).

(3) is
(3) immediate from
is immediate since B"
(2) since
from (2) Sa == H 2" , F"
H2~, = H
Fa = w" and
H~. implies 22/Je E
a[n] implies
and/3j3 E9 c~[n] " [n]
6 22a[n]
and w
and w/Je E9 w " [n] , except
wa[n], except that
that the
the latter
latter only
only holds
holds when
when nn i:-
# 0.O. In fact F
In fact ,, (O) =
Fa(0) = 11..

2.22. Corollary. Each

2.22. Corollary. Each of
of the
the hierarchies
hierarchies GGa,", H " , B"
Ha, and F"
Ba and Fa forms
forms aa majorization
majorization
hierarchy
hierarchy on nS, in
on f~s, in the sense that
the sense that the
the functions
functions areare strictly
strictly increasing
increasing (except
(except for
for the
the
constant
constant functions
functions G,,
Ga(n) =a
(n) = ~ when
when a~ isjinite)
is finite) and
and each
each function
function at at level
level a
c~ eventually
eventually
dominates
dominates the
the corresponding
corresponding function
function atat level
level j3
13 whenever
whenever j3 13 -<
-< a.
c~.

P r o o f . Simply
Proof. Simply note
note that
that if j3 -<
if/~ c~ E9 ns
-< a ~s then
then byby 2.8,
2.8, j3 c~[n] for
~ E9 a[n] for all
all but
but finitely
finitely
many
many n n,, and
and then
then by
by 2.21, Ge(n ) <
2.21, G/J(n) Ga(n),, H
< G,,(n) /J
He(n(n)
) <
< H,, (n)
Ha(n) etc.
etc.

2.23.
2.23. Comparisons
C o m p a r i s o n s Lemma.
Lemma. For
For all
all non-zero
non-zero a 6 ns
~ E ~s and n > 11,,
and n

Ga(n) < Ha(n) < Ba(n) < Fa(n) < B~.a(n).

P r o o f . We
Proof. We proceed
proceed byby simple
simple n-inductions
~-inductions on r . For
on a For example,
example, the
the least
least straight­
straight-
forward
forward inequality
inequality is
is the final one:
the final one:

F f 2 ++l ~+
n+ 1 = Bw(n)
l (n)
F~(~) = F!l' ~ ((n) = 22~
~) = n++ 11 < < n + 22 "§ = S~(~)
+ l l ( n ) == B
F"+1 (n)
r,+l(n) _= F : (n) <
F:+I(n) < B��w.a (n)
B,+I < B��;l
('~) <
-.~ B ~.a (n)
2"+1 W.a+w(n)
S~.,+~(n)
F>.
Fx (n)
(n) = F>.Jn)
= F~. (n) < < Bw.>.Jn)
S~.~. (n) = Bw.>.(n).
S~.~ (n).

2.24.
2.24. The
T h e computational
c o m p u t a t i o n a l honesty
h o n e s t y of
of G, H ,, B
G, H and F
B and F

We call aa computable
We call computable function
function "honest"
"honest" if
if its
its complexity
complexity is bounded by
is bounded by some
some
iterate
iterate of
of itself.
itself. Since
Since our
our concern
concern here
here is
is with
with "large"
"large" functions,
functions, bigger
bigger than
than
 Provably Recursive Functions 161
161

exponential,
exponential, it it does
does not
not matter
matter whether
whether we we measure
measure computational
computational complexity complexity in in
terms
terms of
of space
space or or time,
time, but
but itit will
will be
be convenient
convenient to to think
think in in terms
terms of of space-complexity.
space-complexity.
Clearly,
Clearly, the
the computability
computability and and complexity
complexity of of the
the functions
functions Gc Ga," Hc" Ha, BoB~ and
and F a,
Fa,
for
for a's
a's ranging
ranging belowbelow some
some fixed
fixed treetree ordinal
ordinal , "y depend
depend on on the
the computability
computability and and
complexity
complexity of of the
the operation
operation

a, xx),) �> (a
((a,
{(a - { - 1,
ax , xx))
((ax,
x) if
1, x) a is
if a
'f a
1if a IS
is aa successor
successor
' .
'is llimit.
Imlt.
2.25. Definition. Let
2.25. Definition. Let qq bebe aa strictly
strictly increasing
increasing number-theoretic
number-theoretic function. function. Then
Then
aa tree-ordinal
tree-ordinal , ~/is q-space-representable if
is q-space-representable if there
there is is aa uniform
uniform method
method of of representing
representing
each
each a a -(
-~ , as aa word
~/as word rr aanI on on aa TUring
Turing MachineMachine tape tape ((or or more
more generally
generally as as aa term
term
in
in some
some finite
finite language
language), ) , and
and aa standard
standard representation
representation of of numbers
numbers x x by
by words
words rrxn,
xI,
such
such that
that the
the transition
transition

((ran, x, ) �~ (rr aa n-',

raI , rrxn),
{
((rr a
a - I' x, ) 1'iff aa IS
17,, rrxn)
.is a successor
a successor
( x , rrxx') n) if
if aa isis limit
limit

is
is computable
computable within
within space
space less
less than
than q(lr q(/(ran)a,) + + / (lr w h e r e /l((rraan,)) denotes
n ) ) , where
r xx')), denotes the
the
length
length ofof the
the word
word rran.aI.
2.26.
2.26. Lemma.
Lemma. Suppose
Suppose thatthat ,7 = sup
sup% 'x EE OS
~s is is q-space-representable
q-space-representable and
and let
let
ql (n) =
ql(n) = q(n) ·2 and
q(n).2 and qq~(n)
2 (n) = q(n) ·n. Then
q(n).n. Then forfor aa -(
-~ ,
,~ and
and xx Ee N
N the
the space-complexities
space-complexities
of
of the computations of
the computations of Go(x)
G~(x),, Ho(x)
Ha(x), , Bo(x)
Ba(x) and and Fa (x) are
F~(x) bounded as
are bounded as follows:
follows:
G ( +I
_< q ,, X ) (Wal) +
SG (a, x) ::; + Wx'))
H� ( )
SH (a, x) < q X (Wal ) + Wx'))
SH(a,x) <_ qH~(')(l(ran) +/(rxn))

B (a, x) <
SSB(a,x) �� (x) (Wal )) +
<_ qqBl~(')(l(ran WxI))
+/(rxn))
� (x
_F2(~)
SF(a, x) < q{ \W a ) + WxI)) l

Proof. We
Proof. We prove
prove the result for
the result for B,
B, andand then
then indicate
indicate briefly briefly what what modifications
modifications are are
needed
needed for H and
G, H
for G, For B
F. For
and F. B and
and FF we we cannot
cannot prove prove the desired inequality
the desired inequality directly; directly;
instead
instead we need to
we need to prove
prove something
something stronger,
stronger, and and then then we we can extract what
can extract what we want
we want
easily. First some
easily. First some notation:
notation: letlet fl(3 -= #(300,, (31 k - -1 l denote
# l ,, .. ... ,. ~, (3k denote any any finite finite sequence
sequence
((possibly empty) of
possibly empty) tree-ordinals -~
of tree-ordinals -( "y,
" and
and let let rrfl7 (3' = = r l 22nI,, . ... . . ', r
l l 7 I,' rrf(3
r i(31 r /(3k
~ k _-llnI be
be the
the
tape-representation
tape-representation of Define
(3. Define
of ft.
B((3, x)
B(fl, x) == B~o BpI o0 . . . 0o B
Bpo o0 Be, Pk_ 1 (x)
B#k_l
• • • (x)..
Then B(#,x)
Then will bbee computed
B ((3, x ) will computed according according to to the
the following
following tape-transitions
tape-transitions
where r#n,
where r (3', rraanI denotes
denotes the the tape-word
tape-word r#07, r (30 I, r#17,...,r#k_17
r(31 I, . . . , r(3k - l I,, rraanI with
with length
length
W (3', r a, ) == l(WZ0 (31 ,) ++. .. .. . ++ W(3k- l ') ++ l(r
(30 , ) ++ l(W#1 Wa, ) ++ k: k:
(() , rx ' ) :�> rxn
(<},rxn) ( and halt)
rX' (and halt)
r(3l , rOI, rx') � r(3l , rx +l l')
(r#n, r0n ,rxn ) , > ( r # n , r x + 7)
r(3l , rra
(r#n, l l , rxn
a ++ 17, � (r#n,
rx')) ~_+ rx'))
( r (3l , rraanl ', rraanl ', rxn
r (3', r A I , rx, ) � ( r(3', r Ax I, rX ')
162
162 M. Fairtlough
M. and S.S. Wainer
Fairllough and Wainer

The space
The space used
used in
in the
the computation
computation of of B(fl,B({3, x) will be
x) will be denoted
denoted SB(fl,
SB ({3, x).
x) .
Now let
Now let L~(x) be the
La (x) be the step-counting
step-counting function
function associated
associated with
with the
the recursive
recursive defini-
defini­
tion of
tion of B~(x), thus Lo(x)
Ba (x) , thus Lo(x) == xx ++ 1;1 ; La+l(x) La (La (x)) ++ 1;1 ; L~(x)
La+1 (x) == L~(La(x)) L;.. (x) == L~=(x)
Ldx) ++ 1.l .
As above,
As above, define
define L(fl,
L({3, x) Lf30 o0 L#,
x ) == L#o LPk _ l (x).
Lpl o0 .· .· .· o0 L#k_l Then what
(x) . Then what we we need
need toto prove
prove isis
the following:
the following:
Claim.
C l a i m . For every aa -~-< 7'Y and
For every and every
every sequence
sequence #,{3, ififfor
for every
every xx
sB(#,~) <_ q~(~")(l(r# -~) + l(r~-~))
then for
then for every
every xx
s~(#,~,~) <_q~("~ ~) + l(~)).
The desired
The desired result
result follows
follows almost
almost immediately
immediately from
from this
this because with #{3 -= ()() we
because with we
obtain
obtain
SB (a, x)
Ss(~, � ~q�(a,x) (lra"') + Wx..,))
x) <_
and it is
and it is an
an easy
easy matter
matter to
to check
check that
that
L~(x) < B~+l(x) = S~(x).

We
We prove the claim
prove the claim by induction on
by induction on aa -~ 'Y, assuming
-< 7, assuming in each case
in each that {3
case that is an
# is an
arbitrary
arbitrary finite
finite sequence such that
sequence such that for
for every
every x,
x,

SB(~,x) < qL(#'Z)(l(r~7) +/(rx'~)).

If
If a - 00 then
cr = then by
by the
the second
second transition
transition above,
above,

B ({3, 0,
Ss~(#, o, x)
~) = Ss~(#,
B ({3, x 9++ 1)
�(P ,x+1 ) (W{3"') +
< q-~L(#'z+l)(l(rflT) +Wl(rxx ++ 1"'))
In))
< {J,O
< qq~(~,~ x}
� ( , (W {3"', ro..,) + W l ( ~x..,))
))
since L(fl, 0,
since L({3, x) = L({3,
O,x) + 1)
L ( # , xx + 1) and
a n d /Wx 1~) �
+ 1"')
(rx + WO"') +
</(tOn) + Wx..,)
l(rx'~)..
For the successor step from a to a +
For the successor step from c~ to c~ + 11,, assume inductively that
assume inductively that the
the claim
claim holds
holds
for a. By the third transition, and using the q-space representability of 7, we
for a. By the third transition, and using the q-space represent ability of 'Y, we have
have

SSB(#, max{/(r# 7) +
B ({3, a + 1,1, x) �< max{W{3"') + q(Wa
q(/(ra + 1"')
1n) + Wx..,)) . 2,2, SSB(fl,
+/(rxn))" o~,oL,
B ({3, a, x)}
a, x)}
since
since we we first
first have
have to to pass
pass from ( ra
from (r a++ 1"', x..,) to
17, rrxT) to (r a"' , rrxT)
(ran, x..,) in q(l(raa +
in q(l(r + 1"')
1-~)+ lrx"'))
+/(rxT))
space,
space, and and then
then wewe have
have to
to copy a n again
copy rr a'" again which
which would
would taketake no no more
more than
than another
another
q(l(r
q(l(ra+a+ 1"' 1~)) +l(r x..,)) space
+l(rx'~)) space units,
units, before
before beginning
beginning the the subsequent
subsequent computation
computation from
from
r {3"', rr a"',
(r#7, a t ' rran, x).. Now
a"', x) Now byby two
two successive
successive applications
applications of of the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis
for a, first
for a, first with
with sequence
sequence {3,#, and
and then
then with
with {3# replaced
replaced by by {3, a, we
#, a, we obtain
obtain
paax
SSB(#,
B ({3, a,
~, a, z) <-< q~1�( , , , ) (l(r{3"', ra"', ra"') + l(rx"'))
~, x)
<< q,~,�(L (p# ,,aa ,,aa, ,xx)) (W{3"')
(/(rflT) +
+ q(Wa + 1"'
q(/(rc~ + 1-1)) ++ /W T ) ) .. 2).
( r xx..,)) 2).
 Recursive Functions
Provably Recursive 163
163

Hence
Hence

SB (,s, (~
SB(fl, a ++ 1,
l , X)
x) <_ q�(,I3,,,,,,,x) (q(l(rfl
L(~,,,,,~)
< 91 (q(W,sI, .) + / ( r x T ) ) .92)
7, rraa ++ 1I') + WX')) 2)
--
�(,13,,,,,,,x)+ l (W,s', rr~a ++ 1I')
q~L(#,-,-,x)+l(/(r#~,
91 + Wx , ))
~) +/(rXT))
< q � (,I3, <>+ l ,X ) ,s', r a + I') + Wx '))
- 91 (W
since iL(,s,
since a, c~,
( # , c~, a, x)
x) ++ 11 _<
::; iL(,s,
( # , 5L� (x) ++ 1)
2 (x) 1) -= L(#,
L(,s, ~a ++ 1,
l, x).
x) .
For the
For the limit case aa -= sup
limit case ax use
sup c~x use the fourth transition,
the fourth transition, the the q-space
q-space representabil-
representabil­
ity of
ity of "7 and the
'Y and the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis for to obtain
ax to
for c~ obtain inin aa similar
similar fashion
fashion to
to the
the
above,
above,

SB (,s, a,x)
SB(fl, a, x) = max{W,s')
max{/(rfl + q(l(ra
7) + q(Wa~) ,) + Wx')) , SB (,s, ax,
+ l(rx-~)),SB(fl, ax , x)}
x)}
q�(,13 , ,,. ,x)
_< qL(#'a"x)(/(r#',rcd~)
(W ,s', ra') + Wx '))
+ / ( r x ~ ) )
l
q�(,I3,,,, ,x) + (w,sl , rra
< qi(#,ax,~)+l(/(r#7,
_< ~ nl)) ++/ (Wx'))
rxT))
< x)
- q91�(,I3,,, , (w,sl, ral ) +
+ Wx'))'

This now completes

This now completes the proof for
the proof for B. The proof
B. The proof for F is
for F is almost identical except
almost identical except
that the
that successor-transition is
the successor-transition is then
then
+

with xx +
with + 11 copies
copies of of a rather than
c~ rather just 2,
than just 2, and
and so ql (n)
so ql (n) = q( n) . 22 is
= q(n). is replaced
replaced byby
q(n). . n.
q2 (n) = q(n)
q2(n) The results
n . The results for for GG andand H can be
H can proved directly
be proved directly without
without the
the
more complicated
more complicated claim. claim. The step-counting function
The step-counting function for is easily
G,, (x) is
for Ga(x) easily seenseen to
to be
be
dominated by
dominated by G Ga(x
,, (x + 1),
1), and
and the
the step-counting
step-counting function
function for
for H
Ha(x)
,, (x) is
is Lo(x)
io(x) =
= x,
x,
L O + l
La+l(x) (x) = L
i a (
,, (x
x +
+ 1)
1) +
+ 1
1,, L)..
i~(x)( x) = L)..
ixx(x)
. (x) +
+ 1
1,, which
which gives
gives Lo(x)
La(x) ::;
<_ H�(x)
H~(x) by
by an
an
easy induction on
easy induction on a.
a.
The
The reader
reader may
may have
have noticed
noticed that
that wewe have
have made
made oneone or
or two
two natural
natural assumptions
assumptions
about
about the
the nature
nature of
of the encoding rr 7_' in
the encoding in the
the proof
proof of
of this lemma, which
this lemma, which should
should strictly
strictly
speaking
speaking form
form part
part of
of the
the definition
definition of
of q-space-representability.
q-space-representability.

2.27.
2.27. Honesty
Honesty T h e o r e m . Suppose
Theorem. Suppose 'Y
7E ~ss is
6 n is q-space-representable,
q-space-representable, and
and suppose
suppose
~ss is
,sfl E6 n is such
such that
that for
for all
all n
n and
and m,
m,
q?(m)
q'~(m) ::;
<_B ,I3 (max(n, m)).
B#(max(n, m)).
Then
Then for
for every
every a -~ 'Y
~ -< ~/ we
we have
have
B E SPACE(B
Ba" E SPACE(Be 0o Bo
,13 Ba 0o B ,, ),
Ba),

and
and so Ba" is
so B is "honest"
"honest" when
when ,s
# j~_ a
~.. Similar
Similar results
results holds
holds for
for G,
G, H
H and
and F.
F.

P r o o f . From
Proof. From the
the above
above Lemma
Lemma we
we have
have
S s ( a , x ) <_ B#(B~(l(ra n) +/(rxn))),

and
and similarly
similarly for G, H
for G, H and
and F.
F.
164
164 M. Fairtlough
Fairtlough and
and S.
S. Wainer
Wainer

2.28.
2.28. Definition.
Definition. A
A function
function ff is
is elementary in aa function
elementary ((in function g)g) if f is
if f is definable
definable
explicitly
explicitly from
from 0,0, 11,, +,
+, - ((and
and g),
..... g), using bounded sums
using bounded sums and products. E(g)
and products. E(g) denotes
denotes
the
the class
class of
of all
all such
such functions
functions ff.. A
A relation
relation is
is elementary
elementary ifif its
its characteristic
characteristic function
function
is.
is.

2.29.
2.29. Fact.
Fact. If 9g is
If is honest
honest and g(n) 2:
and g(n)
n then E(g)
>_ 22~ then E(g) consists
consists exactly
exactly ofof those
those
functions
functions which
which are
are computable
computable within
within time
time or
or space
space bounded
bounded by
by some
some fixed
fixed iterate
iterate
of g. See
of g. See e.g.
e.g. Cutland 1981 ] .
Cutland [[1981].

2.30.
2.30. Corollary.
Corollary. Suppose w
Suppose -~ I
w -< " 7=
- SUPsup% f~ss is
,x EE n is q-space-representable,
q-space-representable, and
and
suppose
suppose there
there is
is f3 -~ I
fl -< "y such
such that
that qf(m) <_ B,B(max(n,
q'~(m) :::; Be(max(n, m))
m)) for
for all n, m
all n, m.. Then
Then

U SPACE(B~)=U E(B~).
a-~7 a-~-),

Similar
Similar results
results hold
hold for G, H
for G, H and
and F
F..

3. Complete
Complete w-arithmetic
w-arithmetic
In
In this
this section
section we
we formalize
formalize the the truth-definition
truth-definition forfor first-order
first-order arithmetic
arithmetic asas anan
infinitary proof-system;
infinitary infinitary because
proof-system; infinitary because ofof the
the "w-rule"
"w-rule" which
which allows
allows usus to
to derive
derive
VxA(x) from
'v'xA(x) from the infinite sequence
the infinite sequence of of premises
premises A(n) n E
A(n),, n EN N.. A
A careful
careful assignment
assignment of of
tree-ordinal
tree-ordinal bounds
bounds toto derivations,
derivations, due due originally
originally to to Buchholz 1987] , but
Buchholz [[1987], but modified
modified
and
and somewhat
somewhat simplified
simplified herehere following
following Fairtlough 1991 ] , then
Fairtlough [[1991], then provides
provides aa direct
direct
link with
link with the
the fast-growing
fast-growing B o 's, which
B~'s, which act
act as bounding functions
as bounding functions forfor existential
existential
quantifiers.
quantifiers.
Schutte 1977] was
Schiitte [[1977] was the
the first
first to
to develop
develop the w-rule as
the w-rule as aa systematic
systematic basis
basis for
for proof­
proof-
theoretic
theoretic ordinal analysis, and
ordinal analysis, and many
many others
others have
have significantly
significantly extended
extended these
these methods
methods
since.
since. See
See Buchholz
Buchholz et et al. 1981 ] , Girard
al. [[1981], 1981,1987] ' Howard
Girard [[1981,1987], Pohlers'' article
1970] , Pohlers
Howard [[1970], article
in
in this
this volume,
volume, Schwichtenberg
Schwichtenberg [[1977] 1977] and
and Tait 1968] . Our
Tait [[1968]. Our development
development here here follows
follows
most closely the
most closely the ideas
ideas of Buchholz and
of Buchholz and Tait,
Tait, see
see also
also Buchholz
Buchholz and and Wainer 1987] .
Whiner [[1987].

3.1.
3.1. The
T h e language
language and
and rules
rules of
of w-arithmetic
w-arithmetic

The
The language
language ofof arithmetic
arithmetic consists
consists ofof those
those formulas A, B,
formulas A, C, ..... . built
B, C, built up
up from
from
atoms
atoms using
using only the symbols
only the symbols A, A, V 'v' and
V,, Y and 3.3. We
We do
do not need to
not need be very
to be very specific
specific
about
about thethe atomic
atomic formulas,
formulas, except
except to
to insist
insist that
that they
they occur
occur in
in complementary
complementary pairs pairs
E i (t1 , , tn),
El(t1,...,
• • .tn), Ei tn) and
(tI , " . , tn)
El(t1,..., and that
that in
in the
the standard
standard model
model

(N,
(N, 0,
0, SUCC,
succ, .. .. .. ,, Er
E i N , , .. .. .. ))

they
they are
are interpreted
interpreted asas certain
certain elementary relations, in
elementary relations, in the
the sense
sense of
of 2.28.
2.28. In
In particular
particular
E0 and
Eo and EoE0 will
will stand for =
stand for = and
and r=1-, E
E1l and
and EE1l for
for << and
and 2:
_ etc.
etc. Note
Note that
that negation
negation
is not
is not included
included asas aa logical
logical symbol,
symbol, instead
instead it
it is defined by
is defined by de
de Morgan
Morgan's ' s laws
laws thus:
thus:
..,E
-~E == E, ..,E
- E, ~ E == E, -~(A
=_ E, ..,(A A
A B)
B) ==
=_ ..,A
-~A VV ..,B,
-~B, ..,'v'xA
~k/xA == 3x-~A, etc.
- 3x..,A, etc. Hence ..,..,A is
Hence -,-,A is A.
A.
 Provably
Provably Recursive Functions 165
165

In
In addition
addition there
there is is to
to be
be one
one further
further special
special atomic
atomic formula formula xx :: NN meaning
meaning "x"x is
is
aa natural
natural number"
number".. It It will
will occur
occur only
only in
in this
this atomic
atomic state state and and never
never negated.
negated. Its
Its
purpose
purpose is
is to
to keep
keep track
track of of the
the computations
computations of of witnesses
witnesses for for 3x.
3x.
In
In what
what follows
follows we we shall
shall not
not bother
bother toto distinguish
distinguish betweenbetween aa number
number m m and
and its
its
numeral
numeral m ~ as
as the
the context
context will will make
make itit clear
clear which
which isis intended.
intended. For For formulas
formulas AA with
with
free-variables
free-variables Xlxl,, ..... . Xk we
we will
will simply
simply write
write A(ml mk) for
A ( m l ,, .. ...., , mk) for the
the instantiation
instantiation
A[ml/x
A [ m T / z , , I , .. .. .. ,, m k l~]. .
mk/xk]
Our
Our infinitary
infinitary proof-system
proof-system willwill bbee formalized
formalized in
in the
the style
style of
of Tait 1968] so
Tait [[1968] so as
as to
to
give
give an
an inductive
inductive definition
definition of
of aa set
set of
of judgements
judgements
nn ::NNF I-a
~ AA
where
where n n :: N N declares
declares aa fixed fixed natural
natural number number parameter
parameter n, a E OS
n, a gts bounds
bounds the the height
height
of
of the
the derivation,
derivation, and and A A = = {A
{ AIx, ,.. .. .., , A k } is
Ak} is aa finite set of
finite set closed formulas,
of closed formulas, possibly
possibly
including
including some some of of the
the formform m m :: N N.. The The intended
intended meaning
meaning of A is
of A is the
the disjunction
disjunction
A1 or
Al or ..... . or
or AA~k and
and we we write A, B
write A, B for for A A U U {B}
{B},, A,
A, BB for
for A
A UUBB,, etc.
etc. Thus
Thus ..., A, B
-~A, B
represents
represents Al A1 -+ + (Ak
-+ (( .. . .. --+ -+ B))
(Ak -+ B))..
The
The rulesrules are
are given
given in in Figure
Figure 11 and and fallfall into
into two
two categories:
categories: N-rules
N-rules to to do
do with
with
computation,
computation, and and L-rules
L-rules to to do
do withwith the the logic.
logic. In In the
the L-Cut
L-Cut rule
rule the
the right-hand
right-hand
formula C
formula C is
is called
called the cut-formula of
the cut-formula of that
that rule,
rule, or
or sometimes
sometimes thethe L-Cut-formula.
L-Cut-formula. It It
must
must be
be an an ordinary
ordinary logical logical formula
formula and and cannot
cannot be be of
of the special atomic
the special atomic form
form n n :: N
N..

3.2. Definition.
3.2. Definition. If
If n N I-a
n :: N t-a AA is
is derivable
derivable without
without use
use of
of either
either of
of the
the cut-rules
cut-rules
N-Cut
N-Cut or
or L-Cut
L-Cut we
we shall
shall write
write instead
instead n NF
n :: N ~a A
A or
or simply ~aA
simply F A if
if n
n == O.
0.

The
The reason
reason for for this
this notation
notation is is clear,
clear, for in this
for in this case
case the
the definition
definition isis nothing
nothing other
other
than the truth
than the truth definition of arithmetic
definition of arithmetic enhanced
enhanced with with two
two parameters
parameters n and c~
n and a which
which
together provide
provide aa uniform control over hei�hts of
the heights of sub-derivations as follows:
follows:
�
together uniform control over the sub-derivations as
•9 if
if ~Fa Vx.A(x) then for
Vx.A x) then for each
each n,n, nn: : N FPn
~Pn(a) aJ A(n)
A(n),,
•9 if N ~F 3y.B(y)
if nn : 9N 3y.B(y) forfor quantifier-free
quantifier-free B, B, then
then the
the derivation
derivation willwill be finite
be finite
with height
with height bounded
bounded by by the cardinality of
the cardinality of fl[n]
.B[n] and furthermore there
and furthermore there will
will be
be
an existential
an existential witness
witness bounded
bounded by by n n +
+ card(.B[n])
card(fl[n])..
Thus in
Thus particular, since
in particular, since the
the cardinality
cardinality of of ,8[n]
fl[n] is if F
GiJ(n) , if
is G~(n), ~ a Vx.3y.S(x,
Vx.3y.B(x, y) y) with
with
B quantifier-free then
B quantifier-free Gw+ (n) = nn +
then G~+~(n) + 11 +
+ G (n) will
G~(n) will bound
bound the size and
the size and complexity
complexity
a a
of the
of the recursive function f(n)
recursive function f(n) = least m.B(n,
= least m.B(n, m) m)..
The proof of
The proof of the
the following
following result
result underlines
underlines our our claim
claim that
that ~ Fa is little
a is little more than
more than
aa dressed-up
dressed-up truthtruth definition.
definition.
3.3. Completeness Theorem.
3.3. Completeness Theorem. If AA is
If is true
true (in the standard
(in the standard model) then ~Fa AA
model) then
for some
for OSs with
some aa E m I a II <
with la <wwW~..

r o o f . We
Proof.
P proceed by
We proceed by induction
induction on
on the
the complexity
complexity of of A. If A
A. If A isis aa true
true atomic
atomic
formula the
formula the result
result isis immediate
immediate byby L-Ax.
L-Ax.
If A
If A === 3xB(x) true then
3xB(x) isis true then B(m) holds for
B(m) holds for some
some m and hence
m and hence by
by thethe induction
induction
hypothesis
hypothesis and and by
by 3.53.5 below, Fm+iJ S(m)
below, ~m+~ B(m) forfor some
some ft. ,8. Also Fm m
Also ~'~ m :: N N by
by N-Ax,
N-Ax,
N-Succ. Thus
N-Succ. Thus ~Fa A A by by the
the 3-rule
3-rule with
with c~ m ++ fl,8 ++ 1.
a -= m 1.
166
166 M. Fairtlough
M. Fairtlough and S. Whiner
and S. Wainer

(N Ax)
(N-Ax)
- n : NN I-'~
n" 1-0 A,
A, mm" : NN ifif m � nn ++ 1.l .
m <_

(N-Succ)
(N-Succ) n : NN b1-f3
n" A, mm" : NN
s A, if fl{J EE a[n].
if a[n].
n : NN F1-0
n" -~ AA,, mm+ + 11 :9NN

(N-Cut)
(N-Cut) n" f3° mm" : NN mm" : NN K1-f31
n : NN FI--s~ s' AA {Jo , fll
if rio,
if {Jl E a[n].
a[n].
n : N
n. NK~A 1-0 A

(L-Ax)
(L-Ax) n : NN I1-0
n" -~ AA if AA contains
if contains aa true
true atom.
atom.

(V)
(v) nn :9N
N I1-f3 A, Bi
- s A, B; if {J E a[n]
iffl and ii == 00 or
a[n] and or ii == 1.
l.
n : NN I1-0
n" -'~ A, (Bo VV B1)
A, (Bo B1)

o
(A)
(1\) n : NN Fl-f3 A, BoBo n" -s~1 A,
n : NN I1-f3 A, B1
Bl {Jo , fll
if rio, {J E a[n].
a[n].
n" -s~ A, if
l
n : NN I1-0
n" A, (Bo
-'~ A, (Bo A1\ B1)
B1)
o : NK 1-f3s 1' AA,
(3) nn' N
(3) - s ~ m : N nn' N
: NF l-f3 , BB(m)
(m) if {Jo,
if rio, (Jl E a[n] .
filCh[n].
nn": NN K1-0~ A,
A, 3xB(x)
3xB(x)

(v)
(V) {max(n,
{max(n, m)
m ) ": NN l-f3m A, B(m)}
Ks~ A, mEN
B(m)}meN if
if (Jm EE a[max(n,
tim a[max(n, m)]
m)]..
nn . : NN 1-0
~-" A,
A, VxB(x)
VzB(z)

nn": NN l-f3o -,C n : N 1-f31 A, C

(L-Cut)
(L-Cut) Ks~ A,
A, ~ C n" N Ksl A, C if {J
if o , (Jl E a[n]
rio,/31 a [ n ] ..
nn . : NN t1-0
- a AA

Figure 11": Inductive

Figure Inductive Definition
Definition of
of nn": N
N 1-0
t-" A
A

If
If AA == VxB(x) is
= VxB(x) is true
true the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis gives
gives for
for each
each m m,, F f3m B(m)
~S,, B(m)..
Let
Let aa = = sup
sup a E OS
a=x E f2s where
where a = ax-
a=x = l
c~=-1 +
+ (Jx
fl= +
+ 1
1 and
and a_l
a-1 == O.
0. Then
Then by
by 3.5
3.5 below,
below,
F Om - l +f3m B(m)
~,,-,+S,, B(m) and
and a m -l +
am-1 + {Jm
~,~ E
E a[m]
aim] for
for each
each mm. . SO
So F
~ O A
A by
by the
the V-rule.
V-rule.
The
The remaining
remaining cases
cases A A == B0o V
= B B1 and
V Bl and A A == B0o 1\
~ B AB B1l are
are easy.
easy.
Finally
Finally notice
notice that
that inin each
each case
case the
the aa so
so generated
generated has has rank
rank Ila a lI �
k where kk
w ~ where
_< w
measures
measures the the height
height ofof A.
A.

3.4.
3.4. Corollary.
Corollary. If
If 1-0
F-~ A
A then
then A
A is
is true
true and
and hence
hence derivable
derivable without
without any
any cuts
cuts of
of
either
either kind.
kind. Thus
Thus we
we have
have complete
complete cut-elimination
cut-elimination for
for the
the system
system 1-0
~-~..

An
An important
important question
question which
which arises
arises immediately
immediately isis "how
"how do do we
we measure
measure the
the
increase
increase in
in ordinal
ordinal complexity
complexity in
in going
going from
from aa proof
proof nn : 9NN 1-0
t-~ AA with
with cuts
cuts to
to aa
 Provably Recursive
Provably Recursive Functions
Functions 167
167

cut-free proof nn :9NN ~F' O' A?"

cut-free proof A?" This
This isis not
not at
at all
all aa trivial
trivial question
question and
and as
as the
the above
above
proof isis non-constructive
proof non-constructive itit gives
gives us
us no
no information
information about
about thethe increase.
increase. ToTo answer
answer
the question
the question wewe must
must turn
turn toto aa syntactic
syntactic treatment
treatment of of cut-elimination,
cut-elimination, part
part of
of which
which
stems from
stems from Gentzen's
Gentzen's elimination
elimination of of logical
logical cuts
cuts and
and part
part from
from the
the application
application ofof
hierarchy theory
hierarchy theory toto the
the subsequent
subsequent elimination
elimination of of N-Cuts.
N-Cuts. The The latter
latter is
is covered
covered
in section
in section 6. The rest
6. The rest of of this
this section
section isis devoted
devoted to to L-Cut-elimination
L-Cut-elimination and and the
the
corresponding bounding
corresponding bounding results
results for
for the
the full
full system
system nn :: N N Ff-0
-~ AA on
on which
which the
the results
results
in section
in section 44 are
are based.
based.

3.5. W
3.5. Weakening Lemma.
eakening L emma. If -~ AA,, nn <
If nn" : NN Ff-0 :::; n', A C_
n' , A C A', ns and
A', ~8 E ~s and
arm] � a/[m] for every m 2: n, then n' : N f-Ho' N .
Proof. We
Proof. We proceed
proceed by
by induction
induction over
over the
the derivation
derivation ofof nn : 9NNK f-0s AA according
according toto the
the
nine rules.
nine rules. For example, we
For example, we consider two of
consider two of the
the cases:
cases:
1. Assume
1. Assume nn" : NN ~f-.Boo m
m" : N,
N, mm" : N
N ~1
f-.Bl AA where
where /30 fl0,, /3
fll1 E a[n] . Applying
E a[n]. Applying thethe
induction hypothesis to
induction hypothesis to each of these
each of these premises
premises we we get
get n' n ~ : 9N f-H.Bo m
N K6+~o m : 9N
N and
and
m
m:: N F-~+~' N
N f-H.Bl A'.. ByBy 2.12(1),
2.12(1), ~,+ /30 , 8~ +
8 + ~0, /31 EE 8~ ++ a'[n]
+ j3~ a/[n] C_ � 8~ + + a/[n/] and so
a'[n'] and so by
by
re-applying N-Cut, nn'' : :NN b6+~
re-applying N-Cut, A'.
f-Ho' A'.
2. Assume
2. max(n, m)"
Assume max(n, m) : N
N tf-H.Bm
-~+~ A,A, B(m)
B(m) for
for every
every m, where /3
m, where m EE a[max(n,
tim m)] .
a[max(n, m)].
For
For each
each m,
m, the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis gives
gives

max(n m)": N
max(n',/ , m) N f-H.Bm A', B(m)
~6+~ A', B(m)

with 8+/3
with ~+/~mm Ee 8+a' j
max(n, m)]
~+a'[max(n, C 8+a'[max(n/,
m)] � ~+a'[max(n', m)]m)].. Therefore
Therefore by
by re-applying
re-applying
the
the V-rule,
V-rule, n'
n' :: N
N f- +0' A',
~-~+~' A', VxB(x)
VxB(-x),, as
as required.
required.

3.6.
3.6. II nversion
n v e r s i o n Lemma.
Lemma.
AA.. If
If n
n": N b-~ A,
N f-0 A, (Bo
(Bo A
A B1)
B1) then n
n : 9N F-~ A,
N f-0 A, Bi
Bi for = 0,
for each ii = O, 11..
V. If
V. If n
n": N ~-~ A,
N f-0 A, VxB(x)
VxB(x) then max(n,
max(n, m)m)": N F-~ A,
N f-0 A, B(m)
B(m) forfor each m m..

P r o o f . For
Proof. For example
example we
we prove
prove V-inversion,
V-inversion, the
the proof
proof of
of A-inversion
A-inversion being
being similar.
similar.
Proceed
Proceed by by induction
induction on
on the
the derivation
derivation of
of n
n :: N ~ A,
N f-0 A, VxB(x)
VxB(x)..
1.1. Suppose
Suppose the
the final
final rule
rule applied
applied is
is aa V-rule
V-rule with
with VxB(x)
VxB(x) the
the "main
"main formula"
formula"
derived.
derived. Then
Then the
the m-th
m-th premise
premise is
is

max(n,
max(n, m)
m)": N k- ~ A',
N f-.Bm A', B(m)
B(m)

where A'
where A ' == A,
A, VxB(x) or A'
VxB(x) or A ' == AA and where /3
and where m Ee a[max(n,
~,~ a[max(n, m)] so /3
m)] so m [k] C
~m[k] C
a[k] for
ark] every kk 2:
for every _> max(n,
max(n, m)
m).. In
In the
the fifirst
rst case
case we
we need
need to
to apply
apply the
the induction
induction
hypothesis
hypothesis toto obtain
obtain

max(n,
max(n, m) ~ A,
m)": NN f-.Bm A, B(m)
B(m)..

The
The desired
desired result
result then
then follows
follows immediately
immediately by
by Weakening.
Weakening.
168
168 M.
M. Fairllotlgh and S.
Fairtlough and S. Wainer
Whiner

2.2. Otherwise,
Otherwise, whatever
whatever final
final rule
rule is
is applied VxB(x) remains
applied VxB(x) remains as
as aa "side
"side formula"
formula"
in
in the
the premises.
premises. So So we
we can
can apply
apply the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis to to each
each one,
one,
thus replacing nn : : N
thus replacing N by
by max(n,
max(n, m)m) :: NN and VxB(x) by
and VxB(x) by B(m)
B(m).. TheThe desired
desired
result
result is is then
then obtained
obtained byby re-applying
re-applying the
the same
same final
final rule,
rule, since
since f3 C ark]
/3 E ~[k]
implies
implies/?f3 E e a[max(k, m)].. Note
c~[max(k, m)] Note that
that if n :: N
if n N f-0
~ A, VxB(x) is
A, VxB(x) is an
an axiom
axiom then
then
nn :: NN f-0
F-~ AA is
is also
also an
an axiom,
axiom, and
and hence
hence soso is
is max
max(n,(n , m)
m) :: N
N f-0
~-~ A,
A, B(m)
B(m)..

3.7. D e f i n i t i o n . The
3.7. Definition. The height
height I[AA II of
of aa formula
formula A A is
is defined
defined as
as follows:
follows"
1. n : NNI--0
1. IIn" I=O
E ( .. .. ..))II -= IIE(
2. IIE(
2. . . .) I =
E(...)I = 11
3.
3. lI Ao
A0 /\ AA A1l II == II Ao
A0 V vA lI =
A11 = m ax (1 Ao
max([ Al II)) +
A0 [,I, I[A1 + 11
4.
4. II VxA(x)
VxA(x) 1l = - 113xA(x) = A
3xA(x) Il - II A I1 ++ 1 1
The cut-rank of
The cut-rank of aa derivation
derivation is is then
then defined
defined as as the
the supremum
supremum of of all
all the
the values
values of CI
of I[C[
where
where CC is
is aa cut-formula
cut-formula appearing
appearing in
in it.
it. Thus
Thus ifif aa derivation
derivation hashas cut-rank
cut-rank 00 then
then
there
there are
are no
no L-Cuts
L-Cuts used
used in it, though
in it, though there
there may
may still
still be
be many N-Cuts. We
many N-Cuts. We need
need only
only
be
be concerned
concerned herehere with
with derivations
derivations of
of fi nite cut-rank
finite cut-rank andand wewe denote
denote the
the fact
fact that
that a
a
derivation
derivation of
of nn : 9N
N f-0
~a AA has
has cut-rank
cut-rank ::;
_< rr by
by writing
writing n n : 9N
N f-�
t--~ A.
A.

3.8. N o t e . Weakening
3.8. Note. Weakening and
and inversion
inversion do
do not
not affect
affect cut-rank.
cut-rank.

3.9.
3.9. Lemma.
Lemma. Suppose n : 9N
Suppose n N f-0
~a A,
A, E where E
E where E is
is aa false
false atom.
atom. Then
Then n N f-0
n : 9N ~a A.
A.

This
This lemma
lemma isis required
required for
for the
the following
following result
result (the
(the proof
proof is
is an
an easy
easy induction
induction on
on the
the
derivation
derivation of n : 9N
of n N f-0
~ A,A, E).
E).

3.10. Cut-Reduction
3.10. C ut-Reduction L Lemma.
emma. Suppose
Suppose n I-~ A,
n : 9N f-� A, C
C and
and nn : 9N f-�
I-~ A',-~C
A/, ...,C
where C is
where C is aa formula
formula of the form
of the form E E(( .. ... .)) or
or Bo
Bo V B1BI or
or 3xB(x), and II C
3xB(x) , and = rr +
C II = + 1.l.
Suppose
Suppose also that a[n/]
also that c~[n'] � ,[n'l for
C_ 7[n'] for every
every n' n' >
2: n
n.. Then
Then
n" N ~-~+=
--7' A', A

r o o f . We
Proof.
P We proceed by induction
proceed by induction over
over the
the derivation
derivation of n:N
of n" N ~f-� A,
A, C.
C.
11.. If
If C
C is
is an inactive side-formula
an inactive side-formula in in the final rule
the final applied then
rule applied then either
either nn : 9N
N f-�
~ A A
is an
is an axiom
axiom inin which
which case so is
case so is nn :9N -f-�
N ~-~+~
-~,
+o A',
A', A;
A; or
or else
else CC remains
remains in in the
the
premises of
premises of that
that final rule thus:
final rule thus:

k:N
k" f-�~ A",
N F-r A" , CC
where we
where we may
may assume,
assume, by by weakening
weakening ifif necessary,
necessary, that
that kk _>
2: nn and/3
and f3 E c~[k],
ark] ,
so f3[n/] C_
so/~[n'] � -y[n'] for every
,[n'l for every n'n' _> k . Therefore
2: k. Therefore by weakening nn" : N
by weakening N ~-~
f-� A',
A/, ~""C
C
(if necessary)
(if necessary) to
to kk :9N
N ~f-� A',
A/, ~""C and applying
C and applying thethe induction
induction hypothesis,
hypothesis, we
we
obtain
obtain
k:N
k" N ~f-�++~.B A',
A/, A
A"II
and hence
and hence the
the final
final rule
rule can
can be
be re-applied to obtain
re-applied to obtain nn 9 N f-J+ A',
N ~-~+~ A', A as
A as o
--7"

required.
required.
 Provably Recursive
Recursive Functions 169
169

22.. If c ==
If C = E E(( ... .. ). ) is
is the
the "main"
"main" formula
formula of of n N I-�
n ": N F-7 A, C then
A, C then this this means
means E E(( ..... ). )
is
is true
true and and we we havehave an an axiom.
axiom. Consequently
Consequently -,C ~ C ==
= E( E ( ... .. ). ) is
is false.
false. Now
Now
nn : 9NN 1-;: A ~ follows
~-r7 A' follows fromfrom n n : 9N
N 1-;:
F-r7 A', -~C by
A ~, -,C by Lemma
Lemma 33.9 . 9 and
and Weakening
Weakening then then
gives
gives n n": NN I-;:
~_7+a
--y, +Q A',
A ~, A.
A 9
3. If
3. C ==
If C - (Bo
(B0 V V B1) B1) isis the
the main
main formula
formula thethe proof
proof is
is similar
similar toto thethe next next case.
case.
4.
4. IfIf CC == 3xB(x) is
= 3xB(x) is the
the main
main formula
formula thenthen the
the last
last rule
rule applied
applied in in obtaining
obtaining
nn : 9NN I-�
F7 A, A, C C is is an
an 3-rule
3-rule and and we
we maymay assume
assume that
that the
the two
two premisespremises are,
are, forfor
some
some m, m,
nn": NN I-�o
~_~om m ": NN and and n n": N F~11 A,
N 1-� A, B(m),
B(m), C C
where
where f3o , f31 Ee o:a[n]
~0,131 [n] �C_'}' [n] .
"y[n].
Now
Now apply
apply the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis to
to the
the right-hand
right-hand premise
premise so
so as
as to
to obtain
obtain

n~'~:" N I-;:+Ih
H7mt-~lAi 'I,, A,
A, B(m)
B(m)

and
and apply
apply \I-inversion
V-inversion and
and Weakening
Weakening to to the
the assumption
assumption nn : 9N
N 1-;:
F-~ A',
A', \lx-,B(x)
Vx~B(x)
to
to obtain
obtain
max(n, m)": N
max(n, m) N 1-;:
t-~ A',
A', A, -,B(m)
A,-~B(m) *)
((.)
Then
Then one N-Cut with
one N-Cut with n N I-�o
n": N t-~~ max(
max(n, m) : 9N
n, m) N yields
yields

H7+-~-~1
nn": NN I-;: Ih A',
A I, A, -,B(m)
A,-~B(m)
provided
provided f3dn] ]~I[T~]=f.
~ O. 0. For
For ifif 65 E j31[n] we
e f3dn] we may
may weaken
weaken the the ordinal
ordinal bound
bound in *)
in ((.)
from
from '}'
"), to "y+ 65.. Then
to ,},+ Then the N-Cut applies
the N-Cut applies since both f30 and
since both/30 and ,},
-y+
+ 65 Iie
lie in
in '}'+ f3dn] .
~ +/31[n].
Thus
Thus if if f3 1 [n] =f.
~l[n] r 0 o we
we cancan apply
apply an an L-Cut
L-Cut with
with cut-formula B(m) of
cut-formula B(m) of height
height rr
to
to obtain
obtain n N I-rQ
n : 9N ~ +~ A
--7" A as
A',~ A as required.
required.
On
On the
the other
other hand
hand if if f3dn]
j31[n] = -- 0o then
then nn :: N
N 1-~ ,811 A,
A, B(m),
B(m), C C is
is an
an axiom
axiom and
and
,81 A', A,
nn": NN 1-F ~1 A', B(m) is
A, B(m) is too.
too. Thus
Thus either
either nn" : N
N 1-;: A', A
~ A', A isis already
already an an axiom,
axiom,
or
or else -~B(m) is
else -,B(m) is aa false
false atom
atom in in which
which case
case we
we may may use and ((.)
3.9 and
use 3.9 * ) to
to obtain
obtain
max
max(n,(n, m)m ) ": N N 1-;:
F~ A', A, from
A', A, from which
which we
we may
may deduce
deduce n N I-;:
n ": N +Q A',
~-~+" A', AA by
by anan
N-Cut as
N-Cut as before.
before.

3.11.
3.11. Cut-Elimination
C u t - E l i m i n a t i o n Theorem.
Theorem. (Gentzen [1936] and
(Gentzen [1936] and Schiitte
Schiitte [1977])
[1977])
lf n": N I-�+l
If n ~-rabl A A then n : N 1-;"
1-2~ A.

22",'·2" } rr 2'2's.s .
then n" A.
2" }
Hence
Hence n N I-�
n": N F-7 A
A implies
implies n N I-f
n": N ~* AA where a** =
where 0: = eXP2 (0:)
exp~(~) =
=

N I-�
P r o o f . We
Proof. We proceed
proceed by induction on
by induction on the
the derivation
derivation ofof nn : 9N
+ l A.
~-r~_kl A. If
If the
the fi nal rule
final rule
applied
applied is is anything
anything other
other than
than an
an L-Cut
L-Cut ofof rank
rank rr +
+ 11,, apply
apply the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis
to
to thethe premises
premises and
and then
then re-apply
re-apply the
the same
same rule
rule using
using the
the fact
fact that
that if ~ E
if f3 o:[n] then
C a[n] then
22,8z EE 2Q[n]
2"[n].. If
If on
on the
the other hand, the
other hand, final rule
the final rule is
is an
an L-Cut
L-Cut with
with premises
premises

nn " : N I-��l
~-r+l A,
~0
A , - -,C
he and n " : N I-��l
and n ~-r+l A,
~1
A, C
C

where
where II C - rr +
CII = + 11,, then
then the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis and possibly aa Weakening
and possibly Weakening gives
gives

n : NF I-;Il
n'N 2 ~ A, C and
A , ~-,C and n : NF I-;Il
n'N - 2 ~A,
A,CC
170
170 M. Fairtlough and S.
M. Fairllough S. Wainer
Whiner

where
where/~/3 is
is the
the greatest
greatest of /30 , /31 in
of/~0,/~1 a[n].. Now
in a[n] Now the the Cut-Reduction
Cut-Reduction lemma lemma 3.10
3.10 applies
applies
immediately,
immediately, with with 'Y 7 =
- aa = - 2{j,
2e, A'A~== A A and and one one of C, ...,~ CC of
of C, of the
the required
required form.
form.
Hence
Hence n N r;
n :: N
/l +2/l AA and
t-~~+2~ since 22Pe +
and since P [n']'] S;;;
+ 22e[n 2~[n '] when
C_ 2°[n'] when n'
n' � n,, the
_> n the desired
desired result
result
follows
follows by
by a a Weakening.
Weakening.

3.12. N o t e . It
3.12. Note. It may
may later
later be
be convenient
convenient to
to replace
replace the
the exponential
exponential 220~ (in (in 3.1 1 ) by
3.11) by
w ~.• The
wO The above
above proof
proof still
still works
works inin that
that case,
case, but
but with
with the
the proviso
proviso that
that the the declared
declared
parameter
parameter n n should
should be
be nonzero
nonzero since
since only
only then
then do
do we
we have w Pe +
have w +w P [n']'] S;;;
we[n wa[n '] for
c_ wO[n'] for
all
all n'
n' � n, whenever
_> n, whenever /3~ EE a[n]
a[n]..

3.13. Definitions. A
3.13. Definitions. A E�-formula
lE~ is
is one
one of
of the
the form
form

3zl . . . 3zkB(zl, . . . , zk)

where
where B B is
is "bounded"
"bounded" in in the the sense
sense thatthat all all quantifiers
quantifiers occurring
occurring in in it
it are
are bounded
bounded
quantifiers
quantifiers 3y(y3y(y < A . .. .. ). ), , Vy(y
< tt /\ ~ tt V
Vy(y 1:. V ..... ). ) with
with tt either
either a a variable
variable or or a closed term.
a closed term.
Note
Note that
that this
this restriction
restriction is is not
not a a severe
severe one, one, for for ifif the
the quantifier
quantifier bound
bound tt werewere an an
open term
open term then
then we we could
could rewrite rewrite 3y(y3y(y < < tt /\ A ....)
. . ) as 3z(z =
as 3z(z = tt /\ 3y(y <
A 3y(y < z A ... .. ). ))
z /\ ) and
and
Vy(y v . .. .. ). ) as
vy(y 1:. tt V 3z(z =
as 3z(z = tt /\ vy(y <
^ Vy(y < zz ^/\. . . ). )) ) ..
A
A closed
closed E� E~-formula as as above
above is is said
said to to be
be truetrue at at mm EE N N if
if there
there are
are m ml, 1 , .. .. ..,,
m k , all
mk, all less
less than
than m, m, such
such that that B(m
B ( m ~1 ,, ... .. ,. , mk)
mk) is is true
true (in(in the
the standard
standard model).
model).
A
A set A of
set A of closed
closed E�-formulas
lE~ is
is true
true at at m
m if if at
at least
least one
one AiAi EEA A is
is true
true at at m. m.

3.14. N o t e . If
3.14. Note. If a
a set A of
set A of closed
closed E�-formulas
IE~ is
is true
true at
at m
m then
then it
it is
is automatically
automatically
true
true at
at any
any greater m'. This
greater m'. This property
property isis called
called E�-persistence.
lE~ Also
Also if A contains
if A contains a
a
true
true formula
formula allall of
of whose
whose quantifiers
quantifiers are bounded then
are bounded then AA is
is true
true at
at any
any m.
m.

3.15.
3.15. Bounding
B o u n d i n g Lemma
L e m m a for for r. F-.
11.. nn": N r� m : N
N ~-~ m " N if and only if
if and only if m m ::;
<_ Bo(n)
B~(n)..
2.
2. Suppose
Suppose A A isis aa set set of closed E�
of closed E ~-formulas and and n N r
n : 9N F-~O AA by by aa derivation
derivation in
in
which
which allall the
the L-Cut-formulas
L-Cut-formulas are are E�
E ~ . Suppose
Suppose also
also that
that n n bounds
bounds the
the value
value of
of
every
every closed
closed term
term occurring
occurring in in AA or in any
or in any cut-formula
cut-formula of of the
the derivation.
derivation. Then
Then
A
A isis true
true at at Bo(n)
Ba(n). .
3.
3. If A ==
If A - 33zZ1l .· .·. · 3zkB(Zb
3 Z k B ( Z l , .. ... ,. Z, Zk)
k ) is closed E�
is aa closed E~ -formula truetrue at at Bo(n)
Ba(n) and
and nn
bounds
bounds thethe value
value of of every
every closed closed term term in in A
A then
then n }-o+
N r�
n": N I A I A.
+1AI A.

Proof.
Proof.
11.. Suppose
Suppose n N r�
n : 9N }-~ m
m : 9N
N.. Since no L-cuts
Since no L-cuts are
are involved
involved only
only the
the rules
rules N-Ax,
N-Ax,
N-Succ,
N-Succ, N-Cut
N-Cut can
can have
have been
been applied
applied in in the
the derivation.
derivation. If If it
it arises
arises by by N-Ax
N-Ax
then
then m m ::;
_< n
n +
+ 11 ::;
___Bo (n) . If
B,,(n). If it
it arises
arises by
by N-Succ
N-Succ from
from n N rg
n : 9N t-o~ m
m - 11 : 9N N then
then -

inductively
inductively wewe have
have m-l
m - 1 ::; B e ( n ) and
_< Bp(n) and since
since /3
fl E c~[n],, m
E a[nJ m ::;
_< Bp(n)+l
B e ( n ) + 1 ::;
_< Bo(n)
B~(n). .
If
If it
it arises
arises by N-Cut from
by N-Cut from the
the premises
premises n n": NN rg
}-oo kk : 9NN and
~~ and k N rg
k : 9N
l m : 9NN then
t-o~1 m then
by
by the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis k k ::;
<_ B{j o (n)) and
Seo(n and m m ::;
_< Bp (k) so
Be1I (k) so asas /30
~o,, /3
~11 E a[n]
o/In]
we
we have
have mm ::;
<_ Bp I (Bpo (n)) ::;
Be~(Beo(n)) <_ Bo(n)
S~(n). .
 Provably
Provably Recursive Functions 171
171

Conversely
Conversely supposesuppose m rn � <_ B o (n) . We
B~(n). We show
show n n : 9NN I-�
I-~ m m : 9NN byby induction
induction on on
a. If
a. I f aa =
= 00 thenthen m m_� n n ++l 1 soso n n": N N I-�
F-~ m m" : N hi by
by N-Ax.
N-Ax. If I f aa = = (3t3++ 11
then
then m m � <_ B fj (k)) where
Be(k where k k = = B fj (n)) so
Be(n so byby the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis we we have
have
nn": Nhi I-g ~k
F-o k": N N and
and k k": N hi I-g
~m
F-0 m ": Nhi and
and hence
hence n n": N I-� m
hi ~-~ m ": Nhi by
by N-Cut.
hi-Cut. Finally
Finally
if a =
if a = sup
sup ax
ax then
then m rn � <_B o (n) =
B~(n) =B oJn) so
B,,,,(n) so n n ": Nhi I-�n
F-~n m m ": NN by
by the
the induction
induction
hypothesis.
hypothesis. But But a a is
is structured
structured so so an[n/]
an In'] �C_ a[n/]
a[n'] for
for every
every n' n' � n. Therefore
>__n. Therefore
nn": NN I-�
~-~ m
m ": N hi by
by Weakening.
Weakening.
2. Suppose
2. Suppose A A is is a a set
set ofof closed
closed ��-formulas
E~ and
and n n : 9N F-~ A
hi 1-0 A byby a a derivation
derivation
involving
involving only only �� E ~ cut-formulas.
cut-formulas. Suppose Suppose alsoalso that
that n n is
is large
large enough
enough to to bound
bound
the
the values
values of of all
all closed
closed terms
terms in in A A andand all
all closed
closed terms
terms occurring
occurring in in the
the
cut-formulas
cut-formulas used used (note
(note that
that inin general
general no no such
such bound
bound need need exist)
exist)..
WeWe prove
prove that
that A A isis true
true atat B o (n) by
B~(n) induction on
by induction on a,a, with
with cases
cases according
according to to
the
the last
last rule
rule applied
applied in in deriving
deriving n n": N t-~ A.
N 1-0 A.
L-Ax.
k-Ax. Then Then A A contains
contains a a true
true atom
atom so so A A is
is automatically
automatically true true atat B o (n) .
B~(n).
1\
A,, V V.. These
These cases
cases are are also
also immediate
immediate since since wewe only
only need
need take disjunctions or
take disjunctions or
conjunctions
conjunctions of of "bounded"
"bounded" formulasformulas in in this
this context,
context, and and so so it it is
is only
only
necessary
necessary that that the
the rules
rules areare sound.
sound.
3. Suppose
3. Suppose A A = - A', 3xD(x) and
A', 3xD(x) and n n ": Nhi I-
~eofjo mm ": Nhi and
and n n ": N
hi I-
~elfjl A',
A', D(m)
D(m)
where
where {30 130,, (31
~1 Ee a[n]
din].. Then
Then by by the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis A', A', D(m)
D(m) is is true
true
at
at B fjl (max(n,
Be~ (max(n, m)) m)),, and
and by part (1)
by part (1) above,
above,

m
m<<Bfjl (max(n, m)) � B
Bel(max(n,m))<_ fjl (Bfjo (n)) �
Bel(Beo(n)) <_Bo(n)
B~(n)..
Hence
Hence by persistence, either
by persistence, either A'A' isis true
true at
at B o (n) or
Ba(n) 3xD(x) is
or 3xD(x) is true
true at
at
Bo(n) .
V. The
V. The only
only way
way the
the V-rule
V-rule can
can bebe applied
applied isis in
in a "bounded" context
a "bounded" context A A ==
_--
A', "Ix
A', Vx(x(x -I where tt is
tv D(x)) where
~ tVD(x)) is a
a closed
closed term
term and
and DD only
only contains
contains bounded
bounded
quantifiers.
quantifiers. The
The premises
premises of
of this
this rule
rule will
will then
then be
be

max(n,
max(n, m)
m ) ": N
N I- fjm A',
F-e~ A', m
m -I V D(m)
~ tt v D(m)
for
for every
every m,
m, with
with (3m
tim Ee a[max(n,
a[max(n,m)]. m)] . Suppose
Suppose Vx(xVx(x -I ~ tv D(x)) is
v D(x)) is
false
false and
and let
let k be the
k be the value
value of
of the
the closed
closed term
term t.t. Then
Then by by the
the induction
induction
hypothesis,
hypothesis, for
for some
some m m << kk we
we have A' true
have A' true at
at B fjm (max(n,
Be~ (max(n, m)) m)).. But
But byby
the
the standing
standing assumption
assumption on on nn we
we know
know m m < < k
k � n, so
_< n, so (3m
fl,~ E a[n]
a[n] and
and by
by
persistence
persistence A'A' is
is therefore
therefore true
true at at B o (n) . Hence
B~(n). Hence A A is is true
true at
at B o (n) as
B~(n) as
required.
required.
L-Cut.
1-Cut. Finally
Finally suppose
suppose thethe last
last rule
rule used
used in in deriving
deriving n n : 9N ~-~ A
N 1-0 A was
was anan L-Cut
L-Cut
with
with cut-formula
cut-formula C C == 3i'. D(Z)
- 32% D(z-').. The
The premises
premises are
are therefore
therefore of of the
the forms
forms
fjo A,
nn": NN I-F-e~ A, 33i'. D ( ~ and
2 ' .D(Z) and n
n": N
N I-
fjl A,
~_e, A, Vi'. -,D(Z)
Y2".--D(z-')

where
where {30
fl0,, (3
f l1l eE a[n]
a[n],, so
so both
both B fjo (n)
8eo (n) and
and B fjl (n)
Be, (n) are
are less
less than
than B o (n) . The
Ba(n). The
standing
standing assumption
assumption on on nn means
means that
that n
n bounds
bounds thethe values
values of
of closed
closed terms
terms
172
172 M.
M. Fairtlough and S. Wainer
Whiner

in C. Now
in C. Now if if AA is is true
true atat Bp o (n) then
B/3o(n) then it 's true
it's true atat Ba
Ba(n)(n ) by
by persistence,
persistence,
and
and we're
we're done. done. Otherwise
Otherwise by by the
the induction
induction hypothesis,
hypothesis, 3Z'D(Z)3s is
is true
true
at
at Bp o
B~o(n),(n) , so
so there
there are
are mrfi <
< Bp o
Bzo(n(n)) such
such that
that the
the bounded
bounded formula
formula
D(rfi) is
D(m) is true.
true. But But 'I-inversion
V-inversion appliedapplied to to the
the second
second premise
premise of of the
the cut
cut
gives
gives max
max(n, ( n, m)
nh) :: N N I- P1 A,
~_~1 .D(m) and
A,-~D(rfi) and wewe cancan now
now apply
apply the the induction
induction
hypothesis
hypothesis again again to to obtain
obtain A A truetrue at
at BpBZl1 ((max(n,
max ( n, m))
rfi)),, because
because .D(m) -~D(rfi) is
is
false.
false. Since
Since Bp 1 ( max (n , m))
B~,(max(n, rfi)) < < Bp1 (Bpo (n)) :::;
Bt3,(B~o(n)) < B a (n) we
Ba(n) we again
again conclude
conclude
A true
A true at at Ba
Ba(n) (n) by by persistence,
persistence, and and this
this completes
completes part part 2. 2.
3. Suppose A
3. Suppose A == - 3z1
3 z l .• .•. • 3zkD(Zb . . . , Zk) is
3z~D(zl,...,Zk) is aa closed
closed � E~� -formula true true at at Ba(n)
B~(n)..
Then
Then we
we have
have m rh < B~(n) such
< Ba(n) such that
that the the bounded
bounded formula
formula D(m) D(rfi) is is true.
true. ItIt is
is
an
an easy
easy exercise
exercise to to check
check that that n n ": N N I-� +b D(m)
~_~+b where bb =
D(nh) where = II DD jI,, as
as long
long asas n
n
bounds
bounds the
the value
value of of any
any closed
closed term
term in in A.
A. Then
Then since
since n n :: N
N I-
a m / :: N
k-a m N for
for each
i each
ii by
by part
part 11,, we
we obtain
obtain n n : 9N
N I-�+ IAI A
~o +1AI A by
by kk applications
applications of of the
the 3-rule.
3-rule.

3.16. Bounding
Bounding Lemma Lemma for F ~ ..
a
11.. nn: : N
NF ~ m m:: N
N if
if and
and only
only ifif m
m :::;
<G w+a(n) .
Goj+a(n).
a
2.
2. If
If AA isis aa set
set of closed �
of closed � -formulas and
~O_formulas and n n": N
NF~ A A where
where n
n bounds
bounds the
the value
value of
of
all
all closed
closed terms in A
terms in A then
then A A is is true
true at at G w+a (n) .
G~+~(n).
3. If A
3. If A is
is aa closed
closed �� -formula true
~O_formula true at at G w a (n) where
Go,+a(n) where nn bounds
bounds the
the value
value of
of all
all
in A
a+ I A I A. +
closed
closed terms
terms in A then
then nn": NNF ~+1AI A.
P r o o f . As
Proof. As for
for 3.15
3.15 but
but without
without L-cuts
L-cuts or
or N-Cuts.
N-Cuts.

3.17. Definitions. Recall

3.17. Definitions. Recall that
that aa number-theoretic
number-theoretic function f is
function f is partial
partial recursive
recursive
iff its
iff its graph
graph is is � ~~� -definable. i.e.
i.e. there
there is
is a bounded formula
a bounded formula C,(X, z) such
y, z)
C/(~, y, such that
that for
for
all m=
all r5 m ll,, ... .. ,. , mk
= m mk and
and nn EE hi,
N,
ff(m) � nn �
(rh) ~_ ~ 3z . C,(m,
3z. Cf(T~, n,
n, z)
z) is true
is true in
in N
hi..
Also ff is
Also is recursive
recursive iff
iff it
it is
is partial
partial recursive and totally-defined,
recursive and totally-defined, i.e.
i.e. if rrg -formula
the II~
if the
'V'x 3y 3z . C,(x, y, z)
v 3v3z.Cf(Z,v,z)
is true ((in
is true in the
the standard
standard model Roughly speaking,
N). Roughly
model hi). speaking, the "computation formula"
the "computation formula"
C,(X, z) expresses
y, z)
Cf(~., y, that zz encodes
expresses that encodes aa terminating
terminating computation
computation of with output
f(X) with
of f(Z) output
value y.
value y. There are canonical
There are canonical choices of such
choices of such computation
computation formulas,
formulas, depending
depending on on
the underlying
the underlying model
model ofof computation.
computation. With With this
this in
in mind,
mind, we make the
we make following
the following
definitions.
definitions.
1 . Call
1. Call ff 7-recursive iff for
,-recursive iff for some
some computation formula C,
computation formula and some
Cf and some c~ -< 7,
a -< "
I-� V~3y
~ 'V'x 3y 3z.
3z . Cf(~,
C,(x, Y,
y, z)
z)
and let
and REC (-y) denote
let REC(~') the class
denote the of all
class of all "y-recursive
,-recursive functions.
functions.
2. Call
2. Call ff ~/-definable iff for
,-definable iff for some
some computation formula C,
computation formula and some
CI and some c~ -< 7,
a -< "
a
F vz
'V'x3y
3v 3z . c:(z,
C,(X, v,
y, z)
and let
and let ~~
�� -DEF (,) denote
denote the
the class
class of
of all
all "r-definable
,-definable functions.
functions.
 Provably Recursive Functions 173
173

3.
3. Call
Call f
f provably recursive in
provably recursive in a
a given
given arithmetical
arithmetical theory T iff
theory T iff for
for some
some compu­
compu-
tation
tation formula
formula CCff
T I-
T F Vx
V~ 3y
3y 3z
3z.. Cf Ui, y,
Cf(~, y, z)
z)
and let PRovREC(T)
and let PrtovREc(T) denote
denote the
the class
class of
of all
all functions
functions provably
provably recursive
recursive in
in T.
T.

3.18.
3.18. Remark.
Remark. Normally
Normally definitions
definitions of
of provable
provable recursiveness
recursiveness require
require not
not only
only aa
proof
proof ofof the
the existence
existence of
of the
the output
output value
value but
but in
in addition
addition aa proof
proof of
of its
its uniqueness.
uniqueness.
However,
However, for for standard
standard choices
choices of
of computation
computation formula,
formula, such
such as
as those
those wewe shall
shall con­
con-
struct later, uniqueness
struct later, will be
uniqueness will be a
a corollary
corollary of
of existence.
existence. Alternatively,
Alternatively, in
in the
the presence
presence
of S �~ induction,
of � induction, the
the least
least number principle would
number principle would allow
allow any
any computation
computation formula
formula to
to
be
be modified
modified to to satisfy
satisfy the
the stronger
stronger definition.
definition.

3.19.
3.19. Hierarchy
Hierarchy Theorem.
Theorem.
1. Suppose
1. Suppose , 7 =
= sup ,,,, E OS
sup')'x f~s is
is q-space-representable
q-space-representable with with w � -~ "
"y, and
and suppose
suppose
there
there is fl �
is f3 -~ ,
7 such
such that <_ B
qi'(m) ::;
that q'~(m) /3 ( max ( n , m
Sa(max(n, )) for
m)) for all
all n
n,, m.
m. Then
Then

REC(7) =
REC({) = U E(Ba)
U E(B~)= U SPACE(Ba)
= U SPACE(B~)..
a -<'Y a-<'Y

22.. Suppose
Suppose , 7 = = sup 7xx E OS
sup ' f~s is
is qq-space-representable with 22w~ �
-space-representable with -~ "
7, and
and suppose
suppose
there
there is i~ �
is f3 -~ , such that
9/such
n
that qqn(m)
(m) ::;
<_ G/3(max(n,
Ga(max(n, m )) for
m)) for all n, m.
all n, m. A lso suppose
Also suppose
that
that V
Vce0, c~1 �
0'.0 , 0'.1 -~ ,
73c~ 7 (Ga
-~ ,
30'. � (Gaoo 0o Ga < Ga)
Gall ::; G~).. Then
Then

��-DEF(,)
E~ =
= U E(Ga)
U E(G~)= U SPACE(Ga)
= U SPACE(Ca)..
aa-~7
-<'Y aa-~7
-<'Y
Proof.
Proof.
k
1. Suppose
1. Suppose f
f : 9N
Nk �
--~ NN isis ,-recursive.
7-recursive. Then
Then thethe graph
graph of f is
of f is defined
defined by
by aa
S~� -formula 3z
� 3z.. Cf (x, y,
Cf(~, z) and
y, z) and for
for some c~ �
some a -~ "
"y,

I-g Vx3y
ve3y 3z
3z.. Cf(x,
cf(e, y,
y, z)
z)..
k
For
For any
any m 1N~,, V-inversion
r5 E N V-inversion gives
gives

max
max m F~ 3y 3z
rh :" N I-g 3z.. Cf (m, y,
Cf(rfi, y, z).
z).

The
The Bounding
Bounding Lemma Lemma 3.15 3.15 (2) (2) then then shows shows thatthat the the � S~� -formula
3y
3y 3z
3z.. C J (m, y,
Cf(rh, y, z) z) isis true at Ba
true at ( max m)
B~(max rh) provided
provided max max m r5 is is at
at least
least asas big
big
as
as any
any number-parameter
number-parameter occurring occurring in in Cf Cf ((there
there areare no
no cut-formulas
cut-formulas sincesince the
the
proof
proof above
above hashas cut-rank cut-rank 0).0). Thus
Thus forfor all all but but finitely-many
finitely-many inputs
inputs m r5 there
there are
are
numbers
numbers no n0 ((= = f (m) ) and
f(rfi)) ii
and ~ = = nl, t , , all
n l , .. ... ., n, nl all less than Ba
less than (max m) , such
B~(maxrfi), such that
that
Cf(m, no, ~) holds.
Cf(rfi, no,ri) holds.
Now
Now let
let ((no, nt) be
n o , .. .. .., , nl) be any
any standard
standard polynomial
polynomial coding coding of of Il +
+ I-tuples
1-tuples into
into N,
N,
with
with inverses
inverses (n) (n)ii so so that
that if n =
if n = (no,
(n0,..., nl) then
. . . , nl) then (n) = n
(n)ii = nii for
for each
each ii ::;
_< I.
1.
174
174 M. Fairtlough and S. Whiner
M. Wainer

Furthermore let
Furthermore ( ~ ) : :=
let bb(m) (Ba(max m), . . . , Bo(maxrh)).
- (Bo(maxff~),..., Ba(max m)) . Then
Then we
we can
can compute
compute
ff as
as follows:
follows:
f(r~) = (least n < b(~).Cf(r5, (n)o, (n)l,..., (n),)0

But C / i sis built

But C, built up up from
from elementary
elementary relations
relations using using onlyonly propositional
propositional connec-
connec­
tives and bounded
tives and bounded quantifiers,
quantifiers, so so C, itself defines
C/itself defines an an elementary
elementary relation.
relation. Also
Also
the coding
the coding (...)( . . - ) and
and decoding
decoding ()i Oi functions
functions are are elementary
elementary and and elementary
elementary
functions are
functions are closed
closed underunder bounded
bounded minimisation.
minimisation. So So ff isis elementary
elementary in Ba .
in Bo.
Conversely suppose ff E E(Bo)
Conversely suppose E{Ba) for for some
some ~a -~ -< 7."I. Since
Since E(Bo)E{Ba) expands
expands as as
increases, and
a increases, and since
since w W -~ "I, we
-< -/, we may
may as as well
well suppose
suppose also also that
that w W 5� c~.
a. SoSo
Ba{m) >_
Bo(m) ;::: B~(m)
Bw {m) = = m m+ + 22m + and by
m+l! and 2.29, ff is
by 2.29, is computable
computable within within time
time oror
space bounded
space bounded by by some
some fixed
fixed iterate
iterate of Ba , say
of Bo, say B�iB~' -= Bo+i.Ba+i . But
But for any
for any
reasonable model
reasonable model of of computation
computation there there is is aa bounded
bounded "computation
"computation formula"
formula"
C, {X,, y,z)
CI(Z which expresses
y, z) which expresses the the fact that f{x)
fact that f(Z) is is computable
computable within within resource
resource
and with
zz and with output-value
output-value y Since we
y.. Since we know
know that that our our ff is is computable
computable within
within
resource
resource bounded
bounded by Ba+i , it
by Bo+i, follows that
it follows that thethe formula
formula 3y3z C, {m , y,
3y3z.. Cf(rh, y, z) is true
z) is true
at Ba+i(max
at Bo+~(max rh), m) , for
for all
all inputs
inputs ff~.m. Therefore
Therefore by Bounding Lemma
by Bounding Lemma 3.15 (3),, we
3.15 (3) we
have for jj =
have for C f lI ++ 2,
= II c, 2,
�:N a+ +
N -o~-~
max m
max nh" L
'0 i i ::J3y3z::J .. C
::JY-.:Jz , (m,
Ci(rh � , y, zz))

and then
and then by
by k applications of
k applications the V-rule,
of the 'V-rule,
a+ k \.I�::J ::J �
L
'0 i+i+ V~3y3z.
~+'+J+k Cf, ((,~,
vX -.:JY-.:JZ . C m, y,
y, zz).
).
Since
Since "I "y is
is aa limit
limit and
and a c~ -<-~ "I
"y we
we also
also have
have a c~ +
§ ii +
-t- jj + -~ "I
§ kk -< "y and hence f
and hence f is
is
"I-recursive.
"y-recursive.
The
The second
second equality
equality waswas previously
previously established
established at at the
the end
end of section 2.
of section 2.
22.. This
This follows
follows exactly
exactly the
the same
same lines as (I)
lines as (1) but
but using
using Bounding
Bounding LemmaLemma 3.16 3.16
O
for
for p ~o.. The The closure conditions imposed
closure conditions imposed on on "I~' ensure
ensure thatthat ifif ff E E{Ga)
E(Go)
for
for some
some a ~ "I
(~ -< "y we
we may assume 22wW �
may assume c~ so
_'~ a so that Go(m) ;:::
that Ga{m) _> 2m + I , and
2re+l, and then
then
find
find a '
(~ -<-~ "I")' such that Gal
such that Go, bounds
bounds aa fixed
fixed iterate
iterate of Go.. Hence
of Ga Hence f f will
will be
be
computable
computable within within resource
resource bounded
bounded by by Gal
Go, and
and forfor each input m,
each input r5, the
the ��­
E]~
al
formula
formula 3y3z3y3z.. C, Cf(ff~, y, zz)) will
{m, y, will be at Ga/
true at
be true Go, {max
(max m)r5),, and
and so
so max
max m r5 p ~o' 3y3z
3y3z..
C, {m, y,
C/(r5, y, zz)) and
and f f is
is therefore
therefore "I-definable.
"),-definable.

3.20. E x a m p l e . First
3.20. Example. First notice
notice that
that for
for each
each integer >_ 0,
integer kk ;::: 0, Ba+k is
Bo+~ just Ba
is just Bo iterated
iterated
22k~ times,
times, so E ( S o ) == E{Ba+k)
so E{Ba) E(Bo+k).. However
However Ba B o+w + ~{m)( m )= - B� m+l {m) and
S2~+l(m) so B
and so ow
Bo+~
eventually
eventually dominates
dominates everyevery function
function inin E{Ba)
E(Bo) if if w w � ~ a. Thus B
a. Thus a+w �r E{B
Bo+~ a) .
E(So).
In particular then,
In particular then, the functions B
the functions w.
Bw.kk with
with kk == 1
1,, 2, .
2,.... . play
play the
the role
role of
of the
the Ack­
Ack-
k+2
ermann/Grzegorczyk
ermann/Grzegorczyk functions
functions in
in such
such aa way that E{B
way that E(B~.k)w .k) = Grzegorczyk's £
= Grzegorczyk's E k+2..
Therefore
Therefore for each kk ;:::
for each _ 22 we
we have
have by . 1 9 (I),
by 33.19 (1), since
since w w.. kk isis q-space
q-space representable
representable for
for
some
some polynomial
polynomial q,q,
REC(w.. k)
REC{W k) =
= £ HI
~k--t--1
 Provably
Provably Recursive
Recursive Functions
Functions 175
175

and
and hence
hence
REC(w 22)) =
REC(W -- PRIMITIVE
PRIMITIVE RECURSIVE.
RECURSIVE.
Note
Note that
that on
on the
the other hand,
other hand,

E~ = t; 3.

3.21.
3.21. Example.
Example. It
It should
should be
be fairly
fairly clear
clear that
that for
for limits
limits ,7 satisfying
satisfying mild
mild repre­
repre-
sent ability and
sentability and closure
closure conditions,
conditions, that
that the
the ,-recursive
7-recursive functions
functions are
are exactly
exactly those
those
defined
defined by by nested recursions over
nested recursions initial segments
over initial segments of ,. For
of 7. For any
any such recursion f,
such recursion f,
aa computation
computation formula
formula Cf Cf would
would bebe definable
definable and
and an
an informal
informal termination
termination proof
proof
by
by transfinite
transfinite induction
induction could
could be
be translated
translated into
into aa formal
formal proof
proof within
within the
the system
system
f- "( . Conversely,
F-~. Conversely, the
the Hierarchy
Hierarchy Theorem
Theorem would
would show
show that
that any
any ,-recursive
7-recursive function
function is
is
elementary
elementary in in some
some BOtB, for
for a -~ "
~ � 7, and
and so
so definable
definable by
by nested
nested recursions
recursions because
because the
the
BOt
B, functions
functions are.
are.

3.22. Note. From

3.22. Note. From the
the example
example on on primitive
primitive recursion,
recursion, we
we see
see that
that part
part 11 of
of the
the
Hierarchy
Hierarchy Theorem
Theorem applies
applies to
to any
any , 7 which
which is
is q-space
q-space representable
representable forfor some
some primitive
primitive
recursive
recursive q, q, and
and such
such that w2 :s
that w2 _ ,
7..
Similarly part 22 of
Similarly part of the
the Hierarchy
Hierarchy Theorem
Theorem applies
applies to
to any
any , 7 which
which isis q-space
q-space
representable
representable for for some
some primitive
primitive recursive
recursive q,q, provided
provided , 7 is
is at
at least
least as
as big
big asas the
the
fifirst
rst primitive
primitive recursively
recursively closed
closed ordinal
ordinal andand also
also satisfies
satisfies the
the stated
stated compositionality
compositionality
requirement.
requirement.
These conditions will
These conditions will indeed
indeed be be satisfied
satisfied byby any
any ,7 to
to which
which we we later
later apply
apply the
the
Hierarchy
Hierarchy Theorem,
Theorem, but but wewe leave
leave the
the reader
reader toto convince
convince him
him oror herself
herself of
of this
this fact.
fact.
In particular, it
In particular, it is
is quite
quite easy
easy toto see
see that ~0 is
that C:o is polynomial-space
polynomial-space representable.
representable. See See
e.g. Sommer [1992]
e.g. Sommer [1992]..

4. Provably
4. P r o v a b l y recursive
r e c u r s i v e functions o f PA
f u n c t i o n s of PA

Here
Here wewe characterize
characterize the
the provably recursive functions
provably recursive functions of
of Peano
Peano Arithmetic (PA)
Arithmetic (PA)
and
and its
its fragments:
fragments:

PRovREC(PA)
PRovREc(PA) = = REC(C:o)
REC(e0)
PRovREC(L:�-IND
PROvREc(E~ ) =
= REC((C:O)n)
REC((e0),) if n >� 22
if n
PRovREC(L:�-IND) REC(w22))
PROVREC(~0_IND)- REC(W

These
These results
results go
go back
back to Kreisel [1952]
to Kreisel [1952] for
for PA, Parsons [1966]
PA, Parsons [1966] for
for the
the fragments,
fragments,
and
and to Wainer [1970]
to Wainer [1970] and Schwichtenberg [1971]
and Schwichtenberg [1971] for
for their
their corresponding
corresponding subrecursive
subrecursive
hierarchy classifications.
hierarchy classifications.

4.1.
4.1. Peano A r i t h m e t i c (PA)
P e a n o Arithmetic (PA).. Our
Our version
version of
of PA
PA isis formalized
formalized classically
classically in
in aa
Tait-style calculus PA
Tait-style calculus PA f-~- AA where
where as
as before, A is
before, A is aa finite
finite set
set of
of formulas built out
formulas built out
of
of atoms E( . . . ) , E(
atoms E(...), . . . ) using
E(...) using V,
V, 1\
A,, 3 V; but
3,, V; but now
now the
the formulas
formulas may
may contain
contain free
free
variables.
variables. It
It is
is sometimes
sometimes convenient
convenient to
to display the free
display the free variables
variables occurring
occurring in A by
in A by
176
176 M. Fairtlough and S. Wainer
M. Fairtlo'tlgh

L-Ax F- A,
L-Ax f- A, E(tb
E ( t l , .. ... ., , tk)
tk),, E(tb
E ( t l , .' ... ., , tk)
tk)

V
V f-F- A,
A , Bi
Bi ii =
= 0 or ii =
0 or = 11
f- A, (B0 V B
A, (Bo 1)
B1)

f-t-A, Bo f-
A, Bo A, Bl
F-A, B1
1\
f-~- A,
A, (Bo A B1)
(Bo 1\ B1)

3 f-~ A,
A, B(t)
B(t)
f-~- A, 3xB(x)
3zB(z)

V f-F- A,
A, B(y)
B(y) y not
not free
free in
in A
A
f-F- A,
A, VxB(x)
VxB(x)

A , ~...,Ce f-
f-F- A, t- A,
A,Ce
L-Cut
L-Cut
f-t - AA

Figure 2: Logical
Figure 2: Logical axioms
axioms and rules of
and rules of PA
PA

writing
writing A(Xb Xk) etc.
A ( x l , ... .. . ,,Xk) The special
etc. The special atoms
atoms x x : 9N
N do not occur
do not in the
occur in the language
language of
of
PA.
PA.
The logical
1. The
1. logical axioms axioms and
and rules
rules are
are as figure 2.
in figure
as in 2.
22.. The
The principle
principle of induction is
of induction formulated here
is formulated here as
as aa rule (but see
rule (but Note 4.3
see Note below) :
4.3 below)"

Ind
Ind f- A,B(0)
t- A, B(O) f-~ A,
A , -...,, BB( (x)
x ) , ,BB(x
(x ++ 1)
1)
f- A,
A, B(t)
B(t)

where
where the variable xx is
the variable is not
not free in A,
free in and tt is
A, and is any term.
any term.
3. To
3. To get
get the
the theory
theory off off the ground, we
the ground, we also
also need
need toto add certain arithmetical
add certain arithmetical
axioms defining the
axioms defining the atomic relations between
atomic relations basic terms.
between basic Among these
terms. Among these will
will
be the
be the constant
constant 0, 0, the
the successor function ++ 11 and
successor function and the
the equality
equality and
and inequality
inequality
relations Eo(x, y) -== (x
relations Eo(x,y) (x == y) Eo(x, y) -== (x
and Eo(x,y)
y) and (x #=f. y), E1 (x, y) === (x
y) , El(X,y) y)
(x << y)
and E1
and E1 (x, y) === (x
(x, y) (x ~</. y). Their defining
y) . Their defining axioms
axioms will
will include
include all substitution
all substitution
instances of
instances of the
the axioms
axioms in in figure
figure 3.
3. Instead
Instead of of adding
adding terms
terms for
for addition
addition andand
multiplication as
multiplication as in
in more
more usual
usual formulations
formulations of of PA,
PA, we
we choose
choose toto add
add aa pairing
pairing
function pp and
function and its inverses uu and
its inverses and vv satisfying
satisfying thethe axioms
axioms in in figure
figure 4,4, so
so that
that by
by
iterating pp we
iterating we can
can then
then encode
encode finite
finite lists
lists directly
directly as
as

(~0,..., ~-~) - p(...p(p(0, ~0), ~ ) , . . . , ~ _ , )

 Provably Recursive Functions 177
177

I-
t- A , xx++l 1 i=
A, r 0
I- A,, xx++ 11 i=
A r y + 11,,xx ==y Y
I-
~- A,
A , xx==x x
I-
t- A, y , yy,=yx = x
A , xx~ i=
I- A,
A , xxr 1i=6y,2 y i= z, x = z
I-
F- A , xx~f:.0 0
A,
I-
F- A,
A , xx < < xx++ l 1
I-
F- A , xx f:.
A, ~ yy ++ l, l , xx < < y, y , xx==y y
I- A,
A , xx~ f:.
x x
I- A,
A , xx~ f:.
y , yy,~yz ,f:.x <z,z x < z
I- A,
A , xx < < y, y,yy < < x, x , xx = = Yy
I-
~- A,, xx i=
A E(( .. ... ., x, x,
--p yy,, E , . ... .) .,)E, E(
( . . .. ,. y. ,, .y,. . ). . . )
I- A,
h , ~x i=# y, y , tt(( .. ...., ,~x,, . .. ..). ) = tt(( .. .. ..,,vy,, . .. ..). )

Figure 3: Arithmetical
Figure 3" Arithmetical axioms
axioms of
of PA
PA

I-
~- A,
A , pp(x,
( ~ , vy) # O0
) i=
I-
~- A,
A, u(p(x, y)) =
u(p(~, y)) = x
y)) =
(p(x, y))
A, vv(p(~,
I-~- A, = Yy
I- A,
A, x
~ =
= O, = p(u(x)
0, x9 = p ( u ( ~ ) ,, ,v( ~(x))
))

Figure 4: Pairing
Figure 4: axioms of
Pairing axioms of PA
PA

where 00 denotes
where denotes thethe empty
empty list thus we
list ((thus we can
can think
think of p(x, y)
of p(x, y) as
as representing
representing the
the
list
list with
with headhead y y and
and tail x). Together
tail x). Together with with this
this list-constructor
list-constructor we we require
require three
three
further
further terms
terms lh(x)
lh(x),, in(x,
in(x, j),
j), (x)(x)jj such
such that
that if
if x
x== (xo, . . . , Xk-
(x0,..., I ) as
Xk-1) as above,
above, then
then
lh(x)
lh(x) = k, in(x,
= k, in(x, j)
j) == (xo,
(Xo,... Xj - I ) and
. . . ,,xj-1) and (x)
(x)jj = xj,> provided
= xi provided jj < < lh(x)
lh(x)..
We shall not
We shall not write
write down
down all
all the
the axioms
axioms needed
needed to to define
define these
these term-constructors
term-constructors
p, uu,, vv,, lh,
p, in, (k
lh, in, ()j. It
It suffices
suffices to to say that in
say that in the
the standard model IN,
standard model N, they
they can
can all
all
be interpreted as
be interpreted elementary functions,
as elementary functions, forfor example
example take:
take:

1
p(m, n) = 2l ((mm ++n )n)
( m(m
+ n++ n + l) 1) +
+ m
m ++ l1

lh(n)
lh(n) = least
least ii <
< n n++ 22.. (u
i = 0)
(n) =
(ui(n) O)
in(n, j) = uu 1h
in(n,j) (nH (n)
'h(n)-j (n)
(n) (in(n, jj +
(n)jj = vv(in(n, + 1))
1))
178
178 M. and S. Wainer
M. Fairtlough and

Thus
Thus they
they can
can all
all be
be introduced
introduced inin PA
PA by
by sets
sets of
of axioms
axioms corresponding
corresponding to
to their
their
elementary
elementary defining
defining equations.
equations. Further
Further terms
terms denoting
denoting primitive
primitive recursive
recursive
functions
functions could
could be
be added
added at
at will.
will.

Definition. The
4.2. Definition. fragments ��-IND
The fragments and II�-IND
~0-IND and II~ of
of arithmetic
arithmetic are
are obtained
obtained
simply
simply by
by restricting
restricting the
the logical
logical complexity
complexity of of the
the induction-formula
induction-formula B B inin the
the Ind
Ind
rule
rule to
to B
S Ee ��
T ~, B
B E e II�
II ~ respectively.
respectively. Recall that aa ��
Recall that (respectively II�)
S ~ (respectively II ~ formula
formula
is
is one
one obtained
obtained from
from aa bounded
bounded formula
formula by prefixing n
by prefixing n alternating
alternating quantifier
quantifier blocks,
blocks,
starting
starting with
with existentials
existentials (respectively
(respectively universals)
universals).. Note
Note however
however that
that the
the sequence
sequence
coding
coding machinery
machinery allows
allows each
each block
block of
of like
like quantifiers
quantifiers to
to be
be contracted
contracted to to aa single
single
quantifier
quantifier and any ��
and any or II�
T ~ or H ~ formula
formula is
is provably
provably equivalent
equivalent toto its
its contracted
contracted form
form
without
without the
the use
use of
of induction.
induction.

4.3. Note.
Note. We
We dodo not
not place
place any
any restrictions
restrictions on
on the
the logical
logical complexity
complexity of
of the
the
side-formulas
side-formulas AA in
in the
the induction
induction rule
rule (but
(but compare Sieg [1991])
compare Sieg [1991]).. Consequently
Consequently it
it is
is
very
very easy
easy to
to see
see that
that in
in PA
PA or
or any
any of
of the
the above
above fragments,
fragments, the
the induction
induction rule
rule may
may
equivalently be re-formulated
equivalently be re-formulated asas an
an axiom
axiom scheme
scheme

I-F- A, -,B(O), 3x(B(x)

A,-,B(O), 3x(B(x) 1\ -,B(x +
A -,B(x + 1)),
1)), B(t)
B(t)..

Note
Note also
also that in the
that in presence of
the presence of the modified subtraction
the modified subtraction function - , , the
function -'- the frag­
frag-
ments II�-IND
ments II~ and ��-IND
and T~ are
are equivalent.
equivalent. For
For it
it is
is easy
easy to
to see
see that
that the
the above
above
induction axiom
induction axiom can
can be
be derived
derived from
from its
its dual
dual form
form

B ( t --'- 0)
A, B(t
I-~- A, 0),, 3x( - ,B(t -'-
3x(-~B(t "- x)
x) 1\ B(t -'-
A B(t (x +
"- (x + 1))),
1))),-,B(t - ss).) .
-,B(t -'-

4.4. Definition.
4.4. Definition. The rank of
The rank of aa PA-derivation
PA-derivation is
is the maximum of
the maximum all the
of all heights
the heights
]I C B ]I of
e l ,I , II B of cut-formulas and induction-formulas
cut-formulas and induction-formulas occurring
occurring in
in it.
it.

4.5. Definition. For

4.5. Definition. each PA-derivation
For each PA-derivation DD define
define its height dd by
its height by induction
induction as
as
follows (so
follows as to
(so as to incorporate
incorporate an estimate of
an estimate of the complexity of
the complexity of witnessing
witnessing terms
terms in
in
addition to
addition the depth
to the depth of
of the derivation) :
the derivation):
1 . Any
1. Any axiom height dd =
has height
axiom has 1.
= 1.

2. If
2. If D is constructed
D is constructed from
from sub-derivations
sub-derivations D;Di ofof heights d; (i
heights di � 1)
(i < 1 ) by
by an
an
application of
application of any
any of
of the rules V,
the rules V, A, V, L-Cut,
1\ , V, then d
L-Cut, then d= max d; +
-- maxdi 1.
+ 1.
33.. If
If D
D isis constructed
constructed from from aa sub-derivation
sub-derivation Do of A
Do of B(t) by
A,, B(t) by applying
applying the
the 3-rule
3-rule
then dd --
then = max(d0,
m ax( do , ItI t [)I) ++ 11 where
where It I t II is
is the
the least number kk such
least number that the
such that the term
term
(regarded as
tt (regarded as an
an elementary
elementary function function of of its
its number
number variables)
variables) is
is bounded
bounded byby
Bw .k (it
B~.k (it follows
follows from
from 3.20 3.20 that
that such such aa kk exists).
exists).
4. If
4. If D
D isis aa derivation
derivation of of A, B(t) by
A, B(t) by the
the induction
induction rule
rule from
from subderivations
subderivations Do,
Do ,
then dd == max(d0,
D 1 , then
O1, max(do, dl, db [tI t I)I) ++ 2.
2.

4.6. NNotation.
4.6. otation. PA ~d
PA I-� A indicates that
A indicates that there is aa PA-derivation
there is PA-derivation of
of A with
A with
height dd and
height rank r.r .
and rank
 Provably
Provably Recursive Functions
Recursive Functions 179
179

4.7. Embedding
4.7. of PA.
E m b e d d i n g of PA. If PA
If PA f-�
F-d A(t s , . . . , tk(X))
A ( t ll ((x) tk(s then
then for
for all
all assignments
a s s i g n m e n t s of
of
numbers 4 =
numbers fi = nl,
n l , .. ... ., , nt
nl to
to the
the free variables x
free variables ~ == XIX l,, .. .. .., , Xl we have
xt we have

max
max fi
4": N ~ . d.d A(m
51 f-� A ( m ll ,, .. ... ., , mk)
mk)
where
where ml
m l , , .. .. .. ,, mk
mk are
are the
the numerical
numerical values
values of
of the
the terms
terms tl (4),, .. .. .. ,, tk(fi)
tl (fi) tk(4). .

Proof. By
Proof. induction over
By induction over the
the PA-derivation
PA-derivation of of A(tl tk).. Let
A ( t l ,, .. ... ., , tk) Let nn== max
max~fi where
where
fi4 is
is aa fixed assignment
fixed assignment and and note
note that (d -
w.· (d
that w 1) E
- 1) E ww . · d[nJ
d[n]..
1. If
1. t~) is
A ( t l ,, .. ... ., , tk)
If A(tl either aa logical
is either logical or
or arithmetical
arithmetical axiom axiom then then on
on the
the assignment
assignment
x := fi, the
9- 4, resulting set
the resulting set of
of closed
closed formulas
formulas A(mJ,
A ( m l , .. ... ., , mk)mk) must
must contain
contain aa true
true
atom,
atom, so so automatically
automatically we we have
have nn : 9N
N f-
Fww A(ml
A ( m l ,, .. ... ., , mk)
mk)..
2. The
2. The V A,, and
V,, /\ and L-Cut
L-Cut casescases are are immediate
immediate since since the the corresponding
corresponding rules
rules in
in the
the
infinitary
infinitary system
system are
are virtually
virtually the the same.same.
3.
3. Suppose
Suppose PA PA f-� A ( t l , .. ... ., ' tk),
Fd A(tl' t ~ ) , VVzB(z,
z B ( z , tl' t~) follows
t l , .. ... ., ' tk) follows by by an
an application
application ofof
the V-rule from
the V-rule from PAPA f-� Fd-1 - I A(tJ A ( t l ,, .. ... ., , tt~),
k ) , B(z,
S ( z , tl, t~). Then
t l , . .. .., . , tk). Then the
the induction
induction
hypothesis
hypothesis gives
gives for
for every
every n' n' E E N, N,

max(n, n')
max(n, N f-�
n')": N . (d- l ) A(ni),
t--7"(d-1) A(fit), B(n',
B ( n ' , ni).
fit).

But
But then
then the
the infinitary
infinitary V-rule
V-rule applies
applies immediately
immediately to
to give
give

F-7."d
nn": NN f-� A(fit), VzB(z,
d A(ni), V z B ( z , ni).
fit).

44.. Suppose
Suppose PA
PA f-�
~d A(tJ
A ( t l ,, .. ... ., , tk)'
t~), 3zB(z,
3 z B ( z , tl t l ,'. .. .., . ' tk)
t~) follows follows by by an
an application
application of
of
the
the 3-rule
3-rule from
from PA
PA f-� F-d~ A(tJ A ( t l ,, ... .. ,. t,~tk)'
) , B(ta,
S ( t o , tJ, ) . . Then
t l , . .. .., .t ~, tk) Then the
the induction
induction
hypothesis
hypothesis gives
gives
nn": NN f-� .(d- l ) A(ni
F-7"(d-1) ), B(m
A(fit), , ni)
S ( m o a, fit)
where ma
where m0 is
is the
the value
value of to after
of to after assigning
assigning fi g to
to the variables x
the variables and 00 to
~ and to any
any other
other
variables
variables in to.. Now
in to Now the
the derivation
derivation height height d d is
is defined
defined so so that
that the
the witnessing
witnessing
term to has
term to has value
value mamo ::;
<_ B
W . (d- I ) (n) ((here
Bw.(d-1)(n) here BB isis the
the fast-growing
fast-growing hierarchy,
hierarchy, notnot
the formula).) . Therefore
the formula Therefore by by thethe Bounding
Bounding LemmaLemma 33.15, . 15, n
n : 9N
N f-� (d- l ) ma
t-o."(d-l) m0 : 9N
N
and
and so
so the 3-rule in
the 3-rule in the infinitary system
the infinitary immediately gives
system immediately gives

F-7."d
nn": NN f-� d A(ni)
A(r5),, 3zB(z,
3 z S ( z , ni).
fit).

55.. Suppose
Suppose PA
PA f-�
F-d A(tl
A ( t l ,, .. ... ., , tk)
tk),, B(ta,
B(to, tl tk) follows
t l ,,. .. .., . , tk) follows by
by the
the induction
induction rule
rule from
from

PA F-d~ A(tJ
PA f-� A ( t l ,, .. ... ., , tk)
tk),' B(O, t l , .. ... ., , tk)
S(0, tJ, tk)

and
and
PA F-~l1 A(t
PA f-� A ( t ll ,, .. ... ., , tk),
t~), -,B(x,
- , B ( x , tJ
tl,, .. .. .. ,, tk)' S(x +
t~), B(x + 1,
1, tJ,
tl, .. .. .. ,, tk)
tk)
where
where II B
BII ::; and x
_ rr and x is
is not
not free
free in A(tJ
in A t~).. Let
( t l ,, .. ... ., , tk) m0 be
Let ma be the
the value
value of
of ta(fi)
t0(g)..
. (d- l)
Then
Then as
as before
before nn : 9N
51 f-�
F-o"(d-l) ma 51.. By
m0 : 9N By the the induction
induction hypothesis,
hypothesis,

nn": NN f-�· do A(ni),

F-~"d~ A(r~), B(O,
B(0, ni)
fit)
180
180 M. Fairtlough and S. Wainer
M. Fairtlo'llgh

and
and for
for every n'
every n' E N
N,,
max(n, n')
max(n, n') IF-7"dll A(rii
-�.d ) , -,B(n', rii
A(r~),-,B(n', rS), S(n'' +
) , B(n 1, rii
+ 1, rS).).
SSoo by m0 successive
by mo successive applications
applications of
of L-Cut
L-Cut with
with cut-formulas
cut-formulas B(O,
B(0, rii
) , B(I,
rS), B(1, rii
rS),),
...., B ( m o -- 11,, rii
. . , B(mo rS)) we
we obtain
obtain
max(n, mo) : NN 1-�.
max(n, mo)" (d-2)+mo A(rii
~-7"(d-2)+m~ A(rS),) , B(mo, rii
rS).).
Since
Since w (d
w.· (d -
- 2)
2) + mo E w
+ mo w.· (d - (d
- 1) mo)] we
[max(n, mo)]
1)[max(n, we thus
thus obtain
obtain by
by Weakening,
Weakening,
l A(rS),) , B(mo,
max(n, mo)": N
max(n, mo) -�. (d- ) A(rii
N I~_~,.(d-1) B(mo, rii ).
ff~).

But n
But n": NN I-�.(d - l) max(n,
t-o "(d-l) mo) :" N
max(n, mo) N from
from above,
above, soso aa final
final N-Cut
N-Cut gives
gives the
the desired
desired
result:
result:
n" Nn:
N I- . A(rii
d A(rS),) , B(mo,
F~�''d B(mo, rii
ff~))
and
and this
this completes
completes the the proof.
proof.

4.8.
4.8. Corollary.
Corollary. Suppose
Suppose PAPA I-�~a A(tl (X) , . . . , tk (X)). Then
A(tl(~),...,t,(~)). Then for all numerical
for all numerical
assignments
assignments ii~ to
to the
the free
free variables
variables x~ we
we have,
have, by
by the the Embedding
Embedding and
and Cut- E limination
Cut-Elimination
Theorems
Theorems 4~.. 7,
7, 3. 11,
3.11,
max ii
max g" N :
-g A(mb
N IF~ A ( m l , .. ... ., , m k)
ink)
where
where as
as before
before mi
m, isis the
the value
value of
of term ti(ii) and
term t,(g) and where
where a exp~(w,. d)
= eXP2(w
a = d) or exp~(w . 9d)
or exp�(w d)..

4.9.
4.9. Theorem.
Theorem.

PROVREC(PA) C
PRovREc(PA) C_ REC(co)
REC(60)
P ROVREC(��-IND) C
PROVREC(E~ REC(w22))
C_ REC(W
PRovREc(��-IND)
PROVREC(Z~ C
C_ REC((cO)n)
REC((eo),) ifn
if n >;:::22
Proof.
Proof.
11.. Immediate from 44.8,
Immediate from . 8, for
for if f
if f is ��-defined by
is E~ 3y3z . C,(x, y , z)
by 3y3z. Cf(~, y,z) and PA I­
and PA
\fx 3y3z.C,(x, y , z) then for
v~ 3v3z. c~(~, v, z) then ~or some
~orne a -~ co
~ -< ~0 we
we have
h~ve I-g \fx 3y3z.C,(x, y , z).
~-~ V~ 3y~z. C~(~, V, z).
2. Suppose
2. Suppose ��-IND
E~ I- \fx 3y3z . C,(x, y, z).
}-- ~'~ 3y3z. Cf(~, y, z). TheThe cut-reduction
cut-reduction method of 33.10
method of . 10
applies to ��-IND
applies to E0-IND inin much
much the
the same
same way
way as
as for
for the
the infinitary
infinitary system,
system, so
so that
that
cuts
cuts of
of (disjunctive
(disjunctive or)
or) existential
existential form:
form:

A,
A, B(t)
B(t)
A,
A, \fx-,B(x)
Vx-,B(x) A,A, 3xB(x)
3xB(x)
AA
get
get reduced
reduced (by
(by inverting
inverting the
the left
left premise)
premise) to
to

A, ~ B ( t ) A ,A, B(t)
A, -,B(t) B(t)
A
A
 Provably
Provably Recursive
Recursive FUnctions
Functions 181
181

However
However if ifthe
the right
right premise
premise A, A, 33xx B B ((xx)) comes
comes aboutabout by by aa � T~� -induction insteadinstead
of
of an -rule, the
an 33-rule, the method
method comes comes unstuckunstuck and and we we cancan reduce
reduce the the cuts
cuts no no further.
further.
Nevertheless,
Nevertheless, thisthis means
means that that any any � � -IND derivation
~E~ derivation can can be be transformed
transformed into into
one
one in
in which
which allall cut-formulas
cut-formulas are are (at (at worst)
worst) � T�~. ThenThen applying
applying the the Embedding
Embedding
Theorem
Theorem 4.7 4.7 to
to the
the given
given proofproof of of VXVZ 3y3z3 y 3 z . . C,(x,
CI(Z , y, z) and
y, z) and inverting
inverting the the
VV yields
yields anan infinitary
infinitary derivation
derivation max max n 4": N N f-w .d 3y3z
F-~'d 3 y 3 z .. C,(n,
C l ( g , y, z) in
y, z) in which
which allall
cut-formulas
cut-formulas are are �S �~ and
and inin which
which there there is is aa finite
finite bound
bound kk on on anyany additional
additional nu­ nu-
merical
merical constants
constants appearing
appearing in in them.
them. Note Note thatthat embedding
embedding replaces replaces induction
induction
by
by cuts.
cuts. The
The Bounding
Bounding Lemma Lemma 3.15 3.15 (2)(2) then
then applies
applies to to give
give 3y3z
3 y 3 z .. C,(n,
Cf(~, y,y, z)
z)
true at BW'
true at (max(n,
B~.d(max(~, k)),, for
k))
dHierarchy Theorem for all
all n. 4. AsAs before
before f f is is therefore
therefore elementary
elementary in in B
w .d
B~.d
and
and byby the
the Hierarchy Theorem 3.19 3.19 and 3.20, ff E
and 3.20, E REC(W2)
REC(w2)..
3.3. Suppose
Suppose � ~~� -IND f- d VX
~_d V~ 3y3z
3 y 3 z . . C,(X,
C l ( ~ , y, z). As
y, z). As above
above we we may
may assume
assume that that the
the
proof
proof is
is reduced
reduced to to one
one in
in which
which all all cut-formulas
cut-formulas are are in
in prenex
prenex form form with
with at at most
most
nn alternating
alternating quantifiers.
quantifiers. Recall
Recall that that thethe sequence-coding
sequence-coding apparatus apparatus allows allows usus
to
to assume
assume further
further that
that blocks
blocks of of like
like quantifiers
quantifiers are are contracted
contracted to to one
one such.
such.
Thus
Thus byby the Embedding Theorem
the Embedding Theorem and and Inversion
Inversion we we have,
have, for for all
all assignments
assignments
x
X :=
" - - m,
T/~,

maxm
max rh :" N
N f-w
N~.d.d 3y3z Cl(ff~ , y,
3y3z. . C,(m, y, z)
z)
by
by aa derivation
derivation inin which
which allall cut-formulas
cut-formulas havehave at most n
at most n -- 11 alternating
alternating
quantifi ers prefixed
quantifiers prefixed to
to a
a�T~� -formula oror its
its negation,
negation, and
and in
in which
which there
there is
is aa finite
finite
bound
bound k k on
on the
the numerical
numerical constants
constants originating
originating from
from the
the given
given (�(~~� -IND)-proof.
The Cut-Elimination
The Cut-Elimination method
method then
then allows
allows usus to
to reduce the quantifier-complexity
reduce the quantifier-complexity
of
of cut-formulas
cut-formulas one
one step
step at
at a time, to
a time, to obtain
obtain aa derivation
derivation of
of

max m:N
max r~" N f-
Na " 3y3z
3y3z. . C,(m, y, z)
Cl(r~ , y, z)
in which only
in which T~� -cuts remain.
only � By the
remain. By the Bounding
Bounding Lemma
Lemma we
we then
then have
have for
for every
every
m,
m,
3y3z . Cl(r~
3y3z. C,(m,, y,
y, z) true at
z) true at B,, (max(m, k))
B~(max(rh, k))
and therefore
and therefore ff is
is elementary
elementary in in Ba,
B" , as
as before.
before. The
The desired
desired result
result then
then follows
follows
immediately provided
immediately provided we we can
can ensure
ensure that
that c~ ( CO ) n .
-< (~0)n.
a -~
Unfortunately this
Unfortunately this is
is not
not straightforward.
straightforward. If If we
we were
were toto apply
apply step-by-step
step-by-step
cut reduction
cut reduction inin the
the most
most obvious
obvious way,
way, the
the final
final bound
bound c~ would be
a would be too
too large.
large.
Instead we
Instead we need
need toto insert
insert aa further
further "refining" step, which
"refining" step, which is step 22 below.
is step below.
We begin
We begin with
with aa derivation
derivation ofof
max rh"
max m:N f-w.d 3y3z.
N ~_w.d 3y3z . Cl(ffa y, z)
C, (m,, y, z)

in which
in which the
the cut-formulas
cut-formulas have
have at most nn- - 11 alternating
at most alternating quantifiers
quantifiers prefixed
prefixed
to �� -formula or
to aa S~ or its
its negation.
negation.
Step 1: Remove
Step 1" the outermost
Remove the outermost quantifier
quantifier from
from all
all cut-formulas
cut-formulas by
by cut
cut elimination.
elimination.
This increases
This increases the
the bound
bound fromfrom w.
w .dd to w.d •
to 22w'd.
Step 2: Transform
Step 2: Transform the
the resulting
resulting derivation
derivation into
into one
one with bound wwd+1
with bound + wwdd •933 §+ 2.
d+l + 2.
We show
We show how
how this
this isis done
done afterwards.
afterwards.
182
182 M. Fairtlough
M. Fairtlough and S. Whiner
and S. Wainer

33 to n: Successively
to n: Successively remove
remove outermost
outermost quantifiers
quantifiers from
from all
all cut-formulas,
cut-formulas, each
each time
time
increasing the
increasing the bound
bound by by an
an exponential
exponential to
to the base ww as
the baSe as in
in Note 3 . 12 .
Note 3.12.
What
W remains isis aa derivation
h a t remains derivation of
of
max
m m ": NN ~-~
a x ffz :3y:3z.Cf(m, y, z)
f-0 3 y 3 z . C l ( r h , y, z)

with only
with only ~~
E� -cuts, and
and where
where
c~ = ex-~-2
p~ (w d+l + w d 93 + 2) -~ exp~ (1) = (~0)n

as required.
as required.
It remains
It remains to
to justify
justify step 2. Given
step 2. Given any tree-ordinal ~/of
any tree-ordinal , of the
the form
form
~/ : 2 w'dx " e l + "'" + 2 w'dk " Ck

where d
where > ". ." . >
dl1 > > dk Ci >
and c~
dk and > 0,
0, define
define "7' by
by

=W
"! ---
,-)1 w ddl1 . . (3cd
(3C1) + ...+w
-~-"""-~- dk .9(3Ok).
Wdk (3Ck).
Then by
Then induction on
by induction 2w ·w we
on 7, ~� 2~'~ we have
have
(3 Ee 7[m] ~'' +
implies (3
,[m] implies + 22 E
e , ' [e(m)]
7'[e(m)] (t)
(t)

where e(m) =
where e(m} - 33 ..22m+!
m+l -- l1..
The
The case 7 =
caSe , - 00 holds
holds vacuously.
vacuously. Otherwise
Otherwise wewe can
can write
write , 7 =
- 0~ + w .d • c.
+ 22~'d" c. If
If ,
7 is
is
aa successor then d
successor then d= and (3
= 00 and e ,[m]
~ E implies (3
7Ira] implies ~ Ee 0~ +
+ (c
( c -- l} [m] U
1)[m] (~ +
U {o + (c(c-- I1)}.
)}.
By
By the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis we we then
then have
have

(3
~'' + C 0~'' +
+ 22 E + 3(c
3 ( c -- l1)[e(m)]
) [e(m}] U {~' +
U {o' + 3c 1} C
3 c -- I} C, ' [e(m}].
7'[e(,~)].

then d d> and/~(3 E

E ,[m] (3 Ee '%~[m].
Finally
Finally if
if ,
")' is
is aa limit
limit then > 00 and "),Ira] implies
implies/~
m [m]w. .(So So by by thethe
induction hypothesis (3
induction hypothesis ' +2 Ee ,:"[e(m)]
fl'+2 7~[e(m)].. ButBut 'm ~/,~ = = 0+2 c -_- 11}+2
5 + 2 ~w'.dd .. ((c - 1l))' .22m
) + 2 ~ ' ( dd- +!
m+l
and
and so
so
'Tim =
,:" = 0(~!' + ~ddd"• (3c
-~- w (3C -
-- 3)
3) + 5ddd-- l1" (e(m)
-~- W (e(m) +
• -~- I}.1).

Therefore
Therefore

(3~'' +
+ 22 E
e ,:"[e(m)]
7~[e(m)] == 05'' +
+ww dd" (3c - 2)
( 3 c- [e(m)] C
2)[e(m)]
• C, ' [e(m)].
7'[e(m)].

This
This completes
completes the
the proof
proof of
of (t)
(t)..
We
We now
now use
use this
this to
to prove
prove

n :
n 9N
N f-'Y
t-~ A implies n
A implies n : 9N
N f-'Y"
b~" A A

where
where if = 22w~'dl
if ,~ / = . d1 ."el "~"."'"
Cl + ..+"~-22ww'dk
. dk ."Ck
Ck as
aS above, then ,7"" =
above, then = wd1 +1 +
(-ddl-F1 ~l +
"~- " + 22..
Furthermore
Furthermore the the transformation
transformation from from bound
bound ,~/ to bound ,7"" does
to bound does not
not alter
alter
any of
any of the
the cut-formulas.
cut-formulaS. The The proof
proof is is by
by induction
induction over derivations. The
over derivations. The
axiom
axiom case
caSe is is immediate
immediate and and all
all other
other cases
caSes have
have the
the same
same form.
form. For
For suppose
suppose
 Provably Recursive Functions 183
183

n
n :: NN IF-"I~ A
A is is derived
derived from premises m
from premises m :: N -11 A,
N 1kZ A , BB by by any any rule,
rule, where
where
(3 EE ,[m]
~/[m].. By By the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis we have m
we have m :: N N 1k--~''
11" A,
A, B B and
and by by
Weakening,
Weakening, ee(m) (m) :: N N 1~-"1"
2 A,, BB since
" --2 A since byby (t) f l ' ++ 22 E
(t),, (3' e ,'[e(m)]
~'[e(m)] and and hence
hence
fl" E9 ,"
(3" 9 ' "- 2[e(m)].. The
- 2[e(m)] The only
only reason
reason forfor the extra wd1
the extra +1 on
w d1+1 on thethe front
front ofof , 9'"" is
is
to
to ensure
ensure that
that B _2 (m) � >_ B (m)
B~+,(m) �
>_ e (m)
e(m). . Hence m : N 1- "1" -2 ee(m)"
(m) : N by
B~,,_2(m)
"I" W+1 Hence m " N k~"-2
" 1
N by
Bounding
Bounding Lemma Lemma 33.15 .15 (1).
(1). Therefore
Therefore by by an N-cut, m
an N-cut, m : 9N N IF-"I~''-1 A,
- A, BB.. We
We can can
now
now re-apply
re-apply the the rule
rule in
in question
question to obtain n
to obtain N Ik--~''
n :: N "I" A,
A, B B as as desired.
desired.
Step 22 now
Step now follows
follows by by putting
putting , -y = 22ww'd
- .d so
SO that
that ,,/"
~" = - Wd
w d+l +l ++ wd w d.. 33 + 2. This
+ 2. This
completes 4.9.
completes 4.9.
4.10.
4.10. Theorem.
Theorem.
REC(w 22)) �
REC(W C_ PRovREC(��-IND)
PROVREC(E~
Proof. By
Proof. By 3.20
3.20 B w .k is
B~.k is primitive
primitive recursive,
recursive, for
for each N and
each kk 6E N and so
so by
by the
the Hierarchy
Hierarchy
Theorem,
Theorem, every every function
function in REC(w 22)) is
in REC(W is primitive recursive. We
primitive recursive. We therefore
therefore only
only
need
need show
show thatthat every
every primitive
primitive recursive
recursive function
function isis provably
provably recursive in ��-IND.
recursive in 9
This
This isis done
done by by assigning
assigning to to each
each primitive
primitive recursive
recursive definition
definition ofof aa function f, aa
function f,
bounded formula
bounded formula C, (
CI(2, i, y,
y, z)
z) with
with the
the intuitive
intuitive meaning:
meaning: "z
"z is
is a
a sequence
sequence code
code which
which
describes
describes the the step-by-step
step-by-step computation
computation of of f(i ) , ending
f (~), ending with
with output
output y"y".. The
The formula
formula
3y 3 z . C,
3y3z. y, zz)) then
CI(s(i, y, then � E~� -defines f(i
f(E)) and
and wewe merely
merely have
have to
to show
show it
it to
to be
be provable
provable
in ��-IND.
in ~~
1. If f is
If f is defined
defined by by one
one ofof the
the initial
initial schemes:
schemes:
M)) -=- 00 or
ff ((i f ( ~ )) -=
or f(i + l + 1 or
x , Xl - x Xi
f ((~i')) =
or f i
then
then take
take C, to be
y, zz)) to
Cf(s( i, y, be the
the conjunction
conjunction of - 00 (the
of zz = (the empty
empty sequence)
sequence) with
with
- 00 or
y -= or y l + l+ 1 or
X Xl
y -= or yy -=x iXi
respectively.
respectively. Then
Then in
in each
each case
case we
we have
have
C, ( i, 0,
Cf(E, 0) or
O, O) or c, (i, Xl +
Cf(~,x, + 1,
l, 0)
O) or
or C, (i, Xi, 0)
Cf(~,xi, O)
provable immediately
provable immediately by by identity
identity axioms, hence IF- 3y3
axioms, hence z . C,
3y3z. y, zz)) by
(i,, y,
CI(E by the
the
3-rule
3-rule and hence I-
and hence FVVsi 3y3z
3y3z. . C, (i,, y,
CI(Y. y, zz)) by
by the
the V-rule.
V-rule.
2.
2. Suppose
Suppose ff is
is defined
defined from g, and
go,, gl
from go and g g22 by
by the
the substitution
substitution scheme:
scheme:
ff(x)
(i) =
- g
g0(g, i) , gg2(x))
O ( gl ((x), 2 (i))
and
and assume
assume inductively
inductively that
that g g, and
o , gl
go, and gg22 have
have already
already been
been assigned
assigned "compu­
"compu-
tation
tation formulas"
formulas" C C1 and
o , Cl
Co, C~2 so
and C so that in ��-IND
that in X]~
I-F VVZi 3y3z
3y3z. . Ci (i, y,
Ci(Y., y, zz).) .
Then
Then take
take C,
Cf(s( i, y, to be
y, zz)) to be the
the formula
formula

lh(z)) =
lh(z = 33 /\
A (z)o ~ 00 /\
(Z)o =f:. A (zh r 00 /\
(z), =f:. A (z
(z)~ r 00 /\
h =f:. A Yy =
= u((z)o)
u((z)o)
c1((i,, u((zh ) , v ((zh)) /\
^/\ Cl ^ C2 (i, u((zh) , v ((zh))
^C
/\ Co(u((z)l), ( (z)o)) .
u((z)o),, vv((z)0)).
o (u((zh ) , u((z h) , u((z)o)
184
184 M. Fairtlough
M. and S.
Fairtlotlgh and Wainer
S. Whiner

Now from
Now from the arithmetical axioms
the arithmetical in PA
axioms in it's easy
PA it's to see
easy to that we
see that we can derive
can derive
",C1 (x, yl, Zl ) , ..,C2(x, Y2, Z2) , ",Co(yl, Yo, zo) ,
I- ~c, (z, y~, z,), ~c~(z, y~, z~), ~Co(y~, yo, zo),
C,(x, yo,
c~(~, (P(Yo , zo),
Yo , (p(yo, p(yl, z~Zl ),) , p(y~,
zo) , p(y~, Z2)))>)..
P (Y2, z~)
Then by applying
Then by the quantifier
applying the in the
rules in
quantifier rules order we
correct order
the correct obtain
we obtain

I- 3xvyVz . ..,C1(X, y , z) , 3xvyVz . ..,C2(X, y , z) ,

3~yv~. ~c~ (~, y, z), 3~yv~. ~c~(~, y, ~),
3xvyVz . ..,Co(x, y , z) , VX 3y3z .C,(X, y, z) ,
~ y v ~ . - C o ( ~ , y, z), v~ 3y3~. c~(~, y, z),
and from
and from this by three
this by cuts,
successive cuts,
three successive
VX 3y3z .C,(X, y , z).
I- V~ 3y3z. CI(~. , y, z).
~-

Suppose ff is
3. Suppose
3. defined from
is defined 90 and
from go 91 by
and gl primitive recursion:
by primitive recursion:

f(x
f(~,, 0) go(~) ,, f(x
0) - 90(x) = w+
f(~,, w 1) =
+ 1) 1 (X, w,w, f(x
-- 9gl(x, f(~,, w )).
w)).

Assume 90
Assume go and 91 have
and gl already been
have already formulas Co
assigned formulas
been assigned Co,, C1 that in
such that
C1 such in
~]~ IND we
�� - have
we have
I- VX 3y3z. Co (x, y , z)
F- V~. 3y3z. Co(F., y, z)
I- VX VwVw'3y3z. C1(X, w, w' , y, z).
~- V~ VwVw'gygz. C1 (~,, w, w', y, z).

C,(x, w, y , z)
to be
take CI(~, w, y, z) to
Then take
Then the formula
be the formula

lh(z) = w
lh(z) w+ + 11 A Vi << ww ++ 11.. ((z)
/\ Vi ((z),; =j:.
# O) AY
0) /\ y == u((z)w)
u((z)w)
^ Co
/\ (x, u((
Co(~, z)o) , v((z)o))
u((~)o), ~((z)o))
^ Vi
/\ vi <<w .C1 (x, i , u((Z) i ) , U((Z) i+l ) , V ((Z) i+l )).
~.c~(~,i,u((z),),u((z),+~),~((z),+~)).
Using the arithmetical
Using the we obtain
axioms we
arithmetical axioms obtain

..,Co(x, y, z) , C,(x, u( (t)o) , t)

I- ~Co (~, y, z), C~(~, 0,
0, u((t)o), t)

by choosing
by term tt == ((p(y,
the term
choosing the P(y, z)) z)),, and
and

I- ..,C,(X,
~c~(~, ~, C1(x, ~,w, yy,, y'y',, z~'),') , C,(x,
w, yy,, z)z),, ..,~c~(~, w+
c~(~, w y',, t')
+ 11,, y' e)
by
by choosing t ' - p (p(z
choosing t' =
z , p,(p(y'
y ' , z,' z')).
) ) . ThusThus by appropriate quantifier
by appropriate quantifier rules,
rules,

I- 3xvyVz . ..,Co(x, y , z) , 3y3z . C,(X, 0, y , z)

and
and

VyVz . ..,C,(x, w, y, z) ,
I-~- VyVz. ~CI(~. , w, y, z),
3X3w3w ~C1 (x
'VyVz. ",C1
3~3w3w'VyVz. w',' , yy,, z)
(~,, w, w W, z),,
3y3z.C,(x, w+
3y3z. CI(~, , w + 11,, yy,, z)
z)
 Provably Recursive Functions 185

and
and hence
hence by
by applying
applying cut
cut to
to each
each one:
one:

:3y:3z . Cf(.x, y, z)
I-~- 3 y 3 z . C f ( ~ , 0,
O, y, z) and
and I- VyVz. -~CI(~ ,, w,
VyVz . -,Cf(x w, y,
y, z),
z), :3y:3z.
3y3z .Cf(x,
CI(~. , w 1, y,
w + 1, y, z).
z).

Then by ��-IND
Then by E0-IND we
we obtain
obtain

:3y:3z.Cf(x, w , y, z)
I-~- 3y3z. C I (~,, w, y, z)
and
and by
by V-rules
V-rules
I-~- VXVw:3y:3z. Cf(x, w , y, z).
Y2 Yw3y3z. CI(~, , w, y, z).
This
This completes
completes the
the proof
proof since
since every
every primitive
primitive recursive
recursive function
function is
is definable
definable
by
by a
a sequence
sequence of
of the
the above
above schemes.
schemes.

4.11.
4.11. Theorem.
Theorem.

REC((S0)n) C_ PrtOvREc(H~ ((nn �

> 2)
2)
P r o o f . By
Proof. By the
the Hierarchy
Hierarchy Theorem
Theorem and
and the
the Comparisons
Comparisons Lemma
Lemma it
it suffices
suffices to
to show
show
that
that for
for every
every a ce -< to )n, the
-~ ((So)n, the fast-growing
fast-growing F F~a is
is provably
provably recursive in II�-IND
recursive in II~ . For
For
if E(B~) then
f E E(Ba)
if f then f f E E(Fa) since B
E(F~) since B~a � _< F F~a onon all non-zero arguments.
all non-zero arguments. Thus Thus f f is
is
primitive
primitive recursively
recursively definable
definable fromfrom FaF~ andand so so by
by the
the proof
proof of
of 4.10, f will also
f will also be be
provably
provably recursive
recursive by by some
some further
further � E~� -inductions.
We
We need
need toto construct
construct an an appropriate
appropriate "computation
"computation formula"
formula" CF for for the the F­CF F-
functions.
functions. To To do
do this
this wewe must
must first
first define
define a a coding
coding of of tree-ordinals fl, I,
a, /3,
tree-ordinals or, 7 , .. . - , , -< ..
-~ tSoo
as
as numbers
numbers a a = a '1, bb =
= rraT, = rr/~7, 1 '1,, ....respectively,
/3'1, Cc == rr77 . . respectively, so so that
that the
the basic
basic ordinalordinal
operations
operations can
can bebe simulated
simulated by by the
the arithmetical
arithmetical term-structure
term-structure of of PA.
PA. This
This is is easy
easy
to do
to because each
do because each cea -<-< (So)n can be
( to)n can be represented
represented in Cantor normal
in Cantor normal form
form thus
thus
0[, = W OtO " ~'}~0 3t- ~JOtl " ml Jr" 9 9 9 -4-(.l) O t k - 1 " mk-1

where O/k_
where ak - l1 -~
-< ..... . -< al "{
-~ al ao "~
-< O/0 exp�- (l) and
-< exp$-l(1) and m l
m oo ,, . .. .. ,. , m
m k -k are positive
1 - l are positive integers.
integers.
So
So if
if ai is coded
cei is coded as the number
as the number ai we can
ai we can take
take as
as code
code for for a:c~:

aa --
= (p ( ao, m
(p(ao, o), p ( at , m
mo),p(al, p ( ak - l , m
mll )) ," . .". ,,P(ak-1, k- l ) )
ink-l))

The ordinal
The ordinal 00 will
will be
be coded
coded as as the
the empty
empty sequence
sequence 0. Succ(a) then
O. Succ(a) then stands the
for the
stands for
formula (u(v(a))
formula (u(v ( a)) =
=0A v (v (a)) #=I 0)
/\ v(v(a)) 0) and Lim (a) stands
and Lim(a) stands for
for the formula (u(
the formula v ( a)) =I
(u(v(a))
0o A v ( v ( a)) #
/\ v(v(a)) =I o).
0) .
We can then
We can then define
define elementary
elementary number
number theoretic
theoretic functions
functions
( a, b) ~-~
1. (a,b) t--+ a@b
a EB b
2. ( b, n) ~t--+ w
2. (b,n) (n +
wbb.• (n + l)
1)
3. (a,
3. x) ~t--+ l(a,
( a, x) x)
l(a, x)
such that,
such that, ifif aa encodes
encodes aa andand bb encodes
encodes fl/3 then
then
1. aa @
1. encodes aa ++ fl/3 (provided
EB bb encodes (provided the the lowest
lowest exponent
exponent of
of w in aa is
w in is no
no smaller
smaller than
than
the highest
the highest exponent
exponent of of ww inin fl)
/3)
2. w
2. ( n ++ 1) encodes
wbb.• (n encodes w .
wfJz. ((nn ++ 1)
186
186 M. Fairtlough and S. Wainer
M. Fairtlough Whiner

3. ll(a,
3. x) encodes
(a, x) encodes aa ,x if a is
if a is aa limit.
limit.
Since
Since these functions are primitive recursive,
these functions are primitive recursive, they
they are
are provably
provably recursive in ��-IND
recursive in E~
by
by the
the foregoing
foregoing theorem
theorem and and wewe may
may therefore
therefore use
use them
t h e m freely
freely to
to form
form new
new terms,
terms,
in
in such
such a a way
way as
as to
to render
render thethe equation
equation

(a~gw b . ( u + l))~gw b = a~w b.(u+2)

provable in ��-IND.
provable in E~ We
We sometimes
sometimes writewrite wa w a for
for wa
w a. l1.. •

Now
Now we we can
can easily
easily define
define a a computation
c o m p u t a t i o n formula
formula C , z) for
H (a, x , yy,z)
CH(a,x, for the
the Hardy
Hardy
functions
functions Ho.(x)
Ha(x) = - yy,, by
by formalizing
formalizing the the statement:
statement:
zz is
is aa sequence
sequence (p(ao,
~(ao, xo), . . . , p(ak-b xk-l)) where
xo),...,p(ak-l,xk-1)) where ao ao = = 0, 0, Xo
Xo = = y y,,
ak-l
a~-i = = a,
a, Xk-l
xk-1 = = xx and
and for
for each
each ii < < k k- - 11;; if Succ(ai+l) then
if Succ(ai+l) then ai ai EEl
@ rr l1~'" =
=
ai+x and
ai+l and Xixi =
= xi+~ + 11,, and
Xi+! + and if Lim(ai+~) then
if Lim(ai+l) then aiai == l(ai+b Xi+!) and
l(ai+~,xi+~) and
Xi m Xi+l
Xi = X i + l ·"

But
B u t since
since Fo.
Fa =- H
H ~wo< we
we can
can therefore
therefore take
take as
as the
the ccomputation
o m p u t a t i o n formula
formula for
for F:
F"

CF(a, x, y, z) -- CH(wa, x, y, z).

The
The following
following areare derivable
derivable in in ��-IND
E~ for
for all
all terms
terms a a and
and b: b:
1. rF 3y3z . CH (l"', x,
3y3z.CH(rl7, x,y,z) since r
y, z) since F c H (rl', x,
CH(rl7, x + 1 , p(p(0, p(0, X+ l)), p(rl', x))
x,x+l,p(p(O,p(O,x+l)),p(rl7, x))).) .
22.. rF -,Vx3y3z
-,Yx3y3z. . C H
CH(a, (a, x,
x, y,
y, z)
z), , -,3y3z
-,3y3z. . CH (b,
CH(b, x,
x, y,
y, z),
z), 3y3z
3y3z .
. C H
CH(a ( a EEl
@ b
b,, x,
x, y,
y, z)
z). .
For
For ifif z'z' =- (P(O, y), . . . , p(b, x)) codes
(p(O,y),...,p(b,x)) codes the the computation
c o m p u t a t i o n of of H p (x)) =
He(x = yy
and
and z" z" = (P(O, y') , . . . , p(a, y)) codes
- (p(O,y'),...,p(a,y)) codes the the computation
c o m p u t a t i o n of of Ho. (Y ) , then
Ha(y), then
zz = (p(O,
(P(O, y'), . . . , p(a, y),
y'),..., . . . , p(a EEl
y),..., @ b, x)) codes
b, x)) codes thethe computation
c o m p u t a t i o n of of Ho. +p (x) =
Ha+~(x) =
Ho.(H p (x)) =
H~,(H~(x)) - y'y'.. Clearly
Clearly z z isis primitive recursively ((and
primitive recursively and so so provably
provably recursively
recursively
in ��-IND)
in E~ definable
definable from from z' z' and
and z"z".. Therefore
Therefore in in ��-IND
E~ we
we have
have

r --~CH(a, y, y',
,CH (a, y, " ) , -,C
y', z~"), H (b, x,
-~C~(b, y, z')
~, y, ~'),, 3z
3z. . CH (a EEl9 b,
C,,(a x, yy',' , z)
b, ~, ~)

and (2)
and (2) follows
follows by by the
the quantifier
quantifier rules.rules.
3. rF -,Lim(a)
3. ~ L i m ( a ) ,, --,3y3z
,3y3z. . C H (ax , x,
CH(ax, x, y,
y, z)
z),, 3y3z
3y3z.. CH x, y,
(a, x,
CH(a, y, z)
z)
since r
since F -,Lim(a), x, y,
, C H ( a x , , x,
~ L i m ( a ) , --,CH(ax z),, C
y, z) Cg(a, x, y,
H (a, x, y, p(z, p(a, x))
p(z, p(a, x))).) .
44.. r
~- 3y3z
3y3z.. CF(O,
CF(O, x, x, y,
y, z) by ((1)
z) by 1 ) since
since WO w~ == 11..
55.. rF -,Vx3y3z . CF(a, x , y, z), 3y3z . CF (a EEl
~Vx3y3z.CF(a,x,y,z),3y3z.CF(a ~ rl', , y , z) .
rl7, Xx,y,z).
First
First substitute
substitute wa w ~ for
for a a and
and wa w ~.• (u + 11)) for
(u + for bb throughout
t h r o u g h o u t the
the derivation of (2)
derivation of (2)
to
to obtain
obtain

~Vx3y3z. . C
F -,Vx3y3z
r CH (wa,
H (w a, x,
x, y,
y, z)
z),,
-,3y3z
-~3y3z. . C (wa •
c ,H( ~ ~ 9(u + l),
(u + 1), x,
~, y,y, z)
~),,
3 y 3 z . C ,H( ~(wa~ • 9((uu +
3y3z.C + 2)
2),, x,
~, yy,, z)
z)

using r
using w a EEl
~- wa @ waw a.• (u + 11)) =
(u + w ~.• (u
= wa + 2)
(u + 2).. Since
Since the
the base
base case
case

~w3y3z. c~(~ o, ~, y, z), ~y3z. cH(~ o, ~, y, z)

 Provably Recursive Functions 187
187

follows
follows by
by logic,
logic, we
we can
can now
now apply
apply �
E~� -induction over
over uu to
to obtain
obtain

I-- CH (wa , y,
-~Vx3y3z .. CH(W~, x,
~- -,'v'x:3y:3z 3y3z ..C
z),, :3y:3z
y, z)
x, H (wa~ .. (x
CH(W (x + 1)
1),, x,
x, y, z)..
y, z)
Hence by (3)
Hence by (3) with
with aa replaced
replaced by wa~a1n"", ,
by w

-w y3z. o, y, z), 3y3z. y, z)

which
which is
is what
what was
was required
required since CF(a, xx,, yy,, z) is
since CF(a, is CH (waa,, xx,, yy,, z)
CH(W z)..
6.
6. I--
[- -'Lim(a) ~3y3z. . CF(a
--Lim(a),, -,:3y:3z CF(a~,x , x,
x, y, z),, :3y:3z
y, z) Cf(a, x,
3y3z.. CF(a, x, y,
y, zz))
again
again byby (3)
(3) with
with aa replaced
replaced by by wwaa..
Now
Now inin order
order to
to prove
prove Fa
F~ totally-defined
totally-defined we we clearly
clearly need
need the
the principle
principle of
of transfinite
transfinite
induction up
induction up to c~. This
to a. This can
can be
be formalized-and
formalized--and appropriate
appropriate instances
instances of
of it
it proved­
proved--
in
in PA, using aa neat
PA, using neat method
method of Gentzen [1943].
of Gentzen [1943]. See
See also Schiitte [1977],
also Schiitte [1977], Feferman
Feferman
[1968]
[1968] and Takeuti [1987].
and Takeuti [1987]. Let
Let

TI(a, A) ==
TI(a,A) Frog(A) �
=_ Prog(A) --+ 'v'c
Vc.. (c -< aa �
(c :::5 -+ A(c))
A(c))

where Frog(A) meaning

where Prog(A) A is
meaning A is "progressive"
"progressive",, is
is the
the formula
formula

'v'd(A(O) 1\A (A(d) �

Vd(A(0) --+ A(d
A(d EB
@ rl')) A (Lim(d)
c17)) 1\ A 'v'x
(Lim(d) 1\ . A(dx ) �
Vx.A(d,) -+ A(d)))
A(d)))

and
and where
where (c a) is
-~ a)
(c -< is a �� -formula defining
a E~ defining the the partial ordering 'Y
partial ordering 7 -<
"~ aa onon tree­
tree-
ordinals,
ordinals, i.e,
i.e, "there
"there isis a
a sequence
sequence zz = = ((p(co,
p ( co, zo ) , . . . ,,p(ck,
zo),... P ( Ck, Zk )) with
Zk)) with Coco == c,C, Ck = a,
ck = a,
and
and such
such that
that for for each
each ii < k, if
< k, if SUCC ( CHl ) then
Succ(ci+l) then Ccii EB @ rl'
FlU = C~+l,, and
= C;+l and ifif L im (cH l )
Lim(c~+l)
then ( C;+l , ZHl
then Ccii = ll(Ci+l, )" ·
Zi+l)".
For any
For any formula
formula A(c)A(c) with
with aa distinguished
distinguished free free variable
variable Cc define to be
A' (b) to
define A'(b) the
be the
formula Va(A(a) ~� A(a
formula 'v'a(A(a) A(a @ ffi wb)),
wb )), and
and let
let A n+ l) _--
A((n+l) (A(n)),.'. Note
== (A(n)) Note that
that ifif A rr� then
is II~
A is then
A' rr�
is Hm+
A' is o
when brought
+l1 when brought to to prenex
prenex form.
form.
We
We have
have the following three
the following lemmas:
three lemmas:
7. If
7. If A rr� -formula then
A isis aa H~ then
rr�-IND
II~ I-- -,Frog(A),
F- -,Prog(A) , Prog(A')
Frog(X)

We argue informally.
We argue informally. First assume Frog(A).
First assume Prog(A) . The The first conjunct of
first conjunct Prog(A') is
of Prog(A') is
which follows
A'(O) which
A'(0) straight from
follows straight from A(a)
A(a) --+� A(a
A(a @ r 17).. The
EB rl') second conjunct
The second conjunct is is
A'(d) �
A'(d) A'(dEBrl') . To
~ A'(d@rl7). prove this
To prove this assume
assume A'(d)
A'(d) and A(a) . Then
and A(a). A(aEBwdEV
Then A(a@w l ")
dCrl~)
comes about
comes about by rr� -induction on
by aa H~ on the
the formula
formula A(a (u +
A(a ~EB wwdd.• (u 1 ) ) . The
+ 1)). The base
base
case A(a
case A(a @ EB wwd) comes from
d) comes A'(d) and
from A'(d) and A(a);
A(a) ; the the induction
induction stepstep comes
comes from
from
with aa instantiated
A'(d) with
A'(d) instantiated by by aa @ EB wwdd.. (u
(u +
+ 1).1 ) . Hence
Hence VxA(a
'v'xA(a @ EB wwdd.. (x
(x + 1))
+ 1))
and then
and then A(aA(a @ EB wwdan") follows from
derl~) follows from Frog(A). Therefore we
Prog(A) . Therefore we have
have proved
proved
-,A'(d)
~A' (d),, A(a)
A(a) -+� A(a@w
A(aEBwdan")
d~l~) andand hence
hence by by V-introduction
'v'-introduction and and V-introduction,
V-introduction,
� A'(d@rlT).
A'(d) --+
A'(d) A'(dEBrl') . TheThe third
third conjunct
conjunct of of Prog(A')
Prog(A') isis (Lim(d)AVx.A'(dx))
(Lim(d)I\'v'x . A'(dx )) --+ �
But ifif Lim(d)
A'(d) . But
A'(d). Lim(d) and and Vx.
'v'x . A'(dx) then for
A'(dx ) then for anyany a, A(a) ~� Vx.
a, A(a) 'v'x . A(a
A(a @ wd. ) ,
EB wdx),
so by
so by Frog(A)
Prog(A) yet yet again,
again, A(a)
A(a) -+ � A(a
A(a ~EB wd). Hence (Lim(d)
wd) . Hence (Lim(d) A 'v'x . A'(d~))
1\ Vx. �
A'(dx )) --+
Putting these
A'(d) . Putting
A'(d). these cases
cases together
together gives
gives Prog(A').
Prog(A') .
188
188 M.
M. Fairtlough and S. Wainer
Whiner

8. If
8. A is
If A is aa II�
H~-formula then
then

II�-IND
IIO-IND f-
k- -,T I(b, A')
"~TI(b, TI(w bb,, A).
A'),, TI(w A).

For,
For, assuming
assuming T I(b, A')
TI(b, and Prog(A)
A') and Prog(A), , we we have
have by by (7)
(7) Prog(A')
Prog(A') and and therefore
therefore
Vc
Vc � . Va . (A(a) -+
~_ bb.Va.(A(a) --+ A(a EEl we) ) . Using
A(a~wC)). Using this this wewe cancan then
then prove
prove VdVd � ~_ w b . A(d)
wb.A(d)
as
as follows.
follows. Suppose
Suppose d d �~ w b
wb.. Recall
Recall thatthat for fixed dd and
for fixed and i,i, in(d,
in(d, i) i) is
is the
the
initial
initial part
part of of sequence
sequence d, d, with
with length
length i, i, so
so if if ii � lh(d) then
< lh(d) then in(d,
in(d,i)i) = -
wd o 9mo EEl9 "" EEl9 wdi
w d~ - 1 9m
w d~-I i l where
mi-1 where d o , .
do,..., . . , di
di-1 1 �
~ b.
b. However,
However, in
in the
the formal
formal
• . . • •
- -
theory
theory we we can
can actually
actually prove
prove (i (i �<_ lh( d)) -+
lh(d)) --+ iin(d,
n(d, ii + + 1)1) = n(d, i)i) EEl
- iin(d, @ wdiw d' . m
• mi.i .
We
We are
are going
going toto prove
prove A(in(d,
A(in(d, i))i)) by
by aa II�-induction
ri~ on
on ii.. The
The basebase casecase is
is
just A(0) which
just A(O) which follows
follows immediately
immediately from from Prog(A)
Prog(A). . The The induction
induction step step isis
A( in( d, i))
A(in(d, i)) -+ A( in(d, ii +
~ A(in(d, + 1))
1)) which
which we we prove
prove by by another
another II� ri~ -induction. For For
informally,
informally, assume A( in(d, i)) , ii �
assume A(in(d,i)), <_ lh(
lh(d) d) andand d; d, � ~ b.b. ForFor any
any aa we we have
have
A(a)
A(a) -+ A(a EEl
--+ A(a wd').) . Therefore
@ wdi Therefore putting
putting aa equal equal to to in(d,
in(d, i) i) gives
gives

A(in(d, i) ~ w d')

and
and putting
putting aa equal
equal to
to in(d, i) EEl
in(d, i) w d' . (m
~ wdi (m +
+ 1)
1) gives
gives
•

A(in(d, i ) ~EEl w
A(in(d, i) d' . (m
w di (m +
• 1)) -+
+ 1)) --+ A(in(d, i) EEl w
A(in(d, i)~9 d' . (m
w di (m +
+ 2))
2))..
•

Hence by
Hence by II�ri~ -induction on m we
on m we obtain A( in(d, i)i)@EEl wdi
obtain A(in(d, mi).. Consequently
w d'. m;) Consequently
•

A( in(d, ii +
A(in(d, + 1))
1)) and
and this
this completes
completes the
the inductive
inductive proof
proof of A( in(d, i))
of A(in(d, i)).. If
If we
we now
now
put
put ii = ( d ) and
- l hlh(d) and use
use d
d -= in(d, lh(d)) we
in(d, lh(d)) we finally
finally obtain
obtain A(d)A(d).. Hence
Hence TI(TI(b,b, A')
A')
implies TI(w bb,, A)
implies TI(w A)..
99.. If A is
If A is aa IIg
rl~-formula then
then for
for any
any k E N,
k E N,

II� -IND f-k- T

ri0n-IND I( exp�- l (k) "7, A)
TI(rexp~-l(k) A) for
for n > 22..
n �

This
This isis proved
proved by iterating (8)
by iterating (8) above.
above. Note
Note that A' is
that A' is IIg
rio,, A"
A" is
is II�
r i ~, . . . , A n -2 )
A ((n-2)
is
is II�
rio.. ForFor any
any fixed N we
we have
n l
( - ) ) , hence
fixed kk E e N " ' in
have in II�-IND,
ri~ f-~- TI(k',
TI(rk7, A A(~-l)), hence
f-
k TI(wr
/
A (n -2) ) , hence
TILT k',,A(~-2)),
rk7
hence f- k TI(w
" n -3) ) etc.
TI(w w~ ,,AA((~-~))
rk~
etc. until
until finally
finally f- k TI(a,
T I ( a , AA)
)
where r
exp~n --1l (k)
w h e r e aa -= rexp� (k)7'. .

Now
Now we
we cancan complete
complete the the proof
proof of of the
the theorem
theorem by by choosing
choosing A A to
to be
be the
the formula
formula
Vx3y3z
Vx3y3z. . CF(a,
CF(a, x, x, y,
y, z) By (4
z).. By ) , (5)
(4), (5) and (6) this
and (6) this formula
formula isis progressive.
progressive. So So byby (9) (9),,

riOn-IND f-
II�-IND k- Va -( exp�- l (k) '7.Vx3y3z.
-~ rrexp~,-l(k) Cf(a, x,
. Vx3y3z . CF(a, y, z)
x, y, z)

for
for every
every fixed
fixed kk E N. Therefore
E N. Therefore ifif aa is
is a fixed code
a fixed code for
for aa tree-ordinal a -(
tree-ordinal a -~ (C: O )n, the
(E0)n, the
formula
formula Vx3y3z
Vx3y3z. . CF(a, x, y,
Cf(a, x, z) defining
y, z) defining FaF~ is
is provable
provable in
in II�
ri~ -IND.

Putting . 19 ( 1), 33.20,

Putting 33.19(1), . 20, 44.9,
. 9, 44.10
. 10 and
and 44.11
. 11 together
together and recalling 22.23
and recalling . 23 and
and 4.3,
4.3, we
we
obtain our main
obtain our main subrecursive
subrecursive classification
classification for
for arithmetic.
arithmetic.
 Provably
ProvablyRecursive
RecursiveFunctions
Functions 189
189

4.12.
4.12. Classifications.
Classifications.
The primitive recursive functions can be classified as
11.. The primitive recursive functions can be classified as
PROV REc(I;� -IND) = REC(w 2)
PRovREc(E~
= U E(Ba)

= UE(F~) = U E(H~).
e)-~W ~-<w w

2.2. The
The multiply-recursive
multiply-recursive functions
functions of
of Peter [1967] can
Pdter [1967} can be
be classified
classified as
as

PRovREC(I;g-IND)
PROVREC(2~-IND) = REC(W W)
REC(w')
=
= U
U E
E(Ba)
(Ba )

= U E(F~) = U E(H~)
Ot -~ W ~ Ot ~ W w ~

3. More generally, for n � and recalling

2, and recalling (co)o
3. More generally, for n > 2, (r = 11,, ((r
= CO ) m+ l = w« o )m ;~"
(M(~o)m =

PRovREC(I;�-IND
PROVREC(E~ ) = REC((co)n)
REC((eO).)

= U U E E(Ba)
(Ba )
a-~(~o),,
= U E(Fa)= U E(Ha)
a-~(6o), a-~(eo),,+l
4. And finally,
4. And finally,
PRovREc(PA) =
PRovREc(PA) REC(co)
REC(eo)
= U E
= U
(Ba )
E(Sa)

= U E(F~) = U E(H~)
t~ -g e o ~ -~ 6 o

Remarks. Kreisel
4.13. Remarks.
4.13. [1952], using
Kreisel [1952], using ideas
ideas from
from Ackermann [1940] ' was
Ackermann [1940], first
was first
show that
to show
to that the
the provably
provably recursive
recursive functions
functions of of PA
PA are
are definable
definable by by transfinite
transfinite
recursions over
recursions over order-types
order-types -~ co . The
-< Co. The refinements
refinements of of this
this result,
result, showing
showing the the
provably recursive
provably recursive functions
functions of rr�-IND to
of II~ to be
be those
those definable
definable byby recursion
recursion over
over
order-types -~
order-types (CO )n , are
-< (c0),, are due
due toto Parsons [1966]. The
Parsons [1966]. The result
result that
that the
the provably
provably recursive
recursive
functions of
functions I;�-IND are
of ~~ are exactly
exactly the
the primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions
functions isis due
due variously
variously to to
Parsons [1970], Mints
Parsons [1970], [1973] and
Mints [1973] and Takeuti [1987]. The
Takeuti [1987]. The corresponding
corresponding subrecursive
subrecursive
classifications in
classifications in terms
terms of of the
the fast-growing
fast-growing Fas Pas follow
follow from
from Grzegorczyk [1953]
Grzegorczyk [1953]
for c~
for w ; from
-< w;
a -~ from Robbin [1965] for
Robbin [1965] for c~
a -~ wW ; and
-< w~; and from
from LbbLob and
and Wainer [1970] ,
Wainer [1970],
Wainer [1970] and
Wainer [1970] and Schwichtenberg
Schwichtenberg [1971] [1971] for
for aa -~ co . See
-< e0. See also
also Constable [1971] ,
Constable [1971],
Buchholz and
Buchholz and Wainer [1987] and
Wainer [1987] and Rose [1984] .
Rose [1984].
190
190 M. Fairtlough and
M. S. Wainer
and S. Wainer

The HOI. 's first

The Ha's first appeared
appeared in in aa subrecursive
subrecursive context
context in
in Wainer [1972]' though
Wainer [1972], though their
their
definition and
definition and first
first use
use (exhibiting
(exhibiting aa setset of
of reals
reals with
with cardinality
cardinality R1)
Nd appears
appears very
very
early in
early in Hardy [1904]. The
Hardy [1904]. The development
development of ofthe REC(a) classes
the REC(ce) classes and
and corresponding
corresponding B~-
BOI.­
functions stems
functions stems fromfrom Fairtlough [1991]. See
Fairtlough [1991]. See also
also Fairtlough
Fairtlough and
and Wainer [1992]. Many
Wainer [1992]. Many
other significant
other significant contributions
contributions to to the
the theory
theory ofof provably
provably recursive
recursive functions
functions have
have
been (and
been (and are
are still
still being)
being) made--see
made-see for for instance
instance Buchholz [1987] , Buchholz,
Buchholz [1987], Buchholz, Cichon
Cichon
and Weiermann
and Weiermann [1994], [1994], Buss [1994]' Friedman
Buss [1994], Friedman and and Sheard [1995], Girard
Sheard [1995], [1981]'
Girard [1981],
Leivant [1995], Ratajczyk
Leivant [1995], [1993], Schwichtenberg
Ratajczyk [1993], [1977], Sieg
Schwichtenberg [1977], [1985,1991]' Tucker
Sieg [1985,1991], Tucker and
and
Zucker [1992] and
Zucker [1992] and Weiermann [1996]. Furthermore
Weiermann [1996]. Furthermore there
there are
are non-standard
non-standard model-
model­
theoretic methods
theoretic methods running
running parallel
parallel toto the
the proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic ones
ones employed
employed here--see
here-see
for example
for example Paris [1980] , Hajek
Paris [1980], Hajek and and Pudlak [1991] ' Avigad
Pudlak [1991], Avigad and
and Sommer [1997] and
Sommer [1997] and
Sommer [1995] . The
Sommer [1995]. The field
field is
is now
now quite
quite broad,
broad, and
and wewe can
can only
only apologise
apologise to
to those
those
many contributors
many contributors whom whom we we have
have notnot mentioned.
mentioned.

5
5.. IIndependence
ndependence rresults o r PA
e s u l t s ffor PA

From 4.12(4) we
From 4.12(4) see immediately
we see immediately that
that B~o,
Beo , F~
Feoo and
and Heo
H~o eventually dominate all
eventually dominate all
the
the provably
provably recursive functions of
recursive functions of PA,
PA, and
and so
so they cannot themselves
they cannot themselves be
be provably
provably
recursive in
recursive in PA. Consequently
PA. Consequently

PA Y VnVx3y3z. CH((co)n, x, y, z).

In
In other
other words,
words, the
the proof of 4.11
proof of 4.11 shows
shows that
that although
although for
for any fixed n
any fixed n we
we have
have

PA F- TI((co)n,A)

there
there are
are rrg-instances
II~ of A
of A for
for which
which

PA
PAYfl T I(co, A)
TI(co, A)..
Another
Another way
way to
to see
see this
this would
would be
be to
to note
note that,
that, again
again for
for an
an appropriate formula A
appropriate formula A

PA +
PA + TI(co,
TI(c0, A) F- "PA
A) f- "PA is
is consistent"
consistent"..

For,
For, by
by Gentzen,
Gentzen, if if aa false
false atom
atom werewere derivable
derivable in in PA,
PA, then
then by by the
the Embedding
Embedding
and
and Cut-Elimination
Cut-Elimination theorems,
theorems, it it would
would be be derivable
derivable in in the
the infinitary
infinitary system
system with
with
cut-rank 00 and
cut-rank and ordinal bound a
ordinal bound -< co
c~ -< c0.. ByBy induction
induction up up to to co
Co,, this
this is
is impossible
impossible
since
since an
an infinitary
infinitary rank-O
rank-0 proof
proof of
of an
an atom
atom cannot
cannot useuse logic.
logic. Formalisation
Formalisation of of this
this
argument
argument would
would lead
lead to to aa proof
proof of of TI(co,
TI(co, A) A) f-F- Con(PA)
Con(PA) in in Primitive
Primitive Recursive
aecursive
Arithmetic.
Arithmetic. Of Of course,
course, G6del 's second
G5del's second theorem
theorem tells
tells us
us that
that there
there isis no
no proof
proof of
of
Con(PA)
Con(PA) inside
inside PA,
PA, hence
hence no no proof
proof of of T I(co, A)
TI(co, A)..
Thus co
Thus Co is
is the
the least
least upper
upper bound
bound of of the
the "provable
"provable ordinals"
ordinals" of of PA.
PA. See
See Gentzen
Gentzen
[1943].
[1943].
These
These maymay be be termed
termed "logic"
"logic" independence
independence results.
results. The The question
question then
then was
was
whether
whether they
they might
might be be equivalent
equivalent to to other
other independence
independence results results ofof aa more
more clear
clear
 Provably Recursive
Provably Recursive Functions
Functions 191
191

mathematical character.
mathematical character. This This was
was shown
shown to to be
be the the case
case by
by Paris
Paris and
and Harring-
Harring­
ton [1977] who
ton [1977] who proved
proved the the independence
independence (from
(from PA)PA) ofof aa certain
certain finite
finite version
version of of
Ramsey's theorem,
Ramsey's theorem, and and byby Ketonen
Ketonen andand Solovay [1981] who
Solovay [1981] who then
then gave
gave aa "rate-of-
"rate-of­
growth" analysis
growth" analysis of
of itit in
in terms
terms of
of the
the fast-growing
fast-growing hierarchy.
hierarchy. In
In this
this section
section we
we treat
treat
another simpler
another simpler independence
independence resultresult of
of Kirby
Kirby and
and Paris [1982] concerning
Paris [1982] concerning so-called
so-called
"Goodstein sequences",
"Goodstein sequences" , but but the
the proof
proof we
we give
give isis due
due to
to Cichon [1983] since
Cichon [1983] since itit isis
directly related
directly related to
to the
the H-functions.
H -functions.
5.1. DDefinition.
5.1. efinition. Given numbers a,a, xx >2:: 11 with
Given numbers (1) the
exp;x + 1 (1)
with aa <� expx+l the "complete
"complete
base-(x ++ 1)
base-(x 1) form"
form" of
of aa isis
a--(x+l)a~.ml+(X+l)a2"m2+'''+(x+l)ak'mk
wherein ml,
wherein m2 , .. ...., , mmk
ml , m2, � xx and
k <_ and all
all exponents
exponents alal >> .. ". . >> ak,
ak , and
and their
their exponents
exponents
etc, are
etc, are again
again written
written in in base-(x 1) form.
base- (x ++ 1) form.
Let g(x, a)
Let g(x, a) be the number
be the number which
which results
results by
by writing
writing a a -- 11 in complete base-
in complete base-(x(x ++ 1)
1)
form, and
form, and then
then increasing
increasing the the base
base in this expression
in this expression from
from (x +
(x + 1)1) to
to (x + 2) , leaving
(x + 2), leaving
all coefficients
all coefficients mi fixed.
mi fixed.
The Goodstein
The Goodstein sequence
sequence on on (x,
(x, a)
a) is
is then
then the
the sequence
sequence of numbers {ai}i>x
of numbers {ai};>x where
where
-
ax
a~ == a and ax
a and +H l =
a~+j+l = gg(x (x + j, ax
+ j, +j) '
a~+j).

5.2.
5.2. Definition.
Definition. Given
Given aa number
number aa written
written in
in complete
complete base- (x +
base-(x 1) form,
+ 1) form, let
let
ordx(a)
ord~(a) be
be the
the tree-ordinal
tree-ordinal obtained
obtained by
by replacing
replacing the
the base
base throughout
throughout by
by w
w..

5.3.
5.3. Lemma.
Lemma. oordx(a
rdx(a-- 11)) == Px(ordx(a)) for a
Px(ordx(a)) for a >
> OO..

P r o o f . The
Proof. The proof
proof is
is by
by induction
induction on If aa =
on aa.. If - 11 then o r d x ( a -- 11)) =
then ordx(a - 00 =
-- Px(I)
Px(1)..
Suppose
Suppose a > 11 and
a > and that
that the
the complete
complete base- (x +
base-(x + 1)
1) form
form of
of aa is
is

a = (x + 1)al 9ml -[- (x -[- 1)a2 9m2 + . . . + (x + 1 ) a k . m k .

If ak -- 0 then o r d x ( a - 1) - ord~(a) - 1 -- P~(ordx(a)). If ak > 0 then let

b = (x + 1)a' 9ml + (x + 1)a2 9m2 + . . . + (x + 1) ak. (ink -- 1).

Then
Then
= bb +
aa -- I1 = (x +
+ (x + I1t -
1
) akk - l . xx + (x +
+ (x
• + l)ak -2 . x +
1)ak-2-x + '.". . + (x +
+ (x 1)~. x.
+ 1)°
Let c¥
Let a =
- ordx(a) fl =
ordx(a), f3 - ordx(b)
, ordx(b) and ak =
and C¥k -- ordx{ak
ordx(ak).) . Then
Then by by the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis
we
we have
have
ordx
ordx(a{a - 1)
1) = fl +
= f3
- +Ww P. (Ok ) 9xx +
P'(ak) +Ww P; (Ok ) . 9xx +
P2(ak)
• + . .. .. . +
+ x.
x.

Therefore
Therefore by
by the
the properties
properties of
of the
the function
function Px
Px we
we obtain
obtain

ordx {a 1)
ord~(a- - Px(fl +
1 ) -= Px(!3 +WwOa~)
k) =
- Px {ordx{a))
Pz(ordx(a))

5.4. L e m m a . g{x,
5.4. Lemma. g ( x , aa)
) =
= G + 1l ((Px{ordx
G Xz + P z ( o r d z ( (a)))
a))). .
192
192 M. and S.
M. Fairtlough and S. Wainer
Whiner

P r o o f . By
Proof. By the
the definitions,
definitions, note
note that
that

g(x, a)
g(x,a) =
=GX+ 1 (ordx(a - 1))
Gx+~(ordx(a- 1))

since
since Gx +1 replaces
Gx+l replaces base
base w by
by (x
(x +
+ 2)
2),, as
as in
in 2.11.
2.11. The
The result
result then
then follows
follows from
from 5.3.
5.3.

5.5. L e m m a . Let
5.5. Lemma. x , ax
Let aax, +b ax
ax+l, +2 , " . be
ax+2,.., be the
the Goodstein
Goodstein sequence
sequence on
on (x,
(x, a)
a).. Then
Then for
for
each
each jj
1. ordx
1. +j(ax+j) =
ordx+j(ax+j) - Px +j - 1 Px
Px+j-1 +j -2 '" "" "P
Px+j-2 x (ordx (a) ) .
Px(ordx(a)).
2. ax
2. +j =
ax+j = Gx +j(ordx+j(ax+j)) .
Gx+j(ordx+j(ax+j)).

Proof.
Proof.
11.. By
By induction
induction on j. The
on j. The base case is
base case is trivial
trivial and
and for
for the
the induction
induction step
step we
we have
have
by
by 5.3,
5.3,

ordx+j+l(g(x + j, ax+j)) = ordx +j(ax+j -

ordx+j(ax+j - 1)
1)
- Px+j (ordx+j (ax+j)).
Px+j(ordx+j(ax+j)).

Hence
Hence ordx +i+ l (aX+i+l ) =
ordx+j+l(ax+j+l) -- Px +j (ordx+j (ax+j)) and
Px+j(ordx+j(ax+j)) and the
the result
result follows
follows immedi­
immedi-
ately
ately from
from the
the induction
induction hypothesis.
hypothesis.
2. This
2. This is
is immediate
immediate by by iterating
iterating 5.4.
5.4.

5.6.
5.6. Theorem.
Theorem. (Cichon
(Cichon [1983])
[1983]) Let
Let {a i };�x be
{a,},>x be the
the Goodstein
Goodstein sequence
sequence on
on (x,
(x, a)
a)..
Then
Then there
there is
is aa y
y such
such that
that ay
ay = 0, and
= O, and the
the least
least such
such yy is
is given by yy =
given by = Hord. (a) (x) .
Horde(a)(x).

r o o f . By
Proof.
P 5.5, ordx+j+l(ax+j+l)
By 5.5, ordx+j + 1 (ax+j + 1 ) -~ ordx+j (ax+j) if
-< ordx+j(ax+j) if ordx+j(ax+j)
ordx+j (ax+j) :fl
i= 0.
O. By well­
By well-
foundedness
foundedness there there must
must be
be aa first stage kk at
first stage at which ordx+k (ax+k) =
which ordx+k(ax+k) -- 00 and
and hence
hence
ax +k --
ax+k = O.O. By
By Theorem
Theorem 2.19
2.19 wewe can
can express
express this
this kk as
as

kk = least k.
least k . (Px+k-1 Px+k -2 ' . . Px(ordx(a)) == 0)
(Px+k- l Px+k-2""Px(ordx(a)) 0)
- Dord. (a) (succ) (x)
Dord~(a)(succ)(x)

and therefore xx §+ kk =
and therefore Hord.(a) (x))..
---- Uordz(a)(X

5.7. TTheorem.
5.7. heorem. (Kirby and
(Kirby and Paris
Paris [1982])
[1982]) LetLet Good(a,x,
Good(a, x, y)
y) bebe aa E~
'£� -formula of
of
arithmetic expressing
arithmetic expressing the
the fact
fact that
that the
the Goodstein
Goodstein sequence
sequence on on (x,
(x, a)
a) terminates
terminates at
at y,
y,
i.e. ay == O.
i.e. ay O . Then
Then VaVx3y.
VaVx3y . Good(a,
Good(a, x,
x, y)
y) isis true
true by 5. 6, but
by 5.6, but not
not provable
provable in PA.
in PA.

PProof. If itit were

r o o f . If were aa theorem
theorem ofof PA,
PA, the
the function h(a, x) == least
function h(a,x) least yy . . Good(a,x,
Good(a, x, y)
y)
would be
would be provably
provably recursive
recursive in
in PA.
PA. For
For each a(x) == exp~+l
set a(x)
x, set
each x, exp;+ 1 (1).
(1) . ThenThen a(x)
a(x) isis
primitive recursive
primitive recursive andand so
so the
the function
function h(a(x), x) would
h(a(x) , x) would also be provably
also be provably recursive
recursive
in PA.
in PA. However,
However, by by 5.6
5.6 and
and since ordx(a(x)) -= (c0)x,
since ordx(a(x)) (co)x, we
we have
have hh(a(x), ) -= H6o(X).
( a ( x ) , xx) Hco (x) .
This contradicts
This contradicts 4.12(4).
4.12(4) .
 Provably Recursive Functions 193
193

6.
6. The
T h e "true"
" t r u e " ordinal
o r d i n a l of
o f PA
PA

Section
Section 44 characterizes
characterizes the
the provably
provably recursive
recursive functions
functions of PA in
of PA in terms
terms of
of co­
c0-
recursiveness
recursiveness but,
but, recalling definitions 3.
recalling definitions 17, it
3.17, it still
still remains
remains to
to characterize
characterize them
them in
in
terms
terms of of 'Y-definability.
7-definability. We We shall
shall now
now "compute"
"compute" the the appropriate
appropriate 'Y 7 by
by appealing
appealing
to
to the
the Hierarchy Theorems 3.19
Hierarchy Theorems 3.19 and
and finding
finding an
an ordinal
ordinal map
map a a 1-7 a + such
~ a+ such that
that for
for
a �
a e0,, and
-< co and even
even much
much larger
larger a ' s,
a's,
B~ = Go+
We
We then
then have
have
P ovREc(PA) =
P RRovREC(PA) = REC(co)
REC(c0)= = ��-DEF(c:t).
E~
For
For related
related results
results and
and an an alternative
alternative treatment
treatment in in terms
terms ofof G6del
GSdel's 's system
system T T ofof
primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functionals,
functionals, seesee Schwichtenberg
Schwichtenberg and Wainer [1995]
and Wainer [1995].. ct c + is
is the
the
proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic ordinal
ordinal of
of the
the theory
theory ofof one
one inductive
inductive definition
definition and
and is
is usually
usually referred
referred
to
to as as the
the Bachmann-Howard
Bachmann-Howard ordinal ordinal ((see Howard [1970])
see Howard [1970]).. Girard
Girard [1981]
[1981] waswas the
the first
first
to
to givegive aa detailed
detailed analysis
analysis of of the
the relationship
relationship between
between thethe fast-growing
fast-growing and and the
the
slow-growing
slow-growing hierarchies
hierarchies and
and once
once the
the correct
correct result
result was
was known,
known, many
many others
others gave
gave
more direct
more and simpler
direct and simpler analyses.
analyses. We We shall
shall follow the treatment
follow the treatment in in Cichon
Cichon and and
Wainer [1983]
Wainer [1983] and
and more
more generally, Wainer [1989].
generally, Wainer [1989]. The
The main
main point
point is that, in
is that, in order
order
to
to describe
describe the
the map
map a a 1-7 a +,, one
~+ a+ one needs
needs toto make
make useuse of
of "higher
"higher number
number classes"
classes" of of
uncountable
uncountable tree-ordinals.
tree-ordinals. However, since we
However, since we are
are only
only concerned
concerned here with "small"
here with "small"
a ' 'ss below
a e0,, we
below co we only
only need
need to
to go
go to
to the
the "next"
"next" number
number class
class over
over fl.
f~.

6.1. Definition.
6.1. D efinition. Let ~0 =
Let flo - NN and
and flI ~. Then
- fl.
f~l = Then the
the set f~2 is
set fl2 is generated
generated
inductively
inductively according
according to to the
the four
four rules:
rules:
Zero. 0
Zero. 0 EE fl2
f~2
Succ. a
Succ. ~ a +al E+~ 21 E fl2
= ====}
a EE~ 2fl2
Limo. Vx
Lim0. Vx E flo(ax EE ~2)
E ~0(a~ fl2) ====}
~ aa = (ax) EE fl2
= (a~) f~2
Liml. V~ EE ~l(a~
Lim l . V� flI (a� E ~2) ===} aa == (a~)
fl2) ==~ (a� ) EE ~2
fl2
Note:
Note: we
we sometimes write aa == sup
sometimes write sup a~ or aa =
ax or SUPa
= S according to
U P a e� according to whether
whether a (ax)
= (a~)
a =
or a
or = (a
a = � ) in
(ae) fl2 •
in f~2.

6.2.
6.2. D e f i n i t i o n . The
Definition. (well-founded) "subtree"
The (well-founded) "subtree" partial ordering -<
partial ordering on f~2
� on fl2 iiss defined
defined
as the transitive
as the transitive closure closure of the rules
of the rules
.9 a
a -�. < a ++l l
• 9Vx
Vx EE ~0(az
flo (ax -< sup az)
� sup ax)
•9 V�
V~ E E fh
flI (ar(a{ -<� SUPar
SUPa{)

6.3. A
6.3. Arithmetic fl2 . Addition,
on f~2.
r i t h m e t i c on multiplication and
Addition, multiplication exponentiation of
and exponentiation of ~2 are
fl2 are
defined exactly
defined exactly as as in 2.1 1 for
in 2.11 for ~1, but with
flI ' but with an
an extra
extra limit
limit clause
clause in
in each
each case,
case, viz.
viz.
aa++
SUSUP,B{
P& = SSUP(a
= U P ( a ++&,B{)
)
aa. · SUPflr
SUP,B{ =SUP(a · ,Bd
SUP(a.fl~)
SUP
aaSUP&/Je = SUP(a&).
SUP(a/Je ) .
194
194 M. Fairtlough
M. Fairtlough and
and S.
S. Wainer
Wainer

6.4.
6.4. Examples.
Examples.
11.. wo
w0 == sup
sup x,
x, wl
t~ 1 =
--- SUP(l
SUP(1 + + �)
~c)
W l W �l
~,1
22.. CW l +I -
~,+~ = SUP
- (1 , W
sup(l, I,W
Wl, WlI ,, .. ... ). ). .
w~l'1,, W

6.5.
6.5. DDefinition.
efinition. The
The slow
slow growing
growing function
function G ~1 X
G :: 01 • 00 ~0 is
--+ 00
~0 -+ is now
now extended
extended
to
to aa map
map GG :: O2 • 00
f12 x ~0 -+ ~1.. As
--+ 01 in 22.11
As in . 11 it
it will
will be notationally convenient
be notationally convenient to to swap
swap
the
the arguments
arguments and write, for
and write, for each
each fixed
fixed n E IN,, Gn{a)
E N n
G , ( a ) instead
instead of
of G",(n)
G , ( n ) . . Thus
Thus for
for
each n
each n we
we define
define Gn O2 -+
G , :: ~2 01 by
--+ ~1 the following
by the following recursion:
recursion:

G.(0) =
Gn(O) = 00
Gn(a l ) 1) =
G . ( a ++ G . ( a ) ++l 1
= Gn{a)
Gn(sup
C.(sup ax) ) = Gn(an)
Gn(SUPae)
G.(SUPa~) = = sup
supG Gn{ax)
.(a~)
Note
Note that
that we
we immediately
immediately have,
have, for
for every
every n,
n,

Gn(wd : 11 +
an(W1) = + wo
W0 = E 01•
- - ww E ~'~1.

6.6.
6.6. Lemma.
Lemma. For
For each
each fixed
fixed n
n E IN and
E N and all
all a,
a, /3 E O2,
13 E i22,

Gn{a
G.(~ + ~) = Gn(a)
+ /3) G.(a) + + Gn(/3)
G.(~)
Gn(a . /3) Gn(a) . Gn(/3)
a . ( a . fl) = G . ( a ) . G.(fl)
Gn(a.8) Gn(a) Gn (lJ)
=

P r o o f . This
Proof. This is
is by
by easy inductions on
easy inductions on /3
~ EE O2
f~2..

6.7.
6.7. D e f i n i t i o n . Let
Definition. Let EXP
EXP � ~2 be
c_ O2 be generated
generated inductively
inductively according
according to
to the rules:
the rules:
• 01 U
9 ~'~1 U {W
{~dl} I} �C EXP
EXP
•9 a,
a , / ~/3 E
E EXP
EXP � ==a a
a + /3, a
+/~, · /3, a.8
~./3, ~ E E EXP
EXP..

6.8.
6.8. Lemma.
Lemma. Fix
Fix n
n E IN.. Then
E N Then for
for every
every 'Y E X P of
E EXP
3' E of the
the form
form 'Y
3" = SUP3'~ we
= SUP'Ye we
have
have
V~ 6 f~l(G.(3'~)= G.(3')c.(~))

P r o o f . This
Proof. This is is by
by induction
induction on on the
the generation
generation of of 'Y E EXP
3' E E X P . . The
The base case 1I is
base case is easy
easy
because
because the the only
only possibility
possibility is is 'Y
3' =
= W I , so
Wl, then 'Ye
so then = 11 +
3'~ = + �~ and Gn(re) =
and G,(3'~) = 11 + Gn{�) =
+ G,(~) =
w Gn (e) =
wc.(~) = Gn(r) Gn (e)).. In
G,(3')c.(~ case 22 suppose
In case suppose for for example
example that that 'Y
3' == a . /3 where
c~./3 where a E EXP
a E EXP
and
a n d / 3/3 E E EXP E X P . . Then
Then there there are are two
two sub-cases.
sub-cases. Either Either/~/3 = - / 3/3'
' ++ 11,, in
in which
which case
case
'Y3' =
- aa . /. 3/3'' +
+ a ~ and
and hence
hence by by the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis applied
applied to to a,
a,

Gn (re) =
G.(7~) G . ( ~ . /. 3/3'' +
= Gn{a + a~d) = G . ( a . /.~/3')
= Gn(a ') ++ Gn(a) Gn ( e ) =
G.(a)a.(~) = Gn(r) Gn (e)·
G.(7)a.(~).
Or
Or/~/3 =
= SUP/3e
SUP/3~ in
in which
which case
case 'Ye
3'~ =
= a
a . /· ~/3e, , and
and hence
hence by induction hypothesis
by induction hypothesis applied
applied
to /3,
to/3,
G.(7~) - G.(c~). G.(/~) = G.(c~).G.(~)G.(~) = G.(7)c.(~).
 Provably Recursive
Provably Recursive Functions
Functions 195
195

6.9. DDefinition.
6.9. efinition. The fast-growing
The hierarchy BB :: ~011 •x 9to
fast-growing hierarchy 00 -+ 00 isis "lifted"
-+ ~o "lifted" to
to aa
hierarchy ~o:
hierarchy O2
<P : ~2 •x ~1
0 1 -~ as follows,
01 as
-+ ~ follows, writing
writing ~oa(/3) instead of
<Pa (f3) instead <p ( a, (3) :
of ~(c~,/3):

<po(f3) = Zf3 ++I 1

~0(/~)
<Pa
v.+,(Z) <Pa (<Pa (f3))
+ 1 CB) = vo(v.(Z))
<Pa( 3) -- sup
~0~(/3) sup <Paz (f3) if
~o~x(/3) a == sup
if c~ ax
sup c~
v.(/~) 'Pa{3 (f3) iiff aa==S USUPae
<Pa(3) = ~.,(/~) Par

6.10. CCollapsing
6.10. Theorem.
ollapsing T heorem. Fix nn EE N.
Fix Then .for
N . Then every aa EE EEXP
for every and all
X P and all
f3 EE ~"~1
t~ we have
0 1 we have
Gn(~o~(/3)) = Ba,,(,~)(Gn(13)).

r o o f . First
PProof. note tthat
First note hat
•
9 iiff aa+ + E PEXP
l E 1E X t h e n athen
E E X Pa
E EXP
•9 if
if aa =
= sup
sup ax
a. E E EEXP then aax. EE EXP
X P then E X P forfor every
every xx EE 5I
N
•9 if
if aa == SUPar
SUPae EE EEXP X P then
then ae E EEXP
ar E X P for for every
every �~E 0 9tl.1.
The
The proof
proof ofof these
these facts
facts is by an
is by an exhaustive
exhaustive case-analysis
case-analysis according
according to to the
the inductive
inductive
definition
definition of of EXP.
E X P . We leave itit as
We leave as an
an exercise.
exercise. However, ( 1 ) , (2)
However, (1), (3) mean
and (3)
(2) and mean that
that
we can proceed
we can proceed by by -<-induction
-<-induction to to show
show tthat
h a t for
for every
every aa E O2,
E f12,

a E E X P ==~ Vfl E f~x(Gn(~o~(~))= Ba.(.)(G.(Z))).

The cases are
The cases are easy:
easy:

If a
If = 0
c~ = 0 then
then Gn(a) = 0
Gn(c~) = 0 and therefore we
and therefore have
we have

Gn((Po(/3)) = Gn(j3 + 1) = an(/3) + 1 = Bo(Gn(13)).

If a
If = a'
a = a' + then Gn(a)
+ 11 then Gn(c 0 =
= Gn(a')
Gn(a') + and <Pa
+ 11 and ~oa = <Pa' 0o <Pa'
= ~oa, ~o~,,, so
so by
by the
the induction
induction
hypothesis
hypothesis (twice)
(twice) we
we have
have

Gn(~O,~(fl)) = Ba,,(,~,) o Ba.(,~,)(Gn(/3)) = Ba,(,~)(Gn(/3)).

If
If a = ssup
a = u p aax then Gn(a)
~ then Gn(a) == Gn(an) and <Pa
Gn(an) and = sup
~o. = 'Paz ' so
sup~o~x, so by the induction
by the induction
hypothesis
hypothesis applied
applied to
to an
an we
we have
have

Gn(~o,(/3)) = Gn(~o,.(/3))= BG.(,~,,)(Gn(13))= BG,,(,~)(Gn(~)).

If
If a = SUPae
a = then Gn(a)
SUPa~ then Gn(a) == sup
supGGn(ax)
n ( a x ) and
and <Pa(f3)
~o~(/3) == 'Pa{3 (f3) , so
~o~(/3), so by
by the
the induction
induction
hypothesis
hypothesis applied
applied to
to ap
aS,, and
and since
since Gn(ap)
Gn(a~) = Gn(a) Gn (P) by
Gn(~)c.(~) by Lemma 6.8, we
L e m m a 6.8, we have
have

Gn(~o~(/3)) = Gn(~o~(/3))= Be,,(,~)e,,(~)(Gn(~))= BG,(,)(Gn(/3)).

Note that
Note this proof
t h a t this proof will
will go go through
through for
for any
any -<-closed
-<-closed subset
subset of O2
of ~2 satisfying
satisfying 6.8.
6.8.
We
We did
did it
it for
for EXP
E X P since
since that
t h a t is
is all
all we
we need
need here.
here.
196
196 M.
M. Fairtlough and S.
Fairtlough and S. Wainer
Whiner

6.11.
6.11. Corollary.
Corollary. Suppose a
Suppose ~ -<-4 co
Eo.. Then
Then a c~ can
can be be written
written in in exponential
exponential "Cantor
"Cantor
normal form"
normal form"
a
oL = w ~o . 9mo
= WO mo + w ~I 9m
-5 WO • -5 . 9. 9. 9+
m ll + w O~ k . 9mk
-5 W mk
where ak
where -4 ak
~k -< -4 ."'" -<
- l -<
~k-1 . . -4 a -4 ao
all -< C~O are
are also
also of
of this
this form,
form, and their exponents,
and their exponents, etc.
etc.
Let a
Let & E 6 EXP
E X P be be the
the result
result of of replacing
replacing w by WI
w by Wl throughout
throughout this this normal
normal form.
form.
Now define a
Now define ~++ = = CP &(wo) E
~oa(Wo) 6 n1f~l.. Then
Then byby 6.
6.66 and
and the the facts that Gn(W
facts that G,(wl)l ) =
= ww and
and
Gn(m)
G , (m) == mm for
for m m 6E N,N, wewe have
have
Gn(a) = a
and
and therefore by 6.
therefore by 10 we
6.10 we have
have for
for every n,
every n,
Gn(a+)
G , ( ~ +) =
= Bo(n)
Bo(n)..
Thus,
Thus, reverting
reverting to
to the
the old for G,
notation for
old notation G,

Bo =
Bo = Go +.
Go+.
6.12. Examples.
6.12. E xamples.
11.. (W W ) ++ =
(ww) = CPWI" I (wo)
~w,~, (Wo)
2. The
2. The obvious
obvious and
and natural
natural extension
extension ofof a
& to
to the case a
the case a =- co is to
ao is go = WI + 1 , since
- cao,~+l, since
for
for every
every n n,, (cw 1 l) )n
( ~ +I + , == (to)n
(go),.. In
In this
this case
case we obtain, for
we obtain, for each
each nn,,
Gn(ct)
G , ( e +) = Gn( cp''' I +I (wo))
a,(~o~,+l(WO))
= =
Gn( CP(''' I + l ln (wO ))
=
= B (('~oo) Jn)
B ) . ( n )=
= BB'
~ oo((n)
n )..
Thus B~,oo =
Thus B = G,
G~o+ where ct
t where = CP'''
e+ = I + I (wo)
~o~.1+~ (Wo)..

6.13.
6.13. Remark.
Remark. ce t+ =
= CP' ''I + i (wo)
~o~+~ (Wo) is
is our tree-ordinal representation
our tree-ordinal representation of
of the
the Bach­
Bach-
mann-Howard
mann-Howard ordinal.
ordinal. TheThe reader
reader willwill note
note that
that we
we have
have not
not yet
yet proved
proved that this
that this
ordinal
ordinal is
is structured.
structured. We will do
We will so, but
do so, but not
not until
until after
after the
the main
main result
result below:
below:

6.14.
6.14. Theorem.
Theorem.
11.. U
Uo-<~o (Bo) =
o -<,o EE(Bo) = U o -<,t EE(Go)
Uo.<~+o ( G o ) and
and hence
hence
2. P
2. P RRovREC(PA)
o v R E c ( P A ) == RREC(co)
E C ( e 0 ) == ��-DEF(ct)
~-DEF(e+). .

Proof.
Proof.
11.. If
If a
a -< co then
-4 60 then a~ � ~ (co)n
(Co), for some nn,, and
for some and we
we then
then have
have E(Bo) C_ E(B
E(Bo) � ('o) J .
E(B(6o).).
But by 66.11
But by . 11 B ('o )n. =
B(~o) = G '
G(eo)$
( o ) ;t =
- G ( ,t)
G(e+). n and
and hence
hence

E(Bo)
E C_ E(G
(Bo) � J·
(,t)),).
E(G(~+o
This
This proves
proves the
the containment
containment from from left
left to
to right.
right.
Conversely if a
Conversely if -4 ct
~ -< then a
6 + then ~ �~ (ct)n
(6+)n for
for some n and
some n and so,
so, assuming
assuming the
the
structuredness of ct
structuredness of 6 + ,, we
we have
have

E(Go) C_ E(G
E(Go) � (,t ) J =
E(G(~+o).) = E(B ('o ) J
E(B(Eo).)
and
and this
this proves
proves the
the containment
containment from
from right
right to
to left.
left.
 Provably Recursive Functions 197
197

2.
2. This
This follows
follows almost
almost immediately
immediately from (1) by
from (1) by means
means of
of the
the Hierarchy
Hierarchy Theorems
Theorems
3.19.
3.19. The
The only
only necessity
necessity is
is to
to check
check the
the conditions
conditions on
on the
the second
second Hierarchy
Hierarchy
Theorem
Theorem in in the
the case where a
case where ~+.. An
-- c:t
a = An easy
easy computation
computation gives
gives

~o + 2~ = v~(~o) = v~, (~0) -< ~o+,

and
and ifif a
a0,o , a1
OL1 -<
"~ c:t then a
60+ then o , a1
a0, al � for some
_~ ((rc:t)n for fixed n;
some fixed n; so
so again
again assuming
assuming
the
the structuredness
structuredness of ~+,, both
of c:t both G G~ooo and
and G G~O I1 are
are eventually
eventually dominated
dominated byby
G +
(c )n
G(~+). =
- B(co)n
B(6o).,' and
and therefore
therefore G
G~o o
o 0
o G O
G~I I is
is eventually
eventually dominated
dominated by
by B(co)n+1
B(~o).+l
an d hence
an(f hence by by B(c O )n+l~ =
B(~o).+ - G (ct )n+ l '. We
G(~o+).+ We cancan then
then ensure
ensure that
that the
the composition
composition
G~o 0o G
Goo G O~I isis completely
completely dominated
dominated by some Go
by some with a
Go with a -< c + ,, by
-K c:t choosing a
by choosing a
to
to be c:t)n+ 1 +
be ((c+)~+1 + kk for
for some
some large
large enough
enough kk..

6.15.
6.15. Note.
Note. One
One can
can easily
easily read
read off
off corresponding
corresponding results
results for
for the
the fragments
fragments of
of
PA.
PA. For
For example, for n
example, for n > 11,,

PrtOVREC(II~ = REC((e0)~)= Z~

6.16.
6.16. It
It now
now remains
remains to
to prove
prove that
that

c:~0t+ =
= CPc"' l + 1 (wo)
v~,+~(~0)

is structured. This
is structured. This has
has been
been done
done by Kadota [1993]
by Kadota [1993] and independently (though
and independently (though pre­
pre-
viously unpublished)) by
viously unpublished by the second author.
the second author. We
We first
first need
need to develop an
to develop an appropriate
appropriate
notion
notion of
of structuredness
structuredness for
for O 2,
f~2.

Definition. ((cf.
Definition. 2.6) For
cf. 2.6) each aa E
For each O2 and
E f22 all nn E
and all N, flf3 EE ~'~1,
E 51, 01 , define the finite
define the finite set
set
a[n, f3] of
a[n,/~] of -K-predecessors of aa by
-<-predecessors of by
O[n, f3]
O[n,Z] = Zo
=
a
a + l [n, t~]
+ l[n, f3] a[n, f3] U
= a[n,/~] U {a}
{a}
a[n, f3]
a[n, /~] an[n, f3]
- an[n, i f aa- -=s usup
/~] if p a =ax
a[n, fl]
a[n, f3] a/J[n, f3]
= a~[n, i f aa =
/~] if = SUPae
SUPae. ·

6.17.
6.17. Lemma.
Lemma. For all
For a, 7'Y EE f~2,
all a, all nn EE NN aand
O2 , all n all d
all flf3 EE 01 we have
f~l we have

'Y eE a[n, Z] ~==> cP

.[~, f3] -y(f3) E
v~(Z) e cp o (f3) [n].
vo(Z)[~].

Proof. We
Proof. proceed by
We proceed by induction over aa EE f~2.
induction over O2 • The
The zero
zero case
case is is trivial
trivial and
and bothboth
limit cases
limit cases follow
follow immediately
immediately from
from thethe induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis andand thethe definitions
definitions of of
a[n, ~].
and a[n,
CPo (f3) and
~a(~) f3] . For
For the
the successor
successor case suppose 7'Y EE aa ++ l[n,
case suppose l [n, fl]
f3] -= a[n,
a[n, fl]
f3] UU {a}.
{a}.
Then qp~(fl)
Then CPo (f3) + l[n]
E qoa(/3)+
cP-y(f3) E l [n] C_ CPO+ 1 (f3) [n] since
� qO,+x(~)[n] l [n] == qa0((f)[n]
since 68 ++ l[n] cpo ( 8) [n] C for
cpo (8 ) [nJ for
� tPa(6)[n]
any 6.
any 8.
66.18. Definition.
.18. D efinition. Let -< s8 be
Let -K the transitive
be the transitive closure
closure of the rules
of the -<s8 aa ++ 1;
rules aa -K 1;
Vn(an -K
Vn(an 8 ax) ; V7
sup a=);
-<s sup V'Y EE f~S(c~
Of(a-y -K 8 SUPae ) .
-<s SUPa~).
198
198 M. and S.
M. Fairtlough and S. Wainer
Whiner

6.19.
6.19. Definition.
Definition. Call a
Call a E structured if
f~2 structured
E n2 if for
for all
all "small
"small limits" A -:�/
limits" A _ s a,
a,

V7 af -
v~ Ee nf - {O} . Vn Ee N
{0}.w ~.. (An
( ~ Ee A[n + 1~,, 7D
~[~ + ~]).·

Let f2s denote

Let n� denote the the set
set of
of all structured a
all structured cz E f22 and
E n2 and note that a
note that c~ E a n d / ~fJ -<s
f2s and
E n� _<s a
a
imply t h a t / ~fJ E
imply that E n�
f2s..

6.20. Lemma.
6.20. L emma. For every a
For every c~ E f2 s we
E n� have:
we have:

C a r-
~o.: (nf
'Po - {O}) ( a f -- {O}).
-+ (nf
{0})-~ {0}).

P r o o f . We
Proof. We proceed
proceed by by induction
induction on on acz E Let fJ
f2s.. Let
E nq /~ E f21s -
E nf {0}. If
- {O}. If ac~ == 00 then
then
'Po (fJ) =
~o~(/~) = / 3fJ +
+ 11 E f21s -
E nf {0}. For
- {O}. For the
the successor case a
successor case --+ a
c~ -+ c~ ++ 11 we have 'Po
we have (/~) =
+! (fJ)
~P~+z =
'Po('Po(fJ))
~o~(~o~(/~)) E f~s -
E nf {0} by
_ {O} by two applications of
two applications of the
the induction hypothesis. If
induction hypothesis. c~ =
If a sup ax
= sup c~
then 'Po
then (/~) =
~ (fJ) sup 'Po.
= sup ~a~ (fJ)
(/~) and
and by
by the
the induction hypothesis 'Po.
induction hypothesis ~pa~(fJ)
(/~) E f 2 s-
E nf 0 } for
- {{O} for each
each
x. Thus
x. Thus we only need
we only need check
check the condition 6.19
structuredness condition
the structuredness for 'Po(fJ)
6.19 for ~o~(/~) itself.
itself. Now
Now
ax
czx E a[x +
E c~[x + 11,/3]
, fJl for
for each
each x,x, because
because a cz is structured, and
is structured, and therefore
therefore by L e m m a 6.17,
by Lemma 6.17,
'Po.(fJ)
~o~(/3) E E 'Po(fJ)[x
~(/~)[x + + 11
1].· If
If ac~ =
= SUPae
SUPc~ then ~o~(/~) =
then 'Po(fJ) = 'Po�
~o~ (fJ) and a
(/~) and _<s a
c~s -<s c~ and this
and this
fl
case
case is is then
then immediate
immediate by by the
the induction
induction hypothesis.
hypothesis.

6.21.
6.21. L Lemma.
emma. (cf. 2.12)
(cf. 2.12) ForFor all a, ~,
all c~, fJ, 85 E
E n2 all 7
f22,, all 7 E ~1 and
E n1 all n
and all n E
E N
N we
we have
have
1. 85 EE fJ[n,
1. V] =>
t3[n, 71 ==~ a a ++ 85 EE ac~ + fJ[n, 71
+/~[n, V]
2. 8~ E
2. e ~[~, ~] =>
fJ[n, ,1 ~ ~ ·. 8~ E
a e a
~ ·. fJ[n,
~[~, 71 iS 0o E
~] if e a[n,
~[~, ,1~]
3.
3. 8~ EE fJ[n, V] =>
~[n, 71 ==~ adc~6 E afl[n, 71
E c~S[n, if 1I E
V] if E a[n,
c~[n, 71
V]..

P r o o f . This
Proof. This is
is almost identical to
almost identical to that of 2.12
that of 2.12 but with, in
but with, in each
each case,
case, an
an additional
additional
trivial
trivial step
step corresponding
corresponding to
to "big limits"/3fJ =
"big limits" = SUPfJe
SUPfl~..

6.22.
6.22. Theorem.
Theorem. (cf. 22 .. 13)
(cf. f aa,, fJ
1 3 ) /If fl E f2s then
E n� then
1. a + fJ
/. ~ + # e ~ E n�
2 a
2. ~. · fJ
# E , ~ o , i ~ V7
a~ provided
e n� v~ E e nf~f - - {{O} Vn >
0 } .. w > O0.. (0
(0 E
e a[n,
~[n, 7D
~])
3. afl E n� provided V, E nf - {O} . Vn > O . ( 1 E a[n, ,D .

Proof.
P r o o f . All All parts
parts are
are similar,
similar, by induction on
by induction o n / ~fJ E f2s.. We
E nq We just
just do 3) assuming
do ((3) assuming
2). If
((2). I f / 3fJ == 00 then
then aOc~~ == 11 E f2s.. For
E nq For the
the successor
successor case case fJ -+ fJ
/3--+ + 1 1 we
/~+ we have
have
afl +! =
c~s+z - afl c~s . 9a
c~ E f~s by
E n� by the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis and part (2),
and part (2), since the proviso
since the proviso on on
a
a ensures
ensures that that afl
c~s satisfies
satisfies the
the proviso
proviso in (2). If
in (2). If fJj3 =
- sup fJx then
sup/~x then aflc~s = sup afl•
- sup c~sx and
and
by
by thethe induction hypothesis afl•
induction hypothesis a sx E
E n�f~s for each x
for each x E E N.N . Also
Also/~xfJx E fJ[x +
E/~[x + 11,, 71
V] for
for all
all
7
VE f2s -
E nf - {0}{O} and all x
and all x E N , so
E N, so afl•
a s~ EE afl[x
aS[x ++ 1,1, ,1 by 6.21
7] by 6.21 (3)
(3).. Therefore
Therefore afl as E E nq
f2s..
If/3fJ =
If SUPfJe then
-- SUP/3e as =
then afl - SUPafle
SUPaSe and since, by
and since, by the the induction hypothesis, afle
induction hypothesis, aSe E E n�
f2s
whenever
whenever � ~E f2s,, we
E nf we automatically
automatically have have afl
as EE n�
f~g..

6.23. T h e o r e m . ~o+ = ~E~l+l (W0) E f2s.

 Provably Recursive Functions 199
199

P r o o f . First
Proof. First note
note thatthat WI Wl = = SUP(l
SUP(1 + + �)~) E E 0,�
f~2s,, since
since if if AA== sup
sup A Axx �s
~ s WIwl then
then
AA � _ 11 + V for
-t- "1 for some
some "1 VE e 0,r
f~ls.. Therefore
Therefore A AE e 0,r
f~s and
and so so AnAn E E A [n +
A[n 1] for
q- 1] for all
all nn E
e NN..
But
But since since A A is countable, A[n
is countable, A[n + + 1]1] = A[n +
= A[n q- 11,~c] for
, �] for allall �~c E e 0, 1 . Hence
f~l. Hence we we have
have
V~ E
V� f~s -
e 0,r _ {O}
{0}.. Vn Vn E e N N.. ((An
An E A[n +
e A[n 1, W
-t- 1, ~c]).. Note
Note alsoalso that
that 11 Ee wdn, ~] whenever
wl[n, �] whenever
�E e 0,r f~ls -- {O}{0} and
and n n > O. Therefore
Therefore by 6.22 (3),
by 6.22 Wl~ E
(3), wf e 0,�
f~2S whenever
whenever /3 ZE e 0,�
f22s.. Hence
"' 1
> 0. Hence
11,, WI
Wl,, wrl Wl� ,, . . . aall
I belong to to 0,�
f~s..
U)l •11
wl , W • • • l l belong
Now
Now let let A A= CWI + l ' Then
=C~l+l. Then A A= p AAxx where
= s usUP where AO A0 = = 11 and and An + ! = wtn • Fixing
An+l=W~". Fixing
nn E e N N andand "1 7 E e 0,rf~ls -
- {O}
{0} wewe have
have 11 E e WI
wl[n[n + + 1, 7],, and
1, "1] and therefore
therefore by by nn successive
successive
applications of
applications 6.21 (3)
of 6.21 (3),, An
An E e A n + dn +
An+l[n V] =
1, "1]
+ 1, A[n +
- A[n h- 11,, "1]
V].. Hence WI+ ! Ee 0,r
Hence c~w1+1 f~2s. Thus
Thus
"' 1 +1 (w0)
4"qoE~+l (wo) E E 0,r
f~ls byby Lemma
Lemma 6.20. 6.20.

The
The results
results of
of this
this section
section suggest
suggest that
that Peano
Peano Arithmetic
Arithmetic could
could bebe reformulated
reformulated
with
with aa weaker
weaker "pointwise"
"pointwise" induction
induction scheme,
scheme, sufficient
sufficient only
only to
to prove
prove termination
termination of
of
the
the slow-growing
slow-growing G G functions.
functions. But
But then, in order
then, in order to capture all
to capture all the
the provably
provably recursive
recursive
functions
functions of
of PA, these inductions
PA, these inductions would
would have
have toto extend
extend over
over all initial segments
all initial segments of
of
the
the Howard
Howard ordinal.
ordinal. In In this
this way,
way, the
the Howard
Howard ordinal
ordinal becomes
becomes the the ordinal
ordinal of
of PA
PA
with pointwise
with pointwise induction.
induction. The
The realisation
realisation of this idea,
of this idea, and
and appropriate
appropriate formulation
formulation
of
of pointwise
pointwise induction
induction schemes,
schemes, is
is due
due to
to Schmerl
Schmerl [1982].
[1982].

7. Theories with transfinite

T h e o r i e s with transfinite induction
induction
This
This final
final section
section shows
shows how
how the
the foregoing
foregoing subrecursive
subrecursive classifications
classifications for
for PA
PA
can be extended
can be extended quite
quite easily
easily to
to theories
theories obtained from itit by
obtained from by adding
adding thethe Principle
Principle
of
of Transfi nite Induction
Transfinite Induction over
over given
given well-orderings
well-orderings of
of order type �
order type o . Since
>- c~0. Since proof­
proof-
theoretic
theoretic ordinal
ordinal analysis
analysis seeks
seeks to
to compute
compute for
for aa given theory T
given theory T,, the
the least
least upper
upper
bound r
bound T of
of its
its "provable ordinals" ((see
"provable ordinals" see Pohlers
Pohlers in
in this
this volume)
volume),, the
the results
results here
here will
will
then
then immediately
immediately give
give a
a classification
classification of
of the
the provably
provably recursive
recursive functions
functions of of T viz.
T viz.

PRovREC(T) R E C ( T ) ==
= REc(r)
PrtovREc(T) = U E(Fa)
E(F~)..
a -<r

Of course, r
Of course, T must
must be
be shown
shown to to satisfy
satisfy the
the conditions
conditions of of our
our Hierarchy
Hierarchy Theorem,
Theorem, or or
something
something like
like them,
them, andand this
this often
often requires
requires some
some checking!
checking! See See Buchholz,
Buchholz, Cichon
Cichon
and
and Weiermann
Weiermann [1994][1994] forfor related
related work work involving
involving similar
similar kinds
kinds of conditions. See
of conditions. See
also
also Weiermann
Weiermann [1996][1996] for
for anan alternative
alternative treatment
treatment of of PA
PA andand transfinite
transfinite induction
induction
in
in terms
terms of
of "ordinal
"ordinal majorisation"
majorisation" relations.
relations.
We
We shall
shall assume
assume henceforth
henceforth that 3' =
that "1 = sup
sup% 'Yx �
>- ww is
is aa structured,
structured, countable
countable
tree-ordinal
tree-ordinal which
which isis "primitive
"primitive recursively
recursively representable"
representable",, i.e.i.e. q-space
q-space representable
representable
for
for some
some primitive
primitive recursive
recursive q. q. The The representability
representability of 7 ensures
of "1 ensures that
that itit will
will bebe
possible to
possible to code
code the
the well-ordering
well-ordering relation
relation a -~ /3
c~ -< ~ for a, /3
for c~, ~ � "1, by
~ ~,, by a ~~-formula of
a �� of
arithmetic
arithmetic "a "a -< b" (j
-~ b" ust as
(just as was
was donedone for Co in
for co in the proof of
the proof Theorem 4.12
of Theorem 4.12 and
and for
for
quite
quite general
general systems
systems of ordinal notations
of ordinal notations in in Sommer [1992]). There
Sommer [1992]). will be
There will be primitive
primitive
recursive
recursive functions
functions aa H @ rr ll~' representing
~-~ aa EB representing the successor, and
the successor, and (a, x) H
(a,x) ~ l(a, x)
l(a,x)
such
such that
that if
if aa encodes
encodes a c~ then
then l(a, x) encodes
l(a, x) encodes a x when
cex when a ~ is
is aa limit,
limit, and
and l(a, x) =
l(a, x) = 00
200
200 Fairtlough and S.
M. Fairllough S. Wainer

otherwise.
otherwise. ForFor simplicity
simplicity we
we shall
shall assume
assume thatthat PA
PA is
is extended
extended to
to include
include them
them asas
new
new terms,
terms, also
also denoted
denoted aa ffi
(9 rl' and l(a,
r17 and x) , with
l(a,x), with appropriate
appropriate defining
defining axioms
axioms for
for
them. We
them. shall also
We shall also assume
assume that
that 00 is
is the
the least
least element
element of
of the
the well-ordering
well-ordering and
and that
that
the
the value
value ofof aa ffi
(9 rIo
F17 is
is always numerically larger
always numerically larger than
than aa.. The
The top
top element
element of
of the
the
well-ordering, representing
well-ordering, representing , 7 itself, will be
itself, will be denoted
denoted by
by cc and
and we
we shall
shall write
write Lim(
Lim(a)a)
for
for "l(a, 1) =f.
"l(a, 1) ~- 0"
0"..

7.1. Definition. PA
7.1. Definition. PA + TI(r) is
+ TI(-),) is the
the theory
theory obtained
obtained by adding to
by adding to PA
PA the
the Principle
Principle
of
of Transfinite
Transfinite Induction
Induction up
up to
to "
-)', formulated
formulated either
either as
as an
an axiom-scheme
axiom-scheme or
or as
as aa rule.
rule.
We
We choose
choose the
the rule
rule TI(r)
TI(7)::

f-1- A, B(O)
A,B(0) f- A , ~...,BB((a),
1- A, ( a (ffi
a ) , BB(a g rrIo)
l 7) A , -...,LLi m
f-1- A, im(a)
( a ) , ,33x , BB( l(l(a,
x - ..., ( a , xx))
)),B, B(a)
(a)
f- A, Va(a
1- A, ~ cc V B(
Va(a -/<. B(a))a ))
with
with the
the restriction
restriction that
that a
a is
is not
not free
free in
in A.
A.

The
The embedding
embedding ofof PA
PA + + TI(r)
TI(7) into
into w-Arithmetic
w-Arithmetic follows
follows the
the same
same lines
lines as
as the
the
embedding of
embedding of PA
PA in 4.7. Applications
in 4.7. Applications of
of the TI(,) rule
the TI(3') rule are
are dealt
dealt with
with as
as follows:
follows:

7.2.
7.2. Lemma.
Lemma. Suppose
Suppose the
the three
three premises
premises of the TI(r)
of the TI(-),) rule
rule have
have been
been embedded
embedded
into
into w -Arithmetic with
w-Arithmetic with aa fixed
fixed ordinal bound 05 E
ordinal bound f~s, so
E Os, so that
that f- A, B(O)
6 A,
1-6 B(0) and
and for
for
every aa E
every E N,
N,

aa:: N f-t-66 AA,, - ...,- ,B

B ((a)
a ) ,, BB(a
( a ffi
(9 rIo)
r-17)
aa:: N f-1-6 AA,, -...,LLi mim(a)
6 x ~ BB( l(l(a,
( a ) , ,33x..., ( a , xx)),
) ) , BB(a).
(a).

Furthermore
Furthermore suppose
suppose thatthat 05 is
is so
so chosen
chosen that
that for
for all
all a,
a, nn EE N,
N,
1. the
1. the term
term l(a, n --'- 1)
l(a, n 1) has numerical value
has numerical value bounded
bounded by by B6(max(a,
B6(max(a, n))
n)),,
2.
2. the
the cardinality
cardinality of [a] is
of o5In] is at
at least B II,, the
least I[B the height
height ofof the
the induction
induction formula.
formula.
Then
Then for
for every
every 0: -~ "
a -< 7, ifif aa is
is the number encoding
the number encoding 0: a we
we have
have

6+5'0+3 A
aa ::NN f-1-6+~.,,+3 A,, B( a ).
B(a).

P r o o f . Proceed
Proof. Proceed by
by induction
induction on on 0:
a -< -~ ,-y (for
(for notational
notational simplicity
simplicity we we shall
shall suppress
suppress
the
the side
side formulas A). The
formulas A). The casecase 0:a == 00 is is immediate
immediate and and the
the successor
successor case case from
from 0:a to
to
a +
0: + 11 isis also
also straightforward,
straightforward, since since from
from the assumption a :: N
the assumption N f- 6 ...,
1-6 B (a) , B(a
-,S(a), S(a ffi
(9 rIo)
r17)
and
and the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis a a :: N
N f- 6+5.a+3 B(a)
1-6+5.~+a B(a),, we
we obtain
obtain aa :: N
N f- 6+5.aH B(affir1°)
1-6+5.~+4 B(a(gF17)
by
by Cut
Cut and (9 rr17
hence aa ffi
and hence Io :: N N f- 6+ 5 .( a +
1-6+5.(~+z)+a l ) + 3 B(
B(aa ffi
(9 rIo)
r17) byby Weakening.
Weakening.
Now
Now suppose
suppose 0: = sup
a = sup O: axx and
and choose
choose any any n n EE N N.. Then
Then letting
letting m m denote
denote the
the
numerical
numerical value value of l ( a ,nn --'- 1)
of l(a, 1),, we
we havehave m m :: NN f-
1-6+5.~,.1+a B ( l ( a ,nn --'- 1))
6+5.an�1 +3 B(l(a, 1)) by
by the
the
induction hypothesis,
induction hypothesis, and max(a, n)
and max(a, n) :: NN f-1-~6 m m :: NN by
by the Bounding Lemma
the Bounding Lemma 3.15 3.15 and
and
condition
condition 11.. Therefore
Therefore by by an an N-Cut
N-Cut we we obtain
obtain for
for every
every nn,,

max(a, 6+5.an�l H B(l(a,

n ) :: NN f-1-6+5.~,-1+4
max(a,n) B ( l ( a ,nn --'- 1)).
1)).
 Provably Recursive Functions 201
201

The
The structuredness
structuredness of of a
a gives
gives 65 + + 55 . 9an�
c~n-1l+ + 44 E E 65 ++ 55 .. a[max(a,
a[max(a, n)]
n)] and
and so
so an
an
application
application of the 'v'
of the -rule yields
V-rule yields

N f-
aa : : N +5.a 'v'xB(
K0~+5"~ V x B ( ll(a, - 1)).
( a , xx -'- 1)).

The
The reason
reason for
for the
the second
second condition
condition on on 05 is is that
that it it ensures
ensures (we
(we leave
leave the
the reader
reader to
to
check
check it)
it),,
0+5.a :Jx..., ) ) , 'v'xB(I (a, x)).
x --'- 11)),VxB(l(a,x)).
aa : : NN f-k-~+5"~ 3x~B l ( a ,x
B((I(a,
0 + 5 . a + l
Hence
Hence by
by Cut
Cut we
we obtain
obtain a a :: N N f-
K6+~~+1 'v'xB(I(a,
VxB(l(a,x)). x)) . Therefore
Therefore from
from the
the assumption
assumption
o -~Lim(a),3x-~S(l(a,x)),B(a)
L im(a), :Jx...,B (I(a, x)) , B(a)
aa:: NN f-K6 ...,
o
and since f-
and since F ~ Lim(a)
Lim(a) is
is an
an axiom,
axiom, we
we obtain
obtain by by two
two further
further Cuts,
Cuts,

aa ::NN f-K0~+5"a+3
+5.a+3 B(a)
B(a)

and
and this
this completes
completes the
the proof.
proof.

Now
Now in in order
order to
to prove
prove the Embedding Theorem
the Embedding Theorem forfor PA+TI(,)
PA + TI(7) there
there is
is one
one further
further
crucial
crucial requirement
requirement to to be
be placed
placed on ,. Clearly
on ~'. Clearly if
if ,
-y is
is coded
coded as
as aa number-theoretic
number-theoretic
well-ordering
well-ordering there
there must
must be be aa "norm"
"norm" function
function with
with the
the property
property that
that whenever
whenever
a
c~ -<
-~ ,
-y is encoded by
is encoded the number
by the number a, a, we
we have
have ac~ E
e ,[norm(a)]
~[norm(a)].. See
See Buchholz, Cichon
Buchholz, Cichon
and
and Weiermann
Weiermann [1994].
[1994]. For
For "standard" codings of
"standard" codings of proof-theoretic ordinals this
proof-theoretic ordinals this norm
norm
function will often
function will often be
be just
just the
the identity,
identity, but
but we shall merely
we shall merely require
require that
that it
it be
be primitive
primitive
recursive.
recursive.

7.3.
7.3. Embedding of PA
E m b e d d i n g of PA +
+ TI(!)
TI(7).. Suppose
Suppose ,
"7 is
is primitive
primitive recursively
recursively representable,
representable,
with
with aa primitive
primitive recursive
recursive norm
norm as
as above.
above. Suppose
Suppose

PA + TI(7) K A ( h ( 2 ) , . . . , tk(E)).

Then
Then there
there is
is aa number d, measuring
number d, measuring the
the "size"
"size" of
of this
this proof,
proof, such
such that
that for
for every
every
assignment
assignment of numbers ii
of numbers fi to
to the variables fl,
the variables ~, we
we have
have

max n : NN .-LK5s'~'d
maxfi" � · 'Y ·d A(
A ( mb mk )
m l , .. ... . ,,m~)

where ml,l , .. .. .., , mk

where m mk are
are the numerical values
the numerical values of
of the
the terms tl (it) , .. .. .., , tk
terms tl(fi), (ii). Further­
tk(fi). Further-
more
more this
this infinitary
infinitary derivation
derivation has finite cut-rank.
has finite cut-rank.

P r o o f . All
Proof. All the
the cases
cases ofof PA-rules
PA-rules carry carry over
over straightforwardly
straightforwardly justjust as
as in
in 4.8,
4.8, but
but with
with
w
w now
now replaced by 55 ."9'.
replaced by ,. The
The onlyonly case
case we
we need
need worry
worry about
about isis the
the application
application ofof the
the
TI(!) rule. Assume
TI(~/) rule. Assume inductively
inductively that that its
its premises
premises areare all
all embedded
embedded in in w-Arithmetic
w-Arithmetic
with
with ordinal
ordinal bound
bound 05 = , . d.
= 55 ·"7" d. Assume
Assume also also that
that dd is
is chosen
chosen large
large enough
enough soso that
that
conditions
conditions 11 and and 22 of
of the
the previous
previous Lemma Lemma are are satisfied
satisfied by O. Then
by 5. Then what
what wewe need
need to
to
prove
prove is is
f- 5 ''Y.(d+2) A, Va(a ~ c V B(a))
K s'~'(d+2) A , 'v'a (a f< c V B(a))
202
202 M. Fairtlough
M. Fairtlo!.lgh and S. Whiner
and S. Wainer

(we suppress
(we suppress the
the parameters
parameters occurring
occurring in
in the
the side-formulas
side-formulas AA since
since they
they play
play no
no
active part
active part in
in this
this case).
case). Now
Now the
the previous
previous lemma
lemma gives,
gives, for
for every
every aa -~ with code
, with
-< ~' code
a,
a,
a: f-6+5.0+3 A,
a : N ~_6+5.~+3 A, B(a).
B(a) .
Let M(a,
Let M(a, n) be aa ~E~
n) be �� -formula expressing
expressing thethe relation "norm (a) -= n",
relation "norm(a) and recall
n" , and recall that
that
, itself
itself isis coded
coded by
by the
the top
top element
element cc inin its
its number-theoretic
number-theoretic well-ordering.
well-ordering. Then
Then for
for
aa sufficiently
sufficiently large we have,
large dd we have, for
for all
all a,
a, nn EE IN,
N,

max(n, Pa A,-~M(a,
max(n, aa)) : : NN Ff--~a A, -,M(a, n)
n) VV aa ;d
-A cc V
V B(a)
B(a)
where ~a
where 5 . aa ++ 44 if
f3a == (f0 ++ 5. if aa -4 and norm(a)
-< cc and norm(a) == n, and fla
n , and f3a == 50 otherwise.
otherwise. Hence
Hence
f3a
& eE 50 ++ 5. .
5 ~[max(n,
,[max(n, a)] for every
a)] for every aa and
and so
so by
by the
the V-rule,
V-rule,
6+5.'Y A,
n : NN If--'~+5"'~
n: A, Va(-~M(a, n) VV aa 7~
Va(-,M(a, n) -A cc VV B(a))
B(a))
for every
for n, so
every n, so by the V-rule
by the V-rule again,
again,

tf-6+5.'Y+l
-6+5"'y+' VxVa(-,M(a, x) VV aa 7~
A, VxVa(-~M(a,x)
A, -A cc V
V B(a)).
B(a)).

The
The desired
desired result
result
5.'Y. (d+2) A,
f-}_5.~.(d+2) A, Va(a 7~ cc V
Va(a -A V B(a))
B(a))
will
will then
then follow
follow by
by a
a Cut
Cut if
if we
we can
can derive
derive

+5 .'Y+ l 3x3a(M(a,
f-F 66+5"''/+1 3 x 3 a ( M ( a , xx)) A1\ aa -<
-~ ccA-~B(a)),Va(a ~ c V B(a)).
1\ -,B(a)), Va(a -A B(a)).

This
This isis done
done as
as follows:
follows: for for each
each aa EE NIN with
with norm(a)
norm(a) = = mm wewe have
have (again
(again for
for aa
large
large enough
enough d) d) f-
o M(a, m
~_6 M(a, m)) and
o -~ c,
~_6 aa -<
and f- ~ cc and
c, aa -A and f-
o -~B(a), B(a)
t-~ -'B(a), B(a).. Hence
Hence
6+3 (M(a,
f-~6+3 m)) 1\
(M(a, m A aa -<-4 cc 1\ -,B(a)), (a
A-~B(a)), ~ cc V
(a -A B(a)).) . But
V B(a) But since
since the
the norm
norm function
function is
is
primitive
primitive recursive
recursive andand , 7 !:~ ww,, we
we can
can assume
assume that
that the
the chosen
chosen dd is
is large
large enough
enough to
to
ensure
ensure aa :: N
N f-
o m :: NN by
~6 m by the
the Bounding Lemma 3.15.
Bounding Lemma 3.15. Hence
Hence
0+5 3x3a(M(a, ~ cc V
(a -A
B(a)) , (a
x) 1\A aa -<-4 cc 1\A -,-~B(a)), V B(a))
aa:: NN f-F-~+5 3x3a(M(a,x) B(a))

follows
follows by
by two
two applications
applications of
of the
the 3-rule,
3-rule, and
and aa final
final application
application of
of the
the V-rule
V-rule yields
yields

6+5.'Y+ 1 3x3a(M(a,
f-i-6+5"'Y+' 3x3a(M(a,x) -,B(a)) , Va(a
x) 1\A aa -<-4 cc 1\A-~B(a)), ~ cc V
Va(a -A V B(a)).
B(a)).

This
This completes
completes the
the proof.
proof.

7.4.
7.4. Classification
Classification Theorem.
Theorem. Suppose
Suppose ,7 = WO w~ is
is primitive
primitive recursively
recursively rep­
rep-
resentable
resentable with
with aa primitive
primitive recursive
recursive norm.
norm. Recall
Recall €( a) := sUP
c(~) sup xx exp� (1 +
exp,(1 + a~++ 11).
).
Then
Then
PRovREC(PA
PaovREc(PA + + TI (,)) =
TI(~/)) = RE c (€ ( a )) =
REC(e(c~)) = U U E(Fp).
E(F~).
P-« (o)
~-~(a)
 Provably Recursive Functions 203
203

PProof. For the

r o o f . For the first
first containment
containment C_ suppose ff isis provably
� suppose provably recursive
recursive in
in PA
PA ++ TI(7).
TI(r) .
Then for
Then for an
an appropriate
appropriate computation
computation formula
formula CCJI wewe have
have

TI(r) Ff- Vx3y3z.

PA ++ TI(7)
PA CJ ( x, y,
'v'x3y3 z . Cl(x, z) .
y, z).

The Embedding
The Embedding Theorem
Theorem gives
gives (for appropriate r,r, dd EE IN)
(for appropriate N)
f-�''Y'd w'v'x3y3 z . CJ ( x, y, z)
y3z, z)

and, with
and, with only
only minor
minor modifications
modifications to
to the
the proof,
proof, the
the 55 could
could be
be replaced
replaced by
by w thus:
thus:
w3y3z, c (z, y, z).
By the
By the Cut-Elimination
Cut-Elimination Theorem
Theorem 3.11
3.11 we
we then
then obtain
obtain

f-� 'v'x3y3z . CJ(x,

F~ Vx3y3z. z)
Ci(x, y, z)
where 58 == exp�
where exp~(w (w '.'y.
" d)d) -~ exp�+ ! (1 ++ c~
-( expr+l(1 1) -(
a ++ 1) and hence
c ( a) , and
-~ e(~), hence ff eE REc(c(a))
REc(e(c~))..
The second
The containment follows
second containment from the
follows from the Hierarchy
Hierarchy Theorem
Theorem 3.19
3.19 since
since B B(Je <� F~.
F(J .
For the
For the third
third containment,
containment, suppose
suppose f f Ee E ( F(J ) for
E(F~) some ~(3 -(
for some c(a ) . Then
-~ e(c~). Then ff will
will
be provably
be recursive in
provably recursive in PA
PA + TI(r) ifif F~
+ TI(~') is and
F(J is and for some fixed
for some fixed mm E E N we have
N we have
/~ -(
(3 exp;:(1 ++ a
-~ exp.(1 1) .
+ 1).
c~ +
But in
But in PA
PA + TI(r) we
+ TI('y) we can
can prove TI(a) and
prove TI(a) and hence TI(1 ++ aa ++ 1).
hence TI(1 1 ) . Then
Then by by
iterating part
iterating part 88 of the proof
of the proof of
of Theorem
Theorem 4.11 4.11 we
we can
can prove
prove transfinite
transfinite induction
induction up up
to exp;:(1
to exp.(1 + + aa + 1) and
+ 1) and hence
hence upup to (3. As
to ~. As before
before FZ F(J is then provably
is then provably recursive
recursive inin
PA
PA + TI(,) , and
+ TI(~'), and this
this completes
completes the proof.
the proof.

As
As aa concluding example, let
concluding example, let 1Dn
ID~ be
be the
the theory
theory ofof an n-times iterated
an n-times iterated inductive
inductive
definition
definition and
and let T~ denote
let Tn denote its
its proof-theoretic
proof-theoretic ordinal
ordinal (see Buchholz et
(see Buchholz et al.
al. [1981]
[1981]
for
for detailed
detailed analyses
analyses of
of these
these and
and other
other theories)
theories).. Then
Then the
the T n 'S have
T~'S have structured
structured
tree-ordinal
tree-ordinal representations
representations and
and by
by Wainer
Whiner [1989]
[1989] we
we have T;;
have T -- T
+ = n+ ! ' Therefore
Tn+l. Therefore

PROVREC(IDn) = REC(~'n)= E~

and
and letting
letting T - sup
r = sup Tx
T~,,

PaOVREC(II~ - CA0) - REC(T) = g0-DEE(T).

A
A more
more direct
direct analysis
analysis ofof general
general ID -theories in
ID-theories in terms
terms of
of the
the slow
slow growing
growing hierarchy
hierarchy
is
is given
given by
by Arai
Arai [1991]
[1991]..

References
References

W. ACKERMANN
W. ACKERMANN
[1940) Zur
[1940] Zur Widerspruchsfreiheit
Widerspruchsfreiheit der
der Zahlenentheorie,
Zahlenentheorie, Mathematische Annalen, 1117,
Mathematische Annalen, 17, pp.
pp. 162-
162-
194.
194.
204
204 M.
M. Fairtlough and S.
Fairtlough and S. Wainer
Wainer

T. ARAI
T. ARAI
[1991] A
[1991] A slow
slow growing
growing analogue
analogue of
of Buchholz'
Buchholz' proof,
proof, Annals
Annals of Pure
Pure and Applied Logic, 54,
Applied Logic, 54,
pp.
pp. 101-120.
101-120.
J. AVIGAD AND R.
AVIGADAND R. SOMMER
SOMMER
[1997] A
[1997] A model-theoretic
model-theoreticapproach
approach to
to ordinal
ordinal analysis,
analysis,Bulletin
Bulletinof Symbolic Logic, 3,
Symbolic Logic, 3, pp.
pp. 17-52.
17-52.
W.
W. BUCHHOLZ
BUCHHOLZ
[1987]
[1987] An
An independence
independence result for (Ill
result for - CA) + ((BI),
(II~-CA)+ BI) , Annals
Annals of Pure
Pure and Applied Logic, 23,
Applied Logic, 23,
pp.
pp. 131-155.
131-155.
W
W.. BUCHHOLZ, E.
BUCHHOLZ,E. A. CICHON,
A. CICHON,AND
AND A.A. WEIERMANN
WEIERMANN
[1994] A
A uniform
uniform approach
approach to
to fundamental
fundamental sequences
sequences and
and subrecursive
subrecursive hierarchies,
hierarchies, Mathemat­
Mathemat-
ical
ical Logic 40, pp.
Logic Quarterly, 40, pp. 273-286.
273-286.
W.
W. BUCHHOLZ, S. FEFERMAN,
BUCHHOLZ, S. FEFERMAN, W.
W. POHLERS,
POHLERS, AND
AND W.
W. SIEG
SInG
[1981]
[1981] Iterated
Iterated Inductive Definitions Subsystems of Analysis, Lecture
Definitions and Subsystems Lecture Notes
Notes in
in Mathematics
Mathematics
#897,
#897, Springer-Verlag,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Berlin.
W. BUCHHOLZ S. S.
AND S.
BUCHHOLZ AND S. WAINER
WAINER
[1987] Provably
[1987] Provably computable
computable functions
functions and
and the
the fast
fast growing
growing hierarchy,
hierarchy, in:
in: Logic
Logic and Com­
Com-
S. G.
binatorics, S. G. Simpson,
Simpson, ed., vol. 65
ed., vol. 65 of
of Contemporary
Contemporary Mathematics,
Mathematics, American
American
Mathematical
Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I.,
Society, Providence, pp. 179-198.
R.I., pp. 179-198.
S.
S. R.
R. Buss
Buss
[1994] The
[1994] The witness
witness function
function method
method and
and provably
provably recursive
recursive functions
functions of
of Peano
Peano Arithmetic,
Arithmetic, in:
in:
Proceedings of the 9th. International Congress
Congress of Logic,
Logic, Methodology
Methodology and Philosophy of
Science, D.
D. Prawitz,
Prawitz, B.
B. Skyrms, and D.
Skyrms, and D. Westerstahl,
Westerstahl, eds.,
eds., North-Holland,
North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Amsterdam.
E.
E. A
A.. CICHON
CICHON
[1983]
[1983] A
A short
short proof
proof of
of two
two recently
recently discovered
discovered independence
independence proofs
proofs using
using recursion
recursion theoretic
theoretic
methods, Proceedings
methods, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 87, pp.
Society, 87, pp. 704-706.
704-706.
E
E.. A
A.. CICHON S. S.
AND S.
CICHON AND S. WAINER
WAINER
[1983] The
[1983] The slow
slow growing
growing and
and Grzegorczyk
Grzegorczyk hierarchies,
hierarchies, Journal of Symbolic
Symbolic Logic, 48, pp.
Logic, 48, pp. 399-
399-
408.
408.
R. L.
R. L. CONSTABLE
CONSTABLE
[1971] Subrecursive
[1971] Subrecursive programming
programming languages
languages III,
III, the
the multiple
multiple recursive
recursive functions,
functions, in:
in: Pro­
Pro-
ceedings ~lst International Symposium on Computers and Automata, Brooklyn
ceedings of the 21st Brooklyn
Polytechnic
Polytechnic Institute,
Institute, NY,
NY, pp.
pp. 393-410.
393-410.
N. J. CUTLAND
N. CUTLAND
[1981]
[1981] Computability, Cambridge
Cambridge University
University Press.
Press.
M
M.. V
V.. H. FAIRTLOUGH
FAIRTLOUGH
[1991]
[1991] Ordinal
Ordinal Complexity of
of Recursive Programs Proofs, PhD
Programs and their Termination Proofs, PhD thesis,
thesis,
Leeds
Leeds University
University Department
Department of
of Pure
Pure Mathematics.
Mathematics.
M
M.. V
V.. H. FAIRTLOUGH
FAIRTLOUGHANDAND SS.. S.
S. WAINER
WAINER
[1992] Ordinal
[1992] Ordinal complexity
complexity of
of recursive
recursive definitions, 99, pp.
definitions, Information and Computation, 99, pp. 123-
123-
153.
153.
S.
S. FEFERMAN
FEFERMAN
[1962] Classification
[1962] Classification of
of recursive
recursive functions
functions by
by means
means of
of hierarchies,
hierarchies, Journal of
of the American
Mathematical Society, 104,
Mathematical pp. 101-122.
104, pp. 101-122.
[1968] Systems
[1968] Systems ofof predicative
predicative analysis
analysis II,
II, Journal of
o] Symbolic Logic, 33,
Symbolic Logic, 33, pp.
pp. 193-220.
193-220.
H
H.. M
M.. FRIEDMAN
FRIEDMAN
[1978] Classically and
[1978] Classically and intuitionistically
intuitionistically provably
provably recursive
recursive functions,
functions, in:
in: Proc.
Proc. Higher Set
Theory, Obennolfach, G. H.
Oberwolfach, G. H. Miiller
Miiller and D. S.
and D. S. Scott,
Scott, eds.,
eds., Lecture
Lecture Notes
Notes in
in Mathematics
Mathematics
#669,
#669, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 21-27.
21-27.
 Provably Recursive Functions 205
205

H.
H. M. FRIEDMAN
M. FRIEDMAN AND M. SHEARD
AND M. SHEARD
[1995] Elementary
[1995] Elementary descent
descent recursion
recursion and
and proof
proof theory, Logic, 71,
theory, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 71,
pp.
pp. I-45.
1-45.
G. GENTZEN
GENTZEN
[1936]
[1936] Die
Die Widerspruchsfreiheit
Widerspruchsfreiheit der
der reinen
reinen Zahlentheorie, Annalen, 112,
Zahlentheorie, Mathematische Annalen, 112,
pp.
pp. 493-565.
493-565.
[1943] Beweisbarkeit
[1943] Beweisbarkeit und
und Unbeweisbarkeit
Unbeweisbarkeit von
von Anfangsf aIlen der
Anfangsfdllen der 'Transfiniten
Transfiniten Induction
Induction in
in der
der
reiner
reiner Zahlentheorie,
Zahlentheorie, Mathematische Annalen, 119, pp. 140-161.
119, pp. 140-161.
J.-Y. GIRARD
J.-Y. GIRARD
[1981] m
[1981] -logic part
II~l-logicpart I, Logic, 21,
I, Annals of Mathematical Logic, 21, pp.
pp. 75-219.
75-219.
[1987]
[1987] Proof Theory and Logical Bibliopolis, Naples.
Logical Complexity, Bibliopolis, Naples.
A.. GRZEGORCZYK
A GRZEGORCZYK
[1953] Some
[1953] Some classes
classesof
of recursive
recursive functions, Rozprawy Matem.
functions, Rozprawy Matem. IV,
IV, Warsaw.
Warsaw.
P.. HAJEK
P HAJEK AND
AND P
P.. PUDLAK
PUDLAK
The Metamathematics
[1991] The
[1991] Metamathematics ofof First
First Order
Order Arithmetic,
Arithmetic, Perspectives
Perspectives in
in Mathematical
Mathematical Logic,
Logic,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
G. H
H.. HARDY
HARDY
[1904] AA theorem
theorem concerning
concerning the
the infinite
infinite cardinal
cardinal numbers,
numbers, Quarterly Journal of Mathematics,
35, pp.
35, pp. 87-94.
87-94.
W. A
A.. HOWARD
HOWARD
[1970] A
[1970] A system
system of
of abstract
abstract constructive
constructive ordinals,
ordinals, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 37, pp.
Logic, 37, pp. 355-374.
355-374.
N. KADOTA
N. KADOTA
[199 3] On
[1993] On Wainer's
Wainer's notation
notation for
for a
a minimal
minimal subrecursive
subrecursive inaccessible
inaccessible ordinal,
ordinal, Mathematical
Logic Quarterly, 39, pp. 217-227.
39, pp. 217-227.
J. KETONEN
J. KETONEN AND R. M.
AND R.. M. SOLOVAY
SOLOVAY
[1981] Rapidly
[1981] Rapidly growing
growing Ramsey
Ramsey functions,
functions, Annals of Mathematics, 1113,
13, pp.
pp. 267-314.
267-314.
L
L.. A.
A. S. KIRBY AND
S. KIRBY AND J. B.. PARIS
J. B PARIS
[1982] Accessible
[1982] Accessible independence
independence results
results for
for Peano
Peano Arithmetic, Bulletin of the
Arithmetic, Bulletin the American
American Math­
Math-
ematical Society,pp.
ematical Society, 285-293.
pp. 285-293.
G. KREISEL
G. KREISEL
[[1952] On the
1952] On the interpretation
interpretationof
of non-fi
non-finitist proofs II,
nitist proofs Logic, 17,
II, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 17, pp.
pp. 43-58.
43-58.
D.. L
D LEIVANT
EIVANT
[1995] Intrinsic
[1995] Intrinsictheories
theories and
and computational
computational complexity,
complexity, in: Logic and Computational
in: Logic Computational Com­
Com-
plexity, International
plexity, International Workshop
Workshop LCC'9J,
LCC'94, D. Leivant, ed.,
D. Leivant, ed., Lecture
Lecture Notes in Computer
Notes in Computer
Science #960,
Science Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
#960, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp.
pp. 177-194.
177-194.
M.
M. H.
H. L6B
LOB AND
AND S.
S. SS.. WAINER
WAINER
[1970] Hierarchies
[1970] Hierarchies ofof number theoretic functions
number theoretic functions II and
and II, flitmathematische Logik
II, Arkiv fUr Logik und
Grundlagenforschung, 14,
Grundlagenforschung, 14, pp. 39-51 and
pp. 39-51 and 97-113.
97-113. Correction
Correction in
in vol. 14, pages
vol. 14, pages 198-199.
198-199.
G. E. MINTS
G. E. MINTS
[1973]
[1973] Quantifier-free
Quantifier-free and
and one
one quantifier
quantifier systems, 1, pp.
systems, Journal of Soviet Mathematics, 1, pp. 71-84.
71-84.
B. PARIS
J. B. PARIS
[1980] A
[1980] A hierarchy
hierarchy of
of cuts
cuts in
in models
models ofof arithmetic,
arithmetic, in:
in: Model
Model Theory of Algebra
Algebra and Arithmetic,
L.
L. Pacholski
Pacholski and
and etet al., eds., Lecture
al., eds., Lecture Notes
Notes inin Mathematics #834, Springer-Verlag,
Mathematics #834, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, pp.
Berlin, pp. 312-337.
312-337.
J.
J. B. PARIS AND
B. PARIS AND L. HARRINGTON
L. HARRINGTON
[1977] A
[1977] A mathematical
mathematical incompleteness
incompleteness in
in Peano
Peano Arithmetic,
Arithmetic, in:
in: Handbook
Handbook of Mathematical
Logic, Barwise, ed.,
Logic, J. Barwise, ed., North-Holland,
North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 1133-1142.
Amsterdam, pp. 1133-1142.
206
206 M.
M. Fairtlough and
and S. Wainer
Wainer

c.
C. PARSONS
PARSONS
[1966] Ordinal
[1966] Ordinal recursion
recursion in
in partial
partial systems
systems of of number
number theory
theory (abstract) , Notices
(abstract), Notices of the
American Mathematical
American Society, 13,
Mathematical Society, pp. 857-858.
13, pp. 857-858.
[1970] On
[1970] On aa number-theoretic
number-theoretic choice
choice schema
schema and
and its
its relation
relation to
to induction,
induction, in:
in: Intuitionism
Intuitionism
and Proof
Proof Theory: proceedings
proceedings of
of the summer conference at Buffalo N. N.Y. 1968, North­
Y. 1968, North-
Holland, Amsterdam,
Holland, Amsterdam, pp.
pp. 459-473.
459-473.
R
R.. PETER
P~TER
[1967] Recursive Functions, Academic
[1967] Academic Press,
Press, New
New York,
York, 3rd
3rd ed.
ed.
z. RATAJCZYK
Z. RATAJCZYK
[1993] Subsystems
[1993] Subsystems ofof true
true arithmetic
arithmetic and
and hierarchies
hierarchies of
of functions,
functions, Annals of
of Pure and Applied
64, pp.
Logic, 64, pp. 95-152.
95-152.
J. ROBBIN
J. ROBBIN
[1965] Subrecursive Hierarchies, PhD
[1965] Subrecursive PhD thesis,
thesis, Princeton
Princeton University.
University.
H
H.. E
E.. ROSE
ROSE
[1984]
[1984] Subrecursion: vol. 99 of
Subrecursion: Functions and Hierarchies, vol. of Oxford
Oxford Logic
Logic Guides,
Guides, Clarendon
Clarendon
Press,
Press, Oxford.
Oxford.
U
U.. SCHMERL
SCHMERL
[1982] Number
[1982] Number theory
theory and
and the
the Bachmann-Howard
Bachmann-Howard ordinal,
ordinal, in:
in: Logic '81, J.
Logic Colloquium '81, J. Stern,
Stern,
ed.,
ed., North-Holland,
North-Holland, Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, pp.
pp. 287-298.
287-298.
D
D.. SCHMIDT
SCHMIDT
[1976] Built-up
[1976] Built-up systems
systems of of fundamental
fundamental sequences
sequences and
and hierarchies
hierarchies of
of number-theoretic
number-theoretic func­
func-
tions,
tions, Arkiv fii Grundlagenforschung, 18,
flitr mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung, 18, pp.
pp. 47-53.
47-53.
K
K.. SCHUTTE
SCHUTTE
[1977] Proof Theory, Springer-Verlag,
[1977] Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Berlin. Translation
Translation by
by J. N. Crossley
J. N. Crossley
H
H.. SSCHWICHTENBERG
CHWICHTENBERG
[1971] Eine
[1971] Eine Klassifikation
Klassifikation der
der eo-rekursiven
e0-rekursiven Functionen,
Functionen, Zeitschrift fii
fiirr mathematische Logik
und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 17, pp. 61-74.
17, pp. 61-74.
[1977]] Proof
[1977 Proof theory:
theory: Some
Some applications
applications of
of cut-elimination,
cut-elimination, in:
in: Handbook of of Mathematical
J. Barwise,
Logic, J. Barwise, ed.,
ed., North-Holland,
North-Holland, Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, pp.
pp. 867-895.
867-895.
H
H.. SCHWICHTENBERG
SCHWICHTENBERGAND AND S. S. WAINER
S. S. WAINER
[1995] Ordinal
[1995] Ordinal bounds
bounds for
for programs,
programs, in: Feasible Mathematics II,
in: Feasible II, P.
P. Clote
Clote and
and J. B.
B. Remmel,
Remmel,
eds.,
eds., vol. 13 of
vol. 13 of Progress
Progress in
in Computer
Computer Science
Science and
and Applied
Applied Logic,
Logic, Birkhiiuser,
Birkh~iuser, Boston,
Boston,
pp. 387-406.
pp. 387-406.
W. SlEG
SIEG
[1985] Fragments
[1985] Fragments of
of arithmetic, Logic, 28,
arithmetic, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 28, pp.
pp. 33-71.
33-71.
[1991] Herbrand
[1991] Herbrand analyses, Logic, 30,
analyses, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 30, pp.
pp. 409-441
409-441..
R
R,.. SOMMER
SOMMER
[1992] Ordinal
[1992] Ordinal arithmetic
arithmetic in
in I�o
IA0,, in:
in: Arithmetic,
Arithmetic, Proof Theory and Computational Complexity,
Complexity,
P.
P. Clote and J. Krajicek,
Clote and Krajicek, eds.,
eds., Oxford
Oxford University
University Press.
Press.
[1995] Transfinite
[1995] Transfinite induction
induction within
within Peano
Peano Arithmetic,
Arithmetic, Annals ofof Pure and Applied Logic, 76,
Applied Logic, 76,
pp.
pp. 231-289.
231-289.
W. W. TAIT
W. TAIT
[1968] Normal derivability
[1968] Normal derivability in
in classical
classical logic, in: The Syntax and Semantics of Infinitary
logic, in:
Languages, J.J. Barwise,
Barwise, ed., Lecture Notes
ed., Lecture Notes in
in Mathematics
Mathematics #72,
#72, Springer-Verlag,
Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, pp. 204-236.
Berlin, pp. 204-236.
G
G.. TAKEUTI
TAKEUTI
[1987] Proof Theory, North-Holland,
[1987] North-Holland, Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, 2nd
2nd ed.
ed.
 Provably Recursive Functions 207
207

J. V.
J. V. TUCKER
TUCKER AND
AND J. 1. ZUCKER
J. I. ZUCKER
[1992] Provable
[1992] Provable computable
computable selection
selection functions
functions on
on abstract
abstract structures,
structures, in:
in: Proof Theory,
P. H. G.
P. H. G. Aczel,
Aczel, H.
H. Simmons,
Simmons, and S. S.
and S. S. Wainer,
Wainer, eds., Cambridge University
eds., Cambridge University Press,
Press,
pp.
pp. 277-306.
277-306.
S. S.
S. S. WAINER
WAINER
[1970] A
[1970] A classification
classification of
of the
the ordinal
ordinal recursive
recursive functions,
functions, Arkiv fur
fiir mathematische
mathematische Logik
Logik und
Grundlagenforschung,
Grundlagen]orschung, 13, 13, pp.
pp. 136-153.
136-153.
[1972] Ordinal
[1972] Ordinal recursion
recursion and
and aa refinement
refinement of
of the
the extended
extended Grzegorczyk
Grzegorczyk hierarchy,
hierarchy, Journal of
Logic, 38,
Symbolic Logic, 38, pp.
pp. 281-292.
281-292.
[1989
[1989]] Slow
Slow growing
growing versus
versus fast
fast growing, Logic, 54,
growing, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 54, pp.
pp. 608-614.
608-614.
A. WEIERMANN
A. WEIERMANN
[1996] How
[1996] How to
to characterise
characterise provably
provably total
total functions
functions by
by local
local predicativity,
predicativity, Journal
Journal of Symbolic
Logic, 61,
Logic, pp. 52-69.
61, pp. 52-69.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
 CHAPTER
CHAPTER IV
IV

Subsystems
Subsystems of
of Set
Set Theory and
Theory and
Second
Second Order
Order Number
Number Theory
Theory

Wolfram
Wolfram Pohlers
Pohlers
Institut for
fiir mathematische
mathematische Logik
Logik und Grundlagenforschung
Westfiilische
West f~lische Wilhelms- Universitiit, D-48149
Wilhelms-Universit~t, D-~81~9 Munster,
Miinster, Germany

Contents
Contents
1. Preliminaries
1. Preliminaries .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
1.1. O rdinals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ordinals 210
1.2. PPartial
a r t i a l models
models for for axiom
axiom systems
systems of of set theory .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
set theory 215
215
1.3. Connections
Connections to to subsystems
s u b s y s t e m s of
of second
second order order number theory . . . . . . . . .
n u m b e r theory 219
1.4. Methods
M e t h o d s .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
First order
2. First order number theory .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
n u m b e r theory 231
2.1. Peano
Peano arithmetic
a r i t h m e t i c .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
2.2. Peano
Peano aarithmetic
r i t h m e t i c with
with additional
additional transfinite
transfinite induction
induction .. . . . . . . . . . . . 261
3. Impredicative
Impredicative systems systems .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
3.1. Some
Some remarksremarks on on predicativity
predicativity and and impredicativity
impredicativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
3.2. Axiom
A x i o m systems
systems for for number theory .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
n u m b e r theory 268
3.3. Axiom
A x i o m systems
systems for for set theory . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
set theory 279
3.4. Ordinal
Ordinal analysisanalysis for for set-theoretic
set-theoretic axioms axioms systems systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
References .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References 333

HANDBOOK
H A N D B O O K OF
OF P PROOF
R O O F THEORY
THEORY
Edited
Edited by
by S.
S. R.
R. Buss
Buss
© 1998 Elsevier
9 1998 Elsevier Science RV. All
Science B.V. rights reserved
All rights reserved
210
210 W.
w. Pohlers

11.. Preliminaries
Preliminaries

The
The aim
aim of
of the
the following
following contribution
contribution is is to
to present
present a a sample
sample ofof ordinal
ordinal analyses
analyses ofof
subsystems
subsystems of of Set
Set Theory
Theory andand Second
Second Order
Order Number Theory. 11 But
Number Theory. But before
before we
we start
start
the presentation of
the presentation of results
results we think we
we think should enter
we should enter a a general discussion about
general discussion about the
the
type
type of
of results
results we
we are
are going
going to
to obtain.
obtain.
We
We want
want to
to keep
keep close
close to Hilbert's's program
to Hilbert program and and try
try to
to give
give consistency
consistency proofs
proofs for
for
axiom
axiom systems
systems as as constructively
constructively as as possible
possible - - being well aware
being well aware ofof all the obstacles
all the obstacles toto
this
this enterprise
enterprise resulting
resulting from
from Godel
Ghdel's' s Theorems.
Theorems.
The
The emphasis
emphasis willwill be
be on
on impredicative
impredicative subsystems
subsystems of of Set
Set Theory
Theory and and Second
Second
Order
Order Number
Number Theory.
Theory. HereHere we
we opt
opt for
for aa seemingly
seemingly unconventional
unconventional approach.
approach. We We
will
will try to construct
try to construct partial
partial models
models of of theories
theories within
within thethe constructible
constructible sets.
sets. The
The
hierarchy
hierarchy L L of
of constructible
constructible sets
sets is
is determined
determined by by the
the ordinal line. Therefore
ordinal line. Therefore special
special
care
care will
will be
be given
given to to notations
notations forfor ordinals.
ordinals. In In the
the Preliminaries
Preliminaries we we will
will introduce
introduce
our
our concept
concept of
of ordinal
ordinal analysis.
analysis. First
First we
we introduce
introduce somesome basic
basic facts
facts onon ordinals,
ordinals, then
then
introduce
introduce our
our concept
concept of of partial
partial models
models and and fi nally show
finally show howhow this
this is
is connected
connected to to the
the
more
more conventional
conventional approach
approach to to ordinal
ordinal analysis.
analysis.

1.1. Ordinals
1.1. Ordinals

Ordinals will play

Ordinals will play thethe crucial
crucial rolerole for
for all
all what
what follows.
follows. Therefore
Therefore we we start
start with
with
aa short
short introduction
introduction to to ordinals
ordinals as as we
we will
will use
use them
them in in the
the following
following contribution.
contribution.
Ordinals
Ordinals areare regarded
regarded in their set
in their set theoretic
theoretic sense,
sense, i.e.,
i.e., an
an ordinal
ordinal isis aa hereditarily
hereditarily
transitive
transitive set.
set. Assuming
Assuming that that thethe membership
membership relation
relation E E isis aa well-founded
well-founded relation,
relation,
this
this entails
entails that
that every
every ordinal
ordinal is is well-founded
well-founded with with respect
respect to to the
the membership
membership relation
relation
and
and every
every ordinal
ordinal isis the
the set
set of its E-predecessors.
of its E-predecessors. For For thethe reader
reader whowho isis not
not so
so familiar
familiar
with
with set
set theory
theory wewe give
give a a brief
brief sketch
sketch of of the
the theory
theory of of ordinals
ordinals as as far
far as
as it
it will
will be
be
needed
needed for
for this
this paper.
paper. Besides
Besides transfinite recursion ((which
transfinite recursion which may may bebe regarded
regarded as as a
a
generalization of
generalization of primitive recursion)) all
primitive recursion all we
we need
need from
from Set Set Theory
Theory are are the
the facts
facts (Oni)
(On1)
-- (On4) below. They
(One) below. They may may be be viewed
viewed as as axioms
axioms forfor the
the theory.
theory. To To make
make thethe article
article
not
not too long we
too long we will
will not
not give
give proofs here. Detailed
proofs here. Detailed information
information how how toto prove
prove thethe
results
results of
of this
this section
section from
from (Oni)
(On1) - (One) can
- (On4) can be
be found
found in in Pohlers
Pohlers [1989]
[1989]..
A
A linear
linear order
order relation
relation -< -~ well-orders
well-orders its its field
field iff iff it
it does
does notnot contain infinite
contain infinite
-<-descending
-~-descending sequences.
sequences. A A class
class M M is is transitive
transitive iffiff aa EEM M =} =~ aa �C_ M.
M.

(Oni)
(On1) The
The class O n of
class On of ordinals
ordinals is
is aa non
non void
void transitive
transitive class,
class, which
which is
is well-ordered
well-ordered by
by
the
the membership relation E
membership relation E.. We
We define < f3
~ <
define a ~ as c~ E
as a E On ~ E
A f3
O n /\ E On
O n /\
Aac~ E
E f3.
~.
In
In general
general we
we use
use lower
lower case
case Greek
Greek letters
letters as
as syntactical
syntactical variables
variables for
for ordinals.
ordinals. The
The
well-foundedness
well-foundedness of
of E
E on
on the
the class O n implies
class On implies the
the principle
principle of
of transfinite
transfinite induction
induction

((V~ On)[(Vr/<
\I� EE On) [ (\l1] < �~)F(~)
)F(1]) =}
=~ F =~ ((V~
(� ) ] =}
F(~)] \I� EE On)F(
O n ) F ( ~�))

11iI am indebted to Dr. Arnold

Arnold Beckmann
Beckmann for proofreading.
proofreading. He not only
only detected a series
series of
errors in the first versions
versions but also made many valuable
valuable suggestions.
suggestions.
 Set
Set Theory
Theory and Second Order Number
Number Theory 2211
11

and
and transfinite
transfinite recursion
recursion which,
which, for
for aa given
given function
function gg,, allows
allows the
the defi nition of
definition of a
a
function
function ff satisfying
satisfying the
the recursion
recursion equation
equation
f( 1]) =
f(r/) -- g( {j(�) I �~ <
g({f(~)[ }).
< 1]~}).
(On2)
(On2) The
The class
class On
O n ofof ordinals
ordinals isis unbounded,
unbounded, i.i.e.,e., (V�
(V~ EE On) (31] EE On))[�
On)(3r] On))[~ < < 1] J . The
r/]. The
cardinality
cardinality IMI IMI ofof aa set
set MM is is the
the least
least ordinal
ordinal a ~ such
such that
that MM cancan be
be mapped
mapped
bijectively
bijectively onto
onto a.~. AnAn ordinal
ordinal a ~ is
is aa cardinal
cardinal if
if lal - a
Ic~l = c~..
(On3)
(On3) If
If M
M � C OO nn and
and IIMI
M I EE O Onn then
then MM is is bounded
bounded inin On,
On, i.e.,
i.e., there
there is
is an
an aa E E On
On
such
such that
that MM � C a.
~.
For
For every
every ordinal
ordinal a a we
we have
have by (On1) and
by (Onl) (On2) a
and (On2) a least
least ordinal
ordinal a'c~' which
which isis bigger
bigger
than a. We
than c~. We call a' the
call 0:' successor of
the successor a. There
of c~. There are are three
three types
types ofof ordinals:
ordinals:
•9 the
the least
least ordinal
ordinal 0,
O,
•9 successor
successor ordinals,
ordinals, i.i.e.,
e., ordinals
ordinals of
of the
the form
form a ',
c~',
•9 ordinals
ordinals which
which are neither 00 nor
are neither nor successor
successor ordinals.
ordinals. Such
Such ordinals
ordinals are
are called
called limit
limit
ordinals.
ordinals. We denote the
We denote the class
class of
of limit
limit ordinals
ordinals by
by Lim
Lira..
Considering
Considering these
these three
three types
types of
of ordinals
ordinals we
we reformulate
reformulate transfinite
transfinite induction
induction and
and
recursion as
recursion as follows:
follows:
Transfinite
Transfinite induction:
induction: If If F(O)
F(O) and
and (Va E On)[F(a) =>
(Vc~EOn)[F(c~) =V F(a')J
F(c~')] as as well
well as
as
(V�
(V~ << >' )F(�) =>
,~)F(~) => F( >'
F(A) ) for
for >.
,~ E
E Lim
Lira then
then (V�
(V~ E
E On)F(�)
On)F(~). .
Transfinite
Transfinite recursion:
recursion: ForFor given
given a
c~ E
E On
On and
and functions g, hh there
functions g, there is
is aa function
function ff
satisfying
satisfying the
the recursion
recursion equations
equations
f (O) =
f(O) - ae~
f( O = g(J(�))
f (~') = g(:(~))
f ( A ) - = h(
f(>.) < ,~})
{j(1]) I 1]rl <
h({f(r/) >. } ) for >.A Ee Lim
Lim..
An ordinal If,~ satisfying
An ordinal satisfying
(Rl)
(R1) If,
~ Ee Lira
Lim
(R2)
(R2) If
If MM �C_ If,
~ and [M] <
and IMI < If,
~ then
then M
M is
is bounded in If"~, i.i.e.,
bounded in e., there is an
there is an a
a E
E If,
~ such
such
that
that MM � C aa
is
is called regular. The
called regular. The class
class of
of regular
regular ordinals
ordinals is
is denoted
denoted by by lR.JR.
(On4)
(On4) The class IR
The class R is
is unbounded,
unbounded, i.i.e.,
e., (V�
(V~ E
E On) (31] E 1R)
On)(3r/E R)[~[� :::;
_ 1] J.
r/].
We
We define
define

sup
sup M "= min
M := min {� E On
{~ E '11] E M)(
On]l ((Mr/E r / <:::; �)}
M ) ( 1] ~)}
as
as the
the least
least upper
upper bound
bound for
for aa set
set M
M � On. In
C_ On. In set
set theoretic
theoretic terms
terms itit is
is sup
sup MM = - UU M.
M.
It
It follows
follows that
that sup
sup MM is
is either
either the
the biggest
biggest ordinal
ordinal in M,, i.e.,
in M i.e., sup
sup M M = - max
max M M,, or
or
sup
sup MM E Lira.. By
E Lim By Ww we
we denote
denote thethe least
least limit
limit ordinal.
ordinal. It
It exists
exists according
according to to (On4)
(On4)
and (Onl). The
and (On1). ordinal W
The ordinal WlI denotes
denotes the
the first
first uncountable
uncountable ordinal,
ordinal, Le.,
i.e., the
the first
first ordinal
ordinal
whose
whose cardinality
cardinality is
is bigger
bigger than
than that
that of w.. It
of w It exists
exists by
by (On3).
(On3).
212
212 W. Pohlers

For every
For every class class M M C_ � OOn there isis aa uniquely
n there uniquely determined
determined transitivetransitive class
class
otyp(M) � On and an order preserving function enM: otyp(M) � M . The function
otyp(M) C_ On and an order preserving function enM: otyp(M) onto> M. The function
enM enumerates
enM enumerates the the elements
elements of of M M in in increasing
increasing order.
order. Since
Since otyp(M)
otyp(M) isis transitive
transitive
it is
it is either
either otyp(M)
otyp(M) == On On or or otyp(M)
otyp(M) EE On. On. We call otyp(M)
We call otyp(M) the the order
order type of M.
type of M.
In fact otyp(M)
In fact otyp(M) is is the
the Mostowski
Mostowski collapsecollapse of of M
M and
and enM
enM the
the inverse
inverse of of the
the collapsing
collapsing
function (usually
function (usually denoted
denoted by 7r ) . By
by ~r). By (On3)we
(On3) we have have otyp(M)
otyp(M) EE On On iff iff M
M isis bounded
bounded
in On.
in On. Unbounded,
Unbounded, i.e., i.e., proper
proper classes
classes of of ordinals have order
ordinals have order type
type On. On. If If M
M isis aa set
set
of ordinals
of ordinals thenthen otyp(M)
otyp(M) EE On. On.
If M is
If M is aa transitive
transitive classclass and
and f: J: MM --+~ O Onn an order preserving
an order preserving functionfunction then
then wewe
have aa <_
have :::; fJ(a) for all
(a) for all aa EE M.
M.
A class
A class M M isis closed
closed (in (in aa regular
regular ordinal
ordinal a)K,) iff
iff sup
sup N N EE MM holds
holds for for every class
every class
N C_
N �M M such
such thatthat IN INII EE On
On (IN[(INI << a). K,). We call M
We call M club (in aK,)) i fiff
club (in f M M isis closed
closed and
and
unbounded (in
unbounded (in a).
K,).
We call
We call an order preserving
an order preserving function
function f" J: M
M --+~ O On (K,-) continuous
n (a-) continuous iff M is
iff M is
(K,-) closed and
(a-) closed and fJ preserves suprema, i.e.,
preserves suprema, i.e., sup
sup {J(�)
{f(~)[ I �~ E N } -= Jf(sup(N))
E N} (sup(N)) for for any
any
N�
N C_ MM such
such thatthat INIINI eE OnOn (INI
( INI << a). K,).
A normal
A (K,-normal) function
normal (R-normal) function is is an order-preserving continuous
an order-preserving continuous function function
J: On
f: On
O n --+> O n or J: K,a --+~ K,a respectively.
or f: respectively.
For
For MM c_
�O Onn (M(M C_ K,) the
� a) enumerating function
the enumerating function enM
enM is
is aa (K,-)normal
(a-)normal function
function iff
iff M
M
is club (in
is club (in a).
K,).
Extending their
Extending their primitive
primitive recursive definitions continuously
recursive definitions continuously into the transfinite
into the transfinite
we
we obtain the basic
obtain the basic arithmetical
arithmetical functions +, . 9and
functions 4-, and exponentiation
exponentiation for all ordinals.
for all ordinals.
The ordinal
The ordinal sum,
sum, for example, satisfies
for example, the recursion
satisfies the equations
recursion equations
aa ++OO= a= a
a~ ++/ ~{3'' == (a + {3)'
(~+/~)'
aa ++ A A= sup~ <
= sup ~(a + + ~)
�) Jor
:for AA E Lira..
{ < ).(a e Lim

It
It iiss easy
easy toto see
see that
that the
the function
function A�A(.. a
a +
4- �( is
is the
the enumerating
enumerating function
function ofof the
the class
class
On I a
{{(� EE On] a :::;< 0(} which
which is club in
is club in all
all regular
regular K,a >
> a. Hence A�
a. Hence A(.. a
a +
4- �
( is
is aa K,-normal
R-normal
function
function for for all
all regular
regular K,a > a. We
> a. We define
define

H :=
lHI {~a E
:= { e On
On II a
o~## 0 1\^ (V'�
(V~ < a) (V'1] < a)
oL)(Vrl o0[~ + 1]r/<< a]
[� + ~]}}
and call the
and call ordinals in
the ordinals in lHI
H additively indecomposable. Then
additively indecomposable. Then lHI H is club (in
is club (in any
any regular
regular
ordinal
ordinal > > w), 0' E
w), 11 := 0' H,, w
E lHI w E H and
E lHI and w w rnq HlHI = {1}. Hence
= {I}. Hence enl8l (O) =
end(0) = 11 and
and
enl8l(l)
en~(1) = = ww which
which are
are the
the fi rst two
first two examples
examples of of the
the fact
fact that
that
(V'�
(V~c E
E On)
On)[en~(~) = w
[enl8l (�) = {].
w~]. (1)
Thus
Thus A�
A(.. w{
w~ is
is aa (K,-)normal
(a-)normal function
function (for
(for all
all K,
a E R bigger
E lR bigger than
than w).
w). We
We have
have
][-][ �
lHI c_ Lim
Lira U {l}
{1}
and
and obtain
obtain
a Ee lHI ( v ~(V'� <
M / i /iff < a) [� +
o0[,~ + a
o~ =
= a].
04.
 Set
Set Theory
Theory and
and Second
Second Order
Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 213
213

Thus
Thus for
for aa finite
finite set
set {at
{ a l ,, ... .. ,. , an C_lHl
an}} � H wewe get
get

at + . .. .. . +
al + + an
an = akll +
= ak + ."'"
..++ akm
akin
for {{kk1l ,, .. ... ., , kkin}
for { 1,, .. .. .., , n}
m } �C_ {I n} suchsuch that t h a t ki
ki << ki
ki+l�
+ ! and
and a k, _> ak
ak~ i+l . By
ak~+l. By induction
induction on
on
aa we
we obtain
obtain thus thus ordinals
ordinals {at { a l ,,... .. ,. , an
an }} � H such
C_ lHl such that
t h a t for a =f.
for a r 00 we
we have
have

a = al + " " + an and al > _ ' " >_ an. (2)

(2)
This is
This is obvious
obvious for for aa E E lHl
H and
and immediate
immediate from
from the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis and and the
the
above
above remark r e m a r k if
if a
a = = �~ +
+ 1]77for
for �, < a.
~, 1]77< a. It
It follows
follows by
by induction on nn that
induction on t h a t the
the ordinals
ordinals
a l ,l. .. .. ,. , an
al an inin (2)
(2) are
are uniquely
uniquely determined.
determined. We We therefore
therefore define
define an
an additive
additive normal
normal
form
form

. . .+.a·+an
l +t .+
N F aa
aa ==NF n'r : ¢:} aa ==a l a
+ .t .+
. +. a. n·+an,
, {at
{ a t ,,. .. .. ,.a, nan H lHl and
} C}_� and a
alt �>_ .".". �>_an.
an.
We
We call
call {at { a l ,,. .. .. ,. , an
an }} the
the setset of
of additive components of
additive components of a
a if
if a
a = NF at
=NF + ' '.' . . +
al + + an
an..
We
We use use the the additiveadditive components
components to to defi ne the
define the symmetric sum of
symmetric sum of ordinals
ordinals a a = NF
=NF
a + ' '.' . . +
a lt + + anan and and (3 fl = NF an
=NF +
an+l ! +
+ " .
" . . +
+ a
amm by
by
aa #~ (3fl := "= a,, (t) +
a~(1)
.
+'" +
. . + a,, (m)
a~Cm)
where 11"
where lr is
is aa permutation
p e r m u t a t i o n of
of the
the numbers
numbers {I, m}} such
{ 1 , . .. .., , m such that
that

11 :<::;
_< ii <
< jj :<::;
_< m =~ a,,
m => a~((i0) �___a,.. (j) .
a~(j).

In
In contrast
contrast to
to the
the "ordinary
"ordinary ordinal
ordinal sum"
sum" the
the symmetric
symmetric sum
sum does
does not
not cancel
cancel additive
additive
components.
components. By By definition
definition we
we have
have

It is
It is easy
easy to check tthat
to check the symmetric
h a t the symmetric sumsum is order preserving
is order in its
preserving in its bboth
o t h arguments.
arguments.
As another
As consequence of
another consequence (2) we
of (2) we obtain
obtain the
the Cantor normal form
Cantor normal for ordinals
f o r m for ordinals for for
the
the basis
basis w
w,, which
which says
says that for every
t h a t for ordinal a
every ordinal there are
a r=f. 00 there are ordinals
ordinals ~6,1 , .. .. .., ' ~n such
�n such
tthat
hat

aa ==NNF
F w
6 {n .
w~'~ ++ ". '." . ++ ww~".
Since ).,\�
Since ~.. ww{r isis aa normal
normal function
function we
we have
have aa _< WO~ for
:<::; w for all
all ordinals
ordinals a.
a. We call aa an
We call an
eE-number if w
- n u m b e r if WO~ == aa and
and define
define
rEo ":= w O == aa}
min {{ aa IJ w"
- min }..

more generally
more generally let
let ).,\� E enumerate
~.. Q enumerate the
the fixed
{ fixed points
points of
of ).,\� w{r .. IfIf we
~.. w we put
put
expo (a, (3) ::= n+ t (a , (3) := a expn (o, ,B)
= (3 and exp Z) :=
we obtain
we obtain
EO "=
~o := sup
sup expn(w,
exp (w, 0).n
O) .
n <w
n(og

For 00 << aa << Co

For Eo we
we have
have aa << wWO~ and and obtain obtain by
by the
the Cantor
Cantor Normal
Normal FormForm TTheorem
heorem
uniquely determined
uniquely determined ordinals
ordinals aat,
l , . .. .. ,. , an
an << aa such
such tthat
h a t aa =NF W0al1 ++ "'"
=NF w . . . ++ wwOan.n .
214
214 W.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

For class M
For aa class c On
M � On we
we define its
define its derivative
derivative

M'
M' :=
:= {� e an
{~ E On[i enM(�) = o
enM(~) = ~}.·
The
The derivative f ' of
derivative J' of aa function f is
function J is defined
defined by f ' ::=
by J' = enF ix(J) , where
enFix(/), where
Fix( j ) :=
Fix(f) : - {� f(r =
{r I J(�) r ·
= o
Thus
Thus J' f ' enumerates
enumerates the the fixed-points
fixed-points of of J If M
f. . If M is club (in
is club (in some
some regular
regular ",) then M'
~) then M'
is also club
is also (in "'~).) . Thus
club (in Thus if f is
if J is aa normal function l'
normal function f' is
is aa normal
normal function,
function, too.
too.
{M, II tt E
If {M.
If e I}I} is is aa collections
collections of of classes
classes club
club (in
(in some
some regular
regular ",)
~) and
and III e On
III E On
(III
([I[ Ee "') then n
~) then ~,e,.EI M.M~ isis also
also club (in "'
club (in ~).).
These
These facts
facts give
give raise
raise toto aa hierarchy
hierarchy of of club
club classes.
classes. WeWe define
define
Cr(O) = lHl
c (o) ::= H
Cr(a') := Cr(a)'
: =
: = n{ < A Cr(O
Cr('\) := c r ( r Jor
f o r ,\ E
e Lim
Lira..

If
If we
we put
put

~ ::=
CP cr(o ) ,
a - en
encr(~),
then all CPo
then all 9~a are
are normal
normal functions
functions and
and we
we have
have by
by definition
definition

a < fl => ~oa(~P~7) = ~ZT. (3)

(3)
The
The function ~ is
function cP is commonly
commonly called
called Veblen
Veblen function.
function. From
From (3)
(3) we
we obtain
obtain immediately
immediately
CPoJ31 :::;
(PC~I~I ~-~ CP02/3 a
O/11 <
(~cx2~2 iff
ig and /31
C~22 and
< a ~1 :::;
~_~CP02/32
(~Ot2~ (4)
(4)
or al =
or a1 = a and /31
a22 and 131 :::;
< /32~2
or a
or a22 << a and rCPo I /31 :::;
al1 and f12.·
< /32
We
We define
define the
the Veblen
Veblen normal
normal form
form for ordinals CP
for ordinals ~ (TI
d / bby
y
a =
a NF CP('l
=NF ~ :: {:}
r a =
a and 'fJ7"1<
= ~CP('l and < a.
a.
Then
Then a a = F CP
= NNF (P~IT]I and aa =
{I 'fJ1 and = NNFF CP6'f J2 =>
(P~2~2 ~ 6 r = and 'fJ1
r and
"-- 6 771 = = 'fJ2
?72.. Since
Since �~ <
< aa and
and
'fJ <
< /3
~ EE Cr(
Cr(a) implies cp
a) implies ~ r{'fJ < /3 we we call
call Cr( a) the
Cr(a) the class
class ofof a-critical
a-critical ordinals..
ordinals.. If
If
a
a isis itself
itself a -critical then
a-critical then �, r / << a
~, 'fJ => cp{'fJ
a =v qoer/<< a.
a. Therefore
Therefore we we define
define the class SC
the class SC of
of
strongly ordinals by
critical ordinals
strongly critical by
SC :=
SC := {a e ani
{a E On I a e Cr(a)
~ E C~(a) }}..
The class SSC
The class C is
is club
club (in
(in all
all regular ordinals '"
regular ordinals ~ > w). Its
> w). Its enumerating
enumerating function
function is
is
denoted
denoted by A~.. f{
by ,\� F~.. Regarding
Regarding that
that by A~.. cp{O
(4) ,\�
by (4) ~,0 isis order
order preserving
preserving one
one easily
easily
proves
proves
sc = =

If
If we define 'Yo
we define 7o := and 'Yn
:= 00 and %+1 := CP9~."(n 00 then
+1 := then we
we obtain
obtain
fa
F0 = sup 'Yn
= sup 7-.·
nn <<ww
 Set Theory and Second
Second Order
Order Number Theory 215
215

For
For every every a a < rFo0 there
there are
are uniquely
uniquely determined
determined ordinals
ordinals 6 , . . . ,,~n
~1,... �n < aa and
and
l , . . . , 'f/n
'f/~h,..., a such
r/n < a such that
that

--,F (P~lrh + . . . + cP~nrl,~ and rii < ~a~,rli for i E { 1 , . . . , n}. (5)
(5)
This
This is
is all
all we
we need
need to
to know
know about
about ordinals
ordinals for
for the
the moment.
moment. We
We will
will have
have to
to come
come
back
back to
to the
the theory
theory later.
later.

1.2.
1.2. Partial
P a r t i a l models
m o d e l s for
for axiom
a x i o m systems
s y s t e m s of
of set
set theory
theory

Let
Let £( E) denote
/::(E) denote aa language
language ofof Set
Set Theory,
Theory, i.e.,
i.e., aa first
first order
order language
language whichwhich
contains
contains aa symbol
symbol E E for
for the
the membership
membership relation.
relation. Later
Later wewe will
will add
add aa unary
unary relation
relation
symbol Ad.
symbol Ad.
We
We will distinguish between
will distinguish between restricted
restricted quantifiers
quantifiers ((Vx Vx EE aa)) and
and (::Ix
(3x E E aa)) and
and
unrestricted
unrestricted quantifiers
quantifiers of
of the
the form
form ((Vx)
Vx) and
and (::Ix)
(3x)..
Recall
Recall the
the Levy
Levy hierarchy
hierarchy of £-formulas. We
of/::-formulas. We say
say that
that aa formula
formula is is L).o
A0 if if it
it
contains
contains only
only restricted
restricted quantifiers.
quantifiers. AA formula
formula F F of £ is
of/:: is aa IIn-formula,
Hn-formula, if if

F = (VXl)(3x2)... (Q~xn)a(x~,... ,x~),

where G(X
where l > " " ,xn)
G(xl,... xn) is is a a L).o-
A0- formula
formula and
and V::I · . (Qn) an
V3..-(Qn) . an alternating
alternating string
string of
of un­
un-
restricted quantifiers.
restricted quantifiers. Dually, Dually, aa formula
formula is
is �n
En if if of
-~F is is logically
logically equivalent
equivalent toto aa
IIn -formula.
1-In-formula.
A
A formula
formula F(XF ( x ll,'... .. . ,,xn)
xn) is
is a
a L).n-formula
An-formula of
of an s E)-structure !21
an £( 92 iff
iff there
there are
are aa
1-In-formula Frr
IIn-formula (x l > ' " ,,xn)
FH(Xl,... xn) andand aa �n-formula
En-formula Fdxl , ' " ,,x~)
Fr.(Xl,... xn) such
such that
that

2t I=
91 x x
1= ((VZ)(F(Z) f-+ .Fn(.~))
V ) (F( ) +4 FIT (x))
A1\ (VX)
(VZ)(F(Z) +4 (F(x) Fdx)).
f-+ Fs(.~)). (6)
(6)
We
We call
call F F aa An-formula
L).n-formula of of aa theory
theory A Ax iff A
x iff Ax x proves
proves the formula in
the formula in (6)
(6)..
The class of
The class of �-formulas
E-formulas is is the smallest class
the smallest class which contains the
which contains the L).o -formulas and
A0-formulas and
is
is closed under the
closed under the positive
positive boolean
boolean operations operations V and and A,
1\ , restricted quantification and
restricted quantification and
unrestricted existential
unrestricted existential quantification.
quantification. The class of
The class of II formulas is
II formulas is the dual of
the dual of the
the class
class
of E-formulas.
of �-formulas. A A formula
formula FF((Xlx l ,,... .. ,. , xn)
xn) isis AL). in structure !21
in aa structure 92 if there is
if there is aa E-formula
�-formula
Fdx , xn ) and
l ' . . . ,xn)
FE(Xl,... and aa H-formula Frr
II-formula Fii(Xl,... (Xl > . . . ,,Xn)
xn) such that !21
such that 92 1= x x (V ) [F( ) ++
~ (VZ)[F(Z) Fr: x ( )]
t+ Fr~(Z)]
and !21
and 91 1= (Vx) [F(x) ++
~ (VZ)[F(Z) f-+ Fn(Z)].
Frr(x)] . It It is is AL). for
for aa theory
theory AxA x iffiff itit is
is L).
A for
for all models of
all models of
Ax.
Ax.
Recall
Recall that the constructible
that the hierarchy L
constructible hierarchy L is
is the
the union
union of of its stages La
its stages given by
L= given by
the following
the following definition.
definition.

11.2.1. Definition.
.2.1. D efinition. Lo 0
L0 -= @
La+! == Def(L~)
La+1 Def(La)
LL~A == U{L~I
U{Ld f� << ,~}
.x} for
for A.x EE Lim,
Lim,
where Def(La) iff
where aa EE Def(La) there is
iff there is an £( E)-formula F(x,
an /~(E)-formula Yl , ' . . , Yn) with
F(x, yl,...,yn) with no
no
other free
other free variables
variables and
and aa tuple
tuple (bl,...,bn)
(bl , . . . , bn) of
of elements
elements ofof L~ La such that
such that
a -= {seL=l La k1= F(s,b~,...,bn)}.
{ s E La I L, F(s, bl > " . , bn) } .
216
216 w. Pohlers
W. Pohlers

The formula FFzZ isis obtained

The formula obtained from
from FF by
by restricting
restricting all
all unrestricted
unrestricted quantifiers
quantifiers in
in FF
to z,
to Le., replacing
z , i.e., replacing (Vx)
(V'x) by (V'x eE z)
by (Vx and (3x)
z) and by (3x
(3x) by (3x eE z), respectively. The
z) , respectively. The formula
formula
FzZ isis obviously
F obviously A0.
flo .
We say
We say that
that aa formula
formula G G isis II~
IT� or
or E,~
�� ifif
FL�
G- = FL~
G
for
for aa YIn-formula
ITn-formula FF or
or En-formula
�n-formula F, respectively.
F, respectively.
Let Ax be
Let Ax be an
an axiom
axiom system
system formulated
formulated in
in the
the language
language s£. We define
We define
II Ax lloo :=
[IAx[Ioo := min
min {hi La ~F Ax}
{a l L~ Ax} (7)
(7)
and call
and II Ax lloo the
call I[Ax[Ioo the c~-norm
oo-norm of Ax. By
of Ax. By Lbwenheim-Skolem
Lowenheim-Skolem downwards
downwards and and the
the
Condensation Lemma
Condensation Lemma for for the
the constructible
constructible hierarchy
hierarchy we
we know
know that II Ax lloo is
that [[Ax[Ioo is aa
countable ordinal
countable ordinal which
which may
may be
be quite
quite big.
big. Much
Much too
too big
big for our purpose
for our purpose as as we
we will
will
in aa moment.
see in
see moment. To To obtain
obtain smaller ordinals which
smaller ordinals which may
may bebe characteristic
characteristic for Ax we
for Ax we
regard partial models
regard partial models for Ax. For
for Ax. For any complexity class
any complexity of £-sentences we
:F of/:-sentences
class $" we define
define
ConF(Ax) :=
ConT(Ax) : = {FI
{ F I FF eE :F /\ Ax
$" A - FF}
A x e� } (8)
(8)
and
and
II Ax II F :=
I[Axl[~ := min
min {{a[ La ~F Con~(Ax)}.
a l L~ ConF(Ax) } . (9)
(9)
The complexity of
The complexity of the
the sentences
sentences in
in the
the axiom
axiom systems
systems which
which we
we are
are going
going to
to study
study
will never
will never exceed
exceed ITa
113.. Therefore
Therefore we
we always
always have
have
II Ax l l IIa =
IIAxll II Ax lloo .
= IIAxlloo.
We will only
We will only consider
consider axiom
axiom systems
systems which
which comprise
comprise the
the following basis theory
following basis theory KP­
KP-
whose
whose axioms
axioms are:
are:
The
The ontological axioms of
ontological axioms of Extensionality
Extensionality and
and Foundation
Foundation
(Ext)
(Ext) V'u) (V'v)[u =
((Vu)(Vv)[u = vv +-+
~ (V'x(Vx E e u) (x Ee v)
u)(x A ((Vx
v) /\ V'x Ee v) (x Ee u)]
v)(x u)]
(Found)
(Found) (V'u) [(3x Ee u)
(Vu)[(3x (x Ee u)
u)(x u) -+--+ (3x
(3x E e u) (V'z Ee x)--,(z
u)(Vz x)~(z E e u)]
u)]..
The
The closure axioms of
closure axioms of Pairing
Pairing and Union
and Union
(Pair)
(Pair) (V'u) (V'v) (3w) (V'x)[x Ee w
(Vu)(Vv)(3w)(Vx)[x w +-+~ xx == u u VV x x == v]
v]
(Union) V'u) (3w)(V'x)[x Ee w
(Union) ((Vu)(3w)(Vx)[x w ~+-+ (3y
(3y E e u) (x Ee y)]
u)(x y)]
The
The set
set existence
existence axiom schemes of
axiom schemes of absolute
absolute Separation
Separation and and Collection
Collection
((A0-Sep) 'v'V) (V'a) (3z) (V'x)[x Ee zz +-+
flo-Sep) ((Vg)(Va)(3z)(Vx)[x ~ x x Ee aa /\
A F(x,
F ( x , v)]
~*)]
((A0-Col)
flo-Col) ((WT)(Vu)[(Vx
'v'V) (V'u)[(V'x Ee u)
u ) ((3y)F(x, y, V)
3 y ) F ( x , y, --+ (3z)
g) -+ (3z)(Vx(V'x Ee u) (3y Ee z)F(x,
u)(3y z ) F ( x , y,
y, v)]
~7)]..
In
In both
both schemes
schemes we we allow
allow only
only fl o -formulas F(x,
A0-formulas F(x, v) g) oror F(x, y, V)
F ( x , y, g) of of the
the language
language
s E) , respectively.
£( respectively. This
This requirement
requirement guarantees
guarantees the the absoluteness
absoluteness of of the
the sets
sets whose
whose
existence
existence is
is postulated.
postulated.
We
We use
use the the abbreviations
abbreviations which
which are are common
common in in Set
Set Theory.
Theory. E.g.
E.g.
aa =
= {x{x E
eu F(x)}} stands
u[l F(x) stands for
for ((Vx
V'x Ee a) [x Ee uu /\A F(x)]
a)[x A ((Vx
F(x)] /\ V'x Ee u) [F(x) -+
u)[F(x) ~ x x E
e a]
a];;
 Set Theory
Theory and Second
Second Order
Order Number Theory 217
217

{ x E9 u lI F(x)
{x F(x)}} E9 bb sstands
t a n d s f for
o r (3y)[y
(3y)[y = { x E9 u lI F(x)
= {x A yy E9 b]
F(x)}} /\ b],, etc.
etc. Lower
Lower case
case
Greek
Greek letters
letters are
are supposed
supposed to to range
range over
over ordinals.
ordinals.
Adding
Adding thethe ontological
ontological axiom axiom of of Infinity
Infinity
Inf)
((Inf) (3u)[0 E
(3u)[0 (w E
e u ^/\ (Vx e u) (x U {x} Ee u)]
u {z} u)]
we
we obtain
obtain the
the theory K P w -- and
theory KPw and adding
adding the
the Foundation
Foundation Scheme
Scheme
FOUND ) (3x)F(x)
((FOUND) ~ (3x)
(3x)F(x) -+ [F(x)
(3x)[F(x) /\ (Vy E
A (Vy e x) -,F(y)]
x)-~F(y)]
we
we obtain
obtain the theories KP
the theories or KPw
K P or K P w respectively.
respectively. If If we
we restrict
restrict the
the formula
formula F(x)
F(x)
in ((FOUND)
in FOUND ) to to aa complexity
complexity class
class F
$" we
we talk
talk about
about F-Foundation,
S'-Foundation, denoted
denoted by
by
((gv-FOUND).
F-FOUND) .
An ordinal a
An ordinal a is called admissible
is called admissible if ~ KP
L~a F
if L K P ..
The theories KP
The theories K P and K P w are profoundly studied
and KPw are profoundly studied in
in Barwise [1975]. They
Barwise [1975]. They prove
prove
�-recursion - a very important theorem - and �-reflection, i.e., the scheme
2-recursion- a very important t h e o r e m - and E-reflection, i.e., the scheme
F (3x)F X~
F -+ (3x)F
for
for �-formulas
E-formulas F.F. As As aa consequence
consequence bothboth theories
theories prove
prove the
the equivalence
equivalence ofof any
any
�-formula
E-formula toto aa �l-formula.
El-formula.
Recall
Recall that
that a a partial
partial function
function f: L~ --+p
f: L" L~ is
>p L" is called
called "'
a-partial recursive if
-partial recursive if its
its
graph
graph is
is �-definable
E-definable over L~ i.e.,
over L" i.e., if
if we
we have
have aa �-formula F(x, y,
E-formula F(x, ~ without
y, Z) without further
further
free
free variables
variables and
and aa tuple
tuple cg of
of elements
elements of L~ such
of L" such that
that

(a) �
ff (a) "~ bb iff
iff L" ~ F[a,
L,~ F b, Cj
F[a, b, c-]
for
for all a, bb EE L
all a, " . Admissible
L~. ordinals are
Admissible ordinals are important
important for generalized recursion
for generalized recursion theory
theory
because
because L" L~ is closed under
is closed under all
all ",-recursive
a-recursive functions
functions if if ",
a is
is admissible.
admissible.
Obviously
Obviously w w is
is an
an admissible
admissible ordinal
ordinal and
and it
it is
is aa folklore
folklore result
result that w~K,, i.e.,
that WfK i.e., the
the
least
least countable
countable ordinal
ordinal which
which cannot
cannot bebe represented
represented by by aa recursive
recursive well-ordering
well-ordering on on
the
the natural
natural numbers,
numbers, is is the
the next
next admissible
admissible ordinal.
ordinal. Therefore
Therefore

1 K
LwC
L~cK ~ KPw
F KPw

and,
and, since
since there
there are
are no
no further admissibles between
further admissibles between w w and w~K,, even
and WfK KPw 11 00 =
even IIIIKP~I[o~ -
w~K.. Hence
WfK KPw ll II 2 :::;
Hence IIIIgPwtlH2 < WfKw~K as
as well
well as KPw l l E l :::;
as IIiigPwll~l < WfKw~K.. For
For most
most impredicative
impredicative
theories Ax,
theories Ax, however,
however, wewe have w~K <
have WfK Ax ll E , . Therefore
< II[[Ax[l~,. Therefore wewe need
need to introduce the
to introduce the
following
following ordinals.
ordinals.

1.2.2. Definition. Let

1.2.2. Definition. Let Ax
A x bebe a
a theory
theory which contains KP-
which contains K P - . . Then
Then we
we define
define
Ax llEf :=
IIiiAxilr.~ min {{aa lI (VF)
:= min [F is
(VF)[F is a A Ax
� l-sentence /\
a El-sentence A x e�
- FF LT'�~ =}
=~ L ~ F]
L~a F F]}}
and
and analogously
analogously
Ax IIII� "=
IIIHAxlHH~ min {{at
:= min a l (VF) [F is
(VF)[F is a
a II A Ax
2 -sentence /\
II2-sentence A x e� F LL~
- F � =} ~ F]
L~a F
=~ L El}}

The notation Ax
The notation Ax � F L~'�~ has
~- F has to be read
to be read with
with the
the necessary
necessary care.
care. It
It anticipates
anticipates that
that
L~ can
L" can be
be defined
defined in
in some
some wayway from
from the
the axioms in Ax.
axioms in Ax. WeWe need
need �-recursion
E-recursion to
to
218
218 W.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

define
define the
the function
function a a f-t L~.. To
~ La To prove
prove the
the �-recursion
E-recursion theorem
theorem it it suffices
suffices to
to have
have
KP- +
KP- + � l -FOUND.
El-FOUND. So
So for
for theories
theories extending
extending KP-
K P - +
+ � l -FOUND
El-FOUND we
we need
need only
only
aa description
description of of aa in
in order
order to
to characterize La.. We
characterize La We say that Ax
say that A x believes that K,~ is
believes that is
admissible iff
admissible L~ is
iff Lit is definable in Ax
definable in A x and
and
Ax (10)
(10)
holds
holds for
for all
all sentences G E
sentences G K P - . . We
E KP- We say that Ax
say that A x proves
proves the
the L-
L- or
or Lit -reflection
L~-reflection
rule for
rule for aa complexity
complexity class ~" iff
class F iff
Ax
A x f- ~ Ax
a =>
~- G A x f-
~- (3,) (3u) [u =
(3~)(3u)[u = L-y ^ GU
L~ /\ a ~]]
or
or

Ax
A x ef- a '- => Ax
- GL• A x ef-
- ((3,) (3u)[u = ^ Gu ]) L. ,
= L-y /\
respectively,
respectively, for
for all
all formulas
formulas GG EF .T.. The
The following
following lemma
lemma iiss aa first
first easy
easy observation
observation
about partial
about partial models.
models.

Let K,
L e m m a . Let
1.2.3. Lemma.
1.2.3. aE E (w Ax lloo] be
(w,, IIIIAxII~] be an
an ordinal
ordinal such that Ax
such that A x believes that K,a is
believes that is
admissible
admissible and and Ax proves the
A x proves the Lit-reflection
L~-reflection rule
rule for
for � l -formulas. Then
El-formulas. Ax II II� =
Then IIIlhxll,~ -

Ax II Efr.·
IIIIAxll
P r o o f . We
Proof. We obviously
obviously have Ax llEf ::;
have IIIIAxII~ Ax I l II� and
~ IIIIAxllr~ need only
and need only to show the
to show the converse
converse
inequality. Thus
inequality. Thus put
put a a := Ax II Ef ' let
: - II[]hxIl~.?, let ('v'x) (3y)F(x, y)
(Vx)(3y)F(x, be aa Ih-sentence
y) be II2-sentence such such that
that
Ax
h x ~f- ('Ix
(Vx E
E LIt) (3y EE LIt)F(x,
L~)(3y L~)F(x,y) y) and choose some
and choose some aa E L,.. We
E La We have
have to to show
show that
that
L~ F
La ~ (3y)F(a,
(3y)F(a, y)y).. Since
Since a a is is obviously
obviously a a limit
limit ordinal
ordinal there
there isis a
a j3
~ < a a such
such that
that
aa EE Lfj.
L~. By By definition
definition of a there
of a there is is a � l -sentence G
a El-sentence G such that Ax
such that A x f-
~- G L~ but
G L• but Lfj
LZ �~: G.
G.
Since Ax
Since A x proves
proves L it -reflection we
L~-reflection obtain Ax
we obtain A x f- (3, EE LIt)
~-(3-y (3u EE LIt)(u
L~)(3u L ~ ) ( u -= L-y
L~ /\
A GUG u))
and since Ax
and since believes that
A x believes that aK, is is admissible
admissible by by �o-collection relativized to
A0-collection relativized to Lit also
L~ also
hAxx ~ L~ -+
f- vv EE Lit (3z EE L~)(Vx
--+ (3z LIt) ('v'x EE v)(3y
v) (3y EE z)F(x,
z)F(x, y). Choosing vv =
y). Choosing we thus
- uu we thus get
get
Ax f- (3~/E
A x ~- (3, E LIt) (3u EE L~)(3z
L~)(3u LIt) (3z E L~)[u
LIt) [u = L-y /\
= L~ AGGU~ A /\ ('Ix
(Vx EE u)(3y
u) (3y EE z)F(x,
z)F(x, y)].
y)].
Since Ax
Since A x believes
believes that
that ~ K, is
is admissible
admissible this this is equivalent to
is equivalent to a �l -sentence relativized
a El-sentence relativized
to Lit
to L~.. Hence
Hence L~ La ~F (37)(3u)(3z)[u
(3,) (3u) (3z) [u == L~ L-y A/\ GU
G~ A (Vx eE u)(3y
/\ ('Ix u) (3y Ee z)F(x,
z)F(x, y)]. y)] . Because
Because
uu = is absolute
L-y is
= L~ absolute forfor L~
La we finally get
we finally get G L� and
GL~ and ('Ix
(Vx EE L-y)(3y
L~)(3y E ELLa)F(x, y) for
~ ) f ( x , y) some
for some
,
7 < < a.a. Because
Because of ofL~ Lfj ~�GGw ewe h a have
v e f l j3 << ,. Hence aa E Lfj
7. Hence � L-y
L~ C_ L~ and and itit follows
follows
L~ F
La (3y)F(a, y)as
~ (3y)f(a, y) as desired.
desired. 0
O
If K
If Pw- +
KPw- � l -FOUND �
+ El-FOUND Ax
c_ A then w
x then w < I Ax l l oo ="
< I[[Ax[l~ =: aa andand Ax A x proves
proves thethe
L-reflection rule
L-reflection rule for
for E-formulas.
�-formulas. Interpreting
Interpreting the the provable
provable sentences
sentences of of AAxx itit makes
makes
no difference
no difference ifif we
we think
think that
that every unrestricted quantifier
every unrestricted quantifier is is restricted
restricted by by L~. Since
La . Since
KP
K P -- c_
�A Ax this has
x this has the
the same effect as
same effect Ax
as ifif A believes that
x believes that aa is is admissible. Therefore
admissible. Therefore
we obtain
we obtain as as aa corollary
corollary ofof Lemma
Lemma 1.2.31.2.3
1.2.4. Corollary.
1.2.4. Corollary. If K
If KPw- + E,-FOUND
Pw- + � Ax
� 1 - FOUND C_ A x then II Ax l i E1l == [[Ax[[n2.
then [[Ax[Ig II Ax IIII2 '
Another observation
Another observation is
is that
that adding
adding true
true II~-sentences
II�-sentences does
does not
not increase
increase the
the E~:
��
ordinal of
ordinal of an
an axiom
axiom system.
system.
 Set Theory and Second Order Number Theory 219
219

1.2.5.
1.2.5. Theorem.
Theorem. Let G
Let be aa true II�
G be H~ sentence.
sentence. Then Ax +
Then IIIIAx +G l b:;� =
GII~ I A xIII E�
= III Ax I~ '

Proof.
Proof. Let G
Let G ==
- HL�
H L~ for
for aa II I -sentence H.
Hi-sentence H. Assume
Assume thatthat Ax
Ax ++ G G ~� FL� F L~ for for aa
EI sentence F
E1 sentence F.. Then
Then AxA x e�- ( (H --+ F
H -+ F)) L� and H
L~ and H -+-+ F
F is El.. For
is EI c~ :"=- I III A
For a Axx [I l]E� ~ we we
thus
thus have L~ F
have La: ~ H --+ F
H -+ F.. From
From a ~ � _ K.,
a, L"L~ F
~ H H and
and the
the downwards
downwards persistency
persistency of of
Il l -sentences we
Hi-sentences we get L, F
get La: ~ H H which
which in
in turn
turn entails L~ F
entails La: ~ F F.. Hence I Ax +
Hence I[lAx + GGII~ I I E�~ �
_
Ax I I E� ' But
III[Axll~?. But the
the converse
converse inequality
inequality holds
holds trivially
trivially and
and wewe have I Ax +
have I[lAx + GGII~ I I E�~ =
Ax II E� .
IIItAxII~r 0
D
We
We introduce
introduce the
the following
following notation.
notation.

1.2.6. Definit
1.2.6. ion.
Definition. Ax l l ,, :== I[IAxl[~
IIIIAxll~ I Ax I I E�

Because
Because of of Lemma
Lemma 1.2.31.2.3 wewe get I Ax l l " =
get IIIAxII~ AxI I II� for
- IIIIAx[Inu theories Ax
for theories Ax satisfying
satisfying the
the
hypotheses
hypotheses of of the
the lemma.
lemma.
We
We call
call the
the computation
computation of of the
the ordinal Axl l " aa K.-ordinal
ordinal II[IAxll~ a-ordinal analysis for Ax
analysis for Ax.. ItIt
will
will turn
turn out
out that I Ax l lwcK
that IIIAx[[~CK 1
will
will be
be the
the most
most important
important ordinal.
ordinal. In
In Section
Section 2.1.4
2.1.4 we
we
will
will see
see that
that there
there is
is also something as
also something as an w-ordinal which
an w-ordinal which gives
gives aa characterization
characterization ofof
the
the Skolem
Skolem functions
functions ofof the
the provable
provable II� -sentences of
H~'-sentences of an
an axiom system Ax
axiom system Ax inin terms
terms
of
of aa sub-recursive
sub-recursive hierarchy.
hierarchy.

1.3.
1.3. Connections to subsystems
C o n n e c t i o n s to s u b s y s t e m s of second order
of second o r d e r number
n u m b e r theory

Let
Let C�L~ be be the
the language
language of of Second
Second Order Arithmetic. We
Order Arithmetic. We assume
assume that
that C�L~ contains
contains
aa constant
constant Q 0 for
for 00 and
and constants
constants for for all
all primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions
functions and
and predicates.
predicates.
We restrict
We restrict thethe language
language to to unary
unary predicate variables and
predicate variables talk about
and talk about set
set variables.
variables.
This means no
This means no real
real restriction
restriction since since we
we have
have a a primitive
primitive recursive coding machinery.
recursive coding machinery.
We use
We use capital
capital Latin
Latin letters
letters as as syntactical
syntactical variables
variables forfor sets
sets and write tt EE X
and write instead
X instead
of X(t)
of X(t).. We We assume familiarity with
assume familiarity with the
the complexity
complexity classes in the
classes in arithmetical and
the arithmetical and
analytical hierarchy.
analytical hierarchy.
Since
Since all all primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions
functions and and predicates
predicates have
have �o -definitions in
A0-definitions in
K Pw- +
KPw- + E1 FOUND , we
E l -- FOUND, we may
may regard
regard L~C� asas aa sublanguage
sublanguage of of L(E)
C(E) by restricting
by restricting
all first
all first order
order quantifiers
quantifiers to to w and replacing
w and replacing all all second order quantifiers
second order (\IX) and
quantifiers (VX) and
by
(3X) by (VX �
(3X) (\IX w) and
C w) and (3X(3X C_ w), respectively.
� w), respectively. We We maymay therefore transfer the
therefore transfer the notions
notions
of the arithmetical
of the arithmetical and and analytical hierarchy to
analytical hierarchy to the
the language
language of C( E). Whenever
of/:(E). Whenever we we
talk
talk of of aa HII�,
~ E E�, II� , .. .. ..-- sentences
~ 1-I~, sentences inin the
the language
language of Set Theory
of Set Theory without further
without further
comments we
comments we think
think ofof aa translation
translation of of the
the corresponding
corresponding sC�-sentence.
2
One of
One of the
the basic facts for
basic facts for the
the things
things toto come
come is is the
the w-Completeness
w-Completeness TheoremTheorem
II} -sentences. We
for H~-sentences.
for We willwill use use the
the w-Completeness
w-Completeness Theorem Theorem to to introduce
introduce thethe notion
notion
of truth
of complexity for
truth complexity II}-sentences. The
for II~-sentences. The value tN
value t N ofof aa closed
closed term
term tt andand the
the
truth value
truth value of of an
an atomic
atomic sentence sentence inin the
the standard
standard structure
structure N N are
are primitive
primitive recur-
recur-
-sively computable.
-sively computable. Since Since there there are
are symbols
symbols forfor all
all primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions
functions andand
predicates we
predicates we obtain
obtain thethe diagram
diagram of of NN
D(N) { A II AA isis an
:= {A
D(N) "= an atomic
atomic sentence and NN ~F AA}}
sentence and
220
220 W. Pohlers

as
as aa recursive
recursive set.
set. For
For arithmetical
arithmetical sentences
sentences which
which are
are not
not atomic
atomic the
the truth
truth definition
definition
is
is given
given inductively
inductively by
by
N F
N ~ A A1l and
and N N F ~ A 2 => N
A2=v N F~ AA 1l A1\ Bl
B1
N ~FA ,Ai
N . f ofor
r s osome
m e i e {i 1E, 2{I,
} 2} =>= ~N N ~FAA 1l V A2
VA2
N F
N ~ A(!l)
A(n) for for all
all n n Ee N N => N F
=~ N ~ (Vx)A(x)
(Vx)A(x)
NF
N p A(!l)
A(~) for yor some
~om~ n ~E e NN =>
~ N NF p (:3x)A(x)
(3~)A(~)..
To
To extend
extend this
this truth
truth definition
definition to
to n t -sentences we
Hi-sentences we introduce
introduce an
an infinitary
infinitary calculus.
calculus.
For
For technical
technical reasons
reasons we
we opt
opt for
for aa one
one sided
sided sequent calculus itg la
sequent calculus la Tait.
Tait. First
First we
we fix
fix
the
the language
language ofof the
the Tait
Tait calculus.
calculus.
The
The non
non logical
logical symbols
symbols for
for the
the Tait-Ianguage
Tait-language ofof .c
s are:
are: �
•
9 The constant Q
The constant 0 as
as well
well as
as constants
constants for
for all
all primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions
functions and
and --
relations.
relations.
The
The logical
logical symbols
symbols comprise:
comprise:
•9 Bounded number-variables, denoted
Bounded number-variables, denoted by x, y,
by x, Z, Xl
y, z, , . . . and
Xl,... and set
set variables,
variables, denoted
denoted
bbyy XX,, Y, Z, X
Y, Z, l,. . .
X1,...
•9 The
The logical
logical connectives 1\, VV and
connectives A, and the quantifiers V,
the quantifiers V, :3.
3.
•9 The
The membership
membership symbol
symbol E
E and
and its negation fl.
its negation ~..
Terms are
Terms are built
built up
up from
from Q0 and
and function
function symbols
symbols iinn the
the familiar
familiar way.
way. We
We use
use 5S as
as aa
symbol for
symbol for the successor function.
the successor function. Terms
Terms of
of the shape ((�
the shape S ~ ~ 0 )O) are numerals and
are numerals and
nn --times
times
will be
will denoted by
be denoted by !l.
n_.
Atomic
Atomic formulas
formulas are are tt EE X ~ X
X,, tt fI. and R(tb
X and R ( t l , ... .. ,. t' ~tn)
) , , where
where t,t, tb ~ are
t l , .. ...., ,t tn are
terms, X
terms, X is
is a
a set variable and
set variable and RR is
is aa symbol
symbol forfor an n-ary relation
an n-ary relation symbol.
symbol.
From
From the
the atomic formulas we
atomic formulas we obtain
obtain the the formulas
formulas of of s.c in �
in the
the familiar
familiar way. way.
Notice that
Notice that we
we do
do not
not have free number
have free number variables
variables inin the the language.
language.
The
The negation symbol is
negation symbol is not
not aa basic
basic symbol
symbol of the Tait-Ianguage.
of the Tait-language. We We definedefine the the
negation of
negation of aa formula
formula by by de Morgan's laws
de Morgan's laws..
..., ( t eE xX)) . -:= (t rfI. X)
~(t x);; ~(t ..., ( t rfI. xX)) . =: = (t Ee x)X)
~...,(( Rt
R t ll. .. .. t. ~tn) := (CRtl
) "=_ R t l ... .. t. ntn)
) where where R is aa symbol
R is symbol for
for the of R
complement of
the complement R
..., ( A 1\
~(A A B) B)"_= := (...,
(-~A AV
V -~S);
...,B ); -~(A ..., (A V VB - ( - (...,
B)) ::= ~ AA 1\
A ...,
-,S) B)
..., (Vx)A(x) :=
-,(Vx)A(x) (:3x)...,A (x) ; -,(3x)A(x)
"=_ (3x)-~A(x); ..., ( :3x)A(x) := (Vx)...,A (x) .
:- (Vx)-~A(x).
It is
It is obvious
obvious that
that we
we have
have
-,-,A=A. (11)
(11)
The semantics
The semantics for
for the
the Tait-language
Tait-Ianguage is
is straightforward.
straightforward. We
We easily
easily check
check
N ~F ((...,~ A
N A ))[Sb Snl iff
[ S l , .· .· .·, , Sn] N ~s
iff N A[Sl ' . . . ' S~]
� A[S1,..., Snl
for any
for any assignment
assignment of sets SSl1,, .. .. .., , Sn
of sets to the
S~ to the set
set variables
variables occurring
occurring in A.
in A.
We use
We use capital
capital Greek
Greek letters
letters A, r, A,
� , F, A, � l
A1, ' ... as
as syntactical
syntactical
• . . variables
variables for finite
for finite
sets �
of .c -formulas.
sets of/:~-formulas.
 Set
Set Theory
Theory and
and Second
Second Order
Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 221
221

1.3.1. Definition. We
1.3.1. Definition. We defi ne p
define A inductively
~ t. inductively by
by the
the following
following clauses:
clauses:
(AxM) If
(AxM) I f t.
A nN D(N)
D(N) =I- then p
~ 0q} then A for
~ t. for all
all ordinals
ordinals a
(~..

AxL) If
((AxL) If tN = Ss N
tN = then p
N then A, ss f/.
~ t., r X X, , tt E X for
e X for all
all ordinals
ordinals a.
~.

(1\)
(A) If �
If t.,, AA, i and
~ A a n d ~aii < a for
< a f o r ii== 11,2 then p
, 2 then t., A
~ A, A A
A1l 1\ A22 ..

(v) If ~ t.,
If � A , AA,i and
a~d a ~ for
< a
~i < some ii Ee {{1,2}
1o~ ~om~ t~ p
I , 2} then ~ t.,
A,A~Al VV A 2.
g~.
(V)
(V) If �
If ~ t., A(i) and
A, A(i) aii <
and a a for
< a for all
all ii E
e N then p
N then ~ t., (Vx)A(x) ..
A, (Vx)A(x)

(3)
(3) If
y �~ t., A(i) and
A, A(i) ~o <
a~d ao <a~ for
1o~ some
~om~ ii E
e N th~ p
N then ~ t.,
A, (3x)A(x)
(3z)A(~)..
The relations p
The relations A is
~ t. is to
to be
be read
read that
that there
there is
is an
an infi nite proof
infinite proof tree of V At. whose
tree of whose V
depth
depth is bounded by
is bounded by the
the ordinal a. It
ordinal a. It is
is obvious
obvious from
from the
the definition
definition that
that we
we have
have

A, aa "5:.
_< (3,
Z, A C_ F =~ ~ F (12)
(12)
and
and aa simple
simple induction
induction on a shows
on a shows
F1, . . . , Fn =~ N ~ (F1 V . . . V Fn)[S1, . . . , Sm]

for
for all assignments 8
all assignments $ 11 ,, .. .. .., , 8m to the
Sm to the set parameters occurring
set parameters occurring in FI V ... V Fn).
in ((F1
We
We thus
thus have
have
F (9~) =~ IN ~ (V)~)F()~) (13)
(13)

for
for all m -sentences (VX)F(X)
all H~-sentences (V)~)F(s . IfIf F
F is
is aa true
true arithmetical
arithmetical sentence,
sentence, i.e., if F
i.e., if F does
does
not
not contain
contain set set parameters,
parameters, we
we obtain
obtain by
by aa simple
simple induction
induction onon the complexity rk(F)
the complexity rk(F)
of
of the
the formula
formula F (
F (which
which can
can be
be taken
taken to
to be
be the
the number
number ofof logical
logical symbols
symbols occurring
occurring
in F)
in F)
k (F ) F .
l[,rk(F)F. (14) (14)
This
This shows that p
shows that ~ F F is indeed an
is indeed an extension
extension of of the
the truth
truth definition
definition for for arithmetical
arithmetical
sentences.
sentences. However,
However, to to prove
prove thatthat p~ F F is is also
also complete
complete for for II �-sentences, i.e.,
II]-sentences, i.e., the
the
opposite
opposite direction
direction in (13), needs
in (13), needs harder
harder work.
work. We We follow
follow Schiitte
Schiitte's ' s proof
proof via
via search
search
trees.
trees.
Let
Let 8f1j
Seq be be the
the set
set of (
codes for
of (codes )
finite sequences
for) finite sequences of natural numbers.
of natural numbers. For For
s, t
s, t C Seq we denote by ss �
E 8f1j we denote by C_ tt that
that ss is
is an
an initial
initial segment
segment of of tt.. A
A tree
tree isis aa set
set of
of finite
finite
number-sequences
number-sequences which which is is closed
closed under
under initial
initial segments.
segments. The The elements
elements of of aa tree
tree are
are
called nodes. set of nodes in a tree is a thread,
called nodes. A set of nodes in a tree is a thread, if it is linearly ordered by �
A if it is linearly ordered by C_.. AA
maximal
maximal thread
thread in
in aa tree
tree is a path.
is a path.
A
A binary relation -~
binary relation -<� w xx W
c_ W is well-founded
w is well-founded iff iff there
there are
are no
no infinite
infinite -<-descending
-~-descending
chains.
chains. For
For well-founded
well-founded -< �W
-~C wx x ww we
we define
define

otyp ( n ) :: -=
...: (n)
otyp.~ { WsupI {otyp...: (m) + 1 1 m -< n}
sup (otyp.~(m) + 11 m -~ n}
wl
if n
if
otherwIse
otherwise
�eld ( -< )
e ffield(-~)
n E

and
and
222
222 Pohlers
W. Pohlers

otyp(- := sup { oty p � (n ) II n eE field(-<)}.

) :=
oty p( -<) field ( -<) } .
For aa tree
For tree TT we
we define
define the
the tree-relation
tree-relation -<T by
-<T by
S-<Tt iiff
s-'<Tt � s.s.
ff ss EE TT A1\ tt EE TT A1\ tt C~
A tree
A tree TT is well-founded iff
is well-founded -~T is
iff -<T is aa well-founded
well-founded relation,
relation, i.e.
i.e. iff there is
iff there no infinite
is no infinite
path through
path through T. For aa well-founded
T. For well-founded tree
tree TT we define
we define
:= otyp.<r(s
otYPT( S) :=
otypT(s) otYP�T ( S))
and
and
otyp(T)
otyp(T) --
= otypT(()).
Oty PT( () ) .
Recall that
Recall that the
the first
first non
non recursive
recursive ordinal
ordinal isis defined
defined by
by
WfKK "=
w~ { oty p( -<) I -<
sup {otyp(-<)l
: = sup -< is aa recursive
is recursive well-ordering}.
well-ordering . }
We
We are are going
going to to define
define search
search trees
trees for
for finite
finite sequences
sequences of of formulas.
formulas. SuchSuch a a sequence
sequence
is called reducible
is called reducible ifif it contains at
it contains at least
least one
one non
non atomic formula. The
atomic formula. The left
left most
most non
non
atomic
atomic formula formula in in aa reducible
reducible sequence
sequence is is called distinguished. The
called distinguished. reduced sequence
The reduced sequence
A r of
D.T of aa reducible
reducible sequence
sequence A is obtained
D. is obtained by by removing
removing the distinguished formula
the distinguished from
formula from
the sequence.
the sequence.
The
The search tree for
search tree for aa finite
finite sequence
sequence A D. of�
of s.c -formulas is is aa tree
tree Sf:>. together with
Sz~ together with
aa label
label function
function which
which assigns
assigns aa finite
finite sequence 6(s) of
sequence 15(s) �
of s.c -formulas to to each
each node
node
ss 6E Sz~. It is
Sf:>. . It inductively defined
is inductively defined by the following
by the following clauses:
clauses:
(S())
(So ) <>6S~
0 E Sf:>. and6(<>)=A.
and 15(()) = D. .
(S~.) If
(SAx) If ss E9 Sf:>.
Sa and and 15(s)
6(s) isis an
an axiom
axiom according
according ttoo (AxM) ( ) (
AxM oorr (AxL),
AxL , then )
then s�(i) r Sf:>.
s-<i) ¢. Sz~
for all
for all ii E
6 N.
N. (I.
(I. e.
e. ss is
is aa topmost
topmost node
node of
of Sf:>.
S~ .).)
For
For the
the following
following clauses
clauses assume
assume ss E Sa such
6 Sf:>. such that 8(s) is
that 6(s) is not
not an
an axiom.
axiom.
(Sid ) If
(S~a) If 15(s)
5(s) is
is not
not reducible
reducible then
then s� (O) E6 Sf:>.
s~(O) S~ andand 15(s�(O))
6(s~(O)) == 15(s)
6(s)..
(S^) If
(S,,) If Fo F~ is
A Fl
Fo 1\ is the
the distinguished
distinguished formula
formula in
in 15(s)
6(s) then
then s�
s~(i) S~ for
(i) E6 Sf:>. for ii =
= 0,
O, 11
and
and 15(s�
6(s~ (i))
(i)) :=:= 15(Sy,
6(s) r, Fi
F~..
(S v ) Let
(Sv) Let FoFo V F F~l be
be the
the distinguished
distinguished formula
formula in in 15(s)
6(s).. Then
Then s�(io)
s~<io) E S~ and
6 Sf:>. and
15(s�(io))
6(s~(io)) ::= = 15(sy,
6(s) ~, Fo, F~..
F0, Fl
((Sv)
SI;I) If
/f the
the distinguished
distinguished formula
formula inin 8(s)
6(s) is
is (Vx)F(x)
(Vx)F(x),, then
then s�
s~ (i) S~ for
(i) E6 Sf:>. for all
all ii E6 N
N
and
and 15(s�(i))
6(s~(i)) = = 15(sy, F(i) .
6(s)~,F(i).
S3) If
(($3) If the
the distinguished
distinguished formula
formula in in 8(s)
6(s) isis (3x)F(x)
(3x)F(x),, then
then s� (O) E6 Sf:>.
s~(O) Sz~ andand
8(s� (0)) = 15(sy, F(n,) , (3x)F(x) , where n is the least natural
= at rat number
umb r such
that n
that # tt NN for
n i- all formulas
for all formulas F(t)
F(t) E6 U 80�8 15(so)
Usocs 6(s0)..
Observe
Observe that
that we
we introduced
introduced clause (SAx) only
clause (SAx) only for
for better
better readability.
readability. It
It follows
follows from
from
the
the other
other clauses
clauses and
and the
the fact
fact that Sz~ is
that Sf:>. is inductively
inductively defined.
defined.
There
There are
are two
two main
main lemmas.
lemmas.
 Set Theory
Set Theory and
and Second
Second Order Number
Number Theory 223
223

1.3.2. Syntactical
1.3.2. Syntactical Main
Main Lemma.
Lemma. If Sa
If Sf),. isis well-founded
well-founded then
then otyp(Szx)
otyp(Sf),.) << w~
WfKK
and jowp(S~)
and Sa
l °typ( ) A
b.. .
PProof. Let SLX
r o o f . Let be well-founded.
Sf),. be well-founded. The
The tree tree relation -< Sa is
relation "<szx is obviously
obviously recursive,
recursive, hence
hence
otyp(Sf),.) << w~
otyp(SLx) WfK.K . Every path in
Every path in SLx
Sf),. isis finite.
finite. Thus
Thus (f(s) has to
8(s) has to be
be an
an axiom
axiom for
for every
every
topmost node
topmost and the
node ss and the second
second claim
claim follows
follows easily
easily by
by induction
induction on
on otyp(SLx).
otyp(Sf),.) . 00

1.3.3. SSemantical
1.3.3. emantical M Main
ain L Lemma.
emma. If the search
If the search tree
tree S~
Sf),. isis not
not well-founded
well-founded then
then
there is an
there is an assignment
assignment SS1l ,, .. ... ., , Sn
S,~ of subsets of
of subsets N to
of iN to the
the set
set variables
variables inin Ab. such
such that
that
� V {FI
N V:
N {F I FF eE A}[S~,...,S,.,].
b. } [Sl , . . . , Sn] .
To sketch the
To sketch the proof
proof letlet ff bebe an
an infinite
infinite path
path in
in Szx.
Sf),. . We We say say sloppily
sloppily that
that aa formula
formula
occurs in
FF occurs in ss eE Szx
Sf),. ifif FF eE 6(s). Let f[n]
8(s) . Let f[n] :=
:= ((/(0)
f ( 0 ) ,, .. . .. ,. , ff(n 1)) and
( n - 1))
- and call the
f[n] the
call f[n]
course of
course of values of ff below
values of below n. We observe:
n. We observe:
(1)
(1) If AA is
If is an atomic formula
an atomic occurring in
formula occurring in ss E
E Sf),.
SLX then then AA occurs in all
occurs in all tt such that
such that
ss Cc;;,_ tt eES zSf),.
x. .
(2)
(2) If
If aa non atomic formula
non atomic formula FF occurs
occurs in
in some
some f[n] then there
f[n] then is an
there is an m
m >� nn such
such
that FF is
that is distinguished
distinguished in
in f[m]
f[m]..
The proof of
The proof of (2)
(2) is
is an
an easy induction on
easy induction on the
the number
number ofof non
non atomic formulas occurring
atomic formulas occurring
left of
left F in
of F Using (2)
8(J[n]) . Using
in 6(f[n]). the proofs
(2) the proofs ofof the following observations
the following observations are
are almost
almost
immediate
immediate from the definition
from the definition of
of SLX.
Sf),. .
(3) If formula A
If aa formula A 1\ B occurs
A B occurs in
in f[n]J[n] then
then there is an
there is an m
m such
such that
that either A or
either A B
or B
occurs in
occurs f[m] .
in f[m].
(4)
(4) If formula A
If aa formula A VB B occurs
occurs in in f[n]
f[n] then
then there
there are
are m mAA andand m m sB suchsuch thatthat A A
occurs
occurs in in f[m
f[mA] and B
A ] and B occurs
occurs inin f[m
f[ms].B] .
(5)
(5) If
If aa formula
formula ((Vx)F(x)
V'x)F(x) occurs
occurs inin f[n]
f[n] then
then there are numbers
there are numbers ii and and m m such
such thatthat
F(i)
F(~) occurs
o ~ r ~ in ~ ff[m].
[m] .
(6)
(6) If
If aa formula
formula (3x)F(x)
(3x)F(x) occurs occurs inin f[n]
f[n] then
then for
for every
every number
number ii therethere is is aa term
term tt
and
and an an mi
mi such
such that t TM =
that eo! = ii and
and F(t)
F(t) occurs
occurs in in J[mi]
f[mi].'
To
To prove
prove fact (6) we
fact (6) we assume
assume that (3x)F(x) is
that (3x)F(x) is distinguished
distinguished in 6(f[n]).. By
in 8(J[n]) By (2) (2) this
this
means
means nono loss
loss of
of generality.
generality. Then Then 8(J[n
6(f[n + 1]) =
+ 1]) = 8(J[nlY,
6(f[n]) r, F(j), (3x)F(x) and,
F(j), (3x)F(x) and, if if ii <
< jj
we have
we F(t) in
have F(t) f[m] for
in f[m] some tt and
for some and m m � n such
_ n such that - i.
that tt NTM = If jj �
i. If < ii then
then F(t)F(t) willwill
occur
occur in
in f[m
f[m + + 1]1] for
for some
some m m � _> n
n and with tt NN =
and tt with = ii as
as soon
soon as ( 3 x ) f ( x ) becomes
as (3x)F(x) becomes
distinguished
distinguished in 6(f[m]) and
in 8(J[m]) F(t) has
and F(t) has occurred
occurred for all tt NN <
for all < i.
i.
We
We define
define an an assignment
assignment
<I>(X)
r : - {{ttN~ II (t
:= (t i
r X)
X ) occurs
occurs in
in J}.
f }.
Here
Here FF occurs
occurs iinn f f means
means that
that FF occurs
occurs in f[n] for
in f[n] for some
some n.n.
An
An easy
easy induction
induction on on the
the length
length of
of aa formula
formula G, G, using
using observations
observations (3) - (6) and
- (6) and
the
the fact
fact that
that f f must
must not not contain
contain an
an axiom,
axiom, shows
shows N iN � G[(I)] for
~= G[<I>] for all
all formulas
formulas G G occur­
occur-
ring
ring in
in ff .. Since
Since all
all formulas
formulas of A occur
of b. occur in f[0] this
in frO] this yields
yields NiN �
~ V V {{ F
F II F
r E
e b.
A }} [<I>]
[(I)]..
o
D
224
224 W.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

The
The Syntactical
Syntactical Main
Main Lemma
Lemma together
together with
with the
the Semantical
Semantical Main
Main Lemma
Lemma prove
prove
the
the following
following theorem.
theorem.

1.3.4.
1.3.4. w-Completeness Theorem. Let
w-Completeness Theorem. Let (V)~)F(X) be (VX)F(X)
be aa ITt -sentence. Then
H~-sentence. Then we
we
have N F=
have N (VX)F(X)
~ (V)~)F()() iff
iff there
there is
is an
an a w~KK such
~ < Wf that �
such that ~ F (X). F (X).
Proof. The
Proof. The soundness
soundness isis already
already stated
stated inin (13)
(13).. For
For the
the completeness
completeness direction
direction
we assume If
we assume F(X)
~ F()~) forfor all
all ordinals ~ < Wf
ordinals a K .
w~K. Then, by the Syntactical Main­
Then, by the Syntactical Main-
Lemma,
Lemma, the
the search
search tree
tree for F(X)
for F()~) cannot
cannot be
be well-founded.
well-founded. Applying
Applying the
the Semantical
Semantical
Main-Lemma
Main-Lemma we we obtain
obtain anan assignment
assignment <I>
(I) over
over NN such
such that
that NN V=
~ f(s F(X)[<I>].
Hence
Hence
N V=
N (VX)F(X).
~= (V)~)F()~). 0
D
In
In view
view of
of Theorem
Theorem 11.3.4 .3.4 we
we call
call formulas
formulas which
which contain
contain at
at most
most free
free set
set variables
variables
sloppily ITt
sloppily -sentences. Semantically
II~-sentences. Semantically we
we treat
treat these pseudo ITt
these pseudo -sentences as
II~-sentences as their
their
universal
universal closure,
closure, i.e.
i.e.,,
N F=
N F(X)
~ F()~) ::r<=? N
N F= (VX)F(X).
~ (V)~)F()~).
We
We use
use Theorem
Theorem 11.3.4
.3.4 to
to defi ne the
define the truth
truth complexity of ITt
complexity of -sentences.
II~-sentences.

11.3.5.
.3.5. Definition.
Definition. ((Truth Complexity)) For
Truth Complexity For aa ITt -sentence G
II~-sentence (VX)F(X)
G := (V)~)F()~) or
or
G - F(X)
G ::= F()~) we
we define
define

tc(G)
tc -
{ min
(G) .."=_ { WWlI
min {a
(c~ II p
~ F
f (X)}
()~)}
�
if N V=
if N ~ GG
otherwise.
otherwise.

Using truth
Using complexities we
truth complexities we may
may restate
restate Theorem
Theorem 1.3.4
1.3.4 for
for TI l -sentences F as
H~-sentences as F
N F=
N ~ f F tc(F)
iff t c ( f ) << Wf
iff K.
w~K. (15)
(15)
As we
As we have seen in
have seen ( 14) we
in (14) we have
have
tc(F) << ww
tc(F) (16)
(16)
for all
for all true
true arithmetical
arithmetical sentences F.
But in
sentences F. But in contrast
contrast to
to that
that we
we have by Corol-
have by Corol­
lary 1.3.9
lary 1 .3.9 and
and Theorem
Theorem 1.3.10
1 .3.10 below
below
{tc(F) (VX)F(X)
sup {tc(F) ]I (V.7)F(,7) is
sup ITt -sentence and
is aa H~-sentenee Wf~K
F(X)}
N ~F= F(X)} == w~
and r~
which shows
which shows that
that for
for "real" TI l -sentences truth
"real" II~-sentences truth complexity
complexity is is aa non-trivial
non-trivial notion.
notion.
We call
We call aa binary
binary relation arithmetical ifif there
relation -< arithmetical there isis an
an arithmetical
arithmetical formula F(x,
formula F(x, y)y)
such that
such that
-< nn iff
m -<
m F(
iff NN ~F= F(m, ll .
m , n_). )
The following
The following Boundedness
Boundedness Theorem
Theorem isis one
one of
of the
the most
most important
important theorems
theorems for
for this
this
contribution and
contribution and will
will return
return in
in different
different variations.
variations.
1 .3.6. Boundedness
1.3.6. Boundedness Theorem.
Theorem. Let ~-< be
Let be an
an arithmetical
arithmetical definable
definable relation
relation and
and
(
TI (-<,
T! X) be
-<, X) be the
the formula
formula
 Set Theory and Second
Second Order Number Theory 225
225

(Vx E field(
(Vx E -<))[(Vy) (y -<
field(-~))[(Vy)(y -~ x --+ y
x -+ yE X) -+
e X) --+ x e X]
x E --+ (V
X] -+ X Ee field(
(Vx -<)) [x Ee X]
field(-~))[x X]
expressing
~=p~,,i.g induction .lo.g -<
i.du~tio. along -<.. Then
Th~. otyp(-<) ::;
< tc((VX) T/(-< , X) ) .
tc((VX)TI(-<.X)).
To
To obtain
obtain the Boundedness Theorem
the Boundedness Theorem we we prove
prove the
the more
more general Boundedness Lemma.
general Boundedness Lemma.
We
We prepare
prepare the
the Boundedness
Boundedness Lemma
Lemma by by aa few
few notions
notions and
and observations.
observations.
An
An .c�-formula
/:~-formula is
is X-positive
X-positive ifif it
it does
does not
not contain
contain occurrences
occurrences of
of tt ¢ X. An
~ X. An
obvious
obvious property of X
property of -positive formulas
X-positive formulas isis stated
stated in
in the
the next
next lemma.
lemma.

1.3.7.
1.3.7. Monotonicity
M o n o t o n i c i t y Lemma.
Lemma. Let F
Let F be an X
be an -positive formula
X-positive formula not
not containing
containing
further
further set
set variables
variables and and M CN
M � C_N.
g � Then N
N. Then N F entails N
F[M] entails
~ F[M] N F
~ F[N]
F[g]..

The proof is
The proof is straightforward
straightforward by induction on
by induction on the
the length
length of
of the sentence F.
the sentence F. 0
[3
By
By induction on a
induction on a we
we obtain
obtain the
the following
following inversion
inversion properties:
properties:
� �, A1 V A
A, Al =~ �
A22 � ~ �,
A, Ab
A1, A
A22 ,, (17)
(17)
� �,
A, Al AA
A1 /\ =~ �
A22 � ~ �, for ii == 1,
A for
A,A, 1,22 (18)
(18)
and
and
��
A , , (Vx)F(x) =~ �
(Vx)F(x) � ~ F W for
F (/) for all
all numbers
numbers i.
i. (19)
(19)
Let Prog(
Let -<, X)
Prog(-.<, X) denote
denote the
the premise
premise
(Vx e field(
(Vx E -<))[(Vy)(y -<
field(-~))[(Vy)(y -< xx -+ yE
--+ Y e X) --+ x
X) -+ x E
e X]
X]
of
of the II~-sentence T/(
the ITt-sentence -<, X) . For
TI(-<,X). For aa fixed
fixed well-founded
well-founded binary relation -<
binary relation -<
let en�l1'.....
let e--ff~z ...'Zn}
z.} denote
denote the
the enumerating
enumerating function
function of
of the
the complement
complement of
of the
the set
set
{ot YP-« Zl) , . . . , otyp
{otyp.<(zl),..., -« zn)}, i.e.
otyp~(zn)}, of On
i.e. of On \\ {otyp -« zd , . . . , otyp-«
{otyp.<(zl),..., zn) } . Define
otyp.<(zn)}. Define
M ~ , .....z.}(a) := { m l otyp.~(m) _< e-ff~z,.....z,,}(o~)} u { Z l , . . . , Z n } .

1.3.8.
1.3.8. Boundedness
B o u n d e d n e s s Lemma.
Lemma. Let -<
Let -< be
be aa well-founded
well-founded transitive
transitive binary
binary relation
relation
and
and assume
assume that
that
�,-~Prog(-~,X),z X , ... .. ,. z' £, n ¢
Prog( -<, X) ' £l1 ¢r X, r X,
X , A�
for
for aa set of X
set of -positive ITt
X-positive -sentences A� =
II~-sentences = {Fl ' . . . ' Fn} not
{F1,...,Fn} not containing
containing further set­
further set-
variables.
variables. Then
Then
.-9 [M{,, .....,,,} (a)].

The
The Boundedness
Boundedness Theorem
Theorem follows
follows from
from the Boundedness
Boundedness Lemma.
Lemma. Assume
Assume
ttc(
r T/( -<, X)) ::; a. Then
_ ~. Th~n there
the~e is for ~ E
fo~ every n e field( -<) an ao
field(-<) '~o << a~ such that
that
-~Prog(~,X),n
� ,Prog(-<, X) , I! ¢q~field(-<) , I! E X
field(-<),n X . . Because of Mo(ao) =
of M0(aO) = {m otyp(m) ::;
{m] l otyp(m) _< ao}
a0}
we
we obtain
obtain by
by the
the Boundedness
Boundedness Lemma Lemma

(Vn field(-~))(3a0 <

e field(-<))(3ao
(Vn E < a) [otyp(n) ::;
a)[otyp(n) _ ao]
a0],,
hence otyp(
hence -<) ::;
otyp(-~) _ a.
c~.
226
226 w.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

We
We prove
prove the
the Boundedness Lemma by
Boundedness Lemma by induction
induction on a.. Assume
on a Assume
� -,Prog(�,
-~Prog(-<, X) z,l ¢.
X),' � r X,
X , ... .. ., ' � r X,
znn ¢. X, �
A. . (i)
(i)
The
The claim
claim is is trivial
trivial ifif D(N)
D(N) n n � A =1=
r 0. If If (i)
(i) holds
holds by by (A xL ) then
(AxL) then there
there is is aa formula
formula
tE
t E XXinAins �
u c hsuch
t h a tthat
t t il!
N== Zzii ffor
o r ssome iE , .... ..,n}.
o m e i E { 1{1, , n} . Since Zi M�
SinceziE E ..." n} (a) this
"~" .....
M{~, z.}(a) this
yields
yields the
the claim.
claim.
If
If (i)
(i) is
is obtained
obtained by by the
the premises
premises
� -,Prog(�,
-,Prog(-<, X)
X),' � r X
z__l1 ¢. X , , .. .. .. ', � r X,
z_,n ¢. X , �i
Ai
then
then we
we obtain
obtain the
the claim
claim by
by the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis together
together with
with the
the Monotonicity
Monotonicity
Lemma
Lemma and
and the
the soundness of �
soundness of ~ ..
The really interesting
The really interesting case
case is
is that (i) follows
that (i) follows from
from the
the premise
premise
� -,-~ Prog(�, ,X ),, z� E
P ro g ( - < X) ield(�) /\A (Vy
E ffield(-<) ) [-,y �
(Vy)[-~y -< � V Yy E
z V EXX]l /\
A� z ¢. X,
r X, (ii)
(ii)
z~ ¢.r X,
�l . . . , � ¢.
x,...,z, r X,
x, �
zx
By
By inversion
inversion we
we get
get from
from (ii)
(ii)
� -,~ PProg(�, X ) ,,z� E
r o g ( - < ,X) ield (�) /\A (Vy
E ffield(-<) [W �
( V y )) [-,y -< � V Yy E
z V E X] , �l1 ¢.r X
X],z X ,, ... .. . ,,z�n ¢.
r X,
X, �
A (iii)
(iii)
and
and
--,Prog(-~,X),z r X,z~ r X,...,z__, r X,/',. (iv)
(iv)
If
If
N ~ V ~[M~, .....~.~(~o)] (v)
(v)
then
then
N ~ V ~X[M~..... ~.~(~)] (vi)
(vi)
by
by Monotonicity.
Monotonicity. If
If

N �
N V
~= V �
AIMS1 ... " z.}
[M�l '..... n} (ao)l
(co)] (vii)
(vii)
then
then the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis applied
applied to
to (iii)
(iii) gives
gives
Zz EE ffield(-<)
ield(�) /\A (Vy � z)
(Vy-< [y EE M
z)[y M�l n } (ao)l .
..."z.}(ao)].
~ , '..... ((viii)
viii)
From (iv) we
From (iv) we get
get by
by the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis

N F
N ~ V �V ... "~.,~}(ao)].
[M�l '.....
AIMS, n,.} (ao)l· ix)
((ix)
We
We claim
claim
otyp -« Z) ::; n} (ao +
... "~.}(ao + 1) n} (a) . x)
((x)
otyp.~(z) en�l'.....
< ~-~, 1) ::; ... " z.}(a).
en�l'.....
< e-rib,
To
To prove x) recall
prove ((x) that otyp-«
recall that otyp.~(z) z) := sup sup {{otyp~(y)
otyp-« y) + + 11[1 y � z} and
-< z} and observe
observe that
that for
for
y�-< Zz we obtain otyp-«
we obtain y) ::;
otyp.~(y) en�".....
_ e-n~l .. . "~.}(ao) or y EE {Zb
n} (ao) or zn} by
. . . ',zn}
{Zl,... by (viii).
(viii). Hence
Hence

sup {{otyp~(y)
'fJ := sup + 1II1 y �
otyp-« y) + /\ Y
r {Z
-~ Zz ^ y ¢. b · . . ,,z~}}
{z~,... < ~en, �l'.....
zn } } ::; n} (ao +
..."~.}(ao + 1)
1)
 Set Theory and Sewnd
Second Order Number Theory 227
227

and
and for
for yy �9 Zz such
such that
that yy E { z l , .. ... . ,,z,}
E {Zb zn} we get otyp--:
we get (y) <
otyp.~(y) en{zl ,.....
< e--ff~z, . . . , Zn } (ao +
z.}(ce0 1) since
+ 1) since
otyp--:(y)
otyp.~(y) is
is omitted
omitted in
in the
the enumeration.
enumeration. Because Because of
of
~-ff'~.,.....z.,.)(ao) _< ~-fi~,~,.....,,.}(ao + 1) _< e-ffS, .....z.}(a) (xi)
(xi)
we
we get
get by
by (x) (x) and (xi) M�"
and (xi) ... 'Zn'Z
M(z"~1..... } (ao) �
~.,~}(ao) C_ M�l
"~ ,.....
M {~1 ... ,zn } (a) .. This
~.}(a) This finally yields N
fnally yields N F
V
V �[M�l ... ,zn
A [ M ~ ,..... z.}} ((a)]
a) l by
by (ix)
(ix) and
and Monotonicity.
Monotonicity. 0
[3
As
As aa consequence
consequence of
of the
the Boundedness
Boundedness and
and the
the w-Completeness
w-Completeness Theorem
Theorem we
we
obtain
obtain

1.3.9.
1.3.9. Corollary.
Corollary. If �9 is
If is an
an arithmetical
arithmetical definable
definable well-ordering then otyp(�)
well-ordering then otyp( 9 <
<
Wf
0.) ~ K
K.

It should be
It should be mentioned
mentioned that 1.3.9 can
Corollary 1.3.9
that Corollary can -
- with
with just
just aa little
little effort
effort -
- be
be extended
extended
to
to I:t-definable well-orderings �9 and
~-definable well-orderings and thus
thus comprises
comprises the
the well-known
well-known Boundedness
Boundedness
Theorem
Theorem of of recursion
recursion theory
theory without
without referring
referring to
to the
the Analytical
Analytical Hierarchy
Hierarchy Theorem
Theorem
(cf.
(cf. Beckmann
Beckmann and Pohlers [1997]
and Pohlers [1997]).) .
Conversely
Conversely toto thethe Boundedness
Boundedness Theorem
Theorem we obtain otyp(�)
we obtain otyp( 9 alsoalso as
as an
an upper
upper
bound for tc(
bound for T l (( �,
tc( TI X ) )). . We
9 X) We show
show
5.(otyp-« n) + l )
~Prog( 9 X)
1I. ~(~
1= ======= -,Prog(�, X ) , , 'll.
n_ E X
X (20)
(20)

by
by induction on otyp--:
induction on (n) where
otyp.~(n) where -
- for
for simplicity
simplicity-- we we assume that �9 is
assume that is aa primitive
primitive
recursively
recursively definable
definable relation
relation whose
whose field
field is
is all of N
all of N..
We
We have
have
5.(Otyp-<(m) + 1 )
I15"(~ -~Prog( 9X), -,m �9 'll.
-,Prog(�, n_,m, m EE X
X (i)
(i)
either
either as
as an
an instance
instance of
of (AxM)
(AxM) or
or by
by induction
induction hypothesis.
hypothesis. Hence
Hence
5 . 0typ-« n)+3
I15"~ -,-~Prog(
Prog(�,9X) , ('v'y)[y
(Vy)[y �9 'll.
n_ -+ Yy E
E Xl
X] (ii)
(ii)
by
by two (V) and
two (V) and one (V) "inference"
one ('v') "inference".. ByBy (AxL)
(AxL) we we have
have
� -,Prog(�,
-~Prog( 9X) , 'll.
n_ 1-
q~ X,
X, 'll.
n_ E EXX .. (iii)
(iii)
By
By (ii)
(ii) and
and (iii)
(iii) we
we obtain
obtain
5.0typ-« n)+4
I15Otyp'~(n)+4 -,Prog(�,
~ P r o g ( 9 X) , ('v'y)[y
(Vy)[y �9 'll.
n_ -+-+ Yy E Xl
X] " n_ 1-
A 'll. ~ X, 'll. E X
X,_n X.. (iv)
(iv)

One
One additional
additional "inference" (3) leads
"inference" (3) leads to
to
. (Otyp-« n)+l
5 ) ~Prog( 9 X ) , n E X .
I[5.(otyp~(n)+l) -,Prog(�, X), 'll. E X . 0
[3

From
From (20)
(20) we
we obtain
obtain by
by aa clause (V) and
clause ('v') and two
two clauses (V) the
clauses (V) the following
following theorem.
theorem.

1.3.10.
1.3.10. Theorem. If �9 is
T h e o r e m . If is a
a primitive
primitive recursive
recursive well-founded
well-founded relation
relation whose
whose order
order
type
type is
is aa limit
limit ordinal then otyp(�)
ordinal then otyp( 9 <_::; ttc(
c(TT/(�,
l ( 9 X)) ::;
<_ otyp(�) + 2.
otyp( 9 + 2.
228
228 W. Pohlers
w. Pohlers

Of
Of course
course we should read
we should read Theorem
Theorem 1.3.10 as otyp(
1.3.10 as -<) =
otyp(-<) tc( T/( -<, X) ) , since
= tc(Tl(-<,X)), since the
the
"+2"
"§ is
is just
just due
due to
to the
the syntactical
syntactical peculiarities
peculiarities in
in the of �
definition of
the definition ~ � A . . But,
But, since
since
all
all important
important ordinals
ordinals will
will be
be limits,
limits, this
this is
is of
of no
no importance.
importance. We We define
define
Specrr j (N) ::=
specni(N) {to(F) 1[ F
= {tc(F) F is
is aa m-sentence
II~-sentence and N F
and N ~ F}
F}
and
and call
call speCrr
specs]j (N)
(N) the
the m-spectrum
II~-spectrum of N. Due
of N. Due to
to Theorems
Theorems 1.3.4
1.3.4 and
and 1.3.10
1.3.10 we
we
then
then have
have
specrq (N) = w?K. ((21)
21)
More
More generally
generally we
we define
define the
the m-spectrum
II~-spectrum of
of aa theory
theory Ax
Ax in
in the
the language
language of
of second
second
order
order arithmetic
arithmetic by
by

speCrr j (Ax) ::=- {tc

specni(Ax) (
(tc((V)~)F()()) )
ev'X)F(X) 1[ (VX)F(X)
(V)~)F()~) is
is aa ITt-sentence
II~-sentence and A x ~f-- F(X)
and Ax }.
F()~)}.

IIAx llrr j ::=

IrAxllni - sup( specrrj (Ax)
sup(specnl (Ax)).). (22)
For
For aa recursively
recursively enumerable
enumerable theory
theory Ax
Ax the
the set
set {F[ Ax f--
{F 1 Ax F} is
~ F} is recursively
recursively enu­
enu-
merable,
merable, too.
too. Since w~KK is
Since Wf is recursively
recursively regular
regular we
we get
get by
by Theorem
Theorem 1.3.4
1.3.4 and
and the
the fact
fact
that
that for
for true IIl-sentences F
true m-sentences F an
an upper
upper bound for tC(F)
bound for can be
tc(F) can be effectively
effectively computed
computed
from F
from F via
via the
the depth
depth of
of its
its search
search tree
tree
IIAxllrr
IIAxll,:j <
<Ww~fK~
for
for all
all recursively
recursively enumerable
enumerable theories Ax. The
theories Ax. ordinal of
The proof theoretic ordinal of aa theory
theory
Ax
Ax is commonly defined
is commonly defined as
as
IIAxll
][Ax[] ::= sup {{otyp(-<)]
- sup otyp( -<)1 -<
-< is
is primitive
primitive recursively
recursively definable
definable and A x ~f-- T/(
and Ax -< , X) } .
TI(-<,X)}.
From
From the
the Boundedness
Boundedness Theorem
Theorem we
we get
get immediately
immediately
IIAxl1
IIAxII :::;
_< IIAxllrr
IIAxII.:j < Wf~K
<w~ 23)
((23)
for
for all
all recursively
recursively enumerable
enumerable theories
theories Ax.
Ax. By By showing
showing that
that for
for every
every ordinal
ordinal
a <
a I Axllrr j there
< I[]Ax[]n~ there isis aa primitive
primitive recursive
recursive order relation -<
order relation -< such
such that
that a _< otyp(-<)
a :::; otyp(-<)
and A x ef--
and Ax - T/( -< , X) we
TI(-~,X) we get
get from
from Theorem
Theorem 11.3.10
.3.10 together
together with
with (23)
(23)
IIAxll = IIAxllrr
IIAxII = liAxJlnlj ((24)
24 )
for
for all
all theories
theories which will be
which will be analyzed.
analyzed.
There
There is,is, however,
however, also
also aa more
more general
general argument
argument for (24) which
for (24) which we we are
are going
going toto
sketch
sketch roughly.
roughly. Assume
Assume thatthat Ax
Ax is is aa theory
theory comprising
comprising PA
PA and
and letlet (VY)F(Y)
(VI~)F(]~) bebe aa
ITt-sentence.
II~-sentence. Denote
Denote byby -<S
-<sF(v)
F(Y) the
the Kleene -Brouwer
Kleene-Brouwer ordering
ordering in
in the
the search
search tree
tree S F(Y)
SF(?)
for F(]~) and assume that Ax JL
for F(Y) and assume that Ax ~ T/ -<
( sF(Y) ' X) . Then
TI(-<sv(v),X). Then there
there is model ff~ F
is aa model 9Jt ~ Ax
Ax
and
and an assignment T
an assignment T � C_ 9Jt for X
~ for such that
X such 93l �
that 9Jt ~ T/(-< sF(y) , X) [T]].. Therefore
T/(-<sv(e),X)[T Therefore
there isis an
an infinite
infinite path,
path, saysay PP � C_ 9Jt through S
93t,, through which isis definable
definable byby aa first
g
there SF(?)
F Y) which first
order formula
order formula with parameter T
with parameter T.. According
According to to the emantical Main-Lemma
the Semantical Main-Lemma we we get
get
assignments
assignments �(Y;) C_ 9Jt
(I)(Yi) � 93t for all Y;
for all Yi belonging
belonging to to Y which are
Y which are definable
definable by by first
first order
order
 Set Theory
Theory and Second Order Number
Number Theory 229

formulas
formulas with parameter T.
with parameter T. Since
Since we
we have
have induction in VJ1
induction in ffJ~ for
for first
first order
order formulas
formulas
we obtain VJ1
we obtain ~ � ~ F( Y) [(I)]
F(]~) [<I>] as
as in
in the
the proof
proof of
of the
the Semantical Main Lemma
Semantical Main Lemma using
using aa local
local
truth
truth predicate.
predicate. Hence
Hence Ax Ax jL F(Y )
~ F(] ~) and
and wewe have
have shown
shown
Ax
hx �~ F( Y) =}
F(?) ~ Ax Ax � ~- TI(-<sp (y ' X
TI(-~(~>, X).) .)
Since -<
Since sP(Y) isis primitive
-~sv(~) primitive recursively
recursively definable
definable and
and wewe havehave tc(F(]?)) �tc (F(Y ) )
___
otyp( -<sp(y) �_< IIAxll
otyp(-~sF(~)) if Ax
[[Ax[[ if Ax � F(Y )
~ - F ( ] ?) this implies IIAxllrr
this implies ___ IIAxll
[lAX[[HIl � [tAxi].. Summarizing
Summarizing
we
we get
get

1.3.11.
1.3.11. Theorem.
Theorem. Let PA
Let C_ Ax
PA � Ax then Axl1 = IIAxll
then IIIIAxll- rr l '
IIAxll,].
The computation of
The computation of the ordinal IIAxl1
the ordinal IIAxil is commonly called
is commonly called the
the ordinal
ordinal analysis
analysis of
of
Ax.
Ax. InIn view of Theorem
view of Theorem 1.3. 11 we
1.3.11 we also
also talk
talk about
about aa nt-analysis of Ax.
II~-analysis of Ax. To
To explain
explain
the connection between
the connection between IIAxll rrlI and
liAxi[n] and IIAxl1
]lAx[] ",C l K we
~cK we use
use again
again Theorem .3.4 which
Theorem 11.3.4 which
E1Ell
l
says
says

NN F~ (VX)F(X)
(V)~)F()() {:}
r (3aa <
(3 < Wf K ) [ p F(X)
w~K)[B F(2)].]. (25)
Assume
Assume thatthat we
we have
have coded
coded the the language
language/::~ .c� within
within Set
Set Theory
Theory (c.f.
(c.f. Barwise
Barwise [1975]).
The
The fact
fact that "z is
that "z is an
an infinitary
infinitary proof
r
proof tree
l
tree for F(X)
for F()~) of
of length
length � a" can
_< a" can bebe expressed
expressed
by aa �
by A0o formula,
formula, say
say G G(a,
r
F(X)-

(a , zz,, rF(X)7).) . It
It is
is easy
easy to
to check
check that
that for
for aa Ee On
On and
and zz Ee LL
l
L F F(X) ) we
-

such
such that
that L ~ G (a , z, rF()~)7)
G(a,z, we have
have zz E La+nn for
e La+ for some
some nn < w.w. IfIf we
we take
take into
into
account that F()~) may
account that F(X) may contain additional number
contain additional number parameters,
parameters, saysay fLg, (25) turns
turns
into
into
[N
(Vii) [N F
k (VX)F(X,ii) {:}
** (3a < wfK ) (3z E LwpK) G (a, zz,, rF(X,ii)l)] .
This
This is
is the
the well
well known
known Hyperarithmetical
Hyperarithmetical Quantifier
Quantifier Theorem
Theorem telling
telling that
that every
every
n� -formula is
II]-formula is equivalent
equivalent to
to aa � l -formula over
El-formula over LwCI K . If
LucK. If we
we put
put
IHb := min
[His1 := min {a L~ F
{c~ lI La H}}
~ H (26)
(26)
for
for �l -sentences H
El-sentences H we
we get
get
r
ttc:((V)()F()~))
c((VX)F(X)) �< 1I(:t[)(:tz)G([,
(3�) (3 z) G (� , zz,, rF()~;)[:s
F (X ) ) bI �_ ttc((V)~)F()~))+
l c(ev'X)F(X)) + nn
for
for some
some n
n < w.. Defining
< w Defining
r
Ilnxll E",~o~
IIAxl1 CI K := sup {{l(3~)(3z)G(~,z,
: = sup I (3�) (3z)G(�, z, F(X )l ) b lI AX
rF(X)')l=,
-

nxl-1r F(X-)
F(X)} }
I

for
for aa /.c�-theory
~ - t h e o r y Ax
Ax we
we get
get
IIAxl1 CK =
IIAxli E",,c~ = IIAxllrrl
IIAxllHiI =
= IIAxll
IIAxil ·. (27)
E1l l
(27)

It
It is
is evident
evident that
that the
the ordinal
ordinal IIAxl1
ilAx][ ",C I
~cK K for
for .c�-theories
L~-theories is
is the
the exact
exact counterpart
counterpart of of
E]Ell
I
the
the ordinal
ordinal IIAxl1
E",C
]]Axl[~cK I
K which
which we
we defined
defined in in the
the previous
previous section
section for
for theories
theories in
in the
the
I
language .c( E ) of
language/::(E) of Set
Set Theory.
Theory.
230
230 W.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

Analogously to
Analogously to Theorem
Theorem 11.2.5
.2.5 we get 22
we get
Ax +
IIIIAx + F ll rr l =
Fllnl Ax llrrl
= IIIIAxII,I (28)
(28)
for
for all
all true
true ��-sentences
~-sentences F F with
with thethe same
same proof.
proof.
We
We mentioned
mentioned already
already in in the beginning of
the beginning of the
the section
section that
that C�s can can be
be regarded
regarded as as
aa sublanguage
sublanguage of of sC( E ) . Call
Gall FF a a Tq-sentence
H~-sentence of of C
s ifif it
it is
is obtained
obtained as as aa translation
translation
of
of aa Tq-sentence
II~-sentence of C� , i.e.,
of/2~, i.e., if
if it
it has
has the
the form V'x) [x �
form ((Vx)[x C_ w --+ G(x)]
w -t G(x)] where
where G(x)G ( x ) is
is aa
�o-formula
A0-formula whosewhose quantifiers
quantifiers are are all
all restricted
restricted to
to ww or
or to
to natural numbers. If
natural numbers. If Ax
A x is is
aa theory
theory extending
extending KP K P then
then wewe can
can use
use the
the familiar
familiar unsecured
unsecured sequences
sequences argument
argument
to
to show that Ax
show that A x proves
proves that
that for
for every
every Tq-formula
H~-formula F(Z)F(x) there
there is
is aa �o -definable order
A0-definable order
relation -~f(~)) such
relation -<F(x such that
that
Ax f- (V'x) [F(x) ++
Axe-(VZ)[F(Z) ++ WI( -<F(x»)]'
Wf(-4F(~))].
We
We will
will see
see later
later (cf. Section 3.3.3)
(cf. Section 3.3.3) that
that for theory Ax
for aa theory A x which
which proves
proves Axiom
Axiom j3
/3
- which
- which says
says that
that every well-ordering can
every well-ordering can be
be order
order isomorphically
isomorphically mapped
mapped onto
onto an
an
ordinal
ordinal-- we
we have
have directly
directly
Ax
A x ef-
- ((VZ)[Wf(-4F(~))
V'x) [WI( -<F(x») ++ (3~ <
++ (3� < L wfK )IF(�' x)]
L~cK)IF(~, Z)]
for
for aa � I -formula IIF(~,~,).
~l-formula F(� ' x) . It
It is
is easy
easy to
to check
check that otyp( -<F(n») �
that otyp(-4F(~)) ~ I[(3~)IF(~,g)iSl.
(3�)IF(� ' fi) b:: l '
Thus
Thus wewe have
have
Ax llrr 1l =
IIIlhxll,l Ax l 1 =
= IIIIAxll Ax l1 w CK
= IIIIAxll~Tx~ (29)
(29)
l
l:: l
for sufficiently strong
for sufficiently strong theories
theories in
in the
the language
language ofof Set
Set Theory.
Theory.
This
This rough
rough sketch
sketch should
should suffice
suffice to
to explain
explain that
that the
the ordinals Ax l1 and
ordinals III[Axll Ax l 1 l::w~o~
and IIIIAxl[ C
1K
1
carry
carry the
the same
same information.
information. So
So Tq-analysis
1-I~-analysis and
and wfK-ordinal
v~X-ordinal analysis
analysis are
are the
the same
same
things.
things. We will see
We will see that indeed aa good
that indeed good deal
deal of
of information
information is contained in
is contained Ax II .
in IIIIAx[I.

1.4.
1.4. Methods
Methods

Before
Before wewe come
come to
to examples
examples of of analyzed
analyzed theoriestheories we we want
want to
to outline
outline the
the methods
methods
used
used in
in ordinal
ordinal analyses.
analyses. There
There are
are two
two main
main steps. steps. The
The first
first is
is to
to compute
compute upper
upper
bounds
bounds for
for the
the ordinals
ordinals in specnll (Ax)
in specrr (Ax),, the
the second
second to to show
show that
that these
these bounds
bounds are
are the
the
best possible ones.
best possible We explain
ones. We explain the
the general
general pattern
pattern on on the
the example
example of of an
an C�-theory
s
Ax.
Ax.
If Ax
If A x f- F then
~- F then there
there are
are formulas
formulas A A I1,, .. .. .., , An
An EE Ax
A x such
such that
that
A 1t ,, .. . .. ,. A, A
A n ~nFf- F (i)
(i)
in
in pure
pure predicate
predicate logic.
logic. By
By Gentzen's
Gentzen's Hauptsatz
Hauptsatz wewe may
may assume
assume that
that this
this derivation
derivation
is
is cut-free.
cut-free. It will be
It will be quite
quite easy
easy to
to transform (i) into
transform (i) into aa truth
truth definition
definition
~A1, . . . , - , A n , F (ii)
(ii)
2Defining Ax
2Defining Ax + + (3X)H(X) ~- G :{:}
(3X)H(X) I- :r Ax
Ax I- -~H(X) V
~ -,H(X) VGG this makes
makes sense even without aa
sense even
notion of proof for Second
Second Order Logic.
Logic.
 Set Theory
Theory and Second Order Number Theory 231
231

where
where 0::
a will
will depend
depend mainly
mainly on
on the
the complexity
complexity of
of the
the formulas AI, . . , An
formulas A1,..., AN and
and F. . F.
Then
Then we
we have
have to
to compute
compute upper bounds for
upper bounds A for
for tc(A) for all tc( )
all formulas in Ax.
formulas in Ax. This
This gives
gives
� A;
Ai (iii)
(iii)
iftc( )
A; :S
if tc(Ai) _ 0:: for i Ee {I,
a,; for . . . , n}
{1,..., n}.. The
The problem
problem is
is now
now to
to link
link (iii)
(iii) and
and (ii).
(ii). This
This will
will
be
be achieved
achieved by
by extending
extending the
the truth definition �
truth definition ~ A into � calculus �
into aa semi-formal calculus ~ A �
by adding the
by adding the cut
cut rule
rule
(cut)
(cut) ~ A�
� ~ A�
, F, ;F; � , - ,- -,F;
F ; /3 1 > /32 < /3
/31,/32</3 rk(F)
and r k ( F ) <<pp => � �.
=:~ ~ A .
This will of
This will of course
course destroy
destroy its meaning as
its meaning as aa truth
truth definition.
definition. But
But we will still
we will still have
have
� FF F
{::} � F . (iv)
By
By (ii)
(ii) and
and (iii)
(iii) we
we obtain
obtain

� FY (v)
(v)
where and p
where/3/3 and p are
are computable
computable from a l1,> . . . , , O::
from 0:: ann and
. • . and 0::
a and
and the
the problem
problem reduces
reduces to
to
the
the elimination
elimination of
of cut
cut in
in the
the semi-formal
semi-formal system.system. Since
Since the semi-formal system
the semi-formal system is
is
obviously sound we
obviously sound we get
get
� FF =~ N
=> N ~FF F => (30 < wrKK))�~ FF =>
=~ (35<w~ =V (30 < wrKK))�~ FF
(35<w7
showing
showing that
that the
the Cut-Elimination
Cut-Elimination Theorem
Theorem holds
holds for
for the
the semi-formal
semi-formal calculus.
calculus. But
But
this
this is
is of
of little
little help
help since
since we
we do
do not
not know
know how
how to
to compute
compute 05 from
from /3 and p.
/3 and p. In
In
aa moment,
moment, however,
however, we
we will
will see
see that
that for
for predicative
predicative theories
theories we
we can
can sharpen
sharpen Cut­
Cut-
Elimination to
Elimination to
�� => �A.,o�. (vi)
(vi)
By
By (v)
(v),, (vi)
(vi) and
and (iv)
(iv) we
we get
get
c(F) :S< CP~p/3
ttc(F) p/3 (vii)
(vii)
for Ax
for Ax � F.. Since
~ F Since/3 and p
/3 and p only
only depend
depend on
on the
the formulas in Ax
formulas in Ax this
this will
will give
give an
an
upper
upper bound, say r10, for
bound, say Ax ll n Il . To
for IIIIAxlln~. To show that 10r is
show that is the
the best possible bound
best possible bound itit suffices
suffices
to
to prove
prove that
that for
for every
every 0::c~ << 10r there
there isis aa primitive
primitive recursive well-ordering -<
recursive well-ordering -< such
such that
that
0::
c~ :S otyp(-<)
< otyp(-<) andand Ax T/ (-<, X ) .
A x ~� T I ( ~ , X ) .
It
It will
will become
become clear
clear from
from the the following
following text
text how
how this
this concept
concept has
has to
to be
be modified
modified
as
as to
to serve
serve also
also for
for theories
theories in in the
the language £( E ) of
language L:(~) of Set
Set Theory
Theory and
and for
for impredicative
impredicative
theories.
theories. ButBut before
before that
that wewe demonstrate
demonstrate some some details
details on the example
on the example on Gentzen's's
on Gentzen
result.
result.

2. First
2. F i r s t oorder
r d e r number
n u m b e r theory
theory

2.1.
2.1. Peano
P e a n o arithmetic
arithmetic

The
The paradigm
paradigm for for ordinal
ordinal analysis
analysis is
is still Gentzen's's result
still Gentzen result on
on Peano
Peano Arithmetic.
Arithmetic.
So
So we
we opt
opt for
for it
it as
as our
our first
first and
and simplest
simplest example.
example. However,
However, rather
rather than
than to
to analyze
analyze
232
232 W. Pohlers
W. Pohlers

itself we
PA itself
PA we will
will analyze
analyze aa conservative
conservative extension
extension NNT
T ofof PA which allows
PA which allows constants
constants
for all
for all primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions.
functions. We
We start
start with
with an
an introduction
introduction of
ofthe theory NT.
the theory NT.

2.1.1. TThe
2.1.1. axiom ssystem
h e axiom NT
ystem N T

The language
The language sCN isis aa first
first order
order language
language which
which contains
contains set
set parameters
parameters denoted
denoted
by capital
by capital Latin
Latin letters
letters X,X , Y,Y , Z, Xl , ...
Z, X1, . . . and
and constants
constants for
for 00 and
and all
all primitive
primitive
recursive functions
recursive functions and
and relations.
relations. We We assume
assume that
that the
the symbols
symbols for
for primitive
primitive recursive
recursive
functions are
functions are built
built up
up from
from thethe symbols
symbols C~ for the
ar: for the constant
constant function,
function, P~ for the
pr: for the
projection on
projection on the
the n-th
n-th component,
component, SS for for the
the successor
successor function
function byby aa substitution
substitution
operator Sub
operator and the
Sub and the recursion
recursion operator
operator Rec.
Rec.
The theory
The theory N NT comprises the
T comprises the following
following sentences:
sentences:
The successor
The successor axioms
axioms
(V'X) [-,Q == Sx]
(V'x) (V'y) [S(x) == sS(y) 9 == y]
( y ) =} x y]
The
The defining axioms for
defining axioms for function and relation
function and relation symbols
symbols which
which are
are the
the universal
universal closures
closures
of the
of following formulas
the following formulas
ar: (Xl( z , , > ". . ". , xn)
z,) =
= Is. k_

pr:
P~ (Xl>
(Xl,..., x.) =
' " , xn) = Xk x~
Sub(g,
Sub(g, hl> hl, ". . .. ,, hhm m (xl>
)
) ( ,) =
X l , ". . .. ,, xxn) = g(h
g ( h ll (Xl> , ) ) ) ." ." . (h
(Xl, '. .. .. ,, xxn) (hm m((x , '. .. .. ,, xxn)
X ll> ,)) )
Rec(g,
R e c ( g , h) h)(O,(O, Xl> x,) =
x l , .. .. .. ,, xn) = g g ((XI,
x l , .. .. .. ,, xn)
x,)
Rec(g,
R e c ( g , h) h ) ((Sy,
S y , Xl> x,) =
x l , ". . .. ,, xn) = hh(y, ( y , Rec(g,
Rec(g, h) h ) ((y, Xl,> '. .. .. ,, xn)
y , Xl x , ) , , x~,
Xl> .. .. .. ,, xn)
x,)
( Xll >, .' .". , X, xn)
(X n) E e R R H ~ XR ) ( . R(X , n) =
( Xl l ,' . ". . , ,Xxn) = 00
The
The scheme
scheme of
of Mathematical
Mathematical Induction
Induction
F (Q) /\A (V'x)
F(O) ( V x ) [[F(x)
F(x) -+ F (S(x))] (V'x)F(x)
--+ F ( S ( x ) ) ] - +-+ ( V x ) F ( x )

for
for all
all CN-formulas
s F(u)
F(u). .

2.1.2.
2.1.2. An
A n upper
u p p e r bound for spec
b o u n d for rr ,, ((NT)
specrq NT)

Following
Following the
the general
general pattern
pattern as
as sketched
sketched in
in the
the previous
previous section
section we
we have
have first
first to
to
deal
deal with
with the
the truth
truth complexity
complexity ofof logically
logically valid
valid sentences.
sentences. Therefore
Therefore wewe have
have toto fix
fix
aa calculus
calculus for
for pure
pure predicate
predicate logic
logic and
and we
we opt
opt for
for aa cut
cut free
free Tait
Tait calculus,
calculus, i.e.,
i.e., one
one
sided
sided sequent
sequent calculus,
calculus, which
which is
is given
given byby the
the following
following rules:
rules:

2.1.2.1.
2.1.2.1. Definition.
Definition.
((AxL)
AxL) � A , A,
~ - A, A , --,
~A A for
f o r any
a n y m,
m , if
if AA is
is an
an atomic
a t o m i c formula
formula

(v
(V)) I f p.
If A, A
~2_ A, A ii for
f o r some E {l,
s o m e ii E {1, 2}, then �
2}, then ~-- A,A, A V A
A1l V A22 for
f o r all
all m
m > > mo
mo

(/\)
(A) If P
If A, A
~-- A, A ii and
and m m ii << mm for
f o r all E {l,
all ii E 2}, then
(1,2}, then � A, A
~ - A, A A
A1l /\ A22
 Set Theory and Second Order Number Theory 233
233

(3)
(B) If �
If ~ �,
A, A(t) then F
A(t),, then ~- �,
A, (3x)A(x)
(Bx)A(x) for
for all m > mo
all m
(V')
(V) If �
If ~2_ �,
A, A(u)
A(u) and
and uu not
not free in �
free in A,, (V'x)A(x) then F
(Vx)A(x),, then ~- �,
A, (V'x)A(x)
(Vx)A(x) for
for all
all
m
m >>mmo
o. ·
The
The identity
identity axioms
axioms are
are the
the following
following formulas
formulas

(V'X)[X
(w:)[x = = x] ~]
(V'x) y)[~ =
( w ) ( v(V'y)[x = Y y ---+
-+ Y y == x] ~]
(V'x)
( w ) ( v(V'y)
y)(V (V'z) ~ =
z ) [ [x = Y y 1\
^ Y y =
= z ---+ x9 =
z -+ = z]
z]
(V..~)(Vy~[xl
(V'X) (V'Y) [XI = = Yl A .. ... . 1\
y , 1\ A Xn
xn = - - Yn ---+
"-'+ f t , . . . ,.x.n.) , xn ) =
f ( x(xI, -- f , , I. .,. " " ,Yn)]
f ( y(y Yn)]
(V'X)
( v ~ ) ((V' [ x[XI
v ~Y) , = = Yly, 1\^ . ... . 1\
^ Xn
x,, == Yny,, ---+
-+ (( R R ((~Xl xn) ---+
, , ,. .. .. . ,,~,,) ~ R(y R ( y ,I, ,. ... . . ,,y,,))]
Yn))]
(V'x) (V'y) [x =
(W:)(Vy)[~ = Y y ---+
-+ (x (x E e XX ---+
--+ Y y E
e X)]
X)]

Due
Due to
to Gentzen ' s Hauptsatz
Gentzen's Hauptsatz we
we have
have the
the following
following theorem:
theorem:

2.1.2.2.
2.1.2.2. Theorem.
Theorem. Let �
Let A be
be aa finite
finite set
set of of formulas
formulas such
such that V �
that V A is
is valid
valid in
in
the sense of
the sense of first
first order
order predicate
predicate logic.
logic. Then
Then there there are
are finitely
finitely many
many identity
identity axioms
axioms
h ,..·,I
I1,..., Inn and
and an m <
an m <w w such
such that F ,1
that ~-- 1 , . . ..,-,In,
-~I1,.. , ,In ' �
A. '

Let t7 be
Let i1 be aa list containing all
list containing all number
number variables
variables which occur free
which occur free in
in �.
A. An
An easy
easy
induction
induction on using the
on m using the fact
fact
A (~) ~,~d ~ = t ~ =. ~ A (t) (30)
(30)
shows
shows

r- A(~) ~ ~ A (~) (31)

for
for every
every tuple
tuple ii
g of
of numerals.
numerals. We
We have
have
� (V'x)(V'y)[x
(w)(vy)[~ = = y
y ---+
-~ (~(x Ee X
x ---+
-+ Y y E
e X)]
x)]

and
and all
all the
the other
other identity
identity and
and defining
defining axioms
axioms for
for primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions
functions and
and
relations are
relations are true arithmetical sentences.
true arithmetical sentences. Thus,
Thus, using
using also (16),, we
also (16) we have
have

tc(F)
tc(F) <
< w
w (32)
(32)

for
for all
all mathematical
mathematical and
and identity
identity axioms
axioms except
except induction.
induction. What
What really
really needs
needs
checking
checking is
is the
the truth
truth complexity
complexity of
of the
the scheme
scheme of
of Mathematical
Mathematical Induction.
Induction. Here
Here we
we
need
need the
the following
following lemma.
lemma.

12.rk(F)
[2.rk(F) �
2.1.2.3.
2.1.2.3. Tautology
T a u t o l o g y Lemma.
Lemma. For
For every
every .e
s N -sentence we
we have
have A, ~F, F, ,F,
F..

The
The proof
proof is
is immediate
immediate by on rk(F)
induction on
by induction rk(F)..
The
The truth
truth complexity
complexity for
for all
all instances
instances of Mathematical Induction
of Mathematical Induction follows
follows from
from
the Induction
the Induction Lemma.
Lemma.
234
234 W.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

2.1.2.4.
2.1.2.4. Induction
Induction Lemma.
Lemma. For
For any
any natural
natural number
number n
n and any eN
and any s -sentence
F ( n ) we
F(ll) we have
have
2. [rk( F(!!))+n]
1I ...,~F(0),-~(Vx)[F(x)
F (Q.) , ..., (\fx) [F(x) -+
-+ F(S(x))],
F(S(x))], F( ll) .
F(n_.). (33)
(33)

The
The proof
proof by
by induction
induction on n is
on n is very
very similar
similar to
to that
that of 20) For
of ((20). For n
n=- 00 we
we get 33) asas
get ((33) .

an
an instance
instance of the Tautology
of the Tautology Lemma. Lemma. For the induction
For the induction step step wewe have
have
2. [rk(F(!!))+n]
112"['k(F(~-))+"l ..., F (Q) , ..~.,(\fx)
~F(0), ( V x ) [[F(x)
F ( x ) -+ F(S(x))],
F(S(x))], F( F ( nll)) (i)
(i)
by
by the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis and and obtain
obtain
2.rk(F(n))
1j2.~k(F(~_)) ..., F (Q.) , ...,
~F(0), (\fx) [F(x) -+ F(S(x))]
~(Vx)[F(x)-+ ""FF(S(n))
F ( S ( x ) ) ] ,, ~ ( S ( n ) ) ,,FF(S(n))
(S(n)) (ii)
(ii)
by
by the
the Tautology
Tautology Lemma.Lemma. From From (i) (i) and
and (ii)
(ii) we
we get
get
2 [rk(F(n))+n +
' ] 1 ...,
112"[~k(F(~-))+"]+l F (Q) , ..., (\fx) [F(x) -+
~F(0),--,(Vx)[F(x) ~ F(S(x))],
F(S(x))], F(
F ( nll)) /\
A ...,
~ FF((S(n)) F ( S ( n ) ) .. (iii)
S ( n ) ) , , F(S(n)) (iii)
By
By aa clause
clause (S) (3) we we finally
finally obtain
obtain
2.[rk(F(!!)) +n]+2 ~F(O), -~(Vx)[F(x) -+ F ( S ( x ) ) ] , F ( S ( n ) ) .
]2.[,k(F(n_))+n]+2
1 ..., F (Q) , ..., (\fx) [F(x) -+ F(S(x))], F(S(n)) . o
[3

By Lemma 2.1.2.4
By Lemma 2.1.2.4 we
we have
have tc (G) �_~ w ++ 44 for
tc(G) for all
all instances G of
instances G
w of the
the Mathematical
Mathematical
Induction Scheme.
Induction Scheme. Together with (32)
Together with (32) we
we get
get
tc (F) �g w ++ 44
tc(F) w (34)
(34)
for
for all
all identity
identity and
and non-logical
non-logical axioms
axioms of
of NT
NT..
If NT �
If NT F then
~- F then there
there are
are eN-sentences
s {Fl Fn}} and
, . . . , Fn
{F1,..., and aa natural
natural number
number m
such
such that
that
~- -,F~, . . . , ~Fn, F (35)
(35)
and
and for
for all
all ii E {I, n} the
. . . , n}
{1,..., the formula
formula Fi is
is either
either an Fi
an axiom
axiom in N T or
in NT or an
an identity
identity
axiom.
axiom. For
For every
every eN-sentence
s F such
F such that N T ~� F
that NT F we
we thus
thus get
get by
by (35) and
and (31) (35) (31)
eN-sentences
LN-sentences F l , . . , F~
F1,..., .
Fn such
such that
that
-~F1, . . . , -~Fn, F (36
(36))
and by ((34))
and by 34
IIW+4
~+' FF/i 37)
((37)
for
for all
all ii E {I, . . . , n}.
{1,..., n} .
As
As sketched
sketched in Section 1.4 the
in Section 1.4
the problem
problem of linking ((37)) and
of linking and ((36)) will
will be37
be solved
solved by
by 36
introducing
introducing aa semi-formal
semi-formal calculus.
calculus.

2.1.2.5.
2.1.2.5. Definition.
Definition. We
We defi ne �
define A for
~ b. for aa finite
finite set A of
set b. of eN-formulas
s which
which
contain
contain at
at most
most free
free set-variables
set-variables inductively
inductively by
by the
the following
following clauses:
clauses:
(AxM) If
(AxM) An
I f b. D(N) =1=
N D(N) then �
r 0q} then A for
~ b. for all ordinals Q
all ordinals and p
c~ and p..
 Set Theory
Theory and Second
Second Order Number Theory 235
235

(AxL) If tt NN = Ss N
(AxL) If N then
then �
~ �, r X,
A, ss ¢ X, tt E X
X for
for all
all ordinals
ordinals a and p.
a and p.

(1\)
(A) Is �
If $ �, A, and
A, Ai , <a
a . ~ .ai ~ for = 1,
So~ ii = the. �
1, 22 then ~ �,
A, Al ^ A2
A, 1\ A~·
(V)
(v) If �
If ~ �, Ai and
t,,A, - for
o <a
a , ~ .ao ~om~ ii Ee {I,
io~ some {1,2} th~. �
2} then ~ �, Al V
A,A~ V A2
A~.·
(V)
(V) If �
~ �,
A, A(i) and ai
X(i) a,~ ~, < .a for all i Ee N
fo~ aUi t~. �
N then ~ �,
A, (Vx)A(x)
(W)A(~)..
(3) If �
If ~- �, A(~) and
A, A(i) a . ~ .ao - for
o <a ~om~ i~ Ez N
fo~ some the. �
N then ~ �,
A, (3x)A(x)
(3~)A(~)..
(cut)
(cut) If �
If ~ �,
A , FF,, � A , ~of,
~ �, F , ai <
<a ]orii E {I,
a for 2} and
{1,2} rk(F) << pp then
andrk(F) then �
~ �.
A.

We
We have
have to read �
to read ~ �
A as:
as"
"There
"There is
is an
an infinitary derivation
infinitary derivation ofof �
A of
of height
height ::;
<a a whose
whose cut
cut formulas
formulas are
are all
all of
of
ranks < p.
ranks < p.""
We call F
We call F the
the main formula of
main formula of a
a clause
clause in the definition
in the of �
definition of ~ �,
A, F if F
F if F is
is responsible
responsible
for �, F
for A, F being
being an
an axiom
axiom in (AxM) and
in (AxM) and (AxL)
(AxL) or
or if
if the
the logical
logical symbol
symbol introduced
introduced in
in
the
the clause
clause belongs to F.
belongs to F. Thus
Thus (cut)
(cut) possesses
possesses no
no main
main formula.
formula.
From
From the
the definition
definition we
we get
get immediately
immediately
�� ~. �
~ {::} ~ �.
~ (38)
(3s)
From 3
From ((31)
1 ) and (38)
and (38) we
we have
have
� �(u) '* Fo � m (39)
for
for every
every tuple z7of
tuple z numbers. Another
of numbers. Another immediate
immediate property
property is
is

�
~ A�,
, a ::; {3, pp<_a
o~<_~, ::; a and
and �
A C�Fr '*
=~ �
~ Fr.
. (40)
(40)

The calculus �
The calculus ~ is
is obviously
obviously sound.
sound. By
By induction
induction on a one
on a one proves
proves easily
easily

Fn '*
F I , .. .. .., , Fn
� FI, =~ N N F (F1I V
~ (F Y Fn)
V ·...· · V [<I>]
Fn)[(I)] (41)
(41)

for
for every
every assignment
assignment <I> (I):: set
set variables
variables --+~ Pow(N)
Pow(N).. Soundness of �
Soundness of ~ and
and Complete­
Complete-
ness of �
ness of ~ together
together with (38)
with (38) show
show

2.1.2.6.
2.1.2.6. Cut
Cut Elimination
E l i m i n a t i o n Theorem.
Theorem. If �
If ~ �
A then
then there is aa 'Y
there is 9/< w~Kx such
< Wf such that
that
�~zx.
�.
But, as
But, mentioned before,
as mentioned before, Theorem
Theorem 2.1 .2.6 does
2.1.2.6 does not
not help
help usus inin ordinal analysis. The
ordinal analysis. The
bound for 'Y
bound for 7 is
is much
much too
too large.
large. What
What we
we are
are looking
looking for
for is
is aa function
function which
which computes
computes
aa value for 'Y
value for 7 from
from the
the data
data aa and
and p.
p. The
The key
key here
here is
is the
the Reduction
Reduction Lemma
Lemma which
which
tells
tells us
us how
how toto avoid
avoid aa cut
cut of rank p
of rank p for
for the
the costs
costs of
of an
an increasing
increasing length
length of
of the
the
derivation.
derivation.

2.1.2.7. R e d u c t i o n Lemma.
2.1.2.7. Reduction Assume �
L e m m a . Assume ~ �,
A, F
F and
and ~ r,�of as
F,-~F as well as rk
well as r k((F)
F)= p.
= p.
1"'~ # fjt~ A,F.
Then ]pp
Then �, r .
2236
36 W. Pohlers
w. Pohlers

The
The proof
proof is
is by
by induction on a
induction on a #~ (3.
ft. Assume
Assume first that F
first that F is
is not
not the
the main
main formula
formula
of
of the
the last
last clause
clause in
in the
the definition
definition ofof f;
~ �,
A, F.
F. Then either f;
Then either ~ �,
A, and
and hence
hence also
also
I[p; #~ /i~ �,
O~
A, r,
F, holds
holds by
by (AxM)
(AxM) or
or (AxL)
(AxL) or or we
we have have �
~ �Ai, for a
i FF for aii << a.
a. But '
But then
then
we
we get get byby induction hypothesis I[p
induction hypothesis #
;~'A //i �i', r,F , and obtain I;
and obtain #
[p ~ /i~ A
�,, Fr by
by the
the same
same
clause. The case
clause.The that of
case that -~F isis not
not the
the main
main formula in �
formula in ~ r,
F, of
-~F is
is symmetrical.
symmetrical.
We
We may
may therefore
therefore assume
assume that both, F
that both, and of,
F and -~F, are
are main
main formulas.
formulas. Let
Let usus first
first
assume that p
assume that p = 0, i.e.,
= 0, that F
i.e., that F isis atomic.
atomic. Then both f;
Then both ~ �,
A, F and �
F and ~ r, of are
F,-~F are
axioms
axioms whose
whose mainmain formulas
formulas are are F and of,
F and -~F, respectively.
respectively. This This excludes
excludes axioms
axioms
according
according to (AxM) because
to (AxM) because we we cannot have {F,
cannot have of} �C_ D(N)
{F,-~F} D(N).. But
But then
then we we have
have
axioms
axioms according
according to to (AxL)
(AxL) and and wewe may
may assume that F
assume that F is
is aa formula
formula tt EEXX.. But
But then
then
-~F ==
of ~ X
- tt ¢. X and and we
we have formula 8Sl1 ¢.
have aa formula ~ X in �
X in A and
and aa formula
formula 8822 EEXX inin rF such
such
that
that 8f - tt NN =
SlN = � . But
= 8s~. then [p ~ ~ �,
But then A, r I; # /i
F holds
holds by
by (AxL)
(AxL) .
Now
Now assume
assume 00 < < p.
p. We
We will
will only
only treat
treat the
the more
more complicated
complicated case that F
case that F is
is aa formula
formula
(Vx)A(x).. The
(V'x)A(x) The remaining
remaining casescases are
are either
either simpler
simpler oror symmetrical.
symmetrical. ThenThen of -~F is
is the
the
formula (3x)oA(x)
formula (3x)--,A(x) andand wewe have
have the
the premises
premises
� �,
A, F, A(i)
F, A(i) (i)
(i)
for
for all EN
all ii E N and
and
� r,F,-~F,-~A(/_o).
o
f A (io ), o . (ii)
(ii)

From
From (i) and �
(i) and ~ r,
F, F
F as
as well
well as
as from
from (ii) and f;
(ii) and ~ �,
A, F
F we
we obtain
obtain by
by the
the induction
induction
hypothesis
hypothesis

[1p<>p~,o'0 ## ~/i � r , A(/o)

A,, F, A(10· ) (iii)
(iii)
and
and
Ip<> ~# 8o/io A,F A(10· ) .
�, r, o-~A(/_o) (iv)
(iv)
Since rk(A(/_o)
Since rk(F) == pp and
rk(A (io ))) << rk(F) aio #
and aio ~ fl(3 << a ~/3(3 as
as well a#
as a ~/30
well as (30 < (3, we
< a # fl, obtain
we obtain a# a#
#
I;[p ~ ~/i A,
�, Fr from (iii) and
from (iii) and (iv)
(iv) by cut.
by cut. 0
[3
As
As aa first
first consequence
consequence of the Reduction
of the Reduction Lemma
Lemma we
we obtain
obtain the
the Elimination Lemma.
Elimination Lemma.

2.1.2.8.
2.1.2.8. Elimination Lemma.
Elimination L emma. If ~<> �
If � then �
A then ~-~ �.
A.
2"
The proof
The proof is
is by
by induction
induction on
on a. If
If the
the last a.
last inference
inference is
is not
not aa cut
cut of complexity pp we
of complexity we
obtain the
obtain the claim
claim immediately
immediately from
from the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis and and the
the fact
fact that
that A~.
A� . 2~ 2E
is order
is order preserving.
preserving. TheThe critical
critical case
case is
is aa cut �
cut ~+~
p+ 1
�', FFj; r.-~
A �
p+ 1
�', ~of
A F =~ =} ~.� �
--~2-7"~
p+ 1
A
rk(F) -= p.p. By
with rk(F)
with By the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis and the Reduction
and the Reduction Lemma
Lemma we we obtain
obtain
2"1 # 2"2 2<>1 # 2<>2 :::; 2max{<>I,<>2 } · 2 :::; 2<> . 0
1I2~1
p ~ 2~2 � and we
A and we have
have 2~1 ~ 2~2 < 2max{~l,~2} 92 < 2~ [::!
The Elimination
The Elimination Lemma
Lemma provides
provides the
the first
first step
step in
in the
the proof
proof of
of the
the following
following more
more
general lemma.
general lemma.
 Set Theory and Second Order Number Theory 237
237

2.1.2.9.
2.1.2.9. Predicative
P r e d i c a t i v e Elimination
E l i m i n a t i o n Lemma. If 10
L e m m a . If 18+~. � then l~
A then
'Ppo �.
rp+wP �
'8 A.

The
The proof
proof is
is by induction on
by induction on pp with
with side induction on
side induction on a. ForFor p
p = 00 we obtain f{j
we obtain O!.
""2~-�
A = 1 2"
by
by the
the first Elimination
first Elimination Lemma which, since
Lemma which, 2a �
since 20 < W O
w" = cpoO!,
~0a, entails
entails the claim. Now
the claim. =
Now
assume p
assume p >> 0.O. If
If the
the last
last clause
clause was
was not
not aa cut
cut of
of rank >/3f3 we
rank :::: we obtain
obtain the
the claim
claim from
from
the induction
the induction hypotheses
hypotheses andand the
the fact
fact that the functions
that the functions qOp are
are order
order preserving.
preserving. CPp
Therefore
Therefore assume
assume thatthat the
the last
last inference
inference is
is

~
18+wp A,F I8+wp
~: ~X,-~F ~ I8+wP
~ A

such
such that
that f3
~ �_ rk(F) < rk(F)
< f3 + w . But
~+wP. But then p
then there
there is
is an ordinal if>r such
an ordinal such that
that rk(F) = f3 ~ ++rif> rk(F) =
which, writing
which, writing if>r in
in Cantor
Cantor normal
normal form,
form, means
means rk(F) = f3 ~ ++W rk(F) =
w U~1I + w U~"n <
+ ... .. +. +W < f3 + wp •
~+wP.
Hence < P al
p and, := al, we a aI , n +
rk(F)
wU~.• ((n
Hence al <
mductlOn hypothes
•
induction
.
hypothesis
.putting
and, putting
Is we
a :=
have I~
we have
we get
'PPOI Au,
A
get rk(F) < < f3
and I~(3 0 u,
F and {3 F
~+
A
'PP 2 A,
+ W
~F. B By
+ 1)
y aa cut
1).. By
By the
the side
. r 11
cut Iitt 10
...,F .
side
ows
follows
'8 ' '8
'PPO 'PP
I + 02 �.
IIf38_i_wO..(n+l)
vp"i+~pa2 A If define cp�
we define ~ )Oc)O! ~ := O!
.__
and cp�n+
c~ and l
^(n+l)
)O!c~ :== cp~a(~(n)c~)
.
u (cp�n)O!) then
then we we obtain
obtain from
+ wU ·(n+ l) 9
Ifwe ~ from
• n 'Pp OI +'Pp(2 ) �.
p
aa << p by by nn++ I-fold
1-fold appilcatlOn
application of
•

of the
the mam
main mduct
. •

induction
•

hypothesis 118
lOn hypothesIs •
{3'P� +I>t(~Opal+~opa2) A.

Finally
Finally we show cp�n)(cp
we show ~(~)(~palpO!I ++ CPp0!2 ~pa2)) < ~paO! by
< CPp by induction
induction on on n n.. For
For n n = = 00 we we have
have
cp� CPpO!I ++ CPp0!2
~(aO0)\(qOpO/1 ) == CPp
(/9pO~2) O!In(n+l)+-{- ~pO/2
~pO/1 CPp0!2 << CPp O! since
qOpO/ since O! aii << O! and CPp
a and O! E Cr(O)
~pO/ C r ( 0 ) . . For
E For the
the
induction
induction step step we cp�n+
have ~ l\(~pal
we have cppO!I ++ CPp0!2
~pC~)) == cp ~ u( ~(cp�n)(cp
( n ) ( ~ ppaO!lI +
+ CPp0!2
~pa2)) )) << CPp ~pa O! since
since
p
a << p and and cp�n)
~(~)(~pal ~pa~)) <
(CPpO!I ++ CPp0!2 < CPp
~pa O! by
by the induction hypothesis.
the induction hypothesis. Hence Hence � ~
~8 �.
A 0
El

By
By the
the Predicative Elimination Lemma
Predicative Elimination Lemma wewe obtain
obtain the
the function
function which
which computes
computes
an upper
an bound for
upper bound for the
the height
height of
of the cut free
the cut free derivation.
derivation.

2.1.2.10.
2.1.2.10. Elimination
E l i m i n a t i o n Theorem.
Theorem. Let
Let �~p �A such that p
such that p ---NF w
0)Pl = NF
PI +-I-"'"
...+ wPn
"~-Wpr~• 9
Then 0
Then I
tpPll{)P
i
i0
2 " 'CPPn Q
�.
A

Back
Back toto the
the axiom
axiom system
system N T . If
NT. NT �
If NT F
~- F then
then we
we obtain
obtain by
by ((36), 37) , and
36) , ((37), and ((38)
38)
1�+4+n F
I~+4+n F for
for m := max{rk(FI), . . . , rk(Fn)}
m := max{rk(F1), rk(Fn)} + + 11 <
< w .
w By By the
the Elimination
Elimination Theorem
Theorem
lexpm(w,w + 4 + n) F
" 9 9

. · · . ·
0 0 0 )
or even m-lOr Id app ·
Icat l On f t h e El ImmatlOn L emma we b tam 4 + n) F .
(
(or even m-fold 1
application of the Elimination Lemma) we obtain I ~p~(~''~ +
Hence
Hence tc(F) � tc(F)xp
m
_ eexpm(w, (
w , wco ++ 44 ++ n)
n) << co e0 and
and we
we have
have
i 0 9

2.1.2.1 1. Theorem.
2.1.2.11. Theorem. p ecn l NT �
sspecH~(NT) ( )
C_ co
e0..

2.1.3.
2.1.3. Lower
Lower bbounds
o u n d s for specH~, ((NT)
for specn NT)
I
We
We want
want to
to show
show that
that the bound given
the bound given in
in Theorem
Theorem 2.1.2.11
2.1.2.11 is
is the
the best
best possible
possible
one.
one. By
By Theorem
Theorem 1.3.10
1.3.10 it
it suffices
suffices to
to have
have Theorem
Theorem 2.1.3.1
2.1.3.1 below.
below.

2.1.3.1.
2.1.3.1. Theorem.
Theorem. For
For every
every ordinal
ordinal ~ < Co there
< co there is
is aa primitive O!
primitive recursive
recursive
well-order -.( on
well-order -< on the
the natural
natural numbers
numbers of
of order
order type
type ~ such
such that NT �
that NT ~ TI( -<, X)
71(-K, X ) .. O!
238
238 W. Pohlers
W.

The first
The first step
step in
in proving
proving Theorem 2.1.3.1
Theorem 2.1.3.1 isis toto represent
represent ordinals
ordinals below
below 60 by primitive
co by primitive
recursive well-orders.
recursive well-orders. This
This isis done
done by
by an
an arithmetization.
arithmetization. We We simultaneously
simultaneously define
define
aa set
set On On c_� 1N
N and
and aa relation � bb for
relation aa -< for a, On together
a, bb EE On together with
with anan evaluation
evaluation map
map
1" On ----t~ OOn
1 · I"1 : On such that
n such On and
that On � become
and -~ become primitive
primitive recursive
recursive and � b
and aa -< b r¢? la]
lal <<
Ibl . We
]b]. put
We put
•
9 00 EEOOn and 101 = 0
n and]O]=O
• IJ zl,...,zn
9 If � On
zl , . . . , zn C_ On and
and zl
z1 ~_'"
� � zn
~" then (zl,...,zn)
Zn then
• • • On and
(Zl " " , zn) EE On and ](zt,...,zn)]
l (zl " " , zn)1 ==
W I Zll ++ ...
wlzal ...+ + wlz-I
w 1znl
and
and
• ¢? a
a � b : 4~
9 a-<b: a EEOOnn A1\b Eb OE nOn [(aO=A b0r1\ b =I- 0)
A [ (1\a =
vV (lh(~) lh(b) ^1\ (Vi
(lh(a) << lh(b) lh(a))((a)i == (b)~))
(Vi << lh(~))((~), (b)i))
VV (3i) min{ lh(a) , lh(b)})(Vj)
(::Ii) < min{lh(a), i)((a)j
lh(b)} ) (Vj) i)((a)j =
< = (b)j (a)i ~� (b)i)]
(b)j A1\ (a)i (b)i)]
Observe that On
Observe that On and and -< � are
are defined
defined by simultaneous course
by simultaneous course of of values recursion and
values recursion and
thence are
thence are primitive
primitive recursive.
recursive. It It is
is also
also easy
easy to
to check
check that
that a a �-< bb ¢?
r lal < Ibl.
]a I < ]bI.
The
The order (On, �) is
order (On,-<) is aa well-order
well-order of of order
order type
type cr o . WeWe maymay therefore represent
therefore represent
every ordinal a
every ordinal a < < co r byby an
an initial segment -<a
initial segment �" of the well-order
of the well-order -<. � . Thus
Thus we we
can talk
can talk about
about ordinals
ordinals < < co in sCN • We
e0 in We will not distinguish
will not distinguish between
between ordinals
ordinals
and their representations
and their representations in in CNs andand regard formulas (Va)[...]
regard formulas as abbreviations
(Vo:) [· · ·] as abbreviations for for
(Vx)[x
(Vx)[x EE On ...
On ---++ . . . ] ] as
as well
well as (:3a) [· . .] as
as (33)[...] as abbreviation
abbreviation for for (::Ix)
(3x)[x On A
[x EE On ..-j . We
1\ ...]. We
also write aa << {3
also write instead of
fl instead of aa -~
� ft. We introduce
{3. We introduce the following formulas:
the following formulas:
•9 a
~ c�
x X :¢? ( v ~ ) [ ~ <<~ -a~ e--+
. ~ (Vm€ x ] € E X]
• Prog(X) :¢?
Prog(X) :r (Va) [a c_
(Vt~)[oL �X X -+ a EE X]
--+ oL X]
•9 7 - t ( ~ , X)
T/(a, x) :¢?
p r o g ( X ) --+
Prog(X)
:~ ~ a ~ �
c X
x
Our
Our aim
aim is
is to show T/(a
to show TI(a,X), X) for all a
for all a < < co. Since T/(O,
Co. Since TI(O,X) holds trivially
X) holds trivially and
and
eo =
co = sup
sup {{ exp
n (w, 0)
ezp"@, 0)]I nn E w},, we
e w} we are
are done
done asas soon
soon as
as we
we succeed
succeed in
in proving
proving
NT - T/(a,
N T ~f- Tl(a,X)X) =} =~ NT N T ~f-
- T/(w " , X)
TI(w",X) (42)
(42)
because
because NT
N T f-~- T/(a, X) and
TI(a,X) and (3 < a
fl < a obviously
obviously entails
entails NT
N T f- TI(fl, X)
}- T/({3, X). . The
The first
first
observation
observation is
is
N T ~- F(X) =~ N T ~- F({x I G(x) }) (43)
(43)
for
for all
all CN-formulas
/:N-formulas G.G. The
The formula
formula F({x
F ( { x l l G(x) }) is
G(x)}) is obtained
obtained from F(X) by
from F(X) by
replacing all occurrences
replacing all occurrences of EX
of tt E X by
by G ( t) and
G(t) and those of tt ¢.
those of r XX by
by ..., G (t) . To
-,G(t). To prove
prove
43)
((43) assume
assume
NT
N T f-
}- F�)
F(X) m(i)
and
and let ~ be
let 6 be an
an arbitrary
arbitrary Cwstructure
/:N-structure and (I):: set-variables
and <1> set-variables ----t ) an
pow(( ~6)
Pow an as­
as-
signment
signment such
such that
that
6 ~ NT[
| p <1>] .
NT[(~]. (ii)
(ii)
 Set Theory
Theory and Second
Second Order
Order Number Theory 239

We
We have
have to
to show
show
r F
6 I= F({xl a(=)})[,I,].
F( {x I G(x) } ) [<1>J . (iii)
(iii)
Define
Define aa new
new assignment
assignment

w(Y) .=
~ ( z ) .:=
{{@(Y)
<1>(Y)
{n E
{n e6~11 6
~ F
I= G(x)
a(=)[n, ~]}}
[n, <1>l
if
if Y
Y #
=~X
X
otherwise.
otherwise.
Then
Then
6 ~ F(X)
| F [WJ iff
F(X)[@] iff 6 ~ F({zl
| F a(z)})[,I,].
F( {x l G(x) } ) [<1>J . (iv)
(iv)
We
We claim
claim
6 ~ NT[WJ
| F NT[~].. (v)
(v)
Then
Then (v)
(v) together
together with
with (i)
(i) and
and (iv)
(iv) prc..ve
prove (iii).
(iii). To
To check
check (v)
(v) we
we have
have only
only to
to take
take
care
care of
of formulas
formulas inin NT which contain
N T which contain the
the set
set variable
variable X
X.. This
This can only happen
can only happen in
in
instances
instances of
of the
the scheme
scheme of
of Mathematical
Mathematical Induction
Induction oror in identity axioms.
in identity axioms. Let
Let
J(X) :{:} H(X,
I(X) :r Q) 1\A ('v'x)
H(X,O) [H(X, x) -+
(Vx)[H(X,x) -+ H(X, S(x))J -+ ('v'x)H(X,
H(X,S(x))]--+ (Vx)H(X,x) x)
be
be an
an instance
instance of Mathematical Induction.
of Mathematical Induction. We
We have
have
) [ ~ ][wJ iff
~ / (Jx(X)
6F ~ff 6 I= J1({~1
~ F ( {x l G(x) } ) [<1>J .
C(x)))[~]. (vi)
(vi)
The
The right
right formula
formula in
in (vi)
(vi),, however,
however, holds
holds by
by (ii)
(ii) since
since H({x
H({x]l G(x) } , x) is
G(x)},x) is also
also aa
formula
formula in NT. Instances
in NT. Instances ofof identity
identity axioms
axioms are
are treated
treated analogously.
analogously. 0
O
The
The above
above proof
proof shows
shows the importance of
the importance of formulating Mathematical Induction
formulating Mathematical Induction asas
aa scheme.
scheme.
Let
Let
J(X) := {a
s(x) := (v,~)[,~ �
{o~1l ('v'�)[� c X ~ �,~ +
x -+ ~oO �
+ W c Xl}
x]}
denote
denote the
the jump of X. Then,
of X. Then, if
if we
we assume
assume
NT - Prog(X)
N I l -� Prog(X) -+ Prog(J(X)
Prog(J(X)),) , (i)
(i)
we
we obtain
obtain
NT - T/(a,
N T ~� Tl(a, J(X)) --+ T/
J ( X ) ) -+ (WO , X ) .
Tl(w",Z). (ii)
(ii)
To
To prove (ii) assume
prove (ii) assume (working
(working informally
informally in NT) T/(a,
in NT) Tl(a, J(X))
J ( X ) ) , , i.e.
i.e.
Prog(J(X)
Prog(J(X))) -+ a
a �
C_ J(X)
J(X) (iii)
(iii)
which
which entails
entails
Prog(J(X)
Prog(J(X))) -+ --+ a
aE e J(X)
J(X).. (iv)
(iv)
Choosing �~ =
Choosing - 00 in
in the definition of
the definition of the jump turns
the jump turns (iv)
(iv) into
into
Prog(J(X)
Prog(J ( X ) )) -+
-+ Ww O'~ �
C_ X,
X, (v)
(v)
which,
which, together
together with
with (i)
(i),, gives
gives
240
240 W. Pohlers

Prog(X)
Prog(X) -+ --+ w'"
w~ � c_ X,
X, (vi)
(vi)

which is T/(w"'
which is , X) . Once
TI(w~,X). Once we have (ii)
we have (ii) we
we also
also get
get (42) because T/(a,
(42) because T l ( a , XX)
) implies
implies
T/(a by (43).
, 3(X)) by
Tl(a,,.7(Z)) (43).
It
It remains
remains to
to prove
prove (i).
(i). Again we work
Again we work informally
informally in N T . Assume
in NT. Assume

Prog(X)
Prog(X).. (vii)
(vii)

We
We want
want to prove Prog(3(X))
to prove i.e. (Va)
Prog(,.7(X)) i.e. [a �
(Va)[a C_ J3(X) -+ a
( X ) -+ a E 3(X)]
fl(X)]. . Thus,
Thus, assuming
assuming
also
also

aa �
c_ 3(X)
3"(X),, (viii)
(viii)

we
we have
have to show a
to show a E 3(X)
3"(X).. i.e.
i.e. (V�) [� �
(V{)[{ C_ X + �{ +
X -+ + w'" C_ X]
w~ � X].. That
That means
means that
that we
we
have to
have to prove 77 E X
prove TJ X under
under the
the additional
additional hypotheses
hypotheses

C_ X (ix)
(ix)

and
and

TJ
n < + w"' .
< �+ (x)
(x)
If 77 <
If TJ ~ we
< � we obtain r/ E X
obtain TJ X by
by (ix) L e t ~�_ �
(ix).. Let < r TJ/ << I f aa= =
~ +�w+ w"'~.. If ~ = ~TJa n=d w
0 t h0e the � eand we
obtain
obtain TJr/EE X
X by
by (ix)
(ix) and
and (vii) If a
(vii).. If a >
> 0 then
then there
U
0there is
is a
U
aa a << a a and
and a a natural
natural number
number
(i.e.
(i.e. a
a numeral
numeral in N T ) , such
in NT), such that
that �~ << w W~ + + W
+ . .. .. . + w% =: W
=: w U~. n (c.f.
• n
(c.f. the
the proof
proof of
of the
the
�
n
n --f fool
l dd
Predicative
Predicative Elimination
Elimination Lemma).
Lemma). We
We show
show

<a
aa < wU" . n �
a -+ �, ~++ W • n
C_ X
X (xi)
(xi)
by
by induction
induction on
on n. Forn. n 0
- 0 this
For n = this is
is (ix)
(ix).. For := m
For n := + 1 we
m + we have
have n 1
�+ w u~.' m
+ w C_ X
m � X (xii)
(xii)
by
by the
the induction
induction hypothesis.
hypothesis. From
From a a << aa we
we obtain
obtain aa E 3(X)
J ( X ) from
from (viii).
(viii). This
This
together
together with
with (xii)
(xii) entails ~+
entails � wU~. n =
+ W = �( + wU~. m
+ W • n
m + wU~ E X
+ W X. . This
• This finishes
finishes the
the proof
proof
of
of (i)
(i),, hence
hence also
also that (42)
of (42) which
that of which in
in turn
turn implies
implies Theorem
Theorem 2.1.3.1. 0
2.1.3.1.
[3
Summing up
Summing up we
we have
have shown
shown

2.1.3.2. Theorem.
2.1.3.2. Theorem. (Ordinal
(Ordinal Analysis
Analysis of
ofNNT)
T ) IINT ll rr l
IINTlln~ =
- EO
co.'

As
As a corollary of
a corollary of Theorem
Theorem 2.1.3.2 and 2.1.3.2
and (24) we obtain
we obtain (24)
2.1 Gentzen's
.3.3. G
2.1.3.3. e n t z e n ' s Theorem.
Theorem. The
The proof
proof theoretic
theoretic ordinal
ordinal of
of the
the axiom
axiom system
system
N T is
NT is Eo
~o..

As
As another
another consequence
consequence of
of Theorem 2.1.2.11
Theorem 2.1.2.11 and
and Theorem
Theorem 2.1.3.1 is
is 2.1.3.1
2.1.3.4.
2.1.3.4. TTheorem.
heorem. There
There isis aa m -sentence (VX)
II~-sentence (Vx)F(X, x)
(VX)(Vx)F(X, x) which
which is
is true
true in
in the
the
standard
standard structure N such
structure N such that
that NT
NT � F(X,
~- F n) for
( X , 11) for all
all n
n ENN but
but NT (Vx)F(Z, x)
~ (Vx)F(X,
N T .JL x) ..
 Set Theory and Second Order
Order Number Theory 241

To
To prove
prove the
the theorem
theorem choose
choose F (X, x) :<=>
F(X, Prog(X) -+
:ca Prog(X) x)
--+ x E On --+ x E X.
On -+ X. D[3x x
Theorem
Theorem 2.1 .3.4 is
2.1.3.4 is a
a weakened
weakened form
form of
of Godel ' s Theorem.
Ghdel's Theorem. The The general
general form
form
of
of Godel ' s Theorem
Ghdel's Theorem says
says that Theorem 2.1.3.4
that Theorem 2.1.3.4 holds already for
holds already for aa rI?-sentence
H~
x x
V ) F( ) .
((Vx)F(x).

2.1.4. Computational
2.1.4. C o m p u t a t i o n a l complexity
c o m p l e x i t y of ITg-sentences
of H ~

e u r i s t i c s . From
Heuristics.
H From the the point
point of of view
view of of minimal
minimal models,
models, GentzenGentzen's ' s result
result appears
appears
surprisingly
surprisingly complicated.
complicated. Shouldn Shouldn't' t itit be
be trivial
trivial that
that the minimal model
the minimal model for for PAPA
is obtained
is obtained at at stage
stage w? w? Consequently
Consequently there have been
there have been comments
comments stating s t a t i n g -- faintly
faintly
jjoking
oking- - that
that Gentzen
Gentzen tried tried to to secure
secure induction
induction up up toto w w byby transfinite
transfinite induction
induction up up
to c0. However,
to Eo. However, (27) tells tells usus that
that this
this is
is not
not atat all
all the
the case. Since we
case. Since we have
have tC(F)tc(F) < < w
for
for all arithmetical sentences
all arithmetical sentences we we get
get the
the least
least ITo-model
II~-model for for PAP A at at L L~w forfor more
more or or
less
less trivial
trivial
CK reasons.
reasons. But
But it
it is
is not
not at
at all
all trivial
trivial where
where to
to locate
locate the
the least
least model
model for
for
wwCK 1 -sentences of
the
the 2: E111 1 -sentences
-sentences which correspond to
which correspond to the
the provable
provable IT 1
II~-sentences of PA according
P A according
to
to the
the Hyperarithmetical
Hyperarithmetical Quantifier Quantifier Theorem.
Theorem. All All we
we know
know without
without proof proof theory
theory is is
that
that it it must
must be be atat some
some ordinal
ordinal :::; w~K~.. Since
< Wf Since Gentzen
Gentzen's 's Theorem
Theorem tells tells usus tc(F)
tc(F) < < EO
Co
for
for all
all provable
provable ITt -sentences we
II~-sentences we know
know thatthat this
this will
will bebe atat L L~eoo..
Nevertheless
Nevertheless it it is
is an
an unsatisfactory
unsatisfactory situation
situation thatthat thethe ITt-spectrum
II~-spectrum tells tells us us nothing
nothing
about
about the the provable
provable arithmetical
arithmetical sentences
sentences of Ax. By
of Ax. By Godel
Ghdel's 's Theorem
Theorem we we knowknow thatthat
there
there are are arithmetical
arithmetical (even (even IT� -H ~ ) sentences
sentences whichwhich are are notnot provable
provable from from Ax A x while
while
by (14) we
by we havehave tc(A)tc(A) < < w w forfor all
all true
true arithmetical
arithmetical sentences.
sentences. Thus Thus we we are are far
far from
from
having
having tC(F) tc(F) < IIAxlll 1 =>
< IIAx =~ Ax A x ~f- FF.. After
After allall this
this work,
work, however,
however, one one hashas the
the
feeling
feeling to to deserve
deserve a a stronger
stronger result.result. The
The aim aim ofof this
this section
section is is toto show
show that that we we can
can
obtain
obtain much much more more information
information with with just
just a a little
little more
more effort.
effort. This This has has beenbeen quite
quite
recently
recently detected
detected by by Weiermann
Weiermann [1996] [1996] andand itit is
is appealing
appealing to to include
include his his result
result here
here
because
because it it is
is inspired
inspired by the collapsing
by the collapsing techniques
techniques of of impredicative
impredicative proof proof theory
theory on on
which
which we we wantwant to put the
to put the emphasis
emphasis of of this
this contribution.
contribution.
The
The basic basic idea idea is is quite
quite simple.
simple. Recapitulating
Recapitulating the the computation
computation of of thethe upper
upper
bound
bound Eo Co forfor specn
specn~: (Ax)(Ax) we we see see that
that wewe started
started withwith a derivation �
a derivation 0~ -.F1 , , -.Fn'
-~F1,...,
• • • -~Fn, F F
and ended
and ended up up with
with an an infinitary derivation �
infinitary derivation ~ FF for
for some
some 0:: a < < Eos0.. Call
Call this
this derivation
derivation
7r. If
~. If we
we assume
assume that that F F is
is aa 2:�-formula
E~ (qy)A(y) then
(3y)A(y) then 7r ~r cannot
cannot contain
contain applications
applications
of
of the
the (V)-rule.
(V)-rule. Hence Hence 7r ~ is is finite
finite and
and we we may
may hopehope thatthat the the depth
depth of of 7r r can
can tell
tell
something
something about about the the size
size of of a a witness
witness for for the
the existential
existential quantifier
quantifier in (3x)F(x).
in (qx)F(x). So So
there
there are are two two things
things to to take
take carecare of:
of:
1. Assure that the depth of a derivation majorizes witnesses for existential formulas
1. Assure that the depth of a derivation majorizes witnesses for existential formulas
2. Find
2. Find aa method
method to
to extract
extract aa bound
bound for
.for the
the length
length of
of the finite derivation
the finite derivation of
of aa
E ~-formula from
2:� from its
its assigned
assigned ordinal.
ordinal.
The
The realization
realization of 2. requires
of 2. requires the
the possibility to collapse
possibility to ordinals bigger
collapse ordinals bigger than w into
than w into
finite
finite ones.
ones. This
This technique,
technique, however,
however, is
is known
known from
from impredicative
impredicative proof
proof theory
theory where
where
we
we have
have to
to collapse
collapse (recursively)
(recursively) uncountable
uncountable ordinals
ordinals into
into recursively
recursively countable
countable
ones.
ones. Once
Once we
we have
have solved 2. is
solved 2. is easy
easy to
to realize also 1.
realize also All we
1. All we have
have to
to require
require is
is that
that
242 w.
W. Pohlers

the
the witnesses
witnesses inin (3)-clauses
(3)-clauses areare majorized
majorized byby the
the collapse
collapse of
of the
the derivation
derivation length.
length.
Later
Later we we will
will see
see that
that in
in more
more complex
complex systems
systems this
this becomes
becomes an an even
even more
more natural
natural
requirement.
requirement.
While
While functions
functions which
which collapse
collapse ordinals
ordinals of
of transfi nite number
transfinite number classes
classes into
into lower
lower
transfinite number classes
transfinite number classes occur
occur quite
quite naturally
naturally inin the development of
the development of notations
notations forfor
impredicative
impredicative ordinals,
ordinals, i.e., ordinals above
i.e., ordinals above F0, it fo,
it had
had for
for long
long been
been unclear
unclear which
which
are
are the
the right
right finitary
finitary collapsing
collapsing functions,
functions, i.e.,
i.e., functions
functions which
which collapse
collapse transfinite
transfinite
ordinals
ordinals into finite ones.
into finite ones.
It
It follows
follows from
from work
work of of Buchholz
Buchholz andand Wainer
Wainer thatthat finitary
finitary collapsing
collapsing functions
functions
must
must be be connected
connected to to functions
functions in in the
the sub-recursive
sub-recursive hierarchy.
hierarchy. There
There isis aa result
result that
that
for
for aa certain
certain choice
choice of
of an
an infinitary
infinitary calculus
calculus we
we have
have (roughly
(roughly speaking)
speaking)
~o (3x)F(
� n, x) =}=v NN l=~ (3x
(3x)F(n,x) < H
(3x < ,, (n))F(n, x)
H~(n))F(n,x)
for
for quantifier
quantifier free
free formulas F(x,
formulas F(x, y) y),, where H"
where Ha is is the
the a-th
a-th function
function inin the
the Hardy
Hardy
hierarchy
hierarchy (c.f.
(c.f. the
the article
article by
by Fairtlough-Wainer
Fairtlough-Wainer in in this
this volume)
volume).. The The infinitary
infinitary system
system
is
is tailored
tailored inin such
such a a way
way that
that itit gives
gives aa nice
nice characterization
characterization of of the
the Skolem
Skolem functions
functions
for
for rrg-sentences
II~ which
which areare provable
provable in in Peano
Peano arithmetic.
arithmetic. It It turned
turned out,
out, however,
however,
that
that thethe generalization
generalization to to stronger,
stronger, especially
especially to
to impredicative
impredicative axiom axiom systems
systems is is by
by
far not straightforward.
far not straightforward.
But
But there
there are
are finitary
finitary collapsing
collapsing functions
functions which
which workwork smoothly
smoothly together
together with
with
the
the impredicative
impredicative collapsing
collapsing functions.
functions. TheThe basic
basic idea
idea inin their
their definition
definition is
is strikingly
strikingly
simple.
simple. As As soon
soon as as we
we have
have termterm notations
notations for
for ordinals
ordinals we we may
may define
define the norm
the norm
N(a)
N ( a ) of
of an
an ordinal
ordinal a c~ as
as the
the number
number of of symbols
symbols in in its
its term
term notation.
notation. TheThe norm
norm
is
is thus
thus aa finite
finite ordinal
ordinal with
with thethe property
property that
that for
for every
every natural
natural number
number kk the the set
set
{c~ lI gN(a)
{a (a) < < kk}} is
is finite.
finite. For starting function
For any
any starting function G: G: N -~ N
1N-+ IN the
the function
function
r � (a) :=
1/J sup {{r1/J� U3) +
:= sup 1 1 (3
+ 11 ~ < ~ and
< a and N((3)
g(~) ::;
<_G(N(a))
G ( g ( a ) ) }) U
U {O}
{0} (44)
(44)
is
is then
then a
a finitary
finitary collapsing
collapsing function
function for
for ordinals
ordinals possessing
possessing aa term
term notation.
notation.

Computational c o m p l e x i t y . In
C o m p u t a t i o n a l complexity. In order
order to
to obtain
obtain a
a more
more refined
refined complexity
complexity for
for
arithmetical sentences
arithmetical sentences we we refine
refine the
the truth definition given
truth definition given in Definition 1.3.1.
in Definition 1.3.1. Here
Here aa
crucial part
crucial part is
is played
played by
by the
the function
function 1/Jr � . To
To specify
specify it
it we
we have
have to
to choose
choose the starting
the starting
function
function G.G.
There
There are
are symbols
symbols forfor all
all primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions
functions and
and relations ins e
relations ins s N . The
The
truth
truth ofof any
any atomic
atomic sentence
sentence R R(tl,..., , tn )
( tb . . . tn) is
is thus
thus decidable
decidable inin just
just one
one step
step which
which
means
means that
that the
the starting
starting point
point inin the
the measurement
measurement of of computational
computational complexity
complexity mustmust
be above
be above the
the primitive recursive functions.
primitive recursive functions. Therefore
Therefore we we introduce
introduce aa function
function P - - P
aa variant
variant of
of the
the Ackermann-Peter
Ackermann-Peter functionfunction - - which majorizes all
which majorizes all primitive
primitive recursive
recursive
functions
functions and choose P as
and choose P as the
the starting
starting function
function inin the definition of
the definition of the
the finitary
finitary
collapsing
collapsing function
function 1/Jw
r :=:= 1/Je.
CP.

Definition. We
2.1.4.1. Definition.
2.1.4.1. We put
put
Po(x) := 22Xx
Po(x) :=
PP.+,
n+l (x) := p�
(x) "= X+2) (X)
p(x+2)(x)
 Set Theory and Second Order Number Theory 243
243

and
and finally
finally
P ( x) := P
P(x) x(x) .
Px(x).

Then
Then we
we have
have the
the obvious
obvious properties
properties
xx < P ()
n x for
Pn(x) for any
any n, n, (45)
(45)

x < y =a P,(x) < P,(y) for all n (46)

(46)
as
as well
well as
as
mm << nn =}
=~ Pm (x ) <
Pro(x) <P ( for all
x) for all xx..
Pnn (x) (47)
(47)
Every
Every primitive
primitive recursive function f
recursive function f is
is eventually
eventually majorized
majorized by
by P.P. ToTo see
see this
this
we
we assume that f
assume that f is
is represented
represented by
by the
the constant
constant f andf
and show
show by
by induction
induction on
on the
the
definition
definition of "f is a constant for primitive recursive function"
of "f is a constant for primitive recursive function" the
the existence
existence of
of aa
number e
number e fI such
such that
that
f ( x l , . . . , X # f ) < P~i(max{xl,... ,x#f }) (48)
(48)
holds
holds for
for all
all # f-tuples ((Xl,...,
#f-tuples X l , . . . , xx#i).
f ) . This
# eg, eh
This is
is obvious
obvious forfor f f E {{ CI: P~,, S}
C~,, PI: For ff =
S}.. For =
Sub(g,
Sub(g, hI,
hi,.... . . ,,hm)
hm ) we we putput ee := := max{
max{eg, )J " . . ,,eh~}
eh,,... ehm} and
and obtain
obtain by by the
the induction
induction
hypothesis
hypothesis and and (45)-(45) - (47) (47)
f(x)
f(~) < <P e( Pe(max{ x l , . . . , Xn})) �
Pe(Pe(max{x~,...,x,})) <__P e+l (max{ x l , . . . , Xn}).
Pe+l(max{xl,...,xn}).
Thus
Thus letlet eefI :=
:= ee + + 1. 1. IfIf ff == Rec(g,
Rec(g, h) h) we put ee :=
we put := max {eg, eh}
max{eg, eh} and and obtain
obtain
m + l ) (max{ Xl, . . . , Xn , m } ) �
f(m, ~ , ... .. ,. x, x
f ( m , xXI, ) < p�
n n) P(m+l)(max{x~,...,xn,m}) <_P e+ l (maX{X l , . . , Xn , m})
P~+~(max{x~,...,xn,m})
.

by
by induction
induction on on m. m. Therefore
Therefore let let eefI :=: - ee +
+ 1.1. 0[]
We
We define
define N( N(0) O) : - 00 and
:= and for for an ordinal a
an ordinal a =NF=BE 'P6
~P~lr/1 + ' '.". . +
'TJl + + 'Pen'TJ
~p~ r/,n such
such that
that
nn >�l 1
71 n
N(a) =
N(a) ::= �)N(�i) E ( N ( ~ , ) + + N( 'TJi) + 1).
N(r/,)+ 1). (49)
(49)
i=l
< r < r
i=1

This
This defines
defines aa norm norm for for all
all ordinals
ordinals < o. For a
Fo. For 0
a < Fo the
the finitary
finitary collapsing
collapsing function
function
is
is thus
thus defined
defined by
by

'¢w = max
r (a) ::= max {{ '¢w((3)
r + 1111 j3
+ ~ << aa and
and N(j3)
N(~) �<_P ( N(a)) }} UU {O},
P(N(a)) {0}, (50)
(50)
i.e.,
i.e., '¢w
r := OR in
:= '¢� in the
the sense
sense of (44). We
of (44). We introduce
introduce the
the relation
relation

aa <«i
< ~ "j3 : {::}
r aa <<~ j3 and
a n d gN(a) _ PP( (N(j3)
( a ) <� N ( ~ ) ++g (N(�))
~)). .
We
We obtain
obtain the
the transitive
transitive closure
closure «e<<~ ofof «�
<<} by
by putting
putting

a «{+ l j3 : {::} (3'TJ) [a «{ 'TJ «� j3]

and
and
244
244 w. Pohlers
W. Pohlers

«{ f3 : ~<=> (3~)[~
a <<~/~. (3n)[a <<~ f3].
«€ Z].
Instead of
Instead «0 flf3 we
of aa <<0 we write
write shortly « flf3 and
shortly aa << and call collapsibly less
call aa collapsibly less than
than ft.f3. This
This is
is
justified by
justified by
ce << fl =~ Cw(a) < r (51)
(51)
It is
It is perhaps
perhaps noteworthy
noteworthy that
that
= max
r'l/Jw ( a) = max {k[ { o «� a}.
k I 0 <<0k a}.
We moreover
We moreover have
have N(~) for ~f, << w.
N(f,) == ~f, for Hence
w . Hence
ff3l <<ww =~ (a « f3 r<=> aa<<f lf3).
� (aKKfl ). (52)
(52)
Using
Using thethe collapsibly
collapsibly less
less relation
relation we define aa refinement
we define refinement [~
1� A.6. of
of ~� A for ordinals
.6. for ordinals
a, pp << F0
a, as follows:
r0 as follows:
2.1.4.2. Definition.
2.1.4.2. Definition.
If.6.
(AxM) i/ A fq
(AxM) n D(N) then 1� .6. for all
D(N) #=I- 00 then I~ A all ordinals
ordinals aa and
and p.p.
(AxL)
(AxL) Iftt NN = sSNN then
If = then I~1� .6., sX, tt e X
A, s ~fj. X, X for
E all ordinals
for all ordinals aa and and p.p.
(t\)
(^) ifIf 1� ai and
.6., Ai
I~-p A, and ai for ii = 1,1, 22 then
« aa for
a, << = then 1� .6., alAl At\ Z2.
I~ A, A2 •
(V)
(V) If I~p
If If¥~ .6.,
A, AiAi and
and ao «a
ao << for some
a for some ii E {1, 2} then
{1,2}
E then 1� I~ .6., Al VV A2.
A, A1 A2 •
(\7')
(V) If [~-~
If I � A, A(i) and
.6., A(i) and aiai <<i
«i a a for all ii E NN then
for aU E then I~1� A,.6., (Vx)A(x).
(\7'x)A(x) .
(3) IfIf [~pOA, A(i) and
1f¥ .6., A(/) and ao << « aa and and ii ++ 11 « << a for some
a for some ii EE N then
N then
1�
[~ .6.,
A, (3x)A(x)
(3x)A(:r,)..
(cut) IfI: 1�
I~ .6.,
a, F, 1f¥
I~ .6., -,F, ai
a, -F, ~, « ~ for
<< a :or ii E
~ {1,
(1, 2}
2} and
an,t ~k(t) p then
< p
rk(F) < th~n 1�
I~ .6..
a.
A
Ass aa word
word ofof warning
warning wewe want
want toto emphasize
emphasize that
that thethe definition
definition ofof the << relation
the « relation
and
and thus
thus also
also the
the definition
definition ofof the
the relation
relation 1� A depends
[~ .6. depends on on the
the term
term notation
notation for
for
ordinals (actually
ordinals (actually only
only on
on the
the norm
norm function
function N ( a) ) and
N(a)) and thus
thus is
is only
only defined
defined for
for
ordinals below ro
ordinals below F0.o But
But it
it is
is obvious
obvious how
how to
to extend
extend 1� A as
[~ .6. as soon
soon asas we
we have
have term
term
notations for
notations for larger
larger ordinals.
ordinals.
From
From Definition 2.1.4.2
Definition 2.1.4.2 we we obtain
obtain
II~� .6.,
A, aa �
<__<f3
fl,, < (1
pp ::; a and A�
and .6. Cr
F �
=~ I~ F (53)
(53)
immediately
immediately by
by induction
induction on
on a.
a.
The
The next
next observations
observations will
will help
help us
us to
to aa better
better understanding
understanding of
of the
the relation
relation 1�
I~ .6..
A.
First
First we
we observe
observe
I~A :=> ~ A ~ ~A. (54)
(54)

In
In contrast
contrast to
to the calculus lrn
the calculus ~pO the
the refined
refined calculus
calculus has
has the
the following
following collapsing
collapsing
property:
property:
 Set Theory
Theory and Second
Second Order
Order Number Theory 45
2245

I~~~ A and A C E ~ =~ II~ A. (55)

(55)

Observation (55)
Observation (55) is is immediate
immediate by by induction
induction on on a.
a. The
The crucial
crucial point
point is
is that
that aa
derivation
derivation ofof aa set
set of E~-formulas which
of I;� which is is cut
cut free
free cannot
cannot contain
contain applications
applications ofof an
an
(\f)-rule.
(V)-rule. Hence
Hence allall ordinal
ordinal assignments
assignments (~ in in this
this derivation
derivation increase
increase in
in the sense of
the sense of
the
the collapsibly
collapsibly less
less relation
relation and
and may
m a y -- by (5
1) and
by (51) (5 )
2 -- thus
and (52) thus be
be replaced
replaced by
by 1/J
r w(() '
On
On the
the other
other hand
hand wewe also
also have
have

l~o (3x)F(x)
I� (3x)F(x) for
for an E~ -sentence (3x)F(x)
an I;� (2x)F(x) =}
=:~ N�
N (3x n)F(x). (56)
< n)F(x).
~ (3x < (56)
The
The proof
proof of (56)
of (56) is
is by
by induction on n
induction on n and
and needs
needs

I� A, F
I~ D., F and
and N N �~ FF for
.for F
F quantifier
quantifier free
free =} =~ I� [~ D..
A. (57)
(57)
We prove (57)
We prove (57) by
by induction
induction on on a. If F
a. If F does
does not
not belong
belong to
to the
the main
main formula
formula ofof the
the last
last
inference
inference in in I� A, F
I~ D., F the
the claim
claim follows
follows immediately
immediately fromfrom the
the induction
induction hypothesis.
hypothesis. If If
FF isis the
the main
main formula
formula ofof the
the last
last inference
inference it it can
can neither
neither be
be an
an axiom (AxL) (because
axiom (AxL) (because
FF isis aa sentence)
sentence) nornor an
an axiom
axiom according
according to (since F
(AxM) (since
to (AxM) F 1-~ D(N) Thus F
D(N)).). Thus F is
is
either conjunction Fl
either aa conjunction Ft 1\
AF F22 and
and we
we have the premises
have the premises I~- A, F,
I� D., F, F;
Fi for
for ii E {I,
{ 1, 2}
2} and
and
1N �
N Fi for
~ F; some ii E {1,
for some {1, 2}
2} or
or FF isis aa disjunction
disjunction Fl F1 V F F22 and
and wewe have
have the
the premise
premise
I� D., F,
I~2- A, F, F;
Fi and
and N ~ Fi.
1N � Fi. In both cases
In both cases we
we obtain
obtain I�]~ D.A by
by two
two fold application of
fold application of
the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis andand (53).
(53). 0O
It is a good exercise to try to generalize (57) F containing
(57) to sentences F containing quantifiers.
F contains universal quantifiers?
What goes wrong if F
Back
Back to
to the proof of
the proof of (56).
(56). The only possibility
The only possibility to obtain I�
to obtain ]~ (3x)F(x)
(3x)F(x) is is aa clause
clause
(3) with the
(3) with premise
the premise

IFa (3x)F(x), F(i.

[~o (3x)F(x), F(i)) (i)
(i)
for
for mm << nn and
a n d i i++
l 1 < n. IfI f NN ~� F(/)
< n. F(i.) we
we are done because
are done because of o f ii < n,
otherwise
< n, otherwise
we obtain 10~
we obtain IFa (3x)F(x)
(3x)F(x) by (57) and
by (57) and then
then NN � (3x << m)F(x)
~ (3x m)F(x) by by the
the induction
induction
hypothesis. Since
hypothesis. Since m m << nn this
this yields
yields the claim.
the claim. O 0

By 55) and
By ((55) and ((56)56) we
we see
see how
how toto obtain
obtain upper
upper bounds
bounds for the witness
for the witness ofof aa EI;�­
~
sentence F
sentence once we
F once succeed in
we succeed in getting
getting I~ F. To
I� F. obtain (55)
To obtain (55)itit is important to
is important to replace
replace
- as
- as far as possible-
far as possible - the the natural order relation
natural order relation on the ordinals
on the ordinals by by the
the collapsible
collapsible
less
less relation
relation on the term
on the term notations.
notations. TheThe crucial
crucial condition
condition for ( 56) is
for (56) is to majorize the
to majorize the
witnesses of
witnesses of (3)-clauses.
(3)-clauses. What
What still
still needs explanation is
needs explanation is the
the ordinal assignment to
ordinal assignment to
(\f)-clauses. There
(V)-clauses. There are
are only
only finitely
finitely many ordinals (3 <<
many ordinals/3 a. So
« a. So we
we cannot
cannot require the
require the
ordinals to increase
ordinals to increase in
in the
the sense of the
sense of the «-relation.
<<-relation. We will come
We will come back
back to
to that
that point.
point.
In analogy
In analogy to
to the
the definition
definition ofof the
the truth
truth complexity
complexity for
for II~-sentences
nt-sentences we we define
define
the computational complexity
the computational complexity of of aa sentence
sentence FF byby
(F) "= min
cc (F)
cc :=
min {c~] I� F}.
{ a l I~ F} . 58
( )
(58)
By ( 54) we
By (54) we then
then have
have
tc (F) _� cc
tc(F) (F)
cc (F) 59
( )
(59)
246
246 W. Pohlers

for
for all
all sentences
sentences F. One
One isF.
is tempted
tempted to
to defi ne
define
spec
specro(Ax) {cc (F) F is a -sentence and
E� (Ax) := {cc (F) 1I F is a �
E~� and Ax A x ~f- F}
F}

iinn analogy
analogy to
to specrr : (Ax) . However,
spec~i(Ax). However, we
we easily get II[�
easily get Lt-~,0 (3y)F(y)
(3y)F(y) if N F
if N ~ F(rr)
F(n)_
which entails cc
which entails cc ((3y )F(y)) = min
((3y)r(y)) min {n + 21
=
{n + N F
21 N ~ F( rr)} for
F(n)} for aa �E~� -sentence (3y )F(y).
(3y)F(y).
Therefore
Therefore we we have
have spec Eo1 (Ax)
specro (Ax) = = w for for any
any axiom
axiom system
system AxA x which
which at at least
least contains
contains
the
the successor
successor axioms
axioms which
which shows
shows that that the
the � E~� -spectrum spec E� (Ax) carries
specro(Ax) carries no
no
information
information about about Ax.Ax. TheThe analogy
analogy to to speCrrl
specn~1 (Ax)
(Ax) is is apparently
apparently the the wrong
wrong one.
one.
CK
wwCK
l on
But
But recall
recall that
that rrt
YI~ corresponds
corresponds to to � E11l on the
the side
side of
of sub-systems
sub-systems of of Set
Set Theory
Theory and
and
OK
wwOK w OK
wOK
l
�
E11l l -models
-models are
are the
the same
same as
as rr
II22 ~ -models
-models (cf.
(cf. Lemma
Lemma 1.2.3).
1.2.3).
CK
The
The computational
computational
�l~ -model
wCK
aspect
aspect of of an
an axiom
axiom system
system is is however
however betterbetter reflected
reflected in in its
its rr
YI2 -model because
because itit
CK
E1�l~ -functions.
wCK
says
says something
something about
about its
its provably
provably totaltotal � -functions. Pulling
Pulling this
this down
down to to w one
one
should rather
should look at
rather look at rr
H~ g -sentences and and try
try to
to define something as
define something as the
the rr g -spectrum
II~
of
of anan axiom
axiom system.
system.
As
As aa first
first observation
observation in in that
that direction
direction we we show
show

I� (\1'x )F(x)
L1, (Vx)F(x) :::}
I~ A, 1I;+i+l FW
L1, F(/)
=~ II"+'+l,p A, (60)
(60)
for all ii E
for all N by
6 N by induction on a.
induction on a.
If
If the
the main
main formula
formula of
of the
the last
last inference
inference is
is different
different from
from (Vx)F(x) then (\1'x) F(x)
then the
the claim
claim
follows
follows directly
directly from
from the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis and
and the
the fact
fact
a~<<ja =~ a ~ + i + l < < j a + i + l (61)
(61)
for
for all
all jj and i.
and i. The
The crucial
crucial case
case is
is that
that of
of aa clause
clause (V) with (\1')
with main
main formula
formula (Vx)F(x). (\1'x)F(x).
There
There we we have
have the
the premises
premises
I� L1, (\1'x )F(x), F(D
F(j)
with aj
with a# �j<<j a
a for
for all
all jj E N. By
6 N. By the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis we
we obtain
obtain

I I;i+i+l L1, F{fJ

aj +i+ 1
(i)
To
To get
get the
the claim
claim from
from (i)
(i) it
it suffices
suffices to
to check
check
aj
a j <�i
< i aa =~ aja j ++i i++l <1<�c ~a++i +i l+. 1.
:::} (62)
(62)
From aj
From ~ �} <<~ a ~ we get aj
we get ~j ++ ii < < a~ ++ ii and
and N(aj)
N(~j) :::;
_< P(N(a)
P(N(~) + + i)
i) which
which entails
entails also
also
N(aj
N(c~j ++ ii + 1) = N(aj)
+ 1) N(c~j) +
= + ii +
+ 11 :::;
_< P(N(a
P(N(oL + + ii +
+ 1)). Hence aj
1)). Hence ~j +
+ ii + <<1l a
+ 11 � + ii +
c~+ + 1.
1.
Iterating
Iterating the
the procedure
procedure we get aj
we get c~j +i+ <<kk a+i+
+ i + 11 � c~+ i + 11 for
for all
all kk which implies (62).
which implies (62). O 0

2.1.4.3.
2.1.4.3. Theorem.
Theorem. Ij cc ((\1'x)(3y)F(x, y)) a then, jor every i
If cc ((Vx)(3y)F(x,y)) =
= a then, for every i E6 N, N F
(3y �w (a + i + 1) )F(i, y).
(3y <
< Cw(a + i + 1))F(i, y).

To
To prove
prove the the theorem
theorem letlet (\1' x)(3y)F(x, y) be
(Vx)(3y)F(x,y) be aa rr g -sentence and
II2-sentence and put
0
put
aa .:= cccc ((\1'x)(3y)F(x,
- ((Vx)(3y)F(x, y))
y)).. Then II~
Then � (\1'x)(3y)F(x, y)y) and
(Vx)(3y)F(x, and we we get by (60)
get by (60)
 Set Theory and Second Order
Order Number Theory 247
247

a + ii+ l
I:+
1Iio + l (3y)FCL y) for
(3y)F(~_,y) a l l /i E N.
for all N. Hence N
Hence ~ (3y
1N F (=ty< + 1 ))F(
r (a + i +
< 7fw 1)
) F ( ii ,, yy)) by
by (55) (55)
and (56).
and (56). 0
U
According
According to
to Theorem 2.1.4.3
Theorem 2.1.4.3 we
we define
define

a (i ) := 7fw
WW,~(i) ~ ( a(a +
:= + 1).
+ ii + 1). (63)
(63)

By Theorem 2.1.4.3
By Theorem 2.1.4.3 itit follows that W
follows that W~a majorizes
majorizes aa Skolem
Skolem function
function of
of aa rrg-sentence
II~
F cc (F)
if cc
F if _< a.
(F) � a. If
If we
we put
put

(V'x) (3y)F(x, y)
II(Yx)(3y)F(x, l rrg ::=
y)lno min {{a
= min a I (V'i)[
(Vi)[N l
~ (3y
NF (3y < ( i ))F(i, y)
< W~(i))F(/, ]}
y)]} Wa (64)
(64)

for
for aa rrg-sentence
II~ (V'x) (3y)F(x , y)
(Vx)(3y)F(z, y) then
then we
we obtain
obtain for
for rrg-sentences
II~ G
G

lal rrgo �_< cc (G)

IGl (a). . (65)
(65)
We define the
We define the rrg-spectrum
II~ of
of aa theory A x as
theory Ax as

spec rro2 (Ax) =

specno(Ax) Wlrro2 II F
= {{IFIno F is
is aa rrg and Ax
g~ -sentence and A x ~� F}
F}

provided that IFInoo is

that Wlrr defined for
for all
all such F as
such F well as
as well
2
provided is defined as
Ax llrrg ::=
IIllAxlE,o = sup(spec rrg (Ax) )
up(spec,o(Ax))
and obtain
and obtain

Ax llrrg �
IIIIAxl[no _< sup cc (F)
sup {{ cc Ax �
(F) I Ax I
F }}. .
~ F (66)
(66)

We
We call
call the
the computation
computation of of IIIAxlJno
I Ax ll rrg a rrg-analysis
n~-analysis of of Ax.
Ax.
The
The definition
definition of of the
the rrg-spectrum
H~ is
is admittedly
admittedly less less intrinsic
intrinsic thanthan that
that of of the
the rrt­
H~-
spectrum. We
spectrum. We want,
want, however,
however, givegive some
some reasons
reasons whywhy we think that
we think that II~rrg-spectra do have an
do have an
intrinsic meaning.
intrinsic meaning. The The H~rrg-spectrum dependsdepends on on the function c7ft:
the function which in
P which in turn
turn depends
depends
on
on the
the starting function PP and
starting function and on on the
the term
term notation
notation of of the
the ordinals
ordinals in in the
the H~rrg-spectrum.
Indeed
Indeed thethe rrg-spectrum
II~ is
is rather
rather aa setset of
of ordinal
ordinal terms than aa set
terms than set of ordinals. We
of ordinals. We have
have
already argued
already argued that that the
the dependence
dependence on on aa starting
starting function
function P P hashas natural
natural reasons.
reasons. P P has
has to to
majorize all
majorize all the
the functions
functions for which there
for which there are
are function
function symbols
symbols in the language
in the language (c.f. also the
(c.f. also the
proof
proof ofof Lemma
Lemma 2.1.4.6 below). below). With With another
another choice of the
choice of the language,
language, e.g. e.g. Peano
Peano arithmetic
arithmetic
with the only
with the only function
function symbols
symbols for for addition
addition and and multiplication
multiplication or even the
or even the language
language of of Set
Set
Theory
Theory withwith no no functions
functions symbols,
symbols, aa weaker starting function,
weaker starting function, e.g. e.g. something
something like .xx . 3xx ,,
like )~x.
will do the
will do the same
same job. Also the
job. Also the hierarchy
hierarchy of functions W�
of functions WaR "- : = ,ki.
.xi . CP (a +
7ft: (a + ii + does not
+ 1) does not
depend
depend too too much
much on the starting
on the starting function,
function, i.e.,
i.e., for
for not
not too
too different starting functions
different starting functions P P
and
and G we we will obtain aa comparatively
will obtain comparatively small ordinal aa such
small ordinal such that W�
that W P ~� W� which means
WaG which means
that W
that W� P isis elementary
elementary in W�
in Wa and vice
G and vice versa.
versa.
serious is
More serious
More is the
the dependence
dependence on on the
the term
term notations
notations for the ordinals.
for the ordinals. However,
However, itit is is
hard to
hard to imagine
imagine an an explicit
explicit term
term notation
notation which
which could
could alter
alter thethe II~
rrg-spectrum. Weiermann
Weiermann
has shown
has shown that that thethe fast
fast growing
growing subrecursive
subrecursive hierarchies-
hierarchies - and and thethe hierarchy
hierarchy Wa Wa is is fast
fast
growing -- are
growing are very
very stable
stable against
against alterations
alterations of of the
the term
term notations
notations (which(which is is not
not true
true forfor
the so
the so called
called slow
slow growing
growing hierarchies).
hierarchies). We We believe
believe that
that atat least
least every
every termterm notation
notation usable
usable
ordinal analysis
in ordinal
in analysis willwill lead
lead toto the
the same
same finitary
finitary collapsing
collapsing function
function rtfw and and thus
thus toto the
the
same H~
same rrg-spectrum -- althoughalthough we we have
have toto admit
admit to to see
see no
no wayway of of proving
proving this.
this. The
The lack
lack
of aa general
of general and and "natural"
"natural" termterm notation
notation system
system forfor all
all recursive
recursive ordinals
ordinals (or (or equivalently
equivalently
248
248 w.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

the
the lack
lack of
of aa natural
natural subrecursive
subrecursive hierarchy for all
hierarchy for recursive functions),
all recursive hinders us
functions), hinders us from
from
defining generally
defining generally
spec := {
rr2o (N) :=
specno(N) lFl rro2 II F
{IFIno F aa rrg-sentence
n~ and ~ F}
and N F F}
although
although we we conjecture
conjecture that
that any
any possible
possible definition
definition should
should lead
lead toto spec rrg (N)) =
specno(N -
(N) =
speCrrl1 (N) = WfK
w~K (which
(which is
is motivated
motivated by
by the
the fact
fact that
that we
we have
have specrro (Ax) = speCrrl (Ax)
2 1
specrq specno(Ax ) = specn~ (Ax)
for
for all
all "regular"
"regular" axiom
axiom systems
systems which
which are
are so
so far
far analyzed).
analyzed).
Anyway,
Anyway, the the rrg-spectrum
II~ of
of an
an axiom
axiom system
system has has pleasant
pleasant properties.
properties. Every
Every
rrg-sentence
H~ (\>'x)(3y)F(x, y) defines aa partial
(Vx)(3y)F(x, y) defines partial recursive f
function fFF :=
recursive function :-- M#Y.
Y . F(x, y)F(x, y)
and
and we
we call f
call f fF provably
provably recursive in Ax
recursive in A x iff (\>'x) (3y)F(x, y),
Ax �
iff Ax ~ (Vx)(3y)F(x, y), i.e., iff Ax
i.e., iff A x proves
proves
that
that ffFF is
is total.
total. If f
If fFF is provably recursive
is provably in Ax
recursive in then there
A x then there is
is an
an aa E specrrg (Ax)
specno(Ax)
such
such that f
that f fF = -- M
#YY<Wo(x) . F(x, y).
< Wa(x). F(x, y). Therefore
Therefore allall provably
provably recursive
recursive functions
functions of
of
Ax
A x are
are primitive recursive (even
primitive recursive (even elementary) Wo
elementary) in in Wa for for some
some a a Ee spec
specno(Ax). ( )
rrg Ax . ByBy
induction
induction on on a a we
we obtain(\>'x)(3y)[Wo(x) y],
obtain (Vx)(3y)[W~(x) = -- y], i.e.,
i.e., we
we have
have

I Ax l1 ~ Ax
< IIIAxll
a < A x ~� (\>'x)(3y)[Wo(x)
'* (W)(3y)[W~(x) = - yl
y] (67)
(67)
for
for all
all axiom systems Ax
axiom systems A x which
which allow
allow the
the defi nition of
definition of the
the functions
functions W~. (For Wo.
(For this
this
it
it certainly
certainly suffices
suffices that A x allows
that Ax allows the
the definition
definition of
of all
all primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions.
functions.
In
In the
the rest
rest of
of the
the paper
paper we
we tacitly
tacitly assume
assume that
that this
this is
is true
true for
for all
all axiom
axiom systems
systems
considered.
considered. Weaker
Weaker systems
systems need
need more
more subtle considerations which
subtle considerations which are
are outside
outside the
the
scope
scope ofof this
this contribution)
contribution). . For
For axiom
axiom systems
systems satisfying
satisfying this
this assumption
assumption wewe obtain
obtain
as corollary of
as aa corollary of Theorem 2.1.4.3
Theorem 2.1.4.3

2.1.4.4. Lemma. If
2.1.4.4. Lemma. If cc
cc ((\>'x)(3y)F(x,
((Vx)(3y)F(x, y)) y)) < Ax l1 then
< IIIIAxll then there
there is
is aa provably
provably recur­
recur-
sive function f
sive function f of Ax such
of Ax that N
such that NF ~ (\>' x)F(x, f(x)).
(Vx)F(x, f(x)).

Because
Because of (\>'x)(3y)[Wo(x) =- yly]l.olrrg == a~ ++ 11 we
of II(V~)(3y)[W~(~) we obtain from (67)
obtain from (67) also
also

Ax l1 ~ a
< IIIIAxII
a <
a '* a < Axllrrg .
< IIIlAxll.o. (68)
(68)
Hence
Hence

Ax llrrl = IIIIAxII
IIIIAxllnl- Ax l 1 S Ax l i rrg .
~ IIIIAxllno. (69
(69))
In
In general
general the the inequality
inequality in 69
in ((69)) is proper.
is proper. For
For a~ := IAx l i rro2 , for
: - I[IAxllno, for in-in-
stance, we get by ( 28) the
stance, we get by (28) the inequalities inequalities
.
Ax + (\>'x)(3y)[Wo(x)
IIIIAx + (w)(3y)[Wo(~) = y]lln~ = yl l
ll 1 =
rr =
Ax
II[[Axl[ul = Ax
l l rrl = I[[Ax[[
i l1 _< Ax (\>'x)(3y) [Wo(x)
S a < II[ [ A x + (Vx)(3y)[W~(x) = y][[no.
a < + = yl llrrg . In most
In most cases, cases,
however,
however, we we obtain
obtain - spending aa little
- spending little more
more care care onon the ordinal assign­
the ordinal assign-
ment
ment - - sup {tc(F) I
sup {tc(F)] Ax A x ~� FF} = }
= sup {cc (F)
sup {cc (F) II Ax A x e� F}
- F } .. This
This then
then entailsentails
Ax l l rrl =
IIIIAxlln} = sup {tc(F)
sup {tc(F) II Ax
A x e� F}
- F} = {cc (F)
sup {cc ( F ) [ I Ax
= sup A x e� F}.
- F } . Together
Together with (69)
with (69)
we
we then
then obtain
obtain

Ii Ax Ii =
IIAxII Ax llrr l S
- IIIIAxllrxl Ax llrrg S
_ IIIIAxllno ~ sup {cc (F) I
sup {cc (F) I Ax
Ax � F}
Ax li rr l '
- IIIlAxllrq,
I~ F} = (70)
(70)
i.e., Ax ll rr' =
i.e., IIIIAxlln, Ax l l rrg . We
= IIIIAxllno. We are
are going
going to
to call
call axioms
axioms systems
systems forfor which
which we
we have
have
Ax llrrl =
IIIIAxlln] IAx ll rrg regular.
= II]Axllno regular. Another
Another consequence
consequence ofof ((67)is 67
) is the
the following
following theorem.
theorem.
 Set Theory
Theory and Second Order
Order Number Theory 249
249

T h e o r e m . Let
2.1.4.5. Theorem.
2.1.4.5. A x be
Let Ax be aa regular
regular axiom
axiom system,
system, i.i.e.,
e., let IIAxll1 =
let IIAxl = IIAxll rrg .
IIAxllno.
Then
Then the provably recursive
the provably recursive functions
functions of A x are
of Ax are exactly
exactly the
the functions
functions which
which are
are
primitive
primitive recursive
recursive (even
(even elementary)
elementary) in some W~0 for
in some W
< IIAx
a <
for a ll .
IIAxll.

Without
Without further
further hint
hint we
we just
just remark
remark that
that the
the functions
functions W P are
are closely W�
connected to
closely connected to
the Hardy-functions
the Hardy-functions H o
Ha.. A
A detailed
detailed study
study is
is in
in Buchholz,
Buchholz, Cichon
Cichon and
and Weiermann
Weiermann
[1994].
[1994].
We
We want
want toto close
close this
this section
section with
with the
the remark
remark that
that there
there is
is also
also aa ITYI�~ ordinal
ordinal
for
for theories,
theories, whose
whose intention
intention is
is to
to express
express the
the order
order type
type of
of the
the shortest
shortest primitive
primitive
recursive
recursive well-ordering
well-ordering which
which is
is needed
needed toto prove
prove the
the consistency
consistency ofof the
the theory
theory within
within
aa finitistic
finitistic framework.
framework. Due Due to
to certain pathologies ((cf.
certain pathologies Remark 7.1
cf. Remark .9. in
7.1.9. Girard [1987]
in Girard [1987]
which
which exposes
exposes an an example
example due
due toto Kreisel)
Kreisel) the
the definition
definition of
of the
the ITII �~ ordinal
ordinal is is not
not
completely
completely straightforward.
straightforward. We We omit
omit aa discussion
discussion since
since we
we believe
believe that
that the
the known
known
concepts
concepts are still too
are still too far
far from
from aa final
final form
form and
and need
need further
further research.
research.

Computational complexity
c o m p l e x i t y of T . As
NT.
of N As an
an example
example we
we want
want to
to compute
compute
specno2 ((NT).
specrro NT) . The
The first
first step
step consists
consists in
in computing
computing the
the computational
computational complexities
complexities of
of
the
the axioms
axioms of N T . We
of NT. We observe
observe that
that

(VXl)""" (VXn)a(Xl,... ,Xn) (71)

holds
holds for
for all
all true
true sentences ('v'Xl) · · · ('v'Xn )G(Xl, . . . , Xn )
sentences (VXl)""(VXn)e(Xl,...,Xn) where G(Ul, . . . , Un)
where G(ul,...,un) is is aa
quantifier
quantifier free
free formula.
formula.
The
The proof is simple.
proofis simple. For For every
every n-tuple (Zb . . . , zn )
n-tuple (zl,..., zn) we G(Zb . . . , zn ) E D(N).
we have
have G(zl,..., zn) E D(N).
Hence I�
Hence ('v'Xl) · · · ('v'Xn )G(Xb . . . ' xn )
[~ (Vxl)... (Vx~)G(xl,... ,x,,) by by n-fold application of
n-fold application ('v').
of aa clause
clause (V). 0r]
All mathematical
All mathematical axioms axioms of of N NT, T , except
except the
the induction
induction scheme, scheme, areare IT-sentences
H-sentences of of
the
the form (VXl) . . . (VXn )G(Xl' . . . , xn ) G( , Un )with G (11.1
form ( V x l ) . . . ( V x , ) G ( x l , . . . , x n ) with u l ,, . . . , u , ) quantifier-free.
. • • Thus (71)
quantifier-free. Thus (71)
gives
gives us
us bounds
bounds for for the
the computational
computational complexity complexity of of allall these
these axioms.
axioms. To To compute
compute
the
the computational
computational complexity
complexity of of thethe scheme
scheme of
of Mathematical
Mathematical Induction Induction we we first
first prove
prove

1I� · rk(F) �
I,olw'rk(F) /k,, F,
F, -,F
~F (72)
(72)

by
by induction
induction on rk(F).
on rk(F). TheThe proof
proof is
is essentially
essentially that
that of
of the
the Tautology
Tautology Lemma
Lemma
(Lemma 2.1.2.3).
(Lemma 2.1.2.3). A bit more
A bit more care
care is
is needed
needed for
for the
the case
case that
that F is
is a
a formula
formula F
('v'x)G(x).
(Vx)G(x). There
There we
we have
have

1I� ·rk(G(�)) �,
I,ol'''rkcac=-)) A, G(;:),
a(z_),--,a(z)
-,G(;:) (i(i))
for
for all EN
all E N by
by the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis and
and obtain
obtain

1I�·rk(G(�)l+Z �, G( ;:), (3x)-,G(x)

G(z_), (Sx)~G(x) ((ii)
ii)
for
for every zEN
every z E N by
by a
a clause
clause (3). But (3).
But w. rk(G(z)) + w · rk(G(;:)) Z
((z w. (rk(G(z)) +
-t- z «z -i- 1) w · (rk(G(z))
holds for
1) holds for
all zEN and we
all z E N and we obtain
obtain
~.rk((V=)C(=))
1I�·rk«\fX)G(X)) �, ('v'x )G(x), -,('v'x)G(x)
by
by a
a clause
clause (V). ('v'). o
250
250 W.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

The
The computation
computation of
of the
the computational
computational complexity
complexity of
of instances
instances of
of the
the scheme
scheme ofof
Mathematical
Mathematical Induction
Induction is
is obtained
obtained as
as in Lemma 2.1.2.4 with
in Lemma with some 2.1.2.4
some extra
extra care
care on
on the
the
ordinal
ordinal assignment.
assignment. We
We prove
prove

1I�·rk (F(Q))+2.n -.F(Q) , -. (\fx)[F(x)

II0W'rk(F(~ --*
~ F( Sx)], F(nJ
F(Sx)],F(n)_ (73)
(73)

by
by induction
induction on
on n. For n.
For n == 0 this n 0
this is
is (72). For
For the (72).
the induction
induction step
step we
we get
get by
by (72) and
and (72)
the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis by
by an
an inference
inference (A)
w. (O))+2n+ l -.
lo rk(FrkCf(0--))+2n+l--,F(O),~(Vx)[F(x)
I][0w' -
F(Q) , -. (\fx)[F(x) --*-+ F(Sx)], -.F(Sn.), F(Sn). ((i)i)
F(nJ
f(Sx)],F(n_) A--,F(Sn)_, F(Sn)._
A
We have nn «:
We have << w
w.rk(F(O))+2.(n+ and w·rk(F(Q))+2·n+1
· rk(F(Q))+2· (n+1)1) and << w
w.rk(F(O_))+2.n+ 1 «: · rk(F(Q))+2·(n+1)1)
w.rk(F(O))+2.(n+
and
and obtain
obtain thus from ((i)
thus from i)
11�·rk(F(Q))+2(n+ l ) -.-,f(O),
]10~.rk(f(0))+2(n+l) F(Q) , -.-~(Vx)[f(x)
(\fx)[F(x) --*
--+ f(Sx)], F(S
F(Sx)], rr)
f(Sn) ((ii)
ii)
by
by aa clause
clause (3)
(3).. 0
D
Noticing
Noticing that w· rk(F(Q)) +2n W · (rk(F(Q)) + 1)
that w.rk(F(O))+2n «:n
<<n w. (rk(F(0)) + 1) holds
holds for
for all N we
all n E9 N we obtain
obtain n
from (73)
from (73) by
by aa clause
clause (V) (\f)
IIo·(rk(F(Q))+l) -.~F(0),--,(Vx)[F(x)
1I� F(Q) , -. (\fx)[F(x) ~ F(Sx)], (\fx)F(x)
--*
F(Sx)], (Vx)F(x).. (74)
(74)
This
This gives
gives an
an estimate
estimate for
for the
the computational
computational complexities
complexities of
of instances
instances of
of Mathemat­
Mathemat-
ical
ical Induction. From (72) we
Induction. From (72)
we obtain
obtain also
also
iw'rk(F)_z1 r
I,0 k_l,..., z~ ~ k~,-~F(Zl,... , z~), F ( k l , . . . , k~) (75)
(75)
for
for all n-tuples (Z
all n-tuples l , " " zn ) and
(Zl,...,Zn) and (k1 , )
n of
( k i ,, .. ... ., kk~) of natural
natural numbers.
numbers. This
This eventually
eventually
gives W · rk(G)
as an
gives w. rk(G) as an upper
upper bound
bound for
for the the computational
computational complexities
complexities of all instances
of all instances
G of identity
G of axioms. Pulling
identity axioms. Pulling together (71), (74)
together (71), (74) and and (75) we (75)
obtain
we obtain

1I�·(rk(A)+ l)
w.(rk(A)+l)
�, A (76)
(76)
for every
for every non-logical
non-logical and identity axiom
and identity axiom AA of
of NT.
NT.
The adaption
The adaption of (39)
of (39) needs
needs aa bit
bit more
more care. It will,
care. It will, however,
however, clarify
clarify the
the role
role of
of
the starting
the starting function
function PP in
in the
the definition
definition of
of the
the collapsing function ~'¢;.w ' We
collapsing function We show
show
2.1.4.6. LLemma.
2.1.4.6. emma. If ~--i(Ul,...,Un)
If F � (uI , . . . , Un) and all all freefree number
number variables
variables of
of
� (Ub . . . , un) occur in the list
A ( u l , . . . , un) occur in the list ul,..., U I , . . . , Un then there is a finite ordinal
un then there is a finite ordinal such that k such that
W·k+Zl +'+Zn A(zl,
III IW'k+zx+'''+zn � ) holds for all ..
(ZI,~ ' ''' ~ , zn)
n -tuples (zl zn ) of
of natural
natural numbers.
numbers.
0o
( £1" ""
. .
. ,
~
£n
zn) holds for all n-tuples

The proof
The proof of
of Lemma 2.1.4.6
Lemma 2.1.4.6 isis by
by induction
induction on
on m. As prerequisite
m. As prerequisite itit needs
needs
I~ A(s) and s N - t N =~ I~ A(t) (77)
(77)
which follows
which follows straightforwardly
straightforwardly by by induction
induction on on ~. Q. The
The only
only cases
cases in
in the
the proof
proof ofof
Lemma 2.1.4.6
Lemma 2.1.4.6 which
which are
are not
not immediate
immediate from
from thethe induction
induction hypotheses
hypotheses are
are clauses
clauses
(3) and
(S) (\f).
and (V). Let
Let us
us start
start with
with the
the (3) case. ItIt isis of
(3) case. of special
special interest
interest because
because itit needs
needs
the starting
the starting function
function P. We have
P. We have
 Set Theory and Second
Second Order Number Theory 251
251

�� o(iI) , G
Ao(~), (iI, t(t(~))
G(~, iI)) =>
~ �o~ � o(iI) , (3x)
Ao(~), G (iI, x)
(3z)a(~,z) (i)
and
and obtain
obtain by
by the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis aa finite ordinal ko
finite ordinal ko such
such that
that

,o ko+z �
11�' Aoo(�)
(~),, G C�, t(�)).
G(~, t(zS)). (ii)
(ii)
The
The value t(~) NN is
value t(�) computed primitive
is computed primitive recursively
recursively from
from Z. By (48)
z. By (48) we
we thus
thus have
have aa
natural number kt
natural number kt such that t(g)
such that N << P
t(_~)N ,(Z). Taking
P~,(z-). := max{ko
Taking kk := max{ko ++ 11,, kd
kt} we
we get
get
k
w. ko
w ko +
+ z. w. k
<< w
~"« ~ and
k +z .t(g) NN «
and t(�) w.. kk +
<< w + z
~'.. (iii)
(iii)
Hence
Hence
1I�'k+Z
o � o(g) , (3x)
Ao(~), G (�, x)
(3x)G(~_, x) (iv)
(iv)
from (ii), (77)
from (ii), (77) and
and (iii)
(iii) by clause (3)
by aa clause (3)..
In
In the
the case
case of
of an
an (\I)
(V) inference
inference

�� o(iI) , G
ZXo(~), (iI, v)
a(~, v) ~=> o~ �o(iI) , (\lx)
� ZXo(~), (Vx)a(~, x)
G (iI, ~) (v)
(v)
we have
we have aa finite ordinal ko
finite ordinal ko such
such that
that
lw. Z i Ao(g),
,0o ko+ + �
Iii~.ko+~+, 0 - ,
(z) G -(z, i)
G(g,/)- (vi)
(vi)
for
for all
all ii EC N. Putting kk ::=- ko
N. Putting ko ++ 11 we
we get
get
w . ko
w .ko +
+ z + ii «
~' + w. k
<<ii w. k++ z~" (vii)
(vii)
for
for all
all ii E N and
N and obtain
obtain

I0
�'k+Z �Ao(~)
1II1~'*+~ o(g), (\lx) G (�, x)
(W)G(g, x)
from (vi) and (vii)
from (vi)and (vii) by
by aa clause
clause (\I)
(V).. o
U
Lemma 2.1.4.6
Lemma 2.1.4.6 together
together with (76) yield
with (76) yield

If - F F for F
2.1.4.7. Lemma.
2.1.4.7. Lernma. If NT
N T ~�
lw2 + m for an
an £wsentence
s F then
then there
there are natural
are natural
numbers
numbers mm and
and n
n such that IIIn~§ F.
such that F
What
What isis still
still lacking
lacking is
is aa proof
proof that
that the
the cut
cut elimination
elimination procedure
procedure also
also works
works for
for the
the
refined
refined calculus
calculus II~� �.
A. WeWe are
are going
going to
to check
check this
this step
step by
by step.
step. The
The first
first step
step is
is
checking
checking the
the Reduction Lemma. We
Reduction Lemma. We claim
claim

I� ~ F
I~~ �, F , , I~I� and
r, ~-,FF and
_ F, rk(F) _< p
rk (F) � p =>
=~ ~ ~ II, # {j A,
II; �, rF . (78)
The
The proof is by
proof is by induction
induction on a #
on 0: ~ (3
fl and
and follows
follows the
the pattern
pattern of
of the
the proof
proof ofof the
the
Reduction
Reduction Lemma
Lemma (Lemma 2.1.2.7). There
(Lemma 2.1.2.7). There is,
is, however,
however, aa subtle
subtle point
point in
in it
it which
which
will clarify
will clarify the
the ordinal
ordinal assignment
assignment inin the
the case
case of
of (\I)-clauses.
(\/)-clauses. We
We treat
treat only
only this
this case.
case.
All
All other
other cases
cases follow
follow easily
easily from
from the induction hypotheses
the induction hypotheses andand

a <<i/3 =~ a ~ 7 < < i / ~ 7 . (79)

(79)
Assume that F
Assume that F is formula (3x)
is aa formula G (x) which
(Bx)G(x) which is
is the
the main
main formula
formula of
of an
an inference
inference
252
252 W.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

I[~po
� A,Do, G(i),
G(i), (3x)G(x)
(3x)G(x) => Do, (3x)G(x).
I� A,
=~ [~ (3x)G(x). ((i)i )
Then
Then ao « a and
<< a + 11 «
and ii + a. From
<< a. i) and
From ((i) and the
the second
second hypothesis
hypothesis

r, (\fx)...,G(x)
I� r, ii)
((ii)
we
we obtain
obtain

1;0 #~ .8~ A,
1][pnO r, G(i)
Do, F, G(/) iii)
((iii)
by
by the
the induction
induction hypothesis. On the
hypothesis. On the other
other hand
hand we obtain by
we obtain (60) and
by (60) and (53)
(53) from ii)
from ((ii)
also
also

1II1!+i+ 1 Do, r,r, ...,G(i).

P
iv)
((iv)
We
We have
have
ao # ,8 « a # ,8 ( v)
and obtain from
and obtain from ii +
+ 1« a also
<< a also 1
j 3+
,8 + ii++
1 «1a # ,8.
<<a~fl. vi)
((vi)
Because
Because of v) , ((vi)
of ((v), vi) and
and rk(G(/)) < rk(G(i.)) rk(F)
= p we
< rk(F) = we get
get
#
11; .8 Do, r
from iii ) and ((iv)
from ((iii)and iv) by
by cut.
cut. o
[3
By (78)
By (78) we we obtain
obtain
a
i a Do => 112"+1
I r;+l "2 a't'l
rp--- Do (80)
(80)
by
by induction
induction on
on a.
a. The
The proof
proof is
is that
that of
of the
the Elimination
Elimination Lemma Lemma 2.1.2.8).
Lemma ((Lemma 2.1.2.8).
All we
All we need
need to
to adapt
adapt the
the proof
proof are
are
a <<i fl =~ 2 ~+1 <<i 2~+1 (81)
(81)

and
and
al,a2 << a =~ 2~1+1 ~ 2~2+1 <_<2~+1. (82)
(82)

These properties, however,

These properties, however, follow
follow easily
easily from
from the
the fact
fact that
that
N 2a) 2N(a)
( ~) �
Y(2 _< 2 g(a) (83)
(83)
which
which in in turn n
= w . v + we obtain N(2 a
N(wVV. 22")
•
n)turn nisis. (N(v)
_< 22".
�
nearly
nearly immediate
immediate since
+ 1) n �___22for
(v)+since
1) �_< 22NN(~)+n (a)a. = w . v + n we obtain N(2 ~)) =-[3
for a
NN("). 0

One
One should
should observe that (81)
observe that (81) and (82) force
and (82) force usus to
to use
use aa fixed
fixed point
point free
free formulation
formulation
of
of the Elimination Lemma
the Elimination Lemma ((i.e., +l instead
Le., 22a~+t instead of of 22a~).
). The
The reason
reason is
is that
that in
in case
case that
that
a <
a < 22aa,, aa «<< ,8/3 andand ,8
/3 == 22.8z we
we do have 22a~ <
do have < 22.8z but
but notnot necessarily
necessarily N(2N(2 aa)) �
_<
P(N(2.8)
P(N(2~)).) .
Now
Now we
we have
have all
all the
the data
data for
for the
the computation
computation of
of the
the rr
II~g -spectrum of N T . From
of NT. From
Lemma 2 . 1.4. 7, (80)
Lemma 2.1.4.7, (80) and
and the
the fact
fact that e p , w2
that expn(2, x n (2
w2 +
+ m)
m) < r we
< co we obtain
obtain
 Set Theory and Second Order Number Theory 253
253

NT
N T f-~- FF :::}
=~ I� I~ FF (84)
(84)
for
for all .eN-sentences F
all/:N-sentences F and
and some
some ordinal
ordinal a a < < coe0.. Together
Together with (66) we
with (66) we have
have

IIliNT[[no NT II == IIlINT[In
NT l l ng S;_< coeo == II[[NTI[ NT l l njI S;__ IlINT[In
I NTl l ngo.· (85)
(85)
Combining (85) and
Combining (85) and Theorem
Theorem 2.1 .4.5 we
2.1.4.5 we obtain
obtain

2.1.4.8. Theorem.
2.1.4.8. Theorem. specn g (NT) ==which
specno(NT) co
e0 = NT I and
= III[NTII and the
the provably
provably recursive
recursive func­
func-
tions of NT
tions of N T are
are exactly
exactly the
the functions
functions which are
are primitive
primitive recursive
recursive in
in some
some function
function
Wa
Wa for
for a
a << co
eo..

Taking F(x) ::ca

Taking F(x) {:> (3y)[(x)o
(3y)[(X)o �
6 On
On V W(x)o ((xh)
V ~i/(x)o((X)I ) = y] we
-- y] we get f-
get NT~-F(_n) for
for NT F(rr)
all n E
all n EN N but NT JL (Vx)F(x)
but N T ~-(Vx)F(x) since cc ((Vx)F(x))
since cc ((Vx)F(x)) = eo.. This
= co This sharpens
sharpens Theo­
Theo-
rem
rem 2.1 .3.4 to
2.1.3.4 to

2.1.4.9. Theorem.
2.1.4.9. Theorem. There
There is
is aa true ri~-sentence (Vx
true JIg )F(x) such
(Vx)F(x) that NT
such that N T f-
[-- F( rr)
F(n)
for
for all n E
all n ENN but NT
N T JL
~ (Vx)F(x)
(Vx)F(x) ..

2.1.5. Computational
2.1.5. C o m p u t a t i o n a l complexity
c o m p l e x i t y of
of rIg-sentences
II~ rrevisited
evisited

Heuristics. We
Heuristics. We have
have seen
seen in (65) that
in (65) !PI ng cc (F) .
<_ cc ( F ) . Proving
that IFIno S; Proving also
also the
the opposite
opposite
inequality
inequality would
would be be aa good
good argument
argument for
for the
the naturalness
naturalness of of the
the computational
computational
complexity.
complexity. However,
However, if I(Vx)(3y)F(x, y)l no
if I(Vx)(3y)F(x, y)lno2 = a we
= a we get
get easily
easily

1Iio1: ((gy)F(i,y)
w,~(i)i
,, ( )
3y)F(i, y) (86)
(86)
for all
for all ii EEN N but there is
but there is no
no ordinal/3
ordinal f3 such
such that Wa (i) «i
that W~(i) f3 for
<<i/3 for all
all ii E N . This
E N. shows
This shows
that
that the
the «i-relation cannot yet
<</-relation cannot yet be the natural
be the natural one.
one. There
There isis aa possibility
possibility to redefine
to redefine
the «i-relation
the <</-relation byby 0: «i /3
a <<i f3 :{:>
:r a0: < f3 /\
< /~ N(o:) S;
A Y(a) W;(i) for
_ W*;J(i) slightly modified
for slightly modified
W�
functions W* (a
functions (a hierarchy
hierarchy which
which isis close
close to
to the
the so called fast
so called fast growing
growing iteration
iteration
hierarchy Fa suffice) . The
will suffice).
hierarchy F , will modification is
The modification is needed
needed toto preserve
preserve the the collapsing
collapsing
property
property 0: a «
<< f3 :::} W�+l (O) W*;J+l (O).
fl =~ W~+ 1(0) < Since we
< W;+ 1(0). Since have W*~(i)
we have W� (i) «i <<i a0: for all infinite
for all infinite
a0: in
in the
the sense
sense of the refined
of the relation <<i
refined relation «i wewe get from (86)
get from (86)

I#o
I� (Vx)(3y)F(x,
(Vx)(3y)F(x, y).y). (87)
(87)

for
for infinite 0:. Hence
infinite a. Hence w !PIng =v
w _S; IFIno :::} cccc (F)
(F) S;_< IRis0.
!PIng . The
The collapsing
collapsing technique
technique of
of the
the
previous sections
previous sections is
is based
based onon the
the idea
idea of of local
local predicativity which has
predicativity which has been
been originally
originally
developed for
developed for the
the analysis of impredicative
analysis of impredicative axiom
axiom systems (cf. Pohlers
systems (cf. Pohlers [1978,1981,
[1978,1981,
and Buchholz
1991] and
1991] Buchholz etet al. [1981]). It
al. [1981]). It is hardly surprising
is hardly surprising that
that the redefinition
the redefinition
of <<i
of «i is is exactly
exactly the
the transfer
transfer of of the
the definition
definition which
which wewe knew
knew before from local
before from local
predicativity. But
predicativity. But there
there is
is an
an improvement
improvement of of this
this method
method byby (Buchholz
(Buchholz [1992]) which
[1992]) which
he calls
he calls operator
operator controlled
controlled derivations. Quite recently
derivations. Quite recently Weiermann
Weiermann (cf.
(cf. Blankertz
Blankertz and
and
Weiermann [1996])
Weiermann adapted this
[1996]) adapted this method
method also
also to
to predicative
predicative systems.
systems. We We prefer to
prefer to
include this
include this approach instead of
approach instead of introducing
introducing thethe refined
refined version of the
version of the <<i
«i relations
relations
because itit shows
because shows very vividly the
very vividly the dynamical aspect of
dynamical aspect of cut-elimination
cut-elimination in in contrast to
contrast to
254
254 W. Pohlers
w. Pohlers

the more
the more statical
statical aspect
aspect of
of cut-freeness
cut-freeness as
as e.g. in Beckmann
e.g. in Beckmann and Pohlers [1997]. The
and Pohlers The [1997] .
fact
fact that
that it
it also
also needs
needs no
no alteration
alteration of
of the
the functions W
functions W Q, indicates
indicates the
the naturalness
naturalness of
of
Buchholz'' approach.
Buchholz approach. InIn the
the following section we
following section we introduce
introduce the
the concept
concept of
of operator
operator
controlled
controlled derivations.
derivations. We
We will
will demonstrate
demonstrate that
that the
the computational
computational content
content of
of the
the
cut-elimination
cut-elimination procedure
procedure isis measured
measured byby the
the controlling
controlling operator.
operator.

Operator
O p e r a t o r controlled d e r i v a t i o n s . In
c o n t r o l l e d derivations. In this
this section
section we
we concentrate
concentrate onon arithmetical
arithmetical
sentences
sentences and and dispense
dispense therefore
therefore with with set
set variables.
variables. We
We call
call this
this language
language .c�
L:~ which
which
we
we assume
assume to to be
be formulated
formulated as Tait-language ((cf.
as Tait-language cf. Section
Section 11.3).
.3). There
There are
are two
two types
types
of
of arithmetical
arithmetical sentences
sentences

• sentences of
9 sentences 1\
-type, which
of A-type, which are
are true
true atomic sentences, i.i.e.,
atomic sentences, e., sentences
sentences in
in D(N), D(N),
and sentences of
and sentences of the
the form (A I\. B) (Vx)F(x)
form (A A B) oror (Vx)F(x)
and
and
• sentences of
9 sentences V
-type, which
of V-type, which are
are false
false atomic sentences and
atomic sentences sentences of
and sentences of the
the form
form
(A V B) (3x)F(x).
(A V B) oror (3x)F(x).
For
For every
every sentence
sentence we
we associate
associate aa characteristic
characteristic set
set C (F) of C (F)
of sentences
sentences such
such that
that

NN p~ FF ¢:}
{ (VG
(VG Ee C(F))[N
C(F))[N F
~ G]
G] if
if F e I\
F E A --type
type
r (3G Ee C(F))[N
(3G ~ G]
C(F))[N F if F
G] if F E9 V -type.
V-type.
(88)

We
We define

{{~
define
if F
if F is
is atomic
(F) ::== �{A,B}
CC(F) A ' B} if F shape A
A oB
atomic
if F is
is of
of the
the shape 0
{G(Il)
{G(n)lI nn E
6 w} if F sentence (Qx)G(x),
B
w} if F is
is aa sentence (Qx)G(x),
where o E
where 0 {I\., V} and Q
V} and QE6 {V,
{V, 3}.
formula G G EE C(F) OF(G) which if F
6 {A, 3}.
To
To each
each formula C(F) wewe associate
associate aa finite
finite ordinal which is is 00 if
shape A if F form (Qx)H(x) and G is H(Il).
ordinal oF(G) F
is
is of
of the
the shape A oB 0
S and
and nn if F has
has the
the form (Qx)H(x) and G is g ( n ) . In
In order
order
to
to obtain
obtain aa more
more refined
refined truth
truth complexity
complexity for
for arithmetical
arithmetical sentences
sentences we
we introduce
introduce
operator
operator controlled
controlled infinitary derivations.
F: N N M N
infinitary derivations.
For
For a
a function
function F: N --+~ N and
and aa finite
finite set C N we
set M � we define
define the
the function
function

F[M](n) := F(F(max(M
F[M](n) := m (M U {n}))
{n}))..
ax U

We
We may
may interpret
interpret FF as
as an
an operator
operator with
with values
values in
in the collection of
the collection of finite
finite sets
sets of
of
ordinals
ordinals by
by defining
defining

E F(n)
aa e F(n) :r Y(c~)
:¢:}
N(a) << F(n).
F(n).

Instead
Instead of a EE F(O)
F(0) we
we write
write shortly a E
shortly a F. To
To simplify
simplify notations
notations further
further we
we write
F[n] for F[{n}] and GG Ee F F[G] instead of OF(G)
oF(G) Ee FF and
and F[OF(G)],
of a E F. write
F[n] for F[{n}] and F and instead of FloE(G)], respectively,
set C
C (F)
and FIG] respectively,
whenever
whenever it it is
is clear
clear from
from the
the context
context to
to which
which characteristic
characteristic set (F) the
the sentence
GG belongs.
sentence
belongs.
 Set Theory
Set Theory and
and Second
Second Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 255
255

Definition. Let
2.1.5.1. Definition.
2.1.5.1. F: NN ---+} NN be
Let F: be an
an increasing
increasing function.
function. For
For aa finite
finite
set of
set of arithmetical
arithmetical sentences
sentences we
we define
define the
the proof
proof relation ��
inductively by
relation FF ~ A inductively by the
the
following clauses.
following clauses.

(/\)
(A) IfF
If �n 1\
-type, aQ E FF and
F E A N A-type, and F[G]
F[G] ~ � A,�, aG asas well
well Ola
QG << OL
Q for
for all
all G
G E CC (F)
(F)
then FF ~� A�
then

(V)
(V) 1IFIfF eE a�nn V-type,
V - type, ,Q~ ,E F,F, aG eE F,F, rF U� a,�, aG ~and
e ~QG << o,
Q Io,-~om~
for some aG eE cC (F)
(F)
then FF ~� A�
then

We call FF the
We call the main
main part
part inin instances
instances of of ((1\) (V).
and (V)"
A ) and

(cut ) If
(cut) If aQ E FF and W-~ A,�, AA asas well
and FF ~v well as W- A,-~A
as FF ~po �, -,A for
for some
some aoQo << aQ and
and some
some AA
such that
such that rk(A)
rk(A) < then FF ~� A�
< p then
It is then
It is then obvious
obvious from (88) and
from (88) the soundness
and the soundness of the cut
of the cut rule
rule that
that this
this infinitary
infinitary
calculus is sound, i.e., we have
calculus is sound, i.e., we have

F~A =~ N ~ V { F I FEA}. (89)

(89)

We say
We say that
that an
an operator
operator G G extends
extends the
the operator F, written
operator F, as FF �
written as G, if
c_ G, F(n) _:::; G(n)
if F(n) G(n)
holds for
holds all n.
for all n. By
By aa straightforward
straightforward induction
induction on
on Q we easily
c~ we easily obtain
obtain

2.1.5.2. Lemma.
2.1.5.2. Lemma. If
If aQ <_
:::; fl,
(3, p <_
:::; a, F c_
a, F �G G g:;) fl,
(3, A� �
C_ F and FF ~� �
r and then GG �
A then r.
~ F.

Another
Another easy
easy observation
observation is
is the
the following
following Detachment Lemma whose
Detachment Lemma whose proof
proof iiss again
again aa
straightforward induction on
straightforward induction on Q.
c~.

2.1.5.3. Detachment
2.1.5.3. D e t a c h m e n t Lemma.
Lemma. If FF �
If ~ �
A,, A and -,A
A and -~A E D(N) then FF �
D(N) then ~v �.
A.

One
One purpose
purpose of
of the
the operator
operator is
is to
to control
control the
the witnesses
witnesses of
of existential
existential sentences.
sentences. This
This
is
is manifested
manifested in
in the
the following
following Witnessing
Witnessing Lemma.
Lemma.

2 . 1 . 5 . 4 . Witnessing
2.1.5.4. W i t n e s s i n g Lemma.
Lemma. Let (3y)F(y) be
Let (3y)F(y) be aa ��
E~ -sentence such
such that
that
FF � (3y)F(y). . Then
~o (3y)F(y) Then N 1N F
~ (3y
(3y < F(O))F(y) .
< F(0))F(y).

The
The proof
proof is
is by
by induction
induction on a. The
on Q. The only
only possible
possible premise
premise is �
is FF ~ (3y)F(y),
oto
(3y)F(y), F(nJ
F(n)
with
with Qo < Q
c~0 < c~ and
and n = O(3y)F(y) F, i.e.
(F(11)) Ee F,
o(3y)F(y)(F(n_)) i.e. n F(0).. If
< F(O)
n < If F(11)
F(n) E e D ( N ) we
D(N) we are
are
done.
done. Otherwise
Otherwise we have FF �
we have (3y)F(y) by
~2_ (3y)F(y) by the
the Detachment
Detachment Lemma
Lemma and and obtain
obtain the
the
claim
claim by
by the
the induction
induction hypothesis.
hypothesis, 0
n

The
The more
more important
important aspect
aspect of
of operator
operator controlled
controlled derivations,
derivations, however,
however, is
is the
the
control
control they
they give
give on
on functions
functions as
as stated
stated in
in Theorem
Theorem 2.1 .5.6 below.
2.1.5.6 below. The
The key
key property
property
here
here is
is the
the following
following Inversion
Inversion Lemma.
Lemma.
 256
256 W. Pohlers

2.1.5.5. Inversion
2.1.5.5. Inversion Lemma.
Lemma. Let Let F
F be
be aa sentence of 1\
sentence of -type such
A-type that FF �
such that Ll, F.
~ A, F.
Then
Then we
we get F[G] �
get F[G] ~ Ll,
A, GC for
.for all
all G
C E
EC (F) .
C(F).

The
The proof
proof is
is by induction on
by induction on a. InIn case
case of
of an
an inference according to
inference according V ) we
to ((V) we get
get
- due
- due to
to FF � F[G] -- the
c_ FIG] claim immediately
the claim immediately fromfrom the
the induction hypothesis. In
induction hypothesis. In
case
case of
of an
an inference (1\) we
inference (A) we have
have the
the premise F[G] �
premise F[G] ~2_ Ll, G for
F, G
A, F, for some
some aaaa <
< aa
and
and get
get the
the claim
claim from
from the
the induction hypothesis, Lemma
induction hypothesis, Lemma 2.1.5.2
2.1.5.2 and
and the
the fact
fact that
that
F[G] [G]
F[GI[G] =
= F[G]
FIG].. 0
rn
Combining
Combining the
the Inversion
Inversion and Witnessing Lemmas
and Witnessing Lemmas we
we get
get the
the following
following theorem.
theorem.

2.1.5.6. Theorem.
2.1.5.6. Theorem. Let
Let (V'x) (3y)F(x, y) be
(Vx)(3y)F(x,y) be aa rrg
n~ -sentence such
such that
that
FF �
~o (V'x) y).. Then
(3y)F(x, y)
(Vx)(3y)F(x, Then the
the associated
associated recursive
recursive function J'(x) =
function f(x) = ILY
#y.. F(x,
F(x, y)
y)
is
is majorized
majorized by F, i.e.,
by F, i.e., we
we have f(n) < F(n)
have f(n) F(n) for
for all
all n
nEEw
w..

Proof. Pick
Proof. Pick n
nE w and
Ew and apply
apply the
the Inversion
Inversion Lemma
Lemma to
to get
get
Fin] �
F[n] ~ (3y)F(!£,
(3y)F(n, y)
y).. (i)
(i)
Then
Then use
use the
the Witnessing
Witnessing Lemma
Lemma to
to see that ILY
see that #y.. F(n,
F(n, y) F[n](O) =
y) < F[n](0) F(n)..
- F(n) 0
E]
We
We have
have to
to study
study the
the behavior
behavior of
of the
the controlling
controlling operators during the
operators during the cut­
cut-
elimination
elimination process.
process.

2.1.5.7. Reduction
2.1.5.7. R e d u c t i o n Lemma.
Lemma. Let
Let FF be
be aa sentence of V
sentence of and pp ::=
-type and
V-type = rk(F)
rk(F)..
Let
Let FF and
and G G be
be increasing
increasing functions
functions such that 22.. m
such that m � (m) �
< FF(m) < G If FF �
(m) . If
G(m). r, -.F
~ F,-~F
and
and GG� Ll,, FF then
~ A (F 0oG)
then (F G) I;+/J
l,p- ~ I-',A
r, Ll .

We
We prove
prove the
the lemma
lemma by by induction
induction on j3 . First
on/3. First we
we observe
observe that
that a E F and
c~ E and/3j3 E E G
imply a
imply a +
+/3j3 EE FF oo G since N(a
G since g(a + fl) �
+ j3) <_ N(a)
g(a) + N(j3) �
+ g(fl) G(0) �
_< 22.· G(O) < F(G(O)
F(G(0)).) . We
We
also
also have
have GG� c_ FF oo G If the
G.. If the last
last inference
inference isis aa cut
cut or an inference
or an inference according to (V)
according to (V), ,
whose
whose main
main part
part is is different
different from
from F,F, we
we get
get the
the claim immediately by
claim immediately by the
the induction
induction
hypothesis
hypothesis and
and FF � (F 0o G)
C_ (F G).. If
If the
the last
last inference
inference is is

(1\)
(A) G[H]p�
G[H] ~ - ALl,
' GG,
' HH
f ~for all H E
EC (G) '*
C (G) G�
=~ G Ll, G
~ A, G
then
then we
we get
get by induction hypothesis
by induction hypothesis

(F 0o G[H])
(F I;+/JH
r, Ll, H
G[H])Ipa+~" F,A H (i)
(i)
for
for all
all H
H E
EC (G) and
C (G) obtain
and obtain

(F I;+/J Fr, LlA

(F 0o G
G)) ~ (ii)
(ii)

from (i) by
from (i) by aa clause (1\) since
clause (A) (F 0o G[H])
since (F G[H]) = (F 0o G)[H]
= (F G)[H]..
The interesting case
The interesting case isis an
an inference to (V)
according to
inference according (V)
 Set
Set Theory
Theory and
and Second
Second Order
Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 257
257

GG~-r,F,
� r, F, G for some G Ee CC(F)
forsomeC (F) *~ GG~r,F� r, F (iii)
(iii)
whose main part
whose main part is F. Then
is F. Then we
we have GE
have G G, 13
E G, < 13
flo0 < fl and
and obtain
obtain

(F 0oG)lp
(F +130 r,
G) 1;~+~o A G
F, D., a (iv)
(iv)

by
by induction hypothesis. From
induction hypothesis. From the
the hypothesis
hypothesis
F � .6o" F (v)
(v)
we
we obtain
obtain

FIG]�
F[GJ ~ .6o"
A, ~GG (vi)
(vi)
by
by the
the Inversion
Inversion Lemma
Lemma (Lemma
(Lemma 2.1.5.5).
2.1.5.5). But G E
But G G means
EG means OF(G)
oF(G) < G(0) which
< G(O) which
in
in turn
turn entails F[G](n) =
entails F[GJ(n) - F(max{
F ( m a x { ooF(G),
f ( G ) , nn})
}) �<_ F(max{G(O), F(G(n)), i.e.
n}) �_< F(G(n)),
F(max{G(0),n}) i.e.
F[G] �
F[GJ (F 0o G).
C_ (F G). Hence
Hence

(F 0o G)
(F ~ -+130 r,
G) 1; ~p A, ,G
F, D., ~G (vii)
(vii)
from
from (vi)
(vi) and
and Lemma
Lemma 2.1.5.2
2.1.5.2 and
and we
we obtain
obtain

(F G) 1;~~p-+13 F,r, .60A

(F 0o G) (viii)
(viii)
from (iv) and (vii)
from (iv)and (vii) by
by cut.
cut. D
D
The
The Reduction
Reduction Lemma
Lemma illustrates
illustrates that
that avoiding
avoiding one
one cut
cut means
means composing
composing the the
controlling operator.
controlling operator. If If we
we have
have aa derivation
derivation F �~ l .60
p+F A and
and we
we want
want to
to reduce
reduce the
the
cut
cut rank
rank by
by 11 we
we have
have to to iterate
iterate the
the Reduction
Reduction Lemma
Lemma a times. This
a times. This causes
causes no no
problems
problems as as long
long as
as aa isis fi nite. For
finite. For transfinite
transfinite ordinals
ordinals a,a, however,
however, wewe have
have to to
decide
decide what
what wewe understand
understand by by transfi nite iterations
transfinite iterations of
of operators.
operators. There
There isis aa big
big
variety
variety of
of possibilities,
possibilities, e.g.,
e.g., attaching
attaching limit
limit ordinals
ordinals with
with fundamental
fundamental sequences
sequences andand
diagonalizing at
diagonalizing at limit points. However,
limit points. However, we we already
already defined
defined aa hierarchy
hierarchy ofof strictly
strictly
increasing
increasing functions
functions by introducing the
by introducing the functions W~ which
functions W'" which in
in turn
turn are
are based
based on
on the
the
collapsing functions 'If;e
collapsing functions CP.. First
First wewe observe
observe that
that 22m
m� Wa(m).. We
_ W",(m) We claim
claim that
that we
we also
also
have
have
W a O W fl C Wa ~: ,8+1" (90)
(90)
This
This turns
turns the
the members
members of of the
the hierarchy
hierarchy WW~'" into
into good
good candidates
candidates for
for the
the controlling
controlling
operators.
operators. To prove ((90)
To prove 90) we
we first
first observe
observe
nn << w =~ 'If;
* ( n ) ==nn.
CeP (n) . ((91)
91 )
Then
Then we
we show
show
cP (a + cP (/3)) _< cP (a ~/3) ((92)
92)
by induction on
by induction on/3.13. For a =
For a = 00 this
this isis (91
(91).) . So
So assume
assume a a i- 0. For
r O. For/313 =
= 00 the claim
the claim
follows
follows trivially
trivially from
from (91).
(91). If
If/3 13 i-
r 00 we we havehave 'If;
CP (13) =
e (/3) (r )
= 'If;e
CP (7) + + 11 for some 'Y
for some 7 « 13.
<</3.
Since
Since aa i-
=/=00 it
it follows
follows a + 11 '"'
a + ~ 'Y7 � 13 and
<--<aa ,",~/3 and wewe obtain
obtain
258 w.
W. Pohlers

7jJ~�( ~(a ++ 7jJr � (f3))

(#)) == 7jJ r � (a + + 11 + r � (r))
+ 7jJ
:::;_< 7jJr � (a + 11 #~ 'Y
(~ + ~)) :::;
___7jJ (~ #~ 13).
r � (a #).
Hence W
Hence o (WB(n)) == 7jJCP� (a+
W=(W#(n)) (a + 7jJ CP� (f3(fl +n
+ n+ + 1)
1) ++ 1)
1) :::;
<__7jJ� (a(a #~ 13~ ++ nn ++ 2) == WW=o #~ .B#+,+ (n)
CP l (n)
and
and we
we have
have (90)
(90).. 0
[3

2.1.5.8.
2.1.5.8. Elimination
E l i m i n a t i o n Lemma.
Lemma. I / W #.B �
IfW o A then
~ � W ~W�+#Q+
then W
wo+1 �A.·
l lF
~
.wa+l

The
The proof
proof is
is by induction on
by induction and the
on 0/and a
the crucial
crucial case
case is
is that
that of
of aa cut
cut of rank p
of rank p whose
whose
premises
premises are
are
WW .B# � +l~ �,
p~p~+ A ,A
A and
and W W .B# �
+l~ �,
p~p~+ A , -,
~A A
for some aI,
for some a2 EE W
0/1,0/2 W#.B such that ai
such that < a
0/i < for ii =
0/for = 11,, 22.. From
From the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis
we
we obtain
obtain
WWW~f3#Ql+
1+1 l F
[W Ol+1+1 �, A andand W
Q2+1 ,' -,A
IwWa2+l -~A (i)
WoK'
,p A,A Wf3#Q2+l F
W~,~2+1 ,a (i)
which
which by
by the
the Reduction
Reduction Lemma
Lemma and (90) entails
and (90) entails
Q2 A.
W
W w~f3#Ql+l
.~+~ # ~ w~f3#Q2+
~-~+~+1 p +W +1 �.
1 +l II.wCrt+l
w a l + l _}.Wa 2 + l
(ii)
(ii)
Next
Next we
we show
show
at,
0/1, a
0/22 << a h at,
0/ 1\ 0/1, a
0/22 E W.BE =>
E W ::~ W Wf3#Ql+l #:H:wwfl~a2+l-t-1
Wwfl~al+l wf3# Q+l.1.
f3#Q2+1 +l �C WWwfl~:c~.~. (93)
(93)
Since at,
Since 0/1, a EW
0/22 E means N(ai)
W .BE means N(0/i) < < W .B (O) == 7jJ�
WE(0) cP (13
(fl + 1) we
+ 1) we have
have
ui.B
W#*# ~+tOl l .B
+ ##wW#*~2+1o2 + l .B # o
# «<< ww # ~ . . 2 ++ 7jJcP(fl � (f3 ++ 1)1).· 2. . .. ,,
((iii)
111
This
This entails
entails by (51)) and
by (51 and (92)
(92)
Wwf3#Ql+l # wf3#Q2+1 +2 (n) 'f/w (W.B # Ol +l # W.B # 02+l + n + 2)
-
-
." P

< 7jJ
< CP � (w(w.B.B#~# 0~ -. 22 ++ 7jJ�
CP (13
(/~ + 1) . 22 +
+ 1). + n
n+ + 22)) (iv)
(iv)
#
� (w.BE*~O ·.l2 #~ 13~ ·. 22 ++ nn ++ 4)4)
:::;<_ 7jJCP(w
� (w# #~ O++1 ++ nn ++ 11)) =- W~]wt~
:::;_< 7jJCP(w l (n).
Wf3#Q+~+l(n).
From (ii) and
From (ii) (93) we finally
and (93)we finally obtain
obtain

WW.,~ wo+1 �A.·

.wa+l
wf3#Q+ IF
~ ,~+~~
The
The remaining
remaining cases
cases areare immediate
immediate from from the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis and
and the
the fact
fact that
that
a W.B
0/~E W E implies W.B
implies w ~ a#+Ol
+ l E~ W~,8~=e~-F1.
Wwf3#Q+l . 0
1-'1
To reobtain specno(NT)
To reobtain speCrrO2 (NT) in in terms
terms of of the indices of
the indices of functions
functions W~ majorizing
majorizing the
the W0
II~-sentences provable
rrg provable in N T by
in NT by operator controlled derivations,
operator controlled derivations, we
we have
have to
to check
check
which operators control
which operators control the the provable
provable sentences
sentences of N T . We
of NT. We introduce
introduce
par(F(Zl,...,zn)) := {Zl,...,Zn} (94)
(94)
if
if F
F ((Zl zn ) is
z t ,, ... . . ,,z~) is a
a sentence
sentence with
with only
only the
the shown
shown number
number parameters
parameters Zt , . . . ,,z~.
z~,... Zn .
Then
Then we we prove prove
 Set Theory
Theory and Second
Second Order
Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 59
2259

WW2.rk(F)
2-rk(F) [par(F)] 0202.rk(F)
[par(F)] 110
rk(F) A, F,F, -~Ff
Ll., o (95)
(95)

by induction
by induction onon rk(F).
rk(F). First
First observe
observe that
that according
according to to (91)
(91) we have Wo(n)
we have W0(n) - n + 11..
n+ =
For
For symmetry
symmetry reasons
reasons we we may may assume
assume that that F has I\
F has -type. If
A-type. If F
F is
is atomic,
atomic, then
then
C(F)
6(F) = = 00 and
and wewe obtain W0[par(F)] �
obtain Wo[par(F)] ~ A,Ll., F,
F, ~ F f by o clause 1\
by aa clause A" 0 Otherwise
Otherwise itit is
is
FF ==- Go AG
Go 1\ or F
G11 or V'x)G(x). InIn the
F - ((Vx)G(x).
== the second
second case case we we get
get
20ork(G(z-)) A,Ll., GC�'),
G ( z ) , - GG( o all Zz E
e w
20rk(G(�» [par(G(
WW2.rk(G(z_))[par(G(z))]�:))] 1Io2.rk(O(~_)) ( z�:)
) for
for all w ((i)i)
by induction hypothesis.
by induction hypothesis. Since
Since
Zz Ee WW2.rk(G(z_))[par(G(_z))]
20rk(G(�» [par(G(�))] �C_ WW2.rk(F)[par(F)][z]
20rk(F) [par(F)][z] 3~ 22.· rk(G(�))
rk(G(z)) +
+ 11
we
we obtain from ((i)
obtain from i)
rk(G(z»- +l A,Ll., G(�),
20rk(F) [par(F)][zl 1oIo202.,k(C(~_))+1
WW2.rk(F)[par(F)][z] a ( z ) , - ~ Ff o ((ii)
ii)
for
for all
all natural numbers zz by
natural numbers clause V
by aa clause V andand from from ((ii)
ii) finally
finally

WW2.20rrk(F) 20rk(F) A, F,F, ~ Ff

[par(F)]lo1 02.rk(F) Ll.,
k(F) [par(F)] o

by clause 1\.
by aa clause A" The
The first
first case
case is similar but
is similar but simplero
simpler. DE:]
Since
Since we have W
we have O [Zl, o . . , Zn] � G(�l ' . . . ' �n ) for
Wo[Zl,...,zn]~,G(Zl,...,zn) for every every true true atomic atomic formula
formula
G(�
G ( z ll ,' .· .o. ., '�n ) we
zn) we obtain
obtain
Wwon �~ (V'Xl)
(vx,)... . . . ((vx,,)a(Xl,...
V'xn )G(Xl, . . . ,,x,,) xn) (96)
for
for every
every mathematical
mathematical axiom axiom ((VXl)... V'xd . . . ((Vxn)G(xl,...
V'Xn )G(Xl, . . ,,Xn)
0 xn) by by n-fold
n-fold applications
applications of of
(1\).
(A)
From
From the method of
the method of (95) (95) we we obtain
obtain also
also the
the equality
equality axioms axioms

WW2"20rrk(F(~))-'l-2n-l-2
k(F(x»+2n+2 [[Z-1 20 r k(F(x» 2n
Z:;'IJ 1Io02.,k(F(~))+2n+2 2 w-
+ + ((VZ)(V~7)[Z=g-+
vX)(wot\
vy, [x- = y- -t F( F ( Zx-)) - +--.
--'- F(y o!\ ] (97)
�,
F(y-')] (97)

,,,h~re n is the
where the length
l~ngth of oCthe the tuple tuple x and {z}
~ and {~'} := {{Zl'
z , , . 0. . ,. , zz,,,}
m } == par(( V'x)F(x)).
p~r((VZ)F(:0).
BByy the the same
same proof
proof as as for for the the Induction Lemma ((Lemma
Induction Lemma Lemma 201.2.4 2.1.2.4)) we we obtain
obtain

20(rk(F(O»+n) [par(F(O)) ][n] 1I-~2002.(rk(F(0))-i-n)

WW2.(rk(F(O))+n)[par(F(O))][n] (rk(F(O»+n) --,F(O),
o ,o (V'x)[F (x) -t-+ F(S(x))
f (Q) -,(Vx)[F(x) F(S(x))],] , F( n} (98)
F(n_.). (98)
But (98)
But (98) in in turn
turn gives
gives

work(F(O)) [par(F(0))] I~'0�+3 F(Q)

WWw.rk(F(0))[par(F(0))] A ((Vx)[F(x)
F(0) 1\ V'x)[F(x) -t~ F(x F(x ++ 1)] 1)] -t -+ ((Vx)F(x).
V'x)F(x). (99)(99)
It
It remains
remains to
to adapt
adapt Lemma
Lemma 201.406,
2.1.4.6, i.eo
i.e.,, to
to show
show that
that there
there is
is aa natural
natural number
number kk
such
such that
that
~- A ( x , , . . . , x , ) =~ W~.~+m[z,,...,z,] 0~ A ( z , , . . . , z , ) 100)
((100)
for
for all
all tuples . . , Zn .
Z l,, 0. . . , zn. Since
tuples Zl N(w . m) = . m
Since N(w. m) = 22 . m we
we obtain << w.m. Hence
obtain P(m) « Hence P(m) w . m.
P(m)
P(m) = cP� (P(m))
= 'IjJ (P(m)) < cP� (w
< 'IjJ (w.· m) <W
m) < wom (O).
Ww.m(0). (101)
(101)
260
260 W. Pohlers
Pohlers

We
We prove
prove (100)
(100) by induction on
on m and, m
and, as
as in
in the
the proof
proof of
of Lemma
Lemma 2.1.4.6,
2.1.4.6, the
the only
(3).
by induction only
critical
critical case
case is
is an
an inference
inference according to (3). We
according to We proceed
proceed as
as in
in that
that proof
proof and
� �o(iI), G(iI, t(iI))
and
obtain
obtain from
from the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis for
for the premise ~ Ao(g), G(~7,t(~7)) aa natural
the premise
ko
natural
number ko such
number such that
that
Ww.ko+mo [[z-]
W~.ko+mo ~ �
Z! f?- (Z) , G(
A(~, z, t(t(~).
G(~', Z) ). ((i)i )
Because t(�)N
Because t(g) N is is computed
computed primitive
primitive recursively
recursively from
from ~' we
we find z
find by 48) aa natural
by ((48) natural
number
number k � k ko
> ko such
such that t(�)N P(k)
that t(g) N < P(k) < W w.k+m [Z! (O). Applying
Ww.k+m[z-](0). Applying an inference (V)
an inference (V)
to i ) we
to ((i) we therefore
therefore get
get
Ww. k+m[Z! � �o(Z) , (3x)G(z, x).
The
The other
other cases
cases follow immediately from
follow immediately from the induction hypothesis.
the induction hypothesis. o
O
By
By (96),
(96), (97), (99) and
(97), (99) and (100)
(100) we
we finally
finally obtain
obtain

N T ~� F
NT F (3k)(3m)(3r)
=~ (3k)(3m)(3r) [WW•
=> k � F]]
[W~.k~ F (102
(102))

for
for arithmetical sentences F.
arithmetical sentences F. This This yields
yields aa rr
H~ g -analysis as
as follows:
follows: If
If
NT
NT � ~- (V'x)(3y)F(x,
(Vx)(3y)F(x, y)y) ((i)i )
for II~g -sentence (V'x)(3y)F(x,
for aa rr (Vx)(3y)f(x, y) then
y)then
W
W~.~ ~ (V'x)(3y)F(x,
w.k � (Vx)(3y)F(x, y) y) ii)
((ii)
by Defining wn
102 ) . Defining
by ((102). ~n := (A�. exp(w, � + 1 ) )((~)n) and
and wn(�, 7J) recursively
recursively by
&o([,r/)) := �~ and
wo(�,7J n+l(�, 7Jr/)) :"== exp(w,wn(�, 7J) # wn(7J) + l ) we
(A[.exP(W,[+l))
and W
&~(~,r/) by
&~+l(~, exp(w,&~([,rl)$Co~(rl)+l) we get from ((ii)
get from ii) byby
r-fold
r-fold application
application of the Elimination
of the Elimination Lemma Lemma 2.1.5.8
Lemma ((Lemma 2.1.5.8))

W "'r(m) (V'x)(3y)F(x,
wr (w.k,m) I,o[~,(m) (Vx)(3y)f(x, y).
0
W~r(~'k,m) y) iii)
((iii)
Putting a wr(w·k, m) co
Putting a :-
:= &r(w.k, m) < ~o we
we obtain
obtain from iii) using
from ((iii) using the
the Inversion
Inversion and
and Witnessing
Witnessing
Lemmas ( Lemmas 2.1.5.5 and 2.1.5.3
Lemmas (Lemmas 2.1.5.5 and 2.1.5.3) )
(V'x
(Vx Ee N)(3y
N)(3y < Wet(x))F(x,
W~(x))F(x, y)
y) iv)
((iv)
which
which shows
shows
1(V'x)(3y)F(x,y)
I(Vx)(3y)f(x, Y)lno lrrg :::;<_a.a.
On
On the the other if a
hand, if
other hand, :=a "- 1(V'x)(3y)F(x,y)
[(Vx)(3y)F(x, y)lno l rrg then
then we get W
we get et [i] �~ (3y)F(i,y)
W~[i] (3y)F(/, y) for
for
a l l /i eE N
all N andand thus also W
thus also W~et �
~o (V'y)(3y)F(x,
(Vy)(3y)f(x, y).
y). Hence
Hence

W[F[no {a[l (3,8)

min {a
lrrg == min (3/3) [W ~ F
[W~et � ]}
F]} 103)
((103)
for
for rr ri~g -sentences F. F. O o

Equation
Equation (103)
(103) can
can be
be taken
taken as
as evidence
evidence for
for the
the naturalness
naturalness of
of the
the concept
concept of
of
operator
operator controlled
controlled infinitary
infinitary derivations.
derivations.
 Set Theory and Second Order Number Theory 261
261

2.2.
2.2. Peano
P e a n o arithmetic
a r i t h m e t i c with
w i t h additional
additional transfinite
transfinite induction
induction

2.2.1.
2.2.1. The theories NT
T h e theories -< t and
NT~t and their
their rr
H~ g -spectra
Let -<
Let -~ be
be aa primitive
primitive recursive
recursive well-ordering.
well-ordering. For
For simplicity
simplicity assume
assume that
that
field ((-~)
field -<) = By T/
N. By
= N. TI ((-~ fm) we
-< [m) we denote
denote the
the scheme
scheme

Prog( -<, F)
Prog(-~, F) --+
-+ (\:fy
(Vy -<-~ m)F(y)
m)F(y)
for
for .c F(y)
s � -formulas F(y) expressing
expressing transfinite
transfinite induction
induction along
along -<
-< [m. Then
Then fm.
TI(<[)
T U T
/ ( -< r) := U / ( -< fm)
Tl(-<rm)
mm EEN N
denotes
denotes the
the scheme
scheme of
of transfinite induction along
transfinite induction along all proper initial
all proper initial segments
segments of
of -<
-~..
Let
Let
NT
NT.<rt := + T/(-<
TI(-< r)
[)..
-< := NT
NT +
The
The aim
aim of
of the
the following
following section
section isis to
to compute
compute the
the rr g -spectra of
II~ of the
the theories
theories NT -< t .
NT.<t.
We
We will
will do
do this
this using
using thethe technique
technique of of Section
Section 2.1 .5. The
2.1.5. The importance
importance of of the
the theories
theories
NT -<t will
NT.<r will become
become clear
clear in
in aa moment.
moment.
To
To extend
extend the
the calculus
calculus I~ I� b.A of
of Definition
Definition 2. 1.4.2 let
2.1.4.2 let €e be
be an
an €-number
e-number and
and
assume
assume that
that there
there is
is aa norm
norm

NN:r: € --+~ ww
satisfying:
satisfying:
(N1)
(N1) N(O)
N(0) =
- o0..
(N2)
(N2) N(a
N(a # = N(a)
fl) =
~ (3) N(a) + + N( {3).
N(fl).
(N3)
(N3) aa =1=C Ww O~ �=~ N(wO)
N(w ~) = = N(a)
N(a) + + ll..
(N4)
(i4) For
For all all n n EEw
w the
the set {a << €e II N(a)
set {~ N(a) < < n}
n} is
is finite.
finite.
Observe
Observe that conditions (N1)
that conditions (N1) -- N(4)
N(4) areare always
always satisfiable
satisfiable as
as soon
soon as
as we
we have
have term
term
notations
notations for for the
the ordinals
ordinals below
below €.
c.
Using
Using the norm N
the norm N and
and the
the starting
starting function
function PP as
as defi ned in
defined in Definition
Definition 2.1.4.1
2.1.4.1
we
we may
may extend
extend the
the collapsing
collapsing function
function 1/Jr w and
and the
the collapsibly-less
collapsibly-less relation
relation « <<~€ to
to all
all
ordinals
ordinals below
below ~.€. Therefore
Therefore Definition
Definition 2.1.4.2
2.1.4.2 extends
extends toto the
the ordinals
ordinals below
below €e andand wewe
get
get the
the same
same results
results as
as in
in Section
Section 2.1.4.
2.1.4. Therefore
Therefore wewe need
need only
only to know cc
to know cc (( T
T/( -< r)[)))
I(-<
in
in order
order to
to compute
compute spec rrg (NT-< t)) .. To
specno(NT~r To get this, however,
get this, however, we we need
need to
to know
know aa little
little
bit
bit more
more about
about the relation -<
the relation -<..
Call
Call a well-ordering -<
a well-ordering -< a good representation
a good representation for for €~ if
if its
its order
order type
type is
is €c and
and there
there
is
is an
an order
order preserving
preserving mapping
mapping
0:
o: field( -<) --+> €c
field (-<)

satisfying:
satisfying:
262
262 w.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

(01)
(ol) (Vm)[o(m)
(Vm)[o(m)eE Lim]
Lim]..
(02)
(02) (Vm < w)[N(o(m))
(Vm w)[N(o(m)) < P(m) Am
P(m) /\ < P(N(o(m)))].
m ::; P(N(o(m)))].
Let
Let -<
-~ be
be aa good
good representation
representation for
for cc.. We
We want
want to compute cc
to compute cc ((TI(-~
TI ( -< r,r, f ) ) forF))
for an
an
.eN-formula F.
/:N-formula F. LetLet kk := rk(F)
:= rk(F) and
and put
put
an w := . (k + o(n).
+ 1) # o(n).
Since m
Since m -<-~ n implies am
n implies am < a a~n Ee LLira and N(am
im and N(am + 4) = N(am)
+ 4) = g(am) + =
+ 44 = 22.. (k
(k +
+ 1)
1) +
+
N(o(m))
N(o(m)) + + 44 < 22.· (k
(k + + P(m)
1) +
+ 1) P(m) + < P(2
+ 44 ::; P(2.· (k
(k +
+ 1) + m)
1) + m) ::;< P(N(a
P(N(an)n ) + m)
m) we
we get
get
mm --<~ nn =>=~ am < ~ a ~a.n .
a m ++44< «� (104)
(104)
Because of w
Because of _ a
w ::; and N(n
a ,n and Y(n + 1) = n
+ 1) n+= < P(o(n))
+ 11 ::; P(o(n)) + < P(a
+ 11 ::; n ) we
P(an) we also
also have
have
nn ++ 11 «0
<<o aan.n. (105)
(105)
We
We use
use (104)
(104) and
and (105) in proving
(105) in proving
If?- -,Prog(
[~.e_ ~Prog(~, F), (Vy n)F(y)
-<, F), (Vy -<
-~ n)F(y) (106)
(106)
by
by -<-induction
-~-induction on on n. For any m
For any m E ENN we
we have
have
'
I~ 0--e-- -<, F),
F), (Vy m)F(y), -~m,m -<~ nn
t

If?- -,Prog(
~Prog(-~, (Vy -<-~ m)F(y), (i)
(i)
either
either by
by (AxM) with a;"
(AxM) with a,~
' =
-00 or
or by
by induction
induction hypothesis with a;"
hypothesis with a m = am
I
if m
am if= ~ n.
m -< n.
B
Byy (72)
(72) we
we also
also have
have

~o~ -,F(m),
I[� --,F(m), F(m)
f (m) (ii)
(ii)
and
and obtain
obtain
[[0~+1
1
II:m+ ~Prog(-~, F), (Vy m)F(y) -,F(m) , -,m
-, Prog( -<, f ) , (Vy -< -~ n,
/\ ~ f ( m ) , ~m_ -<
-~ m ) f ( y ) A F(m)
_n, f(m)_ (iii)
(iii)
from (i)
from (i) and
and (ii)
(ii) by
by an inference A.
an inference /\. By
By (105)
(105) we get
we get

II0~+2 -,Prog(
II:m -<, F),
~Prog(-~, F), -,
~m_m -~
-< _n, F(m)
n, F(m) (iv)
(iv)
from
from (iii)
(iii) by
by an inference 3:3 and
an inference and

I0:m H -,Prog(
III1~+4 ~Prog(-~ ~
F), ~m
-<, F) -,m -<-~ nn vV F(m)
~ - -
F(m)
__
(v)
(v)
from
from (v)
(v) by
by two
two inferences Using (104)
(V) . Using
inferences (V). (104) we
we finally
finally get
get
F), (Vy
I f?- -,Prog( -<, F), (Vy -< n)F(y) (vi)
from (v)
from (v) by an inference
by an inference V. V. o
D
Together with
Together with the
the previous
previous section
section (107)
(107) yields
yields that
that for sentence FF in
every sentence
for every in the
the
theory NT -<t there
theory NT.~r there is
is an
an ordinal
ordinal ~{3 << c such
such that
that
I � F.
Together with
Together with Lemma
Lemma 2.1.4.6
2.1.4.6 this
this means
means
 Set Theory
Set Theory and
and Second
Second Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 263
263

NT.<r f- F
NT -< t ~- F => (3c~
=~ w)[ I� FJ
c )(3m << w)[l~-~ F]
(30 << c)(3m
from which
from which we
we get
get by
by cut-elimination
cut-elimination and
and the
the fact
fact that
that c is
is an c
an e-number
c-number
NT.<r f- F
NT -< t ~ F => (Sc~
=~ )
(30 << ~)[l~c [ I � FJ.
El. (107)
(107)
Hence specno(NT<r)
Hence specrrg (NT-< t) c_ c.
On the
� e. On the other
other hand
hand we
we have
have e C_
� IINT<rllc
IINT -< t ll which
which by
by (68)
(68)
entails
entails
sup(specno(NT.<r)) IINT -< t llI -= sup(specn]
c
sup(specrrg (NT-< t)) == ~ == ]INT.<rl (NT-< t) ) ·
sup(specrrl (NT.<r)). 10
( 8)
(108)
Applying Theorem
Applying 2.1.4.5
Theorem 2.1.4.5 we
we get
get the
the following
following theorem.
theorem.
2.2.1.1. TTheorem.
2.2.1.1. heorem. Let ~c bebe anan e-number
Let c-number and and -<-< aa good representation for
good representation for ~.c.
Then the
Then the provably
provably recursive
recursive functions
functions ofof NT.< are exactly
NT-< rt are exactly the
the functions
functions which
which are
are
elementary Wa -- asas defined
elementary inin Wa defined inin (63)
(63) --for some c~0 << c.c.
f o r some

Significance of
2.2.2. Significance
2.2.2. of the theories NT.<
the theories NT -< rt
An ordinal analysis
A n ordinal analysis of
of aa theory
theory AAx yields -- among
x yields among others
others -- the ordinal IIAxl
the ordinal llAxlll <
<
w~
WfK.K . We call an
W e call an ordinal
ordinal analysis
analysis for
for aa theory
theory AAxx 22 NNT profound
T profound if if it
it not only
not only
IAxl1 but
computes IllAxll
computes but also
also provides
provides aa primitive
primitive recursive
recursive well-ordering,
well-ordering, say
say -<4,, which
which
is aa good
is good representation for llAxll
representation for IIAxl1 such
such that
that
Ax
Ax~ Ff-
F r{:} NT F
N T ~-< tr ~- F f- (109)
(109)
holds for
holds for all
all arithmetical formulas. If
arithmetical formulas. If we have aa profound
we have profound ordinal analysis of
ordinal analysis of Ax we
A x we
know by
know by (108) its II~
(108) its fIg-spectrum and
and by
by Theorem 2.2.1.1
Theorem 2.2.1.1 also its provably
also its recursive
provably recursive
functions.
functions.
All
All known
known ordinal
ordinal analyses
analyses are
are profound.
profound. The
The general
general reason
reason for
for that
that can
can be
be
roughly
roughly sketched.
sketched. Recall
Recall from Section 1.4 the
from Section 1.4
the main
main steps
steps in
in an
an ordinal
ordinal analysis
analysis which
which
are:
are:
• Designing a semi-formal calculus � .0. which commonly needs a term notation for
9 Designing a semi-formal calculus ~ A which commonly needs a term notation for
ordinals.
ordinals.
•9 Transforming a formal derivation
Transforming a formal derivation Ax
Ax f- F into an infinite semi-formal derivation
~ F into an infinite semi-formal derivation
� F.
• Cut elimination for the semi-formal calculus, yielding � F � F.
9 Cut elimination for the semi-formal calculus, yielding ~ F =>
=> ~o F.
Arithmetizing
Arithmetizing the the term
term notation
notation gives
gives iinn general
general aa primitive
primitive recursive
recursive well-ordering
well-ordering
-< which
-< which isis aa good
good representation
representation for for IIAxll
Ilhxll..
Unravelling
Unravelling aa formal formal derivation
derivation into
into anan infinite
infinite one
one results
results in
in aa recursive
recursive
infinite
infinite tree.
tree. Therefore
Therefore we we maymay restrict
restrict the
the semi-formal
semi-formal calculus
calculus toto recursive
recursive
proof
proof trees.
trees. Then Then there
there is
is aa recursive
recursive predicate, Proofoo (x, y, u),
predicate, say
say Proofoo(x, y, z, u), such
such that
that
Proofoo (�,
Proofoo(e__, r~o,' , rp'
~f , '.0.
rA~)' ) expresses
expresses that
that
"e"e isis the
the code
code of
of an
an infinite
infinite recursive
recursive tree
tree tagged
tagged with
with ordinal
ordinal notations
notations (i. e.,
(i.e.,
elements
elements in in the
the field
field of
of -<,)
-<,) and
and codes
codes for
for finite
finite formula
formula sets
sets which
which is
is locally
locally correct
correct
with
with respect
respect toto the
the axioms
axioms and
and rules
rules of
of the
the semi-formal
semi-formal calculus
calculus witnessing
witnessing � ~ .0.."
A."
264 w.
W. Pohlers

If
If we
we assume ProolAx(r,.,
assume ProofAx(e__, rF'
rF')) then
then the
the embedding
embedding procedure
procedure yields
yields a recursive
a recursive
function g such
function 9 such that
that
Proofoo (g(r,.) , n_n_,r, rF'
Proofoo(g(e_), '!l, '[,
rF~))
where
where nn and
and rr are
are computable from ee.. This
computable from This can
can be
be done within NT.
done within N T . If
If we
we secure
secure
that all the
that all the manipulations
manipulations which
which are
are done
done toto an
an infinite proof tree
infinite proof tree during
during the
the cut
cut
elimination procedure
elimination procedure are locally recursive,
are locally recursive, we
we can
can use
use the
the Recursion
Recursion Lemma
Lemma toto
obtain
obtain aa recursive
recursive function,
function, say
say h, such that
such that h,
Proofoo (h(g(r,.) ), rr3~,
Proofoo(h(g(e_.)), {3' , O,0, rrFT).
F' ) .
Besides NT
Besides N T the
the Recursion
Recursion Lemma
Lemma needs transfinite induction
needs transfinite induction along
along -< fr{3' .. There­
-~rr37 There-
fore
fore this
this step
step can
can be
be done within NT
done within -< r . Using
NT.~r. Using the
the sub-formula
sub-formula property
property ofof cut
cut free
free
infinite
infinite derivations
derivations we
we obtain
obtain
Proof oo (r,., n, Q0_,, rFrFT)' )
Proofoo(e_, '!l, ~ Truek(
-+ rF')
Truek(rF ~)
by
by induction
induction on
on -<-~ fn where Truek
rn where Truek denotes
denotes aa partial
partial truth
truth predicate
predicate for
for formulas
formulas of
of
complexities
complexities ::;
< k.k. So this can
So this can be in NT-<r
done in
be done NT.~r ,, too. Because of
too. Because of
NT
N T ~�
- Truek ( rF') --+ F
rF7) -+ F
we
we get, summing up:
get, summing up:
Ax
hx �
~ F ::~ NT
F � NT �~ ProofAx(e_, F) ProolAx(r,., F)
� NT �
=~ NT ~- Proofoo (g(e_), n,
n, r, Proofoo (g(r,.) ,
r, F)
F)
=v NT-<
� ~ Proo]oo(h(g(e__)), m,
NT.~rr � Proofoo(h(g(r,.) ), 0, F)
m, O, F)
� NT-< r � Truek( rF' )
=~ NT.~r ~ Truek(rF ~)
=v NT-<r
� NT.~ r � F
~ F
Since
Since we have NT
we have C_ Ax
NT � and Ax
A x and Ax �
~ TI -< f)r) we
Tl(-~ we also
also have
have the (
the opposite
opposite direction
direction
NT-<r �F �
NW.~r~-F =~ Ax
A x ~�- FF
for
for arithmetical
arithmetical formulas
formulas and and the
the ordinal
ordinal analysis
analysis is is profound.
profound.
Having
Having a a profound
profound ordinal
ordinal analysis
analysis for theory Ax,
for aa theory Ax, we
we can
can try
try to
to sharpen (109)
sharpen (109)
by replacing NT
by replacing NT.~r-<r by
by aa more
more constructive
constructive system.
system. If If we
we restrict
restrict the
the scheme
scheme of of
Mathematical
Mathematical Induction
Induction in in NT
N T to
to ��-formulas
E~ we
we get
get the E~
theory ��-IND.
the theory Primitive
Primitive
Recursive
Recursive Analysis
Analysis - - as
as aa second order theory
second order theory -- is
is aa conservative
conservative extension
extension ofof ��-IND.
E~
Let -~ be
Let -< be aa primitive
primitive recursively
recursively definable
definable order
order relation.
relation. For
For mm E E field ( -<) we
field(-<) we
have the scheme
have the scheme

((PRWO(-<rm)) V'x) [(V'y) (f(x, y) -<-< m) -+--+ (3y)(

PRWO( -< fm) ) ((V2)[(Vy)(f(Z,y) (3y)(-~f(2, f(:~,y))]
-,f(x, Sy) -<-< f(x, y))]
where f
where f varies
varies over
over constants
constants forfor primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions. Thus PRWO(
functions. Thus -< fm)
PRW0(-~ Im)
expresses
expresses that
that there
there are
are no
no infinite
infinite primitive
primitive recursive
recursive -<-descendent
-<-descendent sequences
sequences in
in
-< Im. We
-~ fm. We put
put

PRWO(-<
PRWO( PRWO(-<fm)
:=
-< f)I) "= U PRWO(-< Im)
m
m EE field( -< )
field(-<)
 Set Theory and Second Order Number Theory
Set 265
265

and want
and want to
to replace
replace NT.~ by E~
NT-< tf by PRWO( -< r) in
I;�-IND ++ PRWO(-~ f)
in (109). This does
(109) . This does not
not work
work for
for
arbitrary arithmetical
arbitrary arithmetical formulas
formulas butbut only
only for rrg -sentences. The
for ri~ The proof
proof needs Mints '
needs Mints'
continuous cut
continuous cut elimination
elimination theorem.
theorem. Let [, rAT)
Proof/:(e, m,
Let Proofer(e, m, r_, rb,') express
express that
that "e is the "e is the
index of a primitive recursive tree tagged with members offield( -<) (serving as ordinal
index of a primitive recursive tree tagged with members of field(-~) (serving as ordinal
notations), numbers
notations), numbers (for
(for the
the cut-
cut - rank)
rank) and
and finite
finite formula
formula sets,
sets, which
which isis locally
locally
correct with respect
correct with to the
respect to the axioms
axioms and
and rules
rules of the semi-formal
of the semi-formal system
system (augmented
(augmented byby
aa replication
replication rule
rule whose
whose premise
premise and
and conclusion
conclusion are
are identical)
identical) such
such that
that itsits bottom
bottom
node isis tagged
node tagged with
with mm (coding
(coding the
the height of the
height of the tree),
tree), rr (coding
(coding itsits cut
cut rank)
rank) andand b,A ".".
By Mints ' continuous
By Mints' continuous cut
cut elimination
elimination there
there exists
exists aa primitive
primitive recursive
recursive function,
function, say
say
such that
H, such
H, that
I;�-IND ~-
E~ Proof/:(e, m,m, r_r_, rA7)
� Proofs rb,') --~ Proof!:(H(e), k,/s., O,Q, rA7)
[,
-+ Proofs rb,' )
where kk is
where is computable
computable from H(e) inin such
from H(e) such aa way that, provided
way that, provided that that -~
-< isis aa well-
well­
ordering, -< fk has
ordering, -~rk has order
order type expr (2, otyp.~(m)).
type exp"(2, otyp-« m) ) . Giving
Giving aa sketch
sketch of of the
the proof
proof of
of
Mints ' theorem
Mints' theorem would
would lead
lead us
us far
far outside
outside the
the scope
scope of
of this
this contribution. But we
contribution. But we want
want
to give
to give aa kind of flow
kind of flow chart
chart how
how toto use
use itit in
in sharpening (109) . Thus
sharpening (109). assume that
Thus assume that
we have
we have aa profound
profound ordinal analysis of
ordinal analysis of Ax
A x andand let be aa good
let -~ be -<
good representation
representation for
for
[IAx[[.. Let
\\Ax\\ (Vx) (3y)F(x, y)
Let (Vx)(3y)F(x,y) be IIg -sentence such
be aa ri~ that
such that

Ax (Vx)(3y)F(x, y).
A x ~� (Vx)(gy)F(x, y). (i)
(i)

By (109) we
By (109) we thus obtain
thus obtain

NT -<f ~-
NT.~r (Vx)(3y)F(x, y).
� (Vx)(3y)F(x, y). (ii)
(ii)

By Theorem 2.1.2.2 and

By Theorem (39)) there
and (39 there are
are formulas
formulas F 1 , . . . , Ft which either
F/ which either belong F1, ,
to
belong to . • •

NT -< f or
NT.~r or are
are identity
identity axioms
axioms such
such that
that

�
~0 ,F
~ F 1l ,, .. .. .., , '
F/ , (3y)F(k, y)
~Fz, (3y)F(/s., y) (iii)
(iii)

for every
for every number k.Looking more
number k. Looking more carefully
carefully at
at the
the embedding
embedding procedure
procedure we we observe
observe
that
that thethe resulting
resulting infinitary
infinitary proof
proof tree
tree is primitive recursive
is primitive recursive and and that
that an index for
an index for that
that
tree
tree cancan be be computed
computed from from the
the formal
formal proof. Since the
proof. Since the provably
provably recursive
recursive functions
functions
of
of I;�-IND
E~ are
are exactly
exactly the
the primitive
primitive recursive
recursive ones,
ones, this
this embedding
embedding procedure
procedure can can
be
be formalized
formalized within within I;�-IND.
E~ In
In the
the next
next step
step wewe observe
observe that that allall axioms
axioms in in
NT.~rf and
NT-< and all all identity
identity axioms
axioms have
have primitive
primitive recursive
recursive proof
proof trees
trees in
in the
the semi-formal
semi-formal
calculus.
calculus. The The onlyonly case
case in
in which
which this is not
this is not completely
completely obviousobvious is is an instance of
an instance of
Prog(
Prog(-~, G)
-<, G) -+ (Vy n.)G(y).
-~ n)G(y). The
--+ (Vy -< proof of
The proof of (106) shows
shows how how toto construct
construct thethe tree.
tree.
Instead
Instead of of using
using induction
induction on -~ -
on -< m I;�-IND
E0_IND + + PRWO(
PRW0(-~ -< r)r) does
does not know that
not know that -<-~ is
is
well-ordered - we start with the bottom node and enumerate all possible
w e l l - o r d e r e d - we start with the bottom node and enumerate all possible premises. premises.
This
This gives
gives
. ...,
9 . , ,Prog( -<, G),
--, Prog(-..<, G ) , 'ill
--,m -< -~ n.
n V V G(ill) , . .9.9 9
G(m_.),
-~Prog(~,-<, G),
,Prog( G ) , (Vy --< n.)G(y)
( V y -< n__)G(y)

Above
Above any
any of
of these
these nodes
nodes we
we decide
decide primitive
primitive recursively
recursively whether -~ n
whether ~m -< n.. If
If this
this is
is ,m
266
266 w.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

true
true then
then we add ...,
we add Prog( -<, G)
~Prog(-~, G),, ...,
-~m -~ !l
m -< n as
as top node. Otherwise
top node. Otherwise we
we construct
construct
...,-~Prog(-,:,
Prog( -<, G)G),, (Vy -< --,:mm)G(y)
)G(y) ...,-~G(m), G(m)
G (m) , G(m)
...,-~Prog(-<,
Prog( -<, G) G),, (Vy -< 9m)G(y)
m)G(y) 1\ A ...,
-~G(m),
G (m) , G(m)
...,-~P
Prog(-<,
rog( -<, G)G),, G(m)
G (m__)
...,--,Prog(-.<,
Prog( -<, G)C),, ...,
~m -,; !l
m -< nV v G(m)
and
and repeat
repeat the
the procedure
procedure above above ..., -~Prog(-~,
Prog( -<, G) (Vy -<
G),, (Vy m)G(y) .
-~ m)G(y).
Summing up
Summing up we we obtain
obtain aa primitive
primitive recursive
recursive function
function hh such such that
that
��-IND
r~~ ~ (Vx)
� r(3y)F(x , yf
[ProolAx (e, ~(3y)F(~,
(W)[P~oof~x(e, y)')) -+ -~ Proo
P~oofs!!:;(h(e) , m, [~,, r~(3y)F(~, y)')]. (iv)
(3y)F(x , yf)]. (iv)
Together
Together with Mints'' Theorem
with Mints Theorem this
this yields
yields
Ax
Ax~-� (Vx) (3y)F(x, y) ::}
(Vx)(3y)F(x, =~ �� ~ (Vx)
E~- IND � (Vx)[Proofs O, rr(3y)F(~,
[Proo!!:;(H(h(e)), m, Q, y)7)] (v)
(3y)F(x , yf)] (v)
But
But (3y)F(x, y) is
is aa �
E~� -formula. AA cut
cut free
free infinitary
infinitary proof
proof of
of (3y)F(x, y) cannot
cannot
contain
contain instances
instances of
of aa V-rule
V-rule and
and is
is thus
thus finite.
finite. Every
Every path path in
in the
the proof
proof tree
tree is
is
primitive
primitive recursive
recursive and
and we
we may
may therefore
therefore use
use PRWO(-~ PRWO(
-< fr)) to
to deduce
deduce
E~
��-IND + PRWO(-< f)
+ PRWO(-<r)}--(Vx)Truel(r(3y)F(~,y)
� (Vx) 7ruel ( (3y)F(x , yf)
7) (vi)
(vi)
from
from (v)
(v) which
which in
in turn
turn entails
entails
+ PRWO(
E~- IND +
�� -< f[)) �
PRWO(-< ~-- (Vx) (3y)F(x, y).
(Vx)(3y)F(x, y). (vii)
(vii)
By (i) and
By (i) and (vii) we have
(vii)we have
A x ~� (Vx)
Ax (3y)F(x, y) {o}
(Yx)(3y)F(x,y) E~
r ��-IND + PRWO(
+ PRWO(--~r) i-- (Vx)
-< f) t- 1 10)
(3y)F(x, y) ((110)
(Yx)(3y)F(x,y)
for
for rr
H~ g -sentences (Vx) (3y)F(x, y) since
(Vx)(3y)F(x, the opposite
since the opposite implication
implication holds obviously. 0
holds obviously. O
Call aa function
Call function f f -<-descendent
-,:-descendent recursive
recursive if if it
it isis represented
represented by
by aa function
function term
term
which
which is built up
is built up from
from C;:. P~n and
C~,, P;:' and S S by Sub, Rec and
by Sub, and the
the search operator J.L.."
search operator #.~ which
which
is defined by
is defined by
(fLJ) (M) ::=
(#.<f) (X) min {{yy]I ""!
- min ~f (x, -<
Sy) -~ !f (x,
(~, Sy) (~, y)
y) }}..
It
It isis not
not very
very difficult
difficult toto show
show that that the
the provably
provably recursive
recursive functions
functions of of
��-IND
E~ + PRWO(
+ PRWO(-~r) -< n are
are exactly
exactly the the -<-descendent recursive functions
-<-descendent recursive functions (cf.(cf.
e.g.,Pohlers [1992] for
e.g.,Pohlers [1992] for aa proof)
proof).. Together
Together withwith Weiermann's result this
Weiermann's result this shows
shows that
that
for
for aa good
good representation
representation -< -~ for Ax l1 aa function
for II[[Ax[I function f
f is
is -<-descendent
-<-descendent iff
iff it
it is
is primitive
primitive
recursive
recursive in WQ
in Wa for some a
for some a << IIAx
[[Ax[[. ll . AA result
result which
which cancan also
also be proved directly,
be proved directly,
even
even under
under weaker conditions on
weaker conditions on -< -~ (cf. Buchholz, Cichon
(cf. Buchholz, Cichon and
and Weiermann
Weiermann [1994]).
[1994]).
A
A comprehensive
comprehensive studystudy on on -<-descendence
-~-descendence and and proof
proof theory
theory can
can be
be found
found in in Fried­
Fried-
man
man andand Sheard [1995].. A
Sheard [1995] A completely
completely workedworked out
out proof
proof of
of Mints'
Mints' theorem
theorem is is in
in
Buchholz
Buchholz [1991].
[1991].

3.
3. Impredicative
Impredicative systems
systems

The
The aim
aim of
of this
this chapter
chapter is
is to
to give
give upper
upper bounds
bounds for
for the
the proof-theoretical
proof-theoretical ordinals
ordinals
of
of some
some impredicative
impredicative axiom
axiom systems
systems of
of Number
Number Theory
Theory and
and Set
Set Theory.
Theory. We We
 Set Theory
Theory and Second
Second Order
OrderNumber
Number Theory
Theory 267
267

will
will restrict
restrict ourselves
ourselves to TIt analyses
to II~ analyses which
which are
are already
already sufficiently
sufficiently complicated.
complicated.
Moreover,
Moreover, we we will
will also
also not
not demonstrate
demonstrate thethe latest
latest state
state ofof the
the art
art but
but restrict
restrict
ourselves
ourselves toto three
three axiom
axiom systems
systems for
for Set
Set Theory, K P w , , axiomatizing
Theory, KPw axiomatizing an an admissible
admissible
universe, KP1, axiomatizing
universe, KPl, axiomatizing a a union
union of
of admissible
admissible universes
universes and K P i axiomatizing
and KPi axiomatizing
an
an admissible
admissible union
union ofof admissible
admissible universes,
universes, and
and the
the corresponding
corresponding axiom
axiom systems
systems
for Number Theory.
for Number Theory. Today
Today we we know
know also
also how
how toto analyse
analyse axiom-systems
axiom-systems for Mahlo­
for Mahlo-
universes,
universes, TIn-reflection
IIn-reflection and
a n d -- though
though II have
have not
not yet
yet seen
seen the
the proofs
proofs- - even
even for
for
�l -separation. T.
El-separation. T. Arai
Arai has
has announced
announced thethe analysis
analysis of
of even
even stronger
stronger systems.
systems. He He
uses,
uses, however,
however, a a different
different technique
technique which
which is
is based
based on
on G.
G. Takeuti's
Takeuti's methods.
methods.

3.1. Some
3.1. S o m e remarks
r e m a r k s on
on predicativity
p r e d i c a t i v i t y and
a n d impredicativity

The
The focus
focus ofof this contribution is
this contribution is on
on the
the ordinal
ordinal analysis
analysis of of impredicative
impredicative systems. systems.
In
In order
order toto distinguish
distinguish impredicative
impredicative theories theories from from predicative
predicative ones ones wewe need
need aa short short
discussion
discussion on on predicativity
predicativity and and impredicativity.
impredicativity. LimitationsLimitations of of space
space force
force us us to to be be
rather
rather sketchy.
sketchy.
There are
There are two
two ordinals
ordinals whichwhich characterize
characterize aa transitive £( E) -structure ffJl.
transitive/:(E)-structure 001. The The
ordinal
ordinal 0(001)
o(gYt) := := min min {a {c~ E On II a
e On a � OO1} and
r if)t} and the the least
least ordinal which cannot
ordinal which cannot be be
pinned
pinned downdown in in 0019~t (cf.
(cf. Barwise [1975,111.7 and
Barwise [1975,III.7 and VII.3]).
VII.3]). We We need
need not
not to to repeat
repeat the the
definition
defnition of "Pinning down
of "Pinning down ordinals"
ordinals" because
because we we are
are going
going to
to refi ne it
refine it in
in the
the following
following
way.
way. Assume
Assume that that the the language
language £oo s ,w is is coded
coded as as sets
sets as
as e.g.
e.g. inin Barwise
Barwise [1975] [1975]..
Introduce the
Introduce the notion
notion of of an infinitary proof
an infinitary within aa semi-formal
proof within semi-formal system system for for SetSet
Theory
Theory as as sketched
sketched in Section 1.4.
in Section 1.4. Denote
Denote by by T T � ~-FF that
that T T is is an
an infinitary
infinitary
proof
proof tree
tree for
for the formula F.
the formula F. We We saysay that
that aa countable
countable ordinal
ordinal a a is is provably
provably
pinned down
pinned down in in aa transitive
transitive £(E) s -structure 001 93~ if
if there
there is is aa well-ordering
well-ordering -~ on -< on
w of order type
of order type a c~ in 001, aa (possibly
in 9Yr (possibly infinitary)
infinitary) formula
formula (cf.(cf. Pohlers
Pohlers [1989,§19]
[1989,w for for
examples
examples of of such
such formulas)
formulas) Found( Found(-<) in-<) in 001 which expresses
99~ which expresses the the well-foundedness
well-foundedness
of
of -<
-~ and
and anan infinitary
infinitary proof proof T T in 9Yt such
in 001 such that
that T T � -<).
Found(-<). Define
~ Found( Define h(001) h(D~t) := :=
min
min {a{ c~ E On]I a
E On c~ cannot
cannot be be provably
provably pinnedpinned down down by by OO1 } . Of
93~}. Of course
course we we always
always have have
0(001)
o(99l) � h(93~).. Now
_ h(001) Now let let 001 be the
99l be the initial
initial part
part La L~ of of the
the constructible
constructible hierarchy.
hierarchy.
Then o(L~) =
Then o(La) - a c~ and
and we we put h( a) ::=
put h(c~) h(La) . Then
- h(L~). Then a c~ � h( a)
_ h(c 0.. We
We call
call an ordinal a
an ordinal c~
autonomously inaccessible
autonomously inaccessible if if a
c~ = = h (a) . For
h(c~). For an an autonomously
autonomously accessible ordinal we
accessible ordinal we
have
have a c~ << h ( a) which
h(c~) which meansmeans that that a c~ can
can bebe provably
provably pinnedpinned downdown by L~.. Then
by La Then we we
have
have a a formula Found(c~) EE La
formula Found(a) L~,, expressing
expressing the the well-foundedness
well-foundedness of of an
an well-ordering
well-ordering
of
of order
order type
type a c~ and
and a a proof
proof T T E La L~ such
such that
that T T � ~ Found(
Found(a).a) . If
If we
we denote
denote again again
�
T~ F
, O

by
by T F that
that (J fl is
is an
an upper
upper boundbound for for the
the height
height of of TT and
and thethe complexity
complexity of of all
all
formulas occurring in
formulas occurring in TT andand p a a strict
strict upper
upper bound
bound for for the
the cut
cut formulas
formulas occurring
occurring
in
in T T then
then there
there are are ordinals
ordinals (J fl and
and p lessless than
than a c~ such
such that
that T �
T ~ Found(
r
) .. If
F o u n d ( o la) If
we anticipate
anticipate that that we can construct construct La L~ whenever we have have the ordinal a e we can
interpret
interpret autonomously
autonomously accessible accessible ordinals as ordinals which can be secured secured by
smaller ordinals (cf. Schlfiter Schliiter [1990]
[1990] for a fully fully worked out version of these ideas) ideas)..
The notion of autonomously accessible and inaccessible ordinals is due to Feferman
(cf.
(cf. Feferman
Feferman [1964]).
[1964]).
268
268 W. Pohlers

The Elimination
The Elimination Lemma
Lemma (Lemma
(Lemma 2.1.2.8)
2.1.2.8) and
and the
the Predicative
Predicative Elimination
Elimination
Lemma (Lemma
Lemma (Lemma 2.1.2.9)
2.1.2.9) as
as well
well as
as the
the Boundedness
Boundedness Theorem
Theorem (Theorem
(Theorem 1.3.6)
1.3.6)
carry over.
carry over. So
So we
we get
get
T � Found(-<)
T~n Found( -<) =~
=> otyp(-<)< expn (2, (3)
otyp ( -<) � expn(2,13) (111)
(111)
for nn << w
for w and
and
TT~� Found(-<)
Found( -<) =~ otyp ( -<) � <{Jp{3.
=> otyp(-<)<~Op/3. (112)
(112)
It follows
It follows from
from (111)
(111) that
that ww and
and from
from (112)
(112) that
that allall strongly
strongly critical
critical ordinals
ordinals are are
autonomously inaccessible.
autonomously inaccessible. This This hashas first
first been
been observed
observed by by Feferman
Feferman [1964][1964] and and
independently by
independently by Schiitte
Schutte [1965a]
[1965a] who
who bothboth could
could alsoalso show
show thatthat these
these are
are the
the only
only
autonomously
autonomously inaccessible ordinals (cf.
inaccessible ordinals (cf. Schiitte
Schutte [1965b]).
[1965b]). A A proof
proof of of this
this fact
fact which
which
is in
is in the
the spirit
spirit of of the
the above sketch can
above sketch can be be found
found in in Pohlers
Pohlers [1989].
[1989] .
In some
In some sense
sense the
the notion
notion of
of autonomous
autonomous accessibility
accessibility captures
captures the the idea
idea of of pred-
pred­
icativity. First
icativity. First wewe see
see that
that without
without accepting
accepting the the ordinal
ordinal w w wewe stay
stay within
within the the
hereditarily finite
hereditarily world. Once
finite world. Once we have accepted
we have accepted w w as as aa set
set we can look
we can look for the
for the
ordinals a
ordinals c~ which
which areare provably
provably pinned
pinned down down in in Lw
L~+I. 1 ' Then
Then we construct L,,,
we construct look
L~, look
for ordinals provably pinned in L"
+
for ordinals provably pinned down
down in L~ andand so so on.
on. ThisThis process
process will will stop
stop atat the
the
first strongly critical
first strongly critical ordinal,
ordinal, i.e.,
i.e., at
at f o. On
F0. the other
On the other hand hand Lro Lro isis also exhausted by
also exhausted by
this
this procedure.
procedure. In In that
that sense
sense foF0 is
is known
known to to bound
bound predicativity.
predicativity. We We stick
stick toto that
that
notation
notation in in aa very
very technical
technical manner
manner and and call
call theories
theories whose whose Ill-ordinals
II~-ordinals are are below
below
fo predicative without
Fo predicative without further
further reflection
reflection whether
whether there there are are also possibly stronger
also possibly stronger
principles
principles which
which can can bebe predicatively
predicatively justified.
justified.
But
But wewe will
will see
see in
in the
the following
following section
section thatthat there
there is is aa completely
completely novel novel feature
feature in in
the
the ordinal
ordinal analysis
analysis of of impredicative
impredicative (i.e.,
(i.e., non
non predicative)
predicative) systems,systems, collapsing.
collapsing. The The
simplest
simplest theory
theory which
which needs
needs aa collapsing
collapsing argument
argument in in itsits Ill-analysis
H~-analysis is is the
the theory
theory
of
of non-iterated
non-iterated inductive
inductive definitions
definitions which
which is is introduced
introduced in in the
the next
next section.
section. Its Its
ordinal
ordinal isis 7/Jw C:W1+l), an
r l ((~w1+1), an ordinal
ordinal which
which already
already hashas been
been described
described by by H.H. Bachmann.
Bachmann.
There
There are,
are, however,
however, theories
theories whose
whose Ill-ordinals
H~-ordinals are are between
between fo and 7/Jw
F0 and C:W1+ 1 ) , e.g.
r l ((c~1+1), e.g.,,
the
the theory
theory ATRATR introduced
introduced by by Friedman
Friedman which which axiomatizes
axiomatizes autonomous
autonomous transfinite
transfinite
recursion
recursion (which
(which is is the
the axiom (Aut-H ~ introduced
axiom (Aut-m) introduced on on page
page 276
276 together
together withwith the
the full
full
scheme of Mathematical Induction) . Its ordinal is fE Most
scheme of Mathematical Induction). Its ordinal is F, Oo.' Most recently many theories recently many theories
between
between fo F0 andand 7/Jw
r l (C:W1+ 1 ) have
have beenbeen analyzed.
analyzed. G. G. Jager
J~iger calls
calls these
these theories
theories
meta-predicative.
meta-predicative.
A
A good
good summary
summary on on predicative
predicative theories
theories can
can be
be found
found in
in the
the booklet
booklet Jager
J~iger [1986]
[1986]..
A
A sample
sample ofof papers
papers treating
treating meta-predicative
meta-predicative theories
theories is
is Jager
J~iger et
et al.
al. [n.d.]
[n.d.],' Jager
J~iger and
and
Strahm
Strahm [n.d.]
[n.d.], Jager
' J~iger [1980]
[1980],, Palmgren
Palmgren [n.d.]
[n.d.], Strahm
' Strahm [n.d.]
[n.d.] and
and Kahle
Kahle [1997].
[1997]. This
This
list
list has
has been
been communicated
communicated to to me
me by
by T.
T. Strahm.
Strahm.

3.2. Axiom
3.2. Axiom systems
systems for
for number
number theory
theory

In
In the
the present
present section
section wewe will
will introduce
introduce some
some impredicative
impredicative axiom
axiom systems
systems for
for
Number
Number Theory.
Theory. We
We will
will not
not give
give an
an ordinal
ordinal analysis
analysis for
for these
these systems
systems directly
directly--
which
which would
would be
be possible
possible in
in all
all demonstrated
demonstrated cases
cases -- but
but show
show that
that all
all these
these systems
systems
 Set Theory
Theory and Second Order
Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 269

can
can be
be embedded
embedded into
into axioms
axioms systems
systems for
for Set
Set Theory.
Theory. The
The ordinal analysis for
ordinal analysis for
the
the number-theoretic
number-theoretic systems will then
systems will then be
be obtained
obtained via
via an ordinal analysis
an ordinal analysis of
of the
the
set-theoretic systems.
set-theoretic systems. WeWe start
start with
with the
the most
most simple
simple example
example of
of an impredicative
an impredicative
axiom system.
axiom system.

3.2.1. The
3.2.1. T h e theory ID!
t h e o r y ID1

By
By a monotone inductive
a monotone definition on
inductive definition on natural
natural numbers
numbers we
we usually
usually understand
understand aa
monotone operator
monotone operator
r:
F: Pow(N) -+> Pow(N),,
Pow(N)
i.e.,
i.e., an
an operator
operator for
for which
which we
we have
have
S C_ T
S � T =?
=~ r(S)
F(S) � (T).
C_ r(T). r
A set
A set S S �c_ NN is called r-closed
is called iff r
F-closed iff (S) �
F(S) C_ S.S. WeWe obtain
obtain the
the least
least fixed-point
fixed-point
Ir
Ir of of rF - - often called the
often called the fixed-point
fixed-point ofof rF -- as
as the
the intersection
intersection of of all
all r -closed
F-closed
subsets
subsets of i.e., Ir
N, i.e.,
of N, Ir == n S II r
~ {{S (S) �
F(S) c_ S}
S}.. AA set P
set P � N" is inductively
C_ 1~ is inductively definable
definable
iff
iff it
it is
is primitive
primitive recursive
recursive in
in the
the fixed
fixed point
point of of some
some inductive definition. An
inductive definition. An
operator
operator is is arithmetically
arithmetically definable
definable iff
iff there
there is an LN
is an Z:N formula
formula A(X,
A(X,x) x) such
such that
that
rF(S)
(S) = {x e NN] I N
= {x E N F~ A(S, x) } . If
A(S,x)}. If A(X,
A(X,x)x) isis an X-positive formula,
an X-positive formula, i.e.,
i.e., if
if its
its
translation
translation intointo the
the Tait-Ianguage
Tait-language contains
contains nono occurrences of tt �
occurrences of ~g X
X,, then A(X, x)
then A(X, x)
defines
defines aa monotonic
monotonic operator, i.e., an
operator, i.e., an inductive
inductive definition.
definition.
We
We do
do not
not want
want toto go
go into
into the
the theory
theory ofof inductively
inductively defined
defined sets
sets (cf.
(cf. Moschovakis
Moschovakis
[1974] and Barwise [1975]
and Barwise [1975] for
for aa profound
profound study)
study).. AllAll we
we want
want toto say
say here
here is that
is that
the fixed-point Ir
the fixed-point Ir of
of an
an monotone
monotone inductive
inductive defi nition comes
definition comes in stages I�
in stages which are
ICr which are
defined by
defined by I�
I~r := r(I��~)) where
:= F(I~ where I��I~ ~ "= I..Jr<{ I�.
:= U, ICr 9 By
By cardinality reasons there
cardinality reasons there is
is a
a
countable ordinal aa such
countable ordinal that I�
such that I~ == I�C1.
I~ ~. One
One defi nes
defines
If!
Irl ::-- min {{aa lI I�
= min I~ =
- l�C1}
1~" }
and
and calls If! the
calls Irl closure ordinal r.
the closure ordinal of Thus Ir
of F. Thus Ir =
= Ifl.
II~I. For
For every element ss E IIr
every element r we
we
may
may introduce inductive norm
its inductive norm
introduce its
Islr
lair :=
: - min
min {{~1
� 1 ss E I�}.
I~r}.
We
We then obtain IIrl
then obtain f! = sup {{ Islr
= sup I~1~ ++ 1111 s E
e Ir}.
I t } . For
For arithmetically
arithmetically definable
definable operators
operators
rF we have Irl
we have IFI_::; WfK
w~K..
The
The theory
theory IDlID1 axiomatizes
axiomatizes the the existence
existence of of least
least fixed-points
fixed-points for
for positively
positively
definable arithmetical
definable arithmetical inductive
inductive definitions.
definitions. Recall
Recall the language LN
the language s ofof Number
Number
Theory.
Theory. ToTo obtain
obtain the language LID
the language Z:lox1 we
we add
add aa set
set constant
constant IA IA for
for every
every X -positive
X-positive
formula
formula A(X,
A(X, x)
x) in
in the language LN
the language s which
which contains
contains only
only the
the shown
shown free
free variables.
variables.
We
We extend
extend the
the scheme
scheme of
of Mathematical
Mathematical Induction
Induction to all L
to all ID 1 formulas
Llox formulas and
and augment
augment
the
the axioms
axioms of N T by
of NT by the
the schemes
schemes
(IDx) 1 (V'x)
(IDd [A(IA, x)
(Vx)[A(IA, --+ xX E
X) -+ IA]
elA]
and
and
270
270 W. Pohlers

(10 1 ) 22 (\lx)
(ID1) (Vx)[A(B,x) ~ B(x)]
[A(B, x) --+ B(x)] --+ --+ (\lX)
(Vx)[x IA --+
[X E6_ IA -+ B(x)]
B(x)]
where
where B(x) B(x) isis an arbitrary .e1D!
an arbitrary s formula.
formula. While scheme (1
While scheme 0 1 ) 11 expresses
(ID1) expresses that
that IA
IA is
is
FA
r A(x,x)-closed, scheme (10
(x,x) -closed, scheme 1 ) 22 expresses
(ID1) expresses that
that itit is
is the
the least
least rFA (x,x) -closed set.
A(x,x)-closed set. The
The
standard
standard semantics for .e1D
semantics for s ! is is obtained
obtained interpreting
interpreting IA IA by
by IA
IA..
Instead
Instead of
of giving
giving a
a direct ordinal analysis
direct ordinal analysis for ID1 -
for ID} - which
which is possible e.g.
is possible e.g. cf.
cf.
Pohlers [1989] -
Pohlers [1989] - we
we will
will show
show that
that it
it can
can be
be easily
easily embedded
embedded into
into axiom
axiom systems
systems for
for
Set
Set Theory.
Theory.

3.2.2. IIterated
3.2.2. t e r a t e d iinductive
n d u c t i v e definitions
definitions

The
The expressive
expressive power
power of of first
first order
order logic
logic with
with free
free set
set parameters
parameters is is of
of course
course not not
exhausted by
exhausted by the
the axiom
axiom system
system ID} ID1.. As As soon
soon as
as we
we have
have fixed-points
fixed-points of of inductive
inductive
definitions we
definitions we may
may use
use them
them in in the
the definition
definition of of new
new operators.
operators. We We are
are then
then leaving
leaving
the
the realm
realm of of 'elementary
'elementary inductive definitions'' on
inductive definitions on the
the structure
structure N N in
in the
the sense
sense of of
Moschovakis [1974]
Moschovakis [1974].. ToTo formalize
formalize the the iteration
iteration let
let -<-< be
be aa well-ordering
well-ordering of of order
order
type
type v v and
and associate
associate aa binary
binary predicate constant JA
predicate constant JA toto every
every X -positive .eN
X-positive s formula
formula
A(X, Y,
A(X, y) which
x, y)
Y, x, which contains
contains at at most
most thethe shown
shown free
free variables.
variables. WeWe are are going
going toto write
write
JbA instead
aa E6_ J� instead of (a, b)
of (a, A ; by
E JJA;
b) 6_ by aa E j~bb we
6_ J1 we abbreviate
abbreviate the the formula
formula (=ly -< b)
(3y -< [a E6_ JJ~].
b)[a �] .
The language .e1D"
The language s is
is obtained
obtained by by augmenting
augmenting the language .eN
the language s by by aa constant
constant for for
-< and
-< and all
all constants
constants JA JA.. Denote
Denote by by LO(
LO(-<)-<) the
the formula
formula which
which is is saying
saying that
that -<-< isis aa
linear ordering.
linear ordering. We We obtain
obtain the
the axiom
axiom system
system ID"IDv by by taking
taking all
all the
the axioms
axioms of of NTNT
and
and adding
adding
((TI,,)
T I,, ) LO(-<)
LO(-<) 1\ A T/(-<,
TI(-<,F) F)
(ID,,) 1
(10,,) (Vy E6_field(
(\lY �Y , x, y)
-<)) [(\lx) [A( J� , JJ~,Y,x,
field(-<))[(Vx)[A(JYA, y) --+ J~]]]]
--+ xx E6_ J�
and
and

(10,,)
(IDa) 22 (\ly E field( -<)) [(\lx) [A(B, J �Y , x, y) --+ B(x)]
(Vy6-field(-<))[(Vx)[A(B,J~Y,x,y)--+ B(x)] --+ \lx) [x Ee JJ~.
--+ ((Vx)[x -+ B(x)]]
� --+ B(x)]]
where
where F F and B(x) are
and B(x) arbitrary .e1D"
are arbitrary s -formulas. Since
Since one
one inductive
inductive definition
definition
corresponds
corresponds to to one
one hyperjump
hyperjump the the axiom
axiom system ID~ may
system ID" may also
also be
be interpreted
interpreted as as
the system for
the system for v-fold iterated hyperjumps.
v-fold iterated hyperjumps. The The constructive number classes
constructive number classes 01'
(.9, for
for
J.L _< v
# ::; v can
can be
be defined in ID"
defined in and their
ID~ and their basic
basic properties
properties can
can also be proved
also be proved there.
there. We
We
define
define

ID<v : - UIDe
~<v
where
where every
every �~ << vv is
is represented
represented by
by aa proper
proper initial
initial segment
segment of -<.. One
of -< One may
may
also
also combine
combine thethe axioms
axioms ID} and the
ID1 and the systems ID" to
systems ID~ to obtain the system
obtain the system ID�.
ID.<.
axiomatizing
axiomatizing the
the iteration
iteration of
of inductive
inductive defi nitions along
definitions along the
the accessible
accessible part
part of
of aa
linear order
linear -<.. This
order -< This is
is done
done by taking some
by taking arithmetically definable
some arithmetically definable order
order relation
relation
-< and
-< choosing the
and choosing the X -positive formula
X-positive formula
A -« X, x) :{::}
A.<(X,x) :r (\ly)
(Vy)[y[y -<
-< x
x -+ yE
--+ Y e X]
X]..
 Set Theory
Set Theory and
and Second
Second Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 271
271

Its fixed-point
Its fixed-point ]A~
IA-< isis called
called the accessible part
the accessible part of
of -~ and usually
-< and usually denoted
denoted by
by Acc.~.
Acc.., .
The axioms
The axioms of
of ID.~.
ID-<. are are
(ACC) 1l
(Acc) (V'x) [A .., (Acc.." x) ~-+ xx eE Acc.~]
(Vx)[A.~(Acc.~,x) Acc .., ]
( corresponding to
(corresponding to (ID1)1)
(101) ) 1
(Acc)22
(Ace) (V'x)[A .., (B, x)
(Vx)[A.~(B, x) --+ B(x)] --+
-+ B(x)] (V'x) [x eE Acc..<
-+ (Vx)[x B(x)]
-+ B(x)]
Acc.., --+
(corresponding to
(corresponding (101) 2 ) .
to (ID1)2).
(1 0 ..,. ) 1
(IDa.)1 (V'y Acc.., ) [(V'x) [A( J� , J~Y,
(Vy eE Acc.~)[(Vx)[A(J~, J� Y, x, y)
-+ xx eE J~]]
x, y) --+ J� ]]
modifying (IDv)
modifying (1011) 11 and
and
(10 ..,. ) 2 (Vy
(ID.~.)2 (V'y eE Acc.~)[(Vz)[A(S,
Acc .., )[(V'x) [A(B, J~Y,x, y) -+ B(x)]
J �Y , x, y)--+ B(x)] ~-+ (Vx)[x
(V'x) [x eE Acc.~ B(x)]]
-+ S(x)]]
Acc.., --+
modifying (IDv)
modifying 2
(10,,) 2.. All these systems
All these systems of iterated inductive
of iterated inductive definitions
definitions have
have been
been
introduced by Feferman.
introduced by Feferman.
There are
There are even
even stronger
stronger iterations of inductive
iterations of inductive defi nitions which,
definitions however, can
which, however, can be
be
more elegantly
more formulated within
elegantly formulated the framework
within the framework ofof Second
Second Order
Order Number
Number Theory.
Theory.

3.2.3. IIterated
3.2.3. t e r a t e d inductive definitions in
i n d u c t i v e definitions in second order
second order

In
In full Second Order
full Second Order Logic
Logic wewe do
do not
not have
have aa recursively
recursively enumerable notion of
enumerable notion of
provability.
provability. Therefore
Therefore wewe have
have to fix aa calculus
to fix calculus andand regard the proof
regard the proof strength
strength of
of an
an
axiom system
axiom system relatively
relatively to that calculus.
to that This means
calculus. This means that
that we
we rather
rather use
use two
two sorted
sorted
first
first order
order logic
logic than
than full
full second order. To
second order. To fix
fix aa calculus
calculus we
we assume
assume that
that we
we have
have aa
second
second order
order Tait
Tait language
language as introduced in
as introduced Section 1.3. We
in Section We extend
extend the
the calculus
calculus of
of
Definition 2.1.2.1 by
Definition 2.1.2.1 by the
the following
following second
second order
order rules:
rules:
(32) IfIf �
~ �, A(X), then
A, A(X), then �~-- �, (3Y)A(Y) for
A, (3Y)A(Y) for all m > ma
all m mo
(V2) If/f �
~-~ �, A(X) and
A, A(X) and XZ not
not free
free in
in any
any of
of the
the formulas
formulas in
in �, V'Y)A(Y) , then
A, ((VY)A(Y), then
� �, V'Y)A(Y) for
A, ((VY)A(Y) for all
all m
m > ma.
mo.
We
We saysay that that aa formula
formula FF is
is provable
provable from from an an axiom axiom system system Ax A x iff
iff there
there are
are
finitely
finitely many
many instances
instances of
of identity
identity axioms
axioms G1, G 1 , . . . ,, G
. • • Gmm and
and fi n itely
finitely many
many sentences
sentences
{Ab
{A1,.. .. .. ,,An} A x such
An } �C_Ax that �
such that ~-- ...,
~G1,.G1 , . ...,. , ...~Gm, A 1, . .. ..,, .~..,An
,Gm , ...,-~A1,. F for
A n ,, F m.
for some
some m.
The
The strongest
strongest axiom
axiom system
system for
for Number
Number Theory Theory is NT22 which
is NT which comprises
comprises all
all the
the
axioms
axioms of N T together
of NT together with
with the
the axiom
axiom schemes
schemes
(CA)
(CA) (3X)[(V'x)
(3X)[(Vx)(x(x Ee X ~ F(x))]
X H F(x))]
of comprehension
of comprehension and
and
(AC)
(AC) ( V x )(3X)F(x,
(V'x) (SX)F(x,X X)) -+
-+ (3Y) (V'x)F(x, YX)
(3Y)(Vx)F(x, Yx)
of choice.
of choice. We
We putput yy Ee yyxx :<=>
:r (y,(y, x) Y and
x / eE Y and assume
assume tacitly
tacitly that F(x) and
that F(x) and F(x,
F(x, Y)
Y)
must
must not
not contain
contain the
the variable
variable XX..
If
If the
the formulas
formulas in
in the
the schemes
schemes (CA)
(CA) oror (AC)
(AC) are
are restricted
restricted ttoo aa complexity
complexity class
class
F
jc we
we talk
talk about
about (F-CA)
(~'-CA) and
and (F-AC)
(3v-AC),, respectively.
respectively. By (.T-CA) we
By (F-CA) we denote
denote the
the
272 w.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

axiom
axiom systems
systems which
which comprises
comprises all
all the
the axioms
axioms of N T extended
of NT extended to
to the
the second
second order
order
language
language together
together with
with the
the scheme
scheme (F-CA)
(Jc-CA).. Analogously
Analogously we
we denote
denote by
by (:F-AC)
(.T'-AC)
the
the axioms
axioms of N T together
of NT together with
with (F-AC)
(Jc-AC)..
We
We will
will also
also regard
regard axiom
axiom systems
systems which
which are
are closed
closed under
under rules.
rules. A
A rule
rule has
has the
the
form
form
(R)
(R) F1 , . . . , Fn �
F1,...,Fn ~ FF
and
and we
we say
say that
that aa theory is closed
Ax is
theory Ax closed under
under the
the rule
rule (R) if
if Ax for ii =
Fi for
~- Fi
Ax � 1 , .. .. .., , n
= 1,
implies
implies F
F EE Ax. For For aa given
given rule
rule (R) we
we define
define
(R) The
The least
least .c
s � -theory which
which comprises
comprises NT
NT + ( II6 -CA) and
-t-(HI-CA) and is
is closed
closed under
under
the
the rule
rule (R)
(R)..
Observe
Observe that
that the
the theory
theory (R) (R) is
is the
the union
union of
of the theories ((Rn)
the theories Rn ) where (R0) =
where (Ro) - NT
NT ++
((II~-CA)
II6 -CA) and
and (Rn +
(1~+1)l ) is
is obtained
obtained by
by closing
closing (Rn)
(P~) under
under all
all applications
applications of
of the
the rule
rule
(R).
(R).
In NT22 we
In NT we may
may replace
replace the
the scheme
scheme of
of Mathematical
Mathematical Induction
Induction by
by aa single
single axiom
axiom
((V'VX)[ X A1\ ((V'Vy)y (y
X )Q[ 0Ee X ) ( yEe X - + yy ++l e1 XE) X) -+
X --+ V'x)(x E X)].
-+ ((Vx)(xeX)].
This
This is
is no
no longer
longer true
true if
if we
we regard
regard axiom
axiom systems
systems with
with restricted
restricted comprehension
comprehension
scheme.
scheme. Therefore
Therefore we
we introduce
introduce also
also the
the axiom
axiom systems
systems (:F- CA)o and
(bw- CA)o and (:F-
(.%'- AC)o
AC)o
in
in which
which the
the scheme
scheme of
of Mathematical
Mathematical Induction
Induction is
is replaced
replaced by
by the
the single
single axiom.
axiom.
The
The formula
formula
Wf ( -<) ::r{o} ((VX)[Prog(-<,X)
Wf(-~) V'X)[Prog( -<, X) -+ (V'x) (x Ee X)]
(Vx)(x X)]
expresses
expresses the
the well -foundedness of
well-foundedness of the
the relation
relation -~. We -<.
We have
have

Wf ( -<) {o}
Wf(-~) r (V'X)[(3x) (x eE X)
(VX)[(3x)(x X) --+ (3x eE X)(V'y
-+ (3x X)(Vy-~-< x) (y tf.r X)].
x)(y X)]. (113)
(113)
In the sentence
NT2 the
In NT2 sentence Wf
Wf(-~) -<)
( entails
entails the scheme T/
the scheme ( -<, F) for
TI(-~,F) for arbitrary
arbitrary .c formulas
s � formulas
This, too,
F(x) . This,
F(x). too, is
is not longer true
not longer true for restricted comprehension.
for restricted comprehension. Therefore
Therefore we
we
introduce the scheme
introduce the scheme
(BI)
( BI ) Wf(-~)-~
Wf ( -<) -+ TI(-<,F)
T/( -<, F)
of Bar Induction
of Bar Induction forfor definable
definable relations
relations -~ and -<
and arbitrary F(x) . AA
arbitrary s.c� -formulas F(x).
relation -<
relation is definable
-~ is definable iff
iff there
there is
is an
an s.c� -formula G(x, y) such
G(x, y) such that
that xx -< f+
-~ y 6+ y
y). The formula
G(x, y). The
G(x, G(x, y) may
formula G(x, y) contain additional
may contain additional parameters.
parameters. We will sometimes
We will sometimes
emphasize this
emphasize this by
by writing
writing
xx "~c,~,2 y:{o} G(x,
-<a,x,x Y :r y, x,
i).
G(x, y, ~, Y,).
Roughly speaking
Roughly speaking Bar Bar Induction
Induction says
says that
that aa relation
relation which
which is well-founded with
is well-founded with
respect to
respect to sets
sets isis also well-founded for
also well-founded for classes.
classes. IfIf the
the defining
defining formulas
formulas for
for the
the
relation -~
relation -< inin the
the scheme ( BI ) are
scheme (BI) are restricted
restricted to
to the
the complexity class ~"
complexity class F then
then we
we talk
talk
about (~'-BI).
about (F-BI) . If If also
also the
the complexity
complexity of of the
the allowed classes is
allowed classes is restricted
restricted to
to another
another
complexity class
complexity class Jc2
F2 we
we notate
notate that as (.T'-BI)r.T'2.
that as (F-BI) fF2 .
If X isis aa set
If X set parameter
parameter we we may
may define
define the
the binary
binary relation
relation
 Set Theory
Theory and Second
Second Order
Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 273
273

-< x
xx . < x yy :{:}
:4=~ (x, y) EE XX..
(x,y)
Sometimes
Sometimes Bar
Bar Induction
Induction is
is formulated
formulated as
as the
the single
single axiom
axiom
(Bi) (VX)[Wf(.<x)-+
(VX) [ Wf (-< ) ---+ TI(.<x,F)]
x TI( -<x , F) J
which
which in
in the
the presence of (l1b-CA)
presence of (I]~-CA) has
has the
the strength of (l1b-BI)
strength of (n~-BI).. Weaker than (BI)
Weaker than (BI) is
is
(B R) TI( -< , F)
Wf ( -<) f--
which
which is
is known as Bar
known as Bar Rule. M. M. Rathjen
Rathjen has
has shown
shown in
in Rathjen
Rathjen [1991J
[1991] that
that the
the
Bar
Bar Rule
Rule isis of
of the
the same
same strength
strength asas parameter
parameter free
free Bar
Bar Induction,
Induction, i.e.,
i.e., the
the axiom
axiom
of
of Bar Induction in
Bar Induction in which the defining
which the formula for
defining formula for the
the relation
relation -<.< must
must notnot contain
contain
parameters
parameters (not
(not even
even individual
individual parameters).
parameters).
As
As aa basis
basis for
for nearly
nearly all
all our
our second
second order
order axiom
axiom systems
systems we
we will
will use (H~-CA), , i.e.,
use (rr�-CA) i.e.,
the
the scheme
scheme forfor arithmetical
arithmetical comprehension.
comprehension. ThisThis system
system isis also
also known
known as as (ACA).
(ACA).
We use
We use both
both notions
notions interchangeable.
interchangeable. Observe
Observe that (ACA) proves
that (ACA) proves that
that aa relation
relation -<
.<
is
is well-founded
well-founded iff
iff it
it does
does not
not contain
contain an infinite -<-descending
an infinite sequence, i.e.,
-<-descending sequence, i.e.,
Wf ( -<) {:}
Wf(-<) 4=~ ..., [ (3X)[(3x)(x Ee X)
-,[(3X)[(3x)(x X) /\
A LO ( -< rX)
tO(-< rX) /\
A (Vx
(Vx E
E X) (3y Ee X)(y
X)(3y X)(y -<
-< x)]]
x)]].. (114)
(114)
The
The axiom
axiom system (ACA) proves
system (ACA) proves also
also the
the equivalence
equivalence of
of the
the schemes (Bi), (I1A-BI)
schemes (Bi), (IIoLBI)
and
and the
the following
following quantifier
quantifier scheme
scheme (cf.
(cf. Feferman
Feferman [1970]).
[1970]).
(QS)
(QS) (VX)A(X) ---+
(VX)A(X) --4 A( F for arithmetical
and arbitrary
A(F)) .for arithmetical A(X)
A(X) and arbitrary F(x)
F(x)..
Because
Because of
of this
this equivalence
equivalence it
it has
has become
become common
common to call (QS)
to call also (I1A-BI)
(QS) also (II~-BI)..
The iteration of
The iteration of inductive definitions is
inductive definitions is quite
quite elegantly
elegantly expressed
expressed in
in aa second
second order
order
language.
language. For
For an
an X -positive formula
X-positive formula A(X,
A(X, Y,Y, x,
x, y)
y) we
we introduce
introduce the
the abbreviation
abbreviation
CI A (X, Y,
CIA(X, Y, y) :{:} (Vx)
y) :~::~ [A(X, Y,
(Vx)[A(X, x, yy)) ---+
Y, x, -+ xx E9 XJ
X]
and
and define
define
11A (-<, X) :{:}
ITA(-<,X) (Vy Ee field
:r162(Vy (-<))[ ClA(XY , X
field(-<))[CIA(XY, -<Y , y)
X~Y,y)
^ (VY)( ClA (Y, X -<Y , y) ---+ (Vx) (x E
/\ e X Y ---+ x E y))].
e Y))J.
Then
Then 11A (-<, X) says
ITA(-<,X) says 'X' X isis an
an hierarchy
hierarchy of of fixed-points
fixed-points for
for A(X, Y, x, y) iterated
A(X,Y,x,y) iterated
along
along -<'.
-<'.

Definition. Let
3.2.3.1. Definition.
3.2.3.1. Let -<
.< be
be aa primitive
primitive recursive
recursive well-ordering
well-ordering of
of order
order type
type II.
v.
For
For an
an X -positive arithmetical
X-positive arithmetical formula
formula A(X,
A(X, Y,Y, x, y) we
x, y) we introduce
introduce the
the schemes
schemes
((IT,,)
lTv ) (3X) I1A (-<, X)
(3X)ITA(.<,X)
and
and
(B-I Tv ) (VY)
(B-ITv) (Vy Ee field
(VY)(Vy (-<))[ I1A (-<, Y)
field(.<))[/TA(.<, Y) /\
A Cl A (B, Y
CIA(B, -<Y , y)
y-<u, __+ (Vx)(x
y) ---+ (Vx)(x E
e Y Y ---+ B(x))J
YY--+ B(x))]
where
where B(x)
B(x) is
is an
an arbitrary
arbitrary .c s � -formula. We We define
define the
the theories
theories
ID� := (ACA)
ID~ := ( A C A ) ++ WO
TO(.<)+ lTv )
(-<) + ((ITv)
and
and
274 W.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

BID~ := (ACA)
BID� (ACA)++ WO WO(-K) (IT.)
(-<) + (lT v) + (B-IT.)
+ (B-ITv)
where WO(-K)
where WO ( -<) stands
stands for O ( -<) /\AWf(--<)
for LLO(-K) Wf( -<) and
and A
A varies
varies over
over all
all X -positive formulas
X-positive formulas
A(X, Y, x, y) which
which contain
contain at
at most
most the
the shown
shown variables
variables free.
free. Denote
Denote by
by
(ITA)
(ITA) ('v'x) [ WO( -<F,x ) --+
(Vx)[WO(-.<F,=) --~ (3X) I1A ( -<F,x , X)]
(3X)ITA(-<F,=,X)]
the
the scheme
scheme in F(u, v,x)
which F(u, v,x) and
in which and A(X, Y, x, y) are
are supposed
supposed to
to vary
vary over
over arith­
arith-
metical
metical formulas
formulas without
without further
further parameters.
parameters. We
We define
define
ID2* (ITA).
( A C A ) ++ (ITA).
ID 2. := (ACA)
Finally
Finally put
put
(B-ITA) ('v'x)
(B-ITA) (Vx)(Vy)(VX)[WO(-KF,=) A I7A
('v'y) ('v'X)[ WO(-<F,x ) /\ ITA(--KF,=,X) A C1
(-<F,x , X) /\ CIA(B,X'<F.'-U,y)
A(B, X -< F,.Y , y)
--+
-~ ('v'(Vx)(x
x)(x Ee XX Yu --+--+B(x))]
B(x))]
where F(u, v,
where F(u, v,x) x) and
and A(X,
A(X, Y, x, y, ) are
Y,x,y, are as
as above
above and
and B(x) is is an
an arbitrary
arbitrary .c�­
s
formula.
formula. The
The schemes
schemes (B-IT v ) and
(B-IT,) (B-ITA) have
and (B-ITA) have the
the flavor
flavor of
of Bar
Bar Induction;
Induction; therefore
therefore
the B in
the B in their
their identifiers.
identifiers. Let
Let
BID 2. :=
BID2* := (ACA)
(ACA)+ (ITA) +
+ (ITA) + (B-ITA).
(B-ITA).
One should observe
One should observe that
that BID2*
BID 2. allows
allows only
only iterations
iterations along arithmetically definable
along arithmetically definable
well-orderings, i.e., along well-orderings of length < W .
well-orderings, i.e., along well-orderings of length < w~fKK. So
So it
it may
may appear
appear weaker
weaker
than ID-<*
than which allows
ID.~. which allows iterations along accessible
iterations along accessible parts
parts ofof arithmetically
arithmetically definable
definable
orderings,
orderings, i.e.,
i.e., along
along well-orderings
well-orderings ofof length < W
length :::; fKK.. However,
w~ However, wewe will
will sketch
sketch in
in aa
moment
moment that
that BID2*
B I D s* comprises
comprises ID-<*
ID.~...
If
If we
we drop
drop the restriction to
the restriction to arithmetically
arithmetically definable
definable well-orderings
well-orderings we
we obtain
obtain the
the
schemes
schemes
(IT)
(IT) ('v'
(vx)X)[[WO ( -<x)) --+
wo(-< -+ (3Y) 11A ( -<x, r)]
Y)]
and
and
(B-IT)
(B-IT) ('v'y) ('v'Y) [ WO(-<F) A
(Vy)(VY)[WO(-<F) 11A (-<F, Y)
/\ ITA(-<F, A C
Y) /\ 1A(B, Y
CIA(B, -< FV , y)
y-~ry, y)
('v'x)(x
--+ Ee yv --+ B(x))],
respectively, where
respectively, where F(u, v), and
F(u, v), and S(x)
B(x)
may
may now
now be arbitrary .c�-formulas
be arbitrary s and
and
G(X, Y, x, y) is
G(X, Y,x,y) is an
an X-positive
X-positive arithmetical formula. All
arithmetical formula. All formulas
formulas may
may contain
contain
additional parameters.
additional We put
parameters. We put
Aut-ID := ((ACA)
A u t - I D := (IT)
A C A ) ++ (IT)
and
and
:= ((ACA)
(Aut-BID) :=
(Aut-BID) (IT) ++ (B-IT).
A C A ) ++ (IT) (B-IT) .
One easily
One easily shows
shows
(YI~-CA) f-
(II� -CA ) ~ WO(-<)
WO( -< ) A 11A ( -<, Y)
/\ ITA(-<, Y) A
/\ ITA(-<, Z ) --+
I1A( -<, Z) field( -<) ) ( y=x == Z=).
('Ix
--+ (Yx eE field(-<))(Y ZX) . (115)
(115)
There is
There is an canonical embedding
an canonical F F
embedding F ~t-+ F** from
from the language of
the language of IDv
IDv into
into the
the language
language
of IDZu.
of ID; . We replace every
We replace every occurrence
occurrence of J� by
of ss eE J~t (3X) [11A ( -<, X) A
by (3X)[ITA(-~,X) /\ sS eE Xt].
Xt] . The
The
 Set Theory
Theory and Second
Second Order
OrderNumber
Number Theory
Theory 275
275

theory
theory ID� ID~ shows
shows that
that there
there is
is aa set
set WA
WA suchsuch that
that 11A( -<, WA)
ITA(-<, WA) and
and by by (115)
(115) wewe
obtain
obtain that that W1W~ is is uniquely
uniquely defi ned for
defined -< IIv.. Hence
for tt -< Hence (s J~)* iff
(s EE J�)* W tt for
iff ss EE W for all
all
tt EE fie l d(-<) which
field(-<) which entails J~** =
entails J� = WW tt and
and J1
j~t*t* =
= W ...:t . Since
W.~t. Since we
we have
have ClA( W1 , Wi,
CIA(W~, W~ t, t)
we
we get (IDa) 11 ** and
get (1011) and from B-IT~ also
from B-ITII (IDa) 2.. So
also (1011)2 So wewe have
have shownshown
ID" C_ BID�
ID~ � BID~.. (116)
(116)
An
An embedding
embedding F F f-+
~ FF** of
of the
the language
language of IDa,* into
of 10...: into the
the second
second order
order language
language isis
obtained
obtained similarly.
similarly. Define
Define

ITl (-<, X) :{::}

IU(-~,x) (v=__
: ~ (V'X � y) [ ClA (X X , X "':x , x)
y)[clA(x',x~',=)
^ (V'Y)(
1\ ClA(Y, X "':X , x) -+
(vY)(clA(y,x~',=) ~ (V'(Vz)(z x x9 -+
z) (z Ee X -+ zz E
e Y ))]
Y))]
and
and let
let X
X � c_ YY stand
stand for
for (V'x)[x
(Vx)[x E EX
X -+ ~ x e Y]
x E Y].. Define
Define
Acc ( -<, X) ::r{::} Prog(
Acc(-<,X) -<, X) 1\A (V'
Prog(-<,X) Z) [ Prog( -<, Z ) -+ X
(VZ)[Prog(-<,Z) X � Z]]
C_Z
and
and replace
replace all occurrences of
all occurrences of ss E Acc~...: by
E Acc by (3X) [Acc ( -<, X) 1\A ss EE X]
(3X)[Acc(-<,X) X] and
and finally
finally
replace
replace all all occurrences
occurrences of of s E E J� J~4 byby (3X)[ ITl ( -<, X) 1\ ss EE Xt]
(3X)[IT~(-<,X)A Xt].. We We indicate
indicate
that
that the the translations
translations (ACC) (Acc) 11.,
o , (AccF* (lb.<,)) 11.0 and
(Acc) 2.,, (10...:* and (10...:
(ID.~,) 2. are
* F* are all
all provable
provable in in
BID 2
B I D 2.. * . We We argue
argue informally
informally in in BID 2
B I D 2..* . Let
Let x x -<8
_<8 y :{::} :r xx -<
-< y � s. Put
-< s. Put
Ao(X,
Ao(X, Y, Y, x,
x, y)
y) :{::}
:r (V'z)[
(Vz)[zz -<-< x x -+ Zz E E X] X].. Then Then there
there is is aa set
set TT such
such thatthat
1Ao (-< o~, T)
lITAo(-< T) if
if 00 denotes
denotes the the least
least element
element in in -<-<.. We We then
then have have Prog(-<,
Prog(-<,TO)T ~ and and
define
define S S :="- TOT ~. Moreover
Moreover we we havehave Prog(-<,
Prog(-<,X) X) -+ --+ S � c_ XX andand thusthus Acc(-<,
Acc(-<,S).S) . SoSo
Acc�
Acc:<= = SS and and wewe getget (ACC)
1 by Prog(-<,
(Acc) 1.o by Prog(-<,S) S) and
and (ACC)(Acc) 22.* from (B-ITA).. To
from (B-ITA) To prove
prove
(10...:
(lb.<,)* ) 11.0 we assume ss EE Acc�
we assume Acc:<,, i.e.,
i.e., ss E S. Then
E S. Then we we obtain
obtain Wf( Wf(-< -<8)
8) because
because otherwise
otherwise
according
according to to (1 14) there
(114) there would
would be be aa nonnon empty
empty set set V Y �c_ field
field(-<( -<8)
8) containing
containing ss and and
an
an infi
infinitenite -<-descending
-<-descending sequence.
sequence. Since Since -< -< is
is aa linear
linear order
order this this entails
entails that
that if if all
all
-<-predecessors of
-<-predecessors of an
an element
element x x dodo not not belong
belong to to V V then
then xx cannot
cannot belong
belong toto V.
V. That
That
means
means Prog(-<, -,v) where
Prog( -<, ~V) where ~V -,V denotes
denotes the the complement
complement of of V.V. ButBut then
then SS c_� ~V -,V
which contradicts
which contradicts ss E E V.V. NowNow choose choose any any X-positive
X-positive formulaformula A(X, A(X, Y,Y, x,
x, y)
y).. ByBy
ITA there
ITA there exists set W
exists aa set W such
such that that 11A(-<8,
ITA(-<8, W) W).. By By the uniqueness property
the uniqueness property (115)
(115)
we obtain
we obtain (Vy)[y � ss --+
(V'y) [y --< (V'x) (x EE J~4)*
-+ (Vx)(x J � )* ++f-+ Xx eE WV]. WY] . Hence
Hence (J~)* (JA)* = = W8W 8 and and
(J1 S )* =
(j]8), W.<8s and
= W"': and wewe get
get (lb.<,) 1 0 from
(10...: * ) 1. from ITA(-<rs,
11A( -< rs, W) W) and
and (10...:* 2* from
(lb.<,)) 2. from B-ITA.
B-ITA.
So
So we we have
have
ID.~, C_ BID 2.. (117)
As
As remarked before the
remarked before the schemes (B-ITII) , (B-ITA) and
schemes (B-IT~), and (B-IT) have
have the flavor of Bar
the flavor Bar
Induction. We are
Induction. We are going
going to
to substantiate
substantiate this
this remark.
remark. First
First we show
we show
Ax
A E {BID~,
x E {BID� , BBID 2 * , AAut-BID}
I D 2., Ax
:::} A
n t - B I D } => � Bi.
x ~- (118)
(118)

Assume Wf(-<x)
Assume Wf(-<x) and and Prog(-<x,B)
Prog(-<x, B) for for some
some formula
formula B(x).
B(x) . WeWe have to show
have to show
(V'x)B(x) . For
(Vx)B(x). For A(Z,
A( Z, Y,x,
Y, x, y)
y) :r:{::} (Vz-<xx)(z
(V'z -< x x) ( z E Z) we
E Z) we obtain
obtain by
by ITs,
ITII, ITA or IT,
ITA or IT,
respectively, aa set
respectively, set T such that
T such that ITA
11A (-<~,
( -<�, T). Since _<o
T) . Since -<� is
is trivially
trivially well-founded
well-founded we get
we get
Prog(-<x, B) --+
Prog(-<x,B) (V'x)B(x) instantiating
-+ (Vx)B(x) instantiating yy by by 0, 0, -<x
-<x by
by -<~:
-<� and
and Y by TT in
Y by in B-IT~,
B-ITII '
B-ITA or
or B-IT, respectively.
respectively. Hence
Hence (Vx)B(x).
(V'x)B(x) . 0
[3
But the
But the opposite
opposite isis also
also true.
true. We prove
We prove
276
276 w. Pohlers
W. Pohlers

ID~
ID; +
+ (II~-BI)
( IJt- B I ) I--(B-IT,.,)
� (B-IT.. )
ID • + (n~-Bl)
ID2*+
2 ( IJt-B I ) I--
� (B-ITA)
(B-I TA) (119)
(1 19)
Aut-ID
Aut-ID ++ (II~-BI)
(lIA-BI) ~� (B-IT).
(B-IT) .
Assume Wf(-.<),
Assume Wf ( -<) , ITA(-<,X)
11A( -<, X) and C/A (B, X -< Y , y) . We
and CIA(B,X'<Y,y). We have
have toto show (Vx E XY )B(x) .
show (VxEXY)B(x).
For the
For the arithmetical
arithmetical formula C(Y) :r:¢:? CIA(Y,X'<U,y)
formula C(Y) --t (Yx
c/A(Y, X -<Y , y) --+ (Vx EE XY)(x
XY ) (x EE YY)) wwe
e
get from
get from ITs,
I T.. , ]TA or IT,
ITA or respectively, (VY)C(Y).
IT, respectively, (VY)C(Y) . Using (QS)
Using (QS) which
which isis equivalent
equivalent toto
we obtain
( IJt- BI) we
(HoLBI) obtain C(B).
C(B) . Hence (Vx E
Hence (Vx E XU)B(x).
XY )B(x) . D
F1
So we
So we have
have the
the following
following theorem
theorem

3.2.3.2. TTheorem.
3.2.3.2. BID; == ID~
h e o r e m . BID~ ID; ++ (Bi), BID2 • == ID2*+
(Bi) , BID2* and
ID2 • + (Bi)
(Bi) and A
Aut-BID
u t - B I D ==
Aut-ID
A u t - I D ++ (Bi), where means that both theories prove the same theorems.
(Bi), where = means that both theories prove the same theorems.

3.2.4. InI t{-comprehension

3.2.4. - c o m p r e h e n s i o n aand
n d bbeyond
eyond

We mentioned already
We mentioned that the
already that the fixed-point
fixed-point of
of an monotonic operator
an monotonic operator Fr can be ob-
can be ob­
tained as
tained as the
the intersection of all
intersection of r -closed sets.
all F-closed sets. For an operator
For an operator which
which is arithmetically
is arithmetically
defined
defined by
by aa formula A(X, x)
formula A(X, x) this
this means
means that
that we
we have
have
IA : {{=1
IA = x l (VX) [(Vy) (A(X, y)
(VX)[(Vy)(A(X, -~ yy E
y) --t X) --t
e X) --+ x
x E Xl }
e X]} (120)
(120)
= {x
= {~1l (VX)[C/A ( X ) --t
( V X ) [ C t A (X) -+ x9 Ee XX]}l}
Vice
Vice versa,
versa, every
every lI t -set can
II{-set can be be shown
shown to to be
be an
an inductive
inductive set,
set, Le.,
i.e., aa set
set which
which is
is
primitive
primitive recursive
recursive inin some
some fi xed-point. So
fixed-point. So ((II{-CA)
n t-CA) and
and inductive definitions are
inductive definitions are
canonically
canonically connected.
connected. To iterate ((II{-CA)
To iterate nt-CA) we introduce the
we introduce the following notations
following notations

3.2.4.1. Definition.
3.2.4.1. Definition. Let
Let H(X,
H(X, x,
x, y)
y) be
be an s � -formula which
an C which contains
contains only
only the
the
shown
shown parameters.
parameters. WeWe define
define
JH ( -<, X) :¢:?
JH(-<,X) :r (Vx) X u f-t
(Vy)[x Ee XY
(Vx)(Vy)[x <-+H(X -<Y, x, y)]
H(X'<U,x,y)]
and
and call
call X jump hierarchy
the jump hierarchy based
X the based on
on H(X,
H(X, x,x, y)
y) along
along -<
-<..
For
For aa primitive
primitive recursive
recursive well-ordering
well-ordering of
of order
order type
type vu we
we introduce
introduce the
the scheme
scheme
((H{-CA~)
nt-CA.. ) (3 Z)) for
Z )JH ( -<, Z
(3Z)&(-<, .for H(X,
H(X, x, y) Ee nt
x, y) II{
of
of v-fold
u-fold iterated
iterated n t -comprehension. We
II{-comprehension. We sometimes
sometimes express
express this
this sloppily
sloppily by
by
(3 ) (v,
Z JH Z
(~Z)JH(I}, Z)) if
if we
we do
do not
not want
want to
to emphasize
emphasize the
the order-relation
order-relation but
but its
its order
order type.
type.
Transfinitely
Transfinitely iterated
iterated n t -comprehensions are
H{-comprehensions are axiomatized
axiomatized by
by
(A ut-lID
(Aut-II{) (VX)[ Wf (-<x) --t
(VX)[Wf(-Kx) --+ ((3Z)JH(-Kx,
3Z)JH (-<x, Z )] for
Z)] for H(X,
H ( X , xx,, yy)
) EE nt
H{..
For
For aa primitive
primitive recursive
recursive ordering
ordering -<
-< of
of order
order type
type vu we
we define
define
(rr�-C A.. ) :=
(II{-CA,,) AC
"= ((A CA WO(-<)+
A )) ++ WO (-<) + ((II{-CA~),
nt -CA.. ) ,
(rr�-C
(II{-CA<~) "= U
A< .. ) := U (rr�-C Ae)
(II{-CA~)
{ <..
 Set Theory
Theory and Second
Second Order Number Theory 277
277

and
and
(Aut-II�) := ((ACA)
(Aut-H~) .= (Aut-I1]). .
A C A ) ++ (Aut-ITD

Notice that
that (ITt-CA)
(Ill-CA) and (ITt-CA
(H]-CAv) ., ) have
have different
different meanings. Due to the possible
presence of set parameters in ITt-comprehension
l-/~-comprehension formulas we have
(IIx~-CA) =
(II�-CA) = (II�-CA<w)
(II~X-CA<~)
though
though notationally
notationally thisthis looks
looks strange.
strange. Recall
Recall that
that (II�- CA)o means
(H~- CA)o means (ITt-CA)
(II~-CA) + +
(ACA)o,, i.e.
(ACA)o i.e.,, (ITt-CA)
(1-I}-CA) together
together with
with the
the axiom
axiom of Mathematical Induction.
of Mathematical Induction. TheThe
theories (II~-CA~)o are
theories (II�-CAv)o are defined
defined analogously.
analogously.
We will see
We will see that
that the
the theories (H~-CA~) and
theories (II�-CAv) ID~ are
and ID� are equivalent.
equivalent. In
In aa first
first step
step
we
we show
show
(ID�)o
(ID~)o � (II~-CA~)o and
C_ (II�-CAv)o and (Aut-ID)o C_ (Aut-II�)o.
(Aut-ID)o � (Aut-II~)o. (121)
(121)
Let -~ be
Let -< be aa well-ordering
well-ordering of
of order type vu or
order type or assume
assume Wf( -<) . Let
I/Vf(-~). Let A(X,
A(X, Y,
Y, x, y) be
x, y) be an
an
X -positive arithmetical
X-positive arithmetical formula
formula and put
and put
H(X,
H ( X , xx,, yy) :{:} ('v'
) :r Z )[ ClA ( Z, X, y) -+
(VZ)[C]A(Z,X,y) Z]..
--~ xx Ee Zl (i)
(i)
Then
Then H(X,g ( X , xx,
, y)
y) E
e ITt
II} and
and by
by (ITt-CA).
(II}-CA)v, or Aut-ITt) there
or ((Aut-II}) there is
is aa set
set S
S such
such that
that
)H
JH ((-~,
-<, S)
S).. Hence
Hence
Sy =
SY {x lI H(S
- {x -<Y, x, y) } =
H(S'~U,x,y)} = {x
{x lI ('v'X) [ ClA (X, S -<Y, y) -+
(VX)[CIA(X,S'~V,y) --+ xx E
e X l}
X]} (ii)
(ii)
which
which in
in turn
turn implies
implies
('v'X)[
(VX)[CIAClA (X, S -<"<y,
(X, S Y , yy)) -+
--+ S
S Yy � Z].l .
c_ X (iii)
(iii)
From
From (iii)
(iii) we
we obtain
obtain
A(S Y , S-<
A(SV, Y , x, y) -+ C1A
S~V,x,y)--4 (X, S-<Y , y) -+
C[A(X,S'<Y,y) ~ S C X
S Yy � X
-+ A(X,
-+ A(X, S-< Y , x,
S "~y, x, y)
y) (iv)
(iv)
-+ xEX
---~xEX
by
by the
the monotonicity
monotonicity of of the
the X -positive formula
X-positive formula A(X,
A(X, Y, x, y)
Y, x, y).. But (iv) means
But (iv) means
A(S
A(S Yy,, S -<Y , x, yy )) +-+ xx Ee SY.
S'~Y,x, S y. (v)
(v)
Pulling
Pulling (iii)
(iii) and
and (v)
(v) together
together we
we obtain
obtain 1T.4( -<, S)
ITA(-~, S).. D
D
To
To prove
prove also
also the
the other inclusion in
other inclusion in (121)
(121) wewe use
use the
the fact
fact that
that already
already (ACA)o
(ACA)o
proves
proves that
that every
every ITt-formula
II~-formula H(Y,
H(Y, y,
y, Z)
53 is
is equivalent
equivalent to
to the
the well-foundedness
well-foundedness of
of its
its
associated
associated tree
tree of
of unsecured
unsecured sequences, i.e., that
sequences, i.e., that there
there is
is an
an arithmetical
arithmetical formula
formula
TH
TH (Y,
(]I, x,
X, y,
y, Z)
~ such
such that
that
(ACA)o �
(ACA)o H ( Y , yy,, ~Z) +-+
~ H(Y, ++ {{x]
x l TH(Y, x, y, Z) } is
TH(Y,x,y,~} a well-founded tree.
is a well-foundedtree.
Defining A(X,
Defining A(X, Y, 5) :r:{:} ('v'y)
x, Z)
Y, x, [TH(Y, (x)
(Vy)[TH(Y, O' (y)
(x)ff" (y),, (xh
(X)l,, Z) -4 (((x)ff"
z-) -+ (y),, (xh)
(x) O' (y) (x)l) E X]l we
e X we
have
have an
an X -positive arithmetical
X-positive arithmetical formula
formula such
such that
that
278
278 W. Pohlers

H ( Y, y,
H(Y, y, 5)
Z) <-~ {x I TH(Y,
++ {x[ TH(Y, x,x, y,
y, z-)
Z) }} is
is well-founded
well-founded (122)
(122)
++ <<>,
++ y) eE U(~;~
(0, y> I A(Y,i)
(VZ) [ C1A ( Z, Y,
++ (vz)[c&(z,
+~ Y, z-)
Z) -+ y) eE z].
(O , y>
-+ (<>, Z] .
The last
The last equivalence
equivalence is is provable
provable iinn (ACA)o.
(ACA)o.
To obtain
To obtain therefrom
therefrom the opposite inclusion
the opposite inclusion in in (121)
(121) let H (Y, x, y)
let H(Y, be aa II}-formula
y ) be m -formula
and A (X, Y, x, y)
and A(X, y ) the
the arithmetical
arithmetical formula
formula such
such that
that according
according to
to (122)
(122)
H (Y, x, y ) ++
H(r,x,y) (VZ) [ C1A ( Z, Y, y ) -+ ((>,x>
++ (VZ)[CIA(Z,Y,y)-+ (0, x) 6E Z].
Z] . ( i)
(i)
Define A'(X,Y,x,y)
Define :{:} A(X,
A' (X, Y, x, y ) :~=> A (X, {z (O , z) 6E Y},x,y)
{z Il ((),z) Y } , x, y) andlet
and let -<9 eitherbyaprimitive
either by a primitive
recursive well-ordering
recursive well-ordering ofof order type u/J or
order type or assume
assume WO(-<).
WO( -< ) . ThenThen either
either ID~
ID� oror
Aut-ID
A prove the
u t - I D prove the existence
existence of
of aa set
set SS such
such that
that ITA,(-<,
I TA, ( -<, S)
S),, i.e.,
i.e.,
CIA(Su, {z I ((>,z> 6 S'~U},y) (ii)
(ii)
and
and
(VZ) [ C1A ( Z, {~1
(vz)[cl,(z, { z l <<>,z> S-<Y } , y) ~-+ sSY, c� Z
(0 , z) eE s~,},y) z].] . iii)
((iii)
Hence
Hence
(O , x) 6E S
((),x) S yY --+ (VZ ) [ C1A ( Z, {z
-+ (VZ)[CIA(Z, (O , z) 6E S
{ z Il ((),z> -<Y } , y) -+ ((),x>
S'<Y},y) Z]
(O , x) 6E Z] (iv)
(iv)
-<
S Y } , x, y)
(O , z) 6E S'<Y},x,y)
H ( { z Il ((>,z>
-+ H({z
and
and
H (O , z) 6
( { z lI ((>,z>
H({z S-<Y } , x, y) -+
E S~Y},x,y) (VZ) [ ClA ( Z, {z]
-+ (VZ)[CIA(Z, (O , z) 6
{z l ((>,z> ES -<Y } , y) -+
S~Y},y) (O , x) 6
-+ ((),x> Z] (v)
E Z]
(v )
-+ <<>,
-+ (O , x~>) eE s,.
SY .
So
So we
we have
have
(((),x)
° , x) E6 SY
S y ++
~ H ( { x II (0
H({x , x) E6 S
((),x) -<Y } , x, y )
S'<Y},x,y) vi )
((vi)
and putting T
and putting T := (x, y ) 1 (O
:= {{(x,y>l ((>,x) S ~}} we
, x) E6 SY we obtain
obtain JH (-<,T).
JH(-'<,T). Therefore
Therefore
(3 Z)) is
Z )JH( -<, Z
(=~Z)JH(~, is aa theorem
theorem of
of IDID~� or A u t - I D , respectively.
or Aut-ID, respectively. o
[3
So
So we
we have
have together
together with
with (121)
(121) and
and Theorem
Theorem 3.2.3.2
3.2.3.2 the
the following
following theorem.
theorem.

3.2.4.2. Theorem.
3.2.4.2. Theorem. (II� -CA,, )o =
(YI~-CAv)o = (ID�)o (Aut-YI~)o =
(IDa)o,, (Aut-II�)o = (Aut-ID)o
(Aut-ID)o, ,
(II�-CA ,, ) =
(II~-CA~) = ID � , (II�-CA
IDa, ,, ) + (Bi ) = ID
(YI~-CA~)+(Bi)= ID~� + B ii )) == BID�
+ ((B Aut-ID =
BID~,, Aut-ID = (Aut-lID
(Aut-YI~)
and Aut-BID =
and Aut-BID Aut-ID +
= Aut-ID (Bi) =
+ (Bi) (Aut-n~) ++ (Bi)
- (Aut-II�) (Bi)..

Regarding
Regarding (116)
(116) we
we obtain
obtain the
the following
following chain
chain
ID" BID~ =
C_ BID�
ID~ � = (II�-CA ,, ) + (II5-BI).
(YI]-CA~)+ (II01-BI). (123)
(123)
Feferman
Feferman [1970]
[1970] has
has shown
shown that for /Ju =
that for = wP with pp > 0 the
wp with the theory
theory ID"ID~ proves
proves the
the
existence
existence ofof an
an w-model
w-model for (II~-CA<v) +
for (II�-CA<,,) (II�-BI) . This
+(II~-BI). This shows
shows that
that (I1�-CA < 1I )
(YI]-CA<v)
+ (IIb-BI)
+ (II~-BI) is
is proof
proof theoretical
theoretical reducible
reducible to for /Ju =
ID<~ for
to ID<1I wP, Pp E
= wP, im in
E LLira in the
the sense
sense that
that
ID<~ proves
ID<1I proves thethe existence
existence of
of an w-model for
an w-model for every
every finite
finite subtheory
subtheory of of (I1�-CA <1I)
(YI]-CA<~)
+ (IIb-BI) . On
+(II~-BI). On the
the other
other hand
hand the
the theory (YI]-CA<~) proves
theory (I1�-CA<1I) proves the
the existence
existence of
of an
an
 Set Theory
Theory and Second
Second Order Number Theory 279
279

w-model
w-model forfor all IDa,, �~ <
all ID( II. The
< v. The scheme (II~-BI) is
scheme (IIA-BI) is not
not needed
needed here
here since
since the
the
translation
translation of
of every
every/:lD~-formula F
L: I D� -formula F is arithmetical in
is arithmetical in some XY
some X y with
with JH( X).
-<, X). The
JH(-4, The
translation of
translation of B-IT
B-IT~v is
is thus obtained by
thus obtained by ((II~-CA). Writing �
IIij -CA ) . Writing _ for proof theoretical
for proof theoretical
reducibility
reducibility we
we get
get for
for IIt, = wP, Pp EE Lira
- coP, Lim the
the following
following chain.
chain.
ID< C_ BID
ID<~v � = (II�-CA<v)
B I D ~� v = + ( II6- BI) �
(II~-CA<~)+(II~-BI) ID<~v �
_ ID< (YI~-CA<~) �
_< (II�-CA<v) _< ID< v . (124)
ID<~. (124)
This
This shows
shows that
that all
all these theories are
these theories are proof
proof theoretically
theoretically equivalent.
equivalent.
To
To close
close the
the section
section we
we mention
mention the
the results
results of H. Friedman
of H. Friedman [1970] who [1970]
who showed
showed
(A~-CA) = (II~-CA<~o) = (]E21-AC) (125)
(125)
where
where
�� -CA)
((A~-CA) (\fx)[A(x)
(Vx)[A(x) ++ B(x)]
f-+
B(x)] -+ --+ (3X)(\fx)[x
(3X)(Vx)[x Ee X
X ~ A(x)]
A(x)] f-+

for A(x)
for e m
A(x) E and B(x)
I11 and B(x) E
E� � is
P~21is the
the scheme
scheme of
of � � -comprehension.
A21-comprehension.
A
A simpler
simpler argument
argument thanthan that
that in
in H.
H. Friedman's
Friedman's results
results is
is given
given in
in Feferman [1970]
Feferman [1970]
to
to characterize
characterize the the � � -comprehension rule.
Al-comprehension rule. To
To define
define the
the rule
rule let
let the
the class
class of
of 'essen­
'essen-
tially' m
tially' I1~ formulas
formulas be be the
the smallest
smallest class
class of
of formulas
formulas which
which contains
contains the
the arithmetical
arithmetical
formulas
formulas and and isis closed
closed under
under the
the positive boolean operations
positive boolean operations 1\ A and
and V V,, first
first order
order
quantification
quantification and and second
second order
order \f-quantification.
V-quantification. Dually
Dually thethe class
class of
of essentially
essentially
� � -formulas is
P~-formulas is the
the class
class of
of formulas
formulas whose
whose negation
negation is logically equivalent
is logically equivalent to to an
an
essentially
essentially m -formula. Analogously
II~-formula. Analogously we we obtain
obtain the
the class
class of
of essentially
essentially m -formulas
II~-formulas
when
when we we start
start with
with the
the essentially
essentially � � -formulas instead
P~-formulas instead ofof arithmetical
arithmetical formulas
formulas and and
the class
the class of
of essentially
essentially � � -formulas as
~l-formulas as its
its dual class. The
dual class. The � comprehension rule
A �1 comprehension rule is
is
defined
defined as as follows.
follows.
��-CR)
((A2LCR) (Vx)[A(x) ++ B(x)]
(\fx)[A(x) f-+B(x)] �~- (3X)(\fx)[x
(3X)(Vx)[x E X
X ++ A(x)]
A(x)] Ef-+ o r A(x)
A x /for
e Ax A(x) essen­
essen-
tially
tially m
II~ and
and B(x)
B(x) essentially E~.
essentially � �.
Feferman
Feferman shows
shows
(A� -CR) ==- (II�-CA<ww)
(A~-CR) (YI~-CA<w~).. (126)
(126)

3.3. Axiom
3.3. A x i o m systems
s y s t e m s for
for set
set theory
theory

3.3.1.
3.3.1. The
T h e axiom
a x i o m system
s y s t e m KPw
KPw

We
We introduced
introduced the
the axiom
axiom system K P w already
system KPw already in
in Section
Section 1.2. For 1.2.
For ordinal
ordinal analysis
analysis
it
it will
will be
be more
more convenient
convenient to restate the
to restate the axioms
axioms of
of K P w in
KPw in aa more
more parsimonious
parsimonious
way.
way. We
We keep Ext ) and
keep ((Ext) and modify
modify the pairing axiom
the pairing Pair) to
axiom ((Pair) to
Pair' )
((Pair') Y
(\fx)(\fy)(3z)[x Ee zz ^1\ y Ee z].
z].

It
It is
is obvious
obvious that Pair) follows
that ((Pair) follows from Pair' ) by
from ((Pair') by �o-separation.
A0-separation. In
In aa similar
similar way
way we
we
modify
modify the
the axiom
axiom of union to
of union to
Union' )
((Union') (\fu) (3w) (\fy Ee u)(\fz
(Vu)(Bw)(Vy u)(Vz E y)[z Ew
y)[z E w]]
280
280 W. Pohlers

an
an axiom
axiom which
which requires
requires only
only the
the existence
existence ofof aa superset
superset of
of the
the union.
union. Again
Again it
it is
is
clear
clear that
that we obtain ((Union)
we obtain Union) form
form ((Union')
Union' ) by
by b.o-separation.
A0-separation. Similarly
Similarly we
we modify
modify
the
the axiom
axiom of
of infinity
infinity to
to
(3u)[u "# (Vx u)(3v u)(x v)J.
Inf' ) (3u)[u r 0 A (Vx Ee u)(3v Ee u)(x Ee v)].
((Inf')
For
For convenience
convenience wewe introduce
introduce an an axiom
axiom system
system BST B S T for
for Basic
Basic Set
Set Theory.
Theory. It It
comprises
comprises the axioms ((Ext),
the axioms Ext) , ((Pair'),
Pair' ) , ((Union'),
Union' ) , ((A0-Separation),
b.o-Separation) , andand the
the scheme
scheme
((FOUND)
FOUND) of of foundation. Adding ((Inf')
foundation. Adding Inf' ) to BST
to B S T we
we obtain
obtain the
the system B S T w . All
system BSTw. All
systems
systems we we will
will regard
regard here
here are
are based
based on BST. If
on BST. A x is
If Ax is such
such aa system
system wewe denote
denote by by
A x r the
Axr the system
system which
which is
is obtained
obtained by
by restricting
restricting the
the foundations scheme ((FOUND)
foundations scheme FOUND )
to
to b.o-formulas.
A0-formulas. The The system
system W-Ax
W - A x is is the
the intermediate
intermediate system
system between A x ~ and
between Axr and
A x in
Ax in which
which we have ((A0-FOUND)
we have b.o -FOUND ) but but allow
allow full
full Mathematical
Mathematical Induction,
Induction, i.e.,
i.e., the
the
scheme F(O) (Vx w)(F(x) F(x 1)) (Vx w)F(x)
scheme F(0) A (Vx E e w)(F(x)--+ --t F(x + 1)) --t --~ (Vx Ee w)F(x) for for arbitrary
arbitrary formulas
formulas
F.
F.
Adding
Adding the scheme ((A0-Collection)
the scheme b.o-Collection) to to the
the axioms
axioms in B S T we
in BST we obtain
obtain the
the axiom
axiom
system
system K KP, adding it
P , adding it to B S T w the
to BSTw the system K P w These
system KPw These systems
systems are
are thoroughly
thoroughly
studied
studied inin Barwise [1975J.
Barwise [1975]. We We list
list some
some ofof the
the most
most important
important properties
properties ofof the
the
system
system K KPwP w without
without giving
giving proofs.
proofs. All
All proofs
proofs can
can bebe found
found inin Barwise [1975J.
Barwise [1975].
Many
Many ofof these
these properties
properties are
are already
already provable
provable from
from axioms
axioms which
which are
are weaker
weaker than
than
KPwr
K P w ~.. However,
However, wewe do
do not have enough
not have enough space
space to
to go
go into
into more
more details
details here.
here.
We
We use
use class-terms
class-terms of
of the
the form{xl A(x)}
form {x I A(x)} freely
freely though
though they
they are
are not
not regarded
regarded
as
as terms
terms ofof the
the language.
language. The z {xl A(x)}
formula z E
The formula e (x I A(x) } is is an A(z).
an 'abbreviation'
'abbreviation' for
for A(z).

3.3.1.1. �-Persistency
3.3.1.1. E-Persistency Lemma.Lemma. Let
Let F
F be
be aa �-formula.
P~-formula. Then K P r proves
Then Kpr proves
Fa
F a AAaaC �
b -b+--t
F Fbb and
andFFaa - + FF.
--t .

3.3.1.2. �-Reflection Theorem.

3.3.1.2. E-Reflection Theorem. For
For every
every �-formula
E-formula FF we have
we have
K P ~ ~f- F
Kpr F -~--t (3a)F
(3a)Fa.a.
As aa consequence
As consequence of
of �-Refiection we obtain
P~-Reflection we that in
obtain that P ~ every
Kpr
in K � formula
every P~ formula is provably
is provably
equivalent
equivalent to
to a �l formula.
a E1 formula.

3.3.1.3. �-Collection Theorem.

3.3.1.3. P~-Collection Theorem. For
For every �-formula F(x,
every E-formula F(x, y)y) wewe have
have
Kpr
K ~- (Vx
P r f- (Vx E a)(3y)F(x, y)y) --+
e a)(3y)F(x, (3z)(Vx eE a)(3y
--t (3z)(Vx z)F(x, y).
a)(3y eE z)F(x, y).

3.3.1.4. �-Replacement Theorem.

3.3.1.4. E-Replacement Theorem. For For every �-formula A(Z,
every P~-formula A(x, y)y) we have
we have
Kp
K u)(3!y)A(x, y)y) ~--t (3f)[Fun(f)
(Vx eE u)(3!y)A(~,
P rr ~f- (V~ (3f)[Fun(f) AA dora(f)
dom(f) == uu AA (V~ (Vx eE u)A(~,
u)A(x, f(~))].
f(x))J.
3.3.1.5. A
3.3.1.5. b.-Separation
-Separation T Theorem.
heorem. Let A(x)
Let A(x) bebe aa IIII and
and B(x)
B(x) bebe aa E� formula.
formula.
Then
Then
(Va)[(Vx eE a)[A(x)
KPprr ~f- (Va)[(Vx
K a)[A(x) ~ B(x)]
+-+B(x)J --+ (3z)(Vx eE a)[x
--t (3z)(Vx a)[x eE zz ~ xx eE aa A B(x)]].
+-+ B(x)JJ.
There are
There are many
many basic
basic relations
relations which
which are
are b.o-definable
A0-definable (cf.(cf. Barwise [1975J for
Barwise [1975] details) .
for details).
The fact
The fact that 0:is an
that a is an ordinal,
ordinal, e.g.,
e.g., can
can be
be expressed
expressed by Tran(o:) AA (Vx
by Tran(a) (Vx eE a)Tran(x).
0:) Tran(x) .
 Set
Set Theory
Theory and
and Second
Second Order
Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 281
281

Similarly
Similarly we we can can express
express by by On (a) 1\A (3x
On(a) (3x E a ) [x E aJ
a)[x A ((Vx
a] 1\ Vx E a) 3y E a
a ) ((3y ) [x E
a)[x yJ
E y]
that a
that a is
is aa limit
limit ordinal.
ordinal. The usual basic
The usual basic notations
notations as
as Rel(r) (r is
Rel(r) (r is aa relation)
relation),, Fun(J)
Fun(f)
(J
(f is
is aa function
function )) are are �o
A0 definable.
definable. See
See Barwise
Barwise [1975,pp.14-29J
[1975,pp.14-29] for
for aa more
more complete
complete
list.
list.
If
If F
F ((Xb xn) is
X l , . .. .. . ,,xn) is aa �-formula
A-formula of K P w then
of KPw then we
we may
may introduce
introduce aa new new relation
relation
symbol
symbol R R together
together with with its
its defining
defining axiom
axiom
VX 1 ) · · · (VXn)[R(Xb
((Vxl)... · · · ,, xxn)
(Vx,)[R(Xl,... ~ F
, ) ++ (Xb .. .. .. ,, xn)J.
F(Xl, x,)].
Adding
Adding defined
defined �
A relation-symbols
relation-symbols to to the
the language .c(E) will
language/:(E) will not
not alter
alter the
the class
class of
of
�-
E - and
and �-formulas. If F(Xb
A-formulas. If Xn , y) is
F ( X l , . .. .. . ,,x~, y)
is aa �-formula
E-formula such
such that
that
KP �
KP VX 1 ) . . . ((VVxn)
~ ((Vx~)... x ~ ) (3
( 3 !!y)F(Xb
y ) F ( x ~ , ... .. . ,, xXn
n ,,yy)
)
then we
then we may
may add
add an
an n-ary
n-cry function symbol FF to
function symbol to the
the language
language of K P together
of KP together with
with
its
its defi ning axiom
defining axiom
VX 1 ) ·.-.· · ((Vz,)(Vy)[F(Xl,
((Vxl) Vxn) (Vy) [F (Xb ·. ·. ·. ,,xy)
Xy ) = F ( X l , ·. ·. .. ,,xn,
~ F(Xb
y ++
= Y Xn , y)]
y)]..
Extensions
Extensions byby definitions
definitions of
of �
E function-symbols
function-symbols will
will also
also not
not alter
alter the
the class
class of
of �­
A-
and
and �-formulas
E-formulas of K P w . Details
of KPw. Details about
about 'Adding
'Adding Defined
Defined Symbols
Symbols to K P ' can
to KP' can be
be
found
found in
in Chapter
Chapter I1 55 of Barwise [1975J
of Barwise [1975]..
One
One ofof the
the most
most important
important theorems
theorems of K P is
of KP is the
the following �-Recursion Theo­
following E-Recursion Theo-
rem.
rem.

3.3.1.6. �-Recursion
3.3.1.6. E-Recursion T Theorem.
heorem. Let G Let by an n
G by an n + ry �
+ 22 --cary E function-symbol o.ffunction-symbol of
KP.
KP. Then there is an n
+ 1l --ary
Then there is an n + cry � -function symbol of
E - f u n c t i o n symbol FF of KP
K P such that such that
KP �
KP (a, a)
~- FF(~, G(~, a
= G(a,
a) = a,, U
U F(a,
F(~, m
~)).·
{< a

The
The above �-Recursion Theorem
above E-Recursion Theorem is is aa special
special case case of of the
the more
more general
general �-Recursion
]E-Recursion
Theorem
Theorem as as stated
stated in in Barwise
Barwise [1975]
[1975]..
Because
Because of of the
the axiom
axiom of of infi nity we
infinity we obtain
obtain K Pw �
KPw ~ (:3a)Lim(a)
(3a)Lim(a) and and thus
thus aa
�o-definition
A0-definition of of ww as
as aa point by Lim(w)
point by Lim(w) 1\ A ((VxVx E w)[ --, Lim(x)] .
w)[-,Lim(x)].
Stronger
Stronger than �-refiection is
than E-reflection is the
the I1 2 -refiection scheme
H2-reflection scheme
(n2-Ref) F
F -+ --+ (3a)
(3a)[a[a =f.
r 00 1\AF a
F a]] .for I1 for formulas
n22 formulas F F. .
Observe
Observe that
that any
any model
model of K P w iinn the
of KPw the constructible
constructible hierarchy
hierarchy already
already satisfies
satisfies
fh-refiection.
II2-reflection. To To see
see that
that let
let F F ==
- (Vy)
( V y ) ((3y)A(x, y) be
3 y ) A ( x , y) be aa I1rsentence
II2-sentence andand assume
assume
La
L~ F K P w . . For
~ KPw For a E La a L~ there
there is is a a least
least 130 fl0 < < a a such
such that L/~o and
that aa E L,8o and wewe
define f3n
define + 1 to
fln+l to bebe the
the least
least ordinal
ordinal suchsuch that that La L~ F ~ ((VxVx E L,8n ) (3y E L,8n+l)A(x,
L/~,)(3y y).
L/~,+I)A(x, y).
The ordinal f3n
The ordinal + 1 exists
fln+l exists by �-Reflection. This
by E-Reflection. This defines
defines aa sequence
sequence (f3n; n
(/~n;n E w w))
which
which is �-definable in
is E-definable in LaLa.. Hence
Hence 13 := sup
fl := {flnlI n E w
sup {f3n n
w}} < < aa and
and we
we have
have LaLa F
((Vx
Vx E L,8) (3y E L,8)A(x,
L~)(3y L~)A(x, y). y).
Due
Due to
to the �-Recursion Theorem
the ~-Recursion Theorem we we can
can prove
prove the
the existence
existence of
of the
the stages
stages of
of
inductively
inductively defi ned sets
defined sets in K P w . . Let
in KPw Let S
S be
be an
an additional
additional unary
unary predicate
predicate symbol.
symbol.
We write aa E
We write E S
S instead
instead of
of S ( ) . We
S(a). a
We obtain
obtain the
the stages
stages of
of an
an inductive
inductive definition
definition as
as
stated in
stated in the
the following
following theorem.
theorem.
282
282 W. Pohlers
W. Pohlers

3.3.1.7. Theorem.
3.3.1.7. Theorem. Let
Let B(i,
B(~, y,
y, S)
S) be
be aa /:l.-formula
A-formula of of KPw.
K P w . Then
Then there
there is
is aa �
function-symbol
function-symbol lB Is such
such that
that
KPw
g P w f-- t---IB(a, E xd B(i,
i) = {y{yEXll
Is(a,:~') = y, {z E xl i (3�
B(~.,y,{zExll (3r E a)[z E IB(� ' i)]})}.
Is(~,i')]})}.

Putting G
Putting (i, y,y, S)S) "= {y
G(~, := {y E Xlli B(i,
E xl B(~, y,
y, S)}
S) } we
we observe that G
observe that G possesses
possesses aa �
~ definition
definition
and
and get
get the
the theorem
theorem immediately
immediately from
from the
the �-Recursion
~-Recursion Theorem.
Theorem. 0
D
A
A /:l.-formula B(i, y,
A-formula B(~, y, S)
S) and
and aa tuple
tuple b of
of sets b
sets induce
induce an
an operator
operator

B,';:
rFs,~: Pow(bd
Pow(bl) ---+
) Pow(bl)
rB,b( S) :=
:= {y
{y E
e bbll lI B(b,
B(b', y, S)}
which
which depends
depends on on thethe parameter
parameter list b.
list b. Again
Again we we say
say that
that S occurs positively
S occurs positively in in
aa formula
formula F(S)
F(S) if if the
the formula
formula corresponding
corresponding to to F(S)
F(S) inin the
the Tait-Ianguage
Tait-language (cf. (cf.
Section 1.3)
Section 1.3) does
does not
+ ) . For
not have
have occurrences
occurrences of of the t S.
form t fI.r S. We
the form We sometimes
sometimes denote
denote
this by
this by F(S
F(S+). For S-positive
S-positive formulas B(i, y, S)
formulas B(~, y,S) the the associated
associated operator
operator r B ,b
Fs, ~ is
is
monotonic,
monotonic, i.e.,
i.e., we
we have
have S T
S 5;;;
c T � ~ r B ( ) B,,;(T).
,'; S 5;;;
Fs,~(S) C_ rFs,~(T). WeWe say
say that
that aa set
set is closed
is closed
under
under an an operator
operator r F if
if we
we have
have r ()
S 5;;;
F(S) C_ SS for
for all S. For
all S. For anan monotonic
monotonic operator
operator
PoT(b) ---+> Pow(b)
r: Pow(b)
F: PoT(b) we we obtain
obtain its
its least
least fixed-point
fixed-point as as the
the intersection
intersection ofof all
all r­
F-
closed
closed subsets
subsets ofof bb..
The
The fact
fact that
that aa class T
class T "= {x E bI ! A(x)} E
:= {x E bll A(x)} E Pow(bd Pow(bl) isis rB ,b
Fs, ~ -closed
-closed can
can bebe
expressed
expressed by by the
the formula
formula
C1B(b,
CIs(b,T)T) :_= ((Vy
:= '<Iy E bd[B(b,
bl)[S(b, y, T) -t-+ yy E TT].j .
y, T) (127)
(127)
Defining IB(b)
Defining Is(/~') :=
:= {x{x Ee blbl lI (3�)[x
(3r Ee IB(�'
Is(~r b)]}
b)]} we
we obtain
obtain the
the following
following theorem.
theorem.

3.3.1.8.
3.3.1.8. TTheorem.
h e o r e m . LetLet B(Z,
B(i, y,y, S) by an
S) by an SS-positive
-positive /:l.A formula
formula of
of KPw. Then
K P w . Then
gKPw
P w f-- ~ C1B(b,
CIB(b, IB(b))
IB(b'))
and
and
K P w t- CIs(b, A) ~ (Vr E IB(~, b') ~ A(x)].

It follows
It from Theorem
follows from Theorem 3.3.1.8 IB(b)
3.3.1.8 tthat is the
h a t IB(b') is the least fixed-point of
least fixed-point the operator
of the operator
rB ,b .
las,b ..
To
To prove
prove the theorem pick
the theorem b, c E
pick aa tuple
tuple b', c e bl B(b, c, IB(b)).
and assume
bl and assume S(b', c, Is(b)). Since
Since
B(i, y, S) is
S(~, y, S) is S-positive
S-positive the B(b, c, IB(b))
the formula
formula S(b, c, Is(b')) is is still
still aa E-formula
�-formula and
and by
by ~�­
-
Reflection we
Reflection we obtain d
obtain aa set
set d such B(b, c, {x E bd (3� E d)(x E IB(�, b))}).
such that
that S(b,c, {x e bll (3~ e d)(x e Is(~, b))}). Now Now
define flJ3 :=
define := U {� E d l � E On} a
U{ ~ e d I ~ e O n } and and a := {J3}.
J3 U
:= flU{fl}. a Then a is
Then /:l.o­
is aa set
set by
by A0-
Separation, Union
Separation, Union andand Pair
Pair such {� E dl � E On} a.
such that
that {~ E d I ~ E On} C_ By E-Persistency
5;;; a. By �-Persistency itit
follows B(b, c, {X E bl l (3� E a)(x E IB(�, b))})
follows S(b,c, {x e bll (3~ e a)(x e Is(~r b'))}) and and by
by Theorem 3.3.1.7 we
Theorem 3.3.1.7 we obtain
obtain
c E IB(a, b), c E IB(b).
i.e., c e Is(b'). This
c e Is(a, b), i.e., This proves
proves the
the first
first part
part of
of the
the theorem.
theorem.
For the
For the second
second part
part we
we show
show
s) c s (i)
(i)
 Set
Set Theory
Theory and
and Second
Second Order
Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 283
283

by
by induction
induction on ~. Assuming
on �. Assuming the
the hypothesis
hypothesis C1B ( , S)
CIs(b, S) we
we obtain
obtain by b
by induction
induction
hypothesis
hypothesis
U B (, b)
U IIB(r c S.
b) � S. (ii)
(ii)
«r {
The monotonicity of
The monotonicity of the induced operator
the induced operator therefore
therefore implies
implies
(\Ix
(Vx EE b1) [B(b, x,x, U
bl)[B(b', B ( , b))
U IIB(r b')) =?
=~ B(b, x, S)]
B(b', x, S)].. (iii)
(iii)
«r {
By Theorem
By Theorem 3.3.1.7
3.3.1.7 and
and the
the hypothesis ClB (b,
hypothesis CIB(b , S) S) we
we get (i) from
get (i) from (iii).
(iii). D
[3
It
It follows
follows from
from Barwise
Barwise [1975]
[1975] that
that every
every primitive
primitive recursive
recursive function
function hashas aa
� -definition in
A l1-definition KPw.
in K P w . Therefore
Therefore we we may
may add
add function
function symbols
symbols for for all
all primitive
primitive
recursive
recursive functions
functions to to the
the language
language of KPw.
of K P w . So
So wewe may
may regard
regard thethe second
second order
order
language
language of NT22 as
of NT as sublanguage
sublanguage of KPw.
of K P w . WeWe mentioned
mentioned thatthat already
already in in Section
Section 11.3.
.3.
Interpreting
Interpreting the language C�
the language /:~ as
as aa sublanguage
sublanguage of of C(E)
s augmented
augmented by by � E function
function
symbols
symbols (call
(call this language C(E,
this language s . . )) turns
. turns first
first order
order formulas
formulas withwith setset parameters
parameters
into
into �o
A0 formulas
formulas (which
(which in
in turn
turn are
are �A for
for the KPw).
theory K P w ) . It
the theory It is
is obvious
obvious that
that
the
the scheme
scheme of Mathematical Induction
of Mathematical Induction cancan be
be easily
easily derived
derived fromfrom thethe Foundation
Foundation
Scheme. All
Scheme. All defining
defining axioms
axioms for
for primitive
primitive recursive
recursive functions
functions are are provable
provable in KPw.
in K P w .
By
By Theorem
Theorem 3.3.1.8
3.3.1.8 we
we may
may also
also interpret
interpret the
the additional
additional constants
constants llB. B . So
So we
we get
get the
the
following
following theorem.
theorem.

3.3.1.9. Theorem.
3.3.1.9. Theorem. The theory
The theory IDI viewed as a theory in the language
ID1 viewed as a theory in the language C(E,
s . . .)
is a subtheory ofKPw.
is a subtheory of K P w .

3.3.2. The
3.3.2. t h e o r y KPI
T h e theory KP1

We
We are
are now
now introducing
introducing the
the theory KPI
theory KP1 which
which axiomatizes
axiomatizes aa set
set universe
universe which
which is
is
the
the union
union of
of admissible
admissible universes.
universes. Therefore
Therefore we
we augment
augment the
the language
language of
of Set
Set Theory
Theory
by
by an
an additional Ad
constant Ad whose
additional constant whose intended
intended interpretation
interpretation is
is that
that of
of an
an admissibility
admissibility
predicate. The
predicate. defining axioms
The defining axioms for Ad
for Ad are
are
(Ad (\lu)[Ad(u)
1) (Vu)[Ad(u) -+
(Adl) --+ w
wEe u
u /\ Tran(u)]
A Tran(u)]
(Ad 2) (\lx)(\ly)[Ad(x)
(Ad2) A Ad(y)
(Vx)(Vy)[Ad(x) /\ Ad(y)--+ -+ x
x E
e Yy V Vx x== yy V e x
V Yy E x]]
(Ad 3) (\lx)[Ad(x)
(Ad3) (Pair')' tx /\
(Vz)[Ad(x) --+ (Pair
-+ (Union')' )Xx /\
A (Union A (�o-Separation)X
(A0-Separation) ~ /\A (�o-Collectiont]
(A0-Collection) ~]

3.3.2.1. Definition.
3.3.2.1. Definition. The
The theory KPI isis the
theory KP1 the system
system B S T w together
BSTw together with
with the
the
axioms
axioms (Ad 1) -- (Ad3)
(Adl) (Ad 3) and
and the
the axiom
axiom
(Lim) (\lx)(:3u)[Ad(u) x u
(Lim) (Vx)(3u)[Ad(u) /\ Ax E ]
e u]. .

Let ,~.. n{
Let ).� gt~ enumerate
enumerate thethe class Reg U
class Reg {O} of
U {0} admissible ordinals
of admissible ordinals (augmented
(augmented by by
0) and
0) and their
their limits. Then the
limits. Then the smallest
smallest constructible
constructible model
model ofof KP1 is KPI
LN~,, i.e.,
is Low i.e.,
II KPl ll oo
IlgPlll~ = = n
~ .w ' Since
Since we
we have KPI � Ad(u)
have g P 1 ~ Ad(u) -+ F ~ for
~ FU for every
every sentence
sentence Fr E
e gPw KPw
we
we obtain
obtain
284
284 Pohlers
W. Pohlers

3.3.2.2. Lemma.
3.3.2.2. Lemma. KPwr
KPw r � =~ KPlr
~- F � KPF � F
[-- Ad(u) -+ Ad(u) FU . Also,
--+ F ~. Also, KPw
KPw �
~ F �
=~ F
KPI �
KP1 Ad(u) FU .
~ A d ( u )-+
~ F ~.

As
As inin K P w the
KPw the most
most important
important theorem
theorem in will be
KPI will
in KP1 be the I;-recursion the­
the E-recursion the-
orem.
orem. But
But wewe do
do not
not have
have full �o-collection in
full &0-collection in in KPI. Therefore
in KPI. Therefore wewe
will
will obtain
obtain I;-recursion
E-recursion only in aa relativized
only in relativized version.
version. Let Let IF
F bebe aa collection
collection
of
of new
new function
function symbols.
symbols. DenoteDenote by KPI(F) the
by KPI(IF) the theory
theory KPIK P I formulated
formulated inin
the
the language
language s .c( E,
IF) together
together with
with defining
defining axioms
axioms forfor the
the function
function symbols
symbols
in F. Let
in IF. A(X', y)
Let A(~,y) be be aa I;-formula
E-formula such
such that
that KPI(IF) (V'X')(3!y)A(X', y)
KPI(F) � ~ (V~)(3!y)A(~,y) and and
KPI(IF)
KPI(F) � (V'u)[Ad(u) (V'X' E u)(3y E u)A(X', y)].
~ (Vu)[Ad(u) -+ --+ (V~ e u)(3y e u)A(~,, y)]. Then
Then we introduce aa new
we introduce new func­
func-
tion
tion symbol G
symbol G and
and its
its defi ning axiom
defining axiom
(D o)
(Da) (V'X')( V'y)[G(X') == yy ~ A(Z,
(VZ)(Vy)[G(Z) A(X', y)]
+-t y)]
and call G
and call G aa relative
relative I;-function
E-function symbol
symbol of KPI(F).. Let
of KPI(IF) KPI(G) be
Let KPI(G) be the
the
L ( E, IF U {{G})-theory
L(E,FU G})-theory KPI(IF)
KPI(F) + Do . By
+ DG. By the
the common
common techniques
techniques we
we obtain
obtain that
that
KPI(G) is
KPI(G) is an
an extension
extension by definitions of
by definitions KPI(F) in
of KPI(IF) in the
the following
following strong
strong sense.
sense.

3.3.2.3. Lemma.
3.3.2.3. Lemma. For
For every
every formula
formula F(X') F(~) inin the
the language
language .c( E, G)
f_,(E, G) there
there is
is aa
formula
formula Fo(X')
Fo (~) in
in the
the language
language .c( E, IF)F) such
f_,(e, such that
that
KPI(G)
KPI(G) � (V'X')[F(X') ~ Fo(X')].
~-(VZ)[F(Z) +-t F0(Z)].
IfIf F(X')
F(Z) isis aa I;-formula
E-formula of of .c(
s E, G)
G) then Fo(Z) is
then Fo(X') is aa I;-formula
E-formula of of .c(
s E, IF) such
such that
that
KPI(IF)
KPI(F) � (V'u)[Ad(u) (V'X'
[--(Vu)[Ad(u)--+ -+ (VZ E e u)(Fo(X')
u)(Fo(Z) ~-~ Fo(X')U)].
+-tF0(Z)u)].
IfIf F(X')
F(Z) isis aa &o-formula
�o-formula ofof f-,(e, G) then
.c(E, G) then there
there is
is moreover
moreover also
also aa IT-formula
H-formula F1(X')
FI(Z)
such that
such that
KPI(G)
KPI(G) � (V'X')[F(X') 4+ F1(x)]
~-(V~')[F(:~) +-t F~(x)]
KPI(IF)
KPI(F) � (V'u)[Ad(u) ((VZ
~-(Vu)[Ad(u)~ -+ V'X' Ee u)(Fo(X')
u)(Fo(Z) ~ Fo(X')
+-t +-t
Fo(Z) U~ ~ Fl(X') U)],
FI(Z)~)].
Iterating Lemma 3.3.2.3
Iterating Lemma 3.3.2.3 wewe see
see that
that wewe cancan identify
identify the
the theory KP1 with
theory KPI with its
its closure
closure
under
under extensions
extensions by
by defi nitions of
definitions of relative
relative I;-function
E-function symbols.
symbols. The
The I;-Recursion
E-Recursion
Theorem
Theorem can
can now
now be modified in
be modified in the
the following
following way.
way.

3.3.2.4. Relativized
3.3.2.4. Relativized I;-Recursion
E - R e c u r s i o n Theorem.
Theorem. Let G be an n 2-ary relative
Let G be an n + 2-ary relative
I;-function symbol of Then there exists an n l -ary relative -function
K P F . . Then there exists an n + 1-ary relative I;
E-function symbol of KPlr E-function
symbol
symbol FF such
such that
that
KPlr
KPF � ~ FF(~, G(X', a,a, U
(X', a)a) == G(~, (X',�))
U FF(~, ~))
e <o

To
To prove
prove the
the theorem
theorem we
we follow
follow Barwise [1975]
Sarwise [1975] as far as
as far as possible.
possible. Let C(X', a, v, f)
Let C(~, a, v, f)
be
be the
the �o-formula (a
A0-formula (a i ~ On 1\ f = 1\ v =
OnAf = 0O A v = 0) (a E 1\ Fun(J) 1\
V (a E On
O) V OnAFun(f) A
dom(J) = a 1\ (V'� E a)[f(�) = G(X', �, U« e f(()) 1\ v = G (X', a, U(Eo f(())]).
dom(f) -- a A (V~c e a)[f(~r - G(~,r162 f(r A v = G(~,a,(.Jce a f(r We
We
then
then show
show
~ (V'X')(V'a)
g P l "r �
KPl (V:~)(Va)(3Iz)(3 )C(X', a,a, z,z, 1f))
(3!z)(31f)C(:~, ((i)
i)
 Set Theory
Theory and Second
Second Order
Order Number Theory 285
285

and
and
KPlr
KP1 ~ �
~ (Vu)[Ad(u)
(Vu)[Ad(u) -+
--~ (Vx
(V3 Ee u)(Va
u)(Va Ee u)(:Jz
u)(3z Ee u)(:Jf
u)(3f Ee u)C(x,
u)C(3, a,
a, z,
z, J)J
f)] (ii)
(ii)
and
and introduce
introduce aa new
new relative
relative �>function symbol FF and
E-function symbol and its
its defining
defining axiom
axiom
(Vx)(Va) (Vz)[F (x, a)a) == zz ~ (:JJ)C(x,
(V3)(Va)(Vz)[F(3, +-+ (3f)C(3, a,a, z,
z, J)J.
f)]. (iii)
(iii)
To
To prove
prove (i)
(i) and
and (ii) it suffices
(ii)it suffices to to show
show thatthat KPlr
g P l r proves
proves
C(3, a,
C(x, a , zz,, IJ)
) /\A C(x,
C(3, a,
a , zz',
' , I1' )') -+
~ zz = z' A fI = l'
z' /\ = I' (iv)
(iv)
and
and
Ad(u) Ax
Ad(u) /\ ~Ee uu /\
Aa a Ee uu -+
--+ (:Jz
(3z E e u)(:Jf
u ) ( 3 / eE u)C(x,
u)C(~,, a,
a, z,
z, J).
I). (v)
(v)
We
We prove
prove (iv)
(iv) and
and (v)
(v) by
by induction
induction on on a.
a. Since C(~, a,
Since C(x, a, z,
z, J)
f) is
is �o
A0 we
we can
can formalize
formalize
this in KPlr
this in KP1 ~ where
where wewe have
have (�o-FOUND)
(A0-FOUND).. The The proof
proof ofof (iv)
(iv) is
is exactly
exactly the
the same
same
as
as in
in Barwise
Barwise [1975J.
[1975]. For
For the
the proof
proof ofof (v)
(v) we
we also
also follow
follow Barwise
Barwise [1975J
[1975] but
but use
use the
the
additional
additional observation that G(x,
observation that G(3, a, f) E u
a, J) whenever u
u whenever u is
is admissible
admissible and and x,
~, a,
a, f
f ECu u..
We
We dodo not
not have
have full
full �-replacement
E-replacement in in KPlr
KP1 ~ but but we
we may
may use
use its relativized version
its relativized version
according
according toto Theorem
Theorem 3.3.1 3.3.1.4.4 and
and Lemma
Lemma 3.3.2.23.3.2.2 whenever
whenever it it is
is used
used in
in Barwise
Barwise
[1975J.
[1975]. Once
Once we
we have
have the
the relative
relative function symbol FF we
function symbol we may
may proceed
proceed literally
literally as
as in
in
Barwise
Barwise [1975J
[1975].. 0[3
There
There isis a relativized version
a relativized version of of Theorem
Theorem 3.3.1 .7. Let
3.3.1.7. B(x, v,
Let B(3, v,S) S) bebe aa
�o -formula.
A0-formula. Then
Then we we obtain
obtain a a relative
relative �-function symbol G such
E-function symbol G such that
that
G(x, v, s) {y xI I B(x, y, s)}
= {y E
G(3, v, s) = e xl I B(3, y, s)} andand wewe apply
apply the
the relativized
relativized �-recursion
E-recursion Theorem
Theorem
(Theorem
(Theorem 3.3.2.4)
3.3.2.4) to
to obtain
obtain aa relative
relative �-function
E-function symbolsymbol lIB B such
such that
that
IB(a, x) {y xd B(x, y, {z xI I
Is(c~,3) = = { Y eEX l l B(3, y , { z eEx l l a)(z IB( x))})}
((:J�
3 ~Ee~)(z E �
e IB(~,3))})}
'

is provable iinn KPlr.

is provable g P l r. Defining I�(x) ::== Ur
Defining 1~(3) U{EU IB(C
Is(~, x) we obtain
3) we obtain the following analogue
the following analogue
of
of Theorem 3.3.1 .8.
Theorem 3.3.1.8.

3.3.2.5. Theorem.
3.3.2.5. T heorem. (Inductive Definitions
(Inductive Definitions in
in K P I and KPI KPlr) Let B(x, y, be
S) be
and KP1 r) Let B(3, y,S)
an -positive -formula. Then there is a relative -function symbol lB such that
S
an S-positive �o -formula. Then there is a relative �
Ao E-function symbol Is such that
Ad(u) A/\ x3 eE uu --+
Ad(u) -+ C/ B(X, I�(x))
CIB(3, 1~(3))
and
and
Ad(u)
Ad(u) A ~, eE uu /\
/\ x A C/B(X, A) --+
CIB(~, A) -+ I~(~)
I�(x) C<; {x{x eE uull A(x)}
A(x)}
are provable inin KP1
are provable KPlfor arbitrary formulas
for arbitrary formulas A(x)
A(x) and and inin KKPlr for A0
P I r for -formulas A(x).
�o -formulas A(x).
The proof
The proof is
is essentially
essentially thatthat of
of Theorem
Theorem 3.3.1.8.
3.3.1 .8. WeWe fixfix an admissible uu such
an admissible such that
that
3x cE uu and
and repeat
repeat the
the proof
proof substituting
substituting E-reflection
�-reflection by by its
its relativized
relativized version.
version. If
If we
we
only consider
only consider �o-formulas
A0-formulas A(x) A(x) then
then only
only (A0-FOUND)
(�o-FOUND) is is needed.
needed. Otherwise
Otherwise wewe
need the
need the full
full strength
strength of KPI.
of KP1. 0
[3
Observe that
Observe that Theorem
Theorem 3.3.2.5
3.3.2.5 does
does not
not immediately
immediately follow
follow from Theorem 3.3.1.8
from Theorem 3.3. 1.8
by Lemma
by Lemma 3.3.2.2
3.3.2.2 since
since the
the definitions
definitions of
of the
the function
function symbols IB
differ slightly.
symbols IB differ slightly.
286
286 W. Pohlers

3.3.2.6. Corollary.
3.3.2.6. Corollary. Let B(x, y, be an -positive -formula. Then
Let B ( Z , y , SS)
) be an S Ao-formula. Then KPlr
S-positive 600 KP1 r
proves thatfor every admissible set a containing the parameters b and every admissible
proves that.for every admissible set a containing the parameters b and every admissible
set containing a the class I�(b) is a set in which is the least fixed point of the
set u
u containing a the class I~(b) is a set in u u which is the least fixed point of the
monotone operator induced by B(b, y,
monotone operator r B ,b~ induced by B(b, y, S)
FB, S)..

Proof.
Proof. The
The function
function symbol B is
symbol I]B is a
a relative
relative �-function symbol. and
C-function symbol, and we
we have
have
I�(b)
I~(b) �
c_ a
a E c.
E c. So by Lemma
So by Lemma 3.3.2.3 and and 6oo-Separation
A0-Separation relativized
relativized to
to u we u
we obtain
obtain
I�(b)
I~(b) E u.
E u. That � (b) isis the
That II~(b') the least
least fixed-point
fixed-point of
of r
FBB,,bg follows
follows from
from Theorem
Theorem 3.3.2.5.
3.3.2.5.
o
D

3.3.3. The
3.3.3. The quantifier
quantifier theorem
theorem and axiom/3f3
and axiom

The
The most
most important tool for
important tool embedding subsystems
for embedding subsystems of NT22 into
of NT into subsystems
subsystems ofof
Set Theory is
Set Theory is the
the Quantifi er Theorem
Quantifier Theorem which
which we
we are going to
are going to present
present in this section.
in this section.
It
It is
is based
based on
on a a theorem
theorem which
which is
is commonly
commonly known
known asas Spector-Gandy
Spector-Gandy Theorem.
Theorem.
First
First we
we fix
fix the
the following
following notations:
notations:
Proga(
Proga(-<, T) ("Ix E a)[(Vy E a)(y x y E T) x E TJ
--<, T) ::r<=? (Vx E a)[(Vy E a)(y --<
-< x -+ y e T) -+
--+ x E T]
where T
where T may
may be
be a
a set
set or
or aa class-term,
class-term,
a ( --<, T)
TP(-<,
T1 T) :<=? Prog~(-<,
:r Prog T) -+
a ( --<, T) (Vx E
--+ ("Ix E a)(x
a)(x E
e T),
T),
a ( --<) :<=?
wt"(-<)
Wf :r ("Ix) T1a ( --<, x),
WO a (--<) :r:<=? aa =
WOn(-<) = field LO(-.<) 1\A Wf
(--<) 1\ LO(--<)
field(-.,<)A a (--<)
Wfa(-<)
where
where LO( --<) says
LO(-~) says that -< is
that --< is a
a linear
linear ordering.
ordering. For A0-formula A(x,
For aa 6oo-formula x, y)y) we
A(~,x, we define
define
relation x
aa relation -~ Y
x --<x y :r :<=? A(x,
A(Z, x,x, y)y) and
and call
call it
it a
a 6oo-relation.
A0-relation.

L e m m a . Let
3.3.3.1. Lemma.
3.3.3.1. - ~ be
Let --<x be aa 6oo-relation
Ao-relation and
and define
define A(b, 3, x,
A(b, X, S) as
x, S) as (Vy
(Vy E E b)[y
b)[y --<x
-~
xx -+ y EE SJ.
-+ Y S]. Then
Then
UP1 rr �
KPl ~- Ad(a)
Ad(a) 1\ b,Zx E
A b, E aa --~ ((~/~/fb(~)
-+ ~ (Vy
Wfb ( --<x) ++ (Vy EE b)(3�
b)(3~ E E a)(y
a)(y EE IA(�' b, x))).
I~(~,b,Z))).

To
To sketch
sketch the
the proof
proof we
we work
work informally
informally in K P F . . We
in KPlr We have
have Progb ( --<x, x) ++
Progb(-<~,x)
CIA
CIA(b,~,x). Let a
(b, x, x). Let a be
be an admissible set
an admissible containing bb and
set containing and all
all members
members of of x ~ as
as
elements.
elements. By By Corollary 3.3.2.6 we
Corollary 3.3.2.6 get d
we get d := {y
:= {y E
Ea (3� EE a)(y
a II (3~ a)(y EE IA (�, b,b, x))}
I~A(~, ~))} as as a
a
set
set provable
provable in K P F . . We
in KPlr We have to show
have to show
Wf b ( --<x) ++
Wfb(-<~) ++ bb �
C_ d.
d. (i)
(i)
For
For the
the direction
direction from
from left
left to
to right
right observe
observe thatthat Wf b ( --<x) implies
Wfb(-~) implies Progb( --<x, -+
Progb(-<~,d) d)
-~
b � d.
b C_ d. But But by
by Theorem
Theorem 3.3.2.5 we have C1
we have A (b, x, d)
CIA(b,Z,d) which
which is
is equivalent
equivalent toto
Progb(
Progb(-<~, d) .
--<x, d). For
For the
the opposite
opposite direction
direction we we use
use the
the second
second partpart of
of Theorem
Theorem 3.3.2.5
3.3.2.5
to get C1
to get A (b, x, x) d � x
CIA(b,Z,x) -+ d c_ x for for any x.
any x. Together
Together with b�d
with b C_ d this
this implies
implies
Progb(
Progb(-<~,x) x) b � x
--<x, -+ which is
~ b C_ x which is Wf b ( --<x) .
Wfb(-~). 0
[3
The
The following notion is
following notion is motivated
motivated by by the
the n t -completeness of
H{-completeness of well-foundedness.
well-foundedness.
 Set Theory and Second Order Number Theory 287

Definition. Let
3.3.3.2. Definition.
3.3.3.2. Ax be
Let Ax be aa theory
theory in
in the
the language
language of
of Set
Set Theory.
Theory. We
We say
say
that aa formula
that formula A(x) is II
A(Z) is l
II ~((Ax) iff there
Ax) iff there is
is aa �o-relation -<~C w
A0-relation -<x� wxw such that
w such that
Ax �
Ax (\lx) [A(x) ++ Wf(-<x)
~-(Vs163 Wf(-<~)].] .

Observe
Observe that
that the
the folklore
folklore fact
fact that
that every every m -formula is
II~-formula is equivalent
equivalent to to the
the well­
well-
foundedness
foundedness of of its associated tree
its associated tree of unsecured sequences
of unsecured sequences can
can be
be proved
proved in
in BSTr
B S T r..
Therefore every m
Therefore every -formula is
II~-formula II II (( BSTr
is aa II ) -formula such
B S T r)-formula such that
that in
in the defining formula
the defining formula
for
for its
its corresponding
corresponding �o-relation
A0-relation all all quantifier
quantifier are
are restricted
restricted to
to ww..

3.3.3.3. Theorem.
3.3.3.3. Theorem. For every IIl (KPlr)-formula
For every IIl(KPF)-formula A(x)
A(~.) there is a E-formula there is a 2:.-formula
C(X) such that KPlr � Ad(a) Ax
C(s such that K P F ~ Ad(a) 1\ ~E a --+ (A(x)
E a -+ (A(Z) ++
~ c(x)a)
C(s .

We
We indicate
indicate the the proof.
proof. Let -<x� w
Let -<~C_ w xx w w thethe �o-relation
Ao-relation such
such that
that
A(x) ++
A(s ~ Wf( Wf(-<~). Choose an
-<x) . Choose an admissible
admissible aa such
such that s w E
that X, E aa and
and define
define
B ( s x, S) :{::}
B(x, :4=~ (\lY E w) [y -<x X -+
(VyEw)[y-<~x --+ Yy E
E S]
S].. Then
Then A(x)
A(s ++~ Wf W (-<x) ++
Wf~(-<~) ++
( V yE
(\ly e ww)) ((3�
3 ~ EE a) (y E
a)(y Is(~,sx))) by
e IB(�' by Lemma
Lemma 3.3.3. 1.
3.3.3.1. Since
Since IBIB is
is aa rela­
rela-
tive
tive 2:.-function
E-function symbol, Ad(a)
symbol, Ad(a) and and x ~ EE a a wewe getget A(x)
A(s ++ C(x)aa for
++ C(s for
C(X) : {::} (\ly (vyeE w) (3�) (y Ee IB(� ' x)) . Dn

3.3.3.4. Quantifier
3.3.3.4. Quantifier TTheorem. For every m -formula
h e o r e m . For every II~ -formula A(X,
A(f,, x) in the language .c�
s in the language s
there is a 2:.-formula
there is a E-formula C(X,
C ( s x) so that Ad(a)
s so that Ad(a)-~ -+ (\IX
(V)~ EE a)
a)(Vs Ew
(\lx E ) [A(X, x) ++ C(X, x)a]
w)[A(.P,,s ~]
is provable in KPlr. For every 2:.� formula
, o,aU gPr. :o mula A(X,
A(f,,2)x) there is a 2:.-formula
a r,-fo m la C(X,
C( 7, x)
2)
such that
such that A(X,
A(X,sx) ++
~ C(X,
C ( 2 , ~x) is provable in KPlr. Dually for every m-formula
) is provable in K P F . Dually for every YI~-formula
A(X,
A()~, x) there is a II-formula
2) there is a II-formula C(X, C(X, x)such that
~) such that A(X,
A(fi,, x)
~) ++
o C(X,
C(X, x) is provable in
~) is provable in
KPlr.
KPF.

Recall
Recall that
that we regard .c�
we regard s asas aa sublanguage
sublanguage ofof .c
s ( E, . . . ) by restricting all
by restricting all first
first order
order
quantifiers
quantifiers to
to w
w and
and all
all second
second orderorder quantifiers
quantifiers to
to subsets
subsets of of w.
w. As
As already
already remarked
remarked
every m
every -formula is
II~-formula II l1(( BSTr
is aa II B S T ~)) and
and hence
hence also III1((Kp
also aa II g P Fn
) - f-formula.
o r m u l a . Assume
Assume
Ad(a)
Ad(a) and
and X )~ EE a.a. By By Theorem
Theorem 3.3.3.3
3.3.3.3 we
we obtain
obtain aa 2:.-formula
E-formula C(X, C(.Y,x) x) such
such
that
that A(X, x) ++
A()(,~) ++ c(X,
C()~,sx)a. a. For the second
For the second claim
claim assume
assume A(X, A()~,sx) {::} r 3
((3Y)[Y
Y) [Y �c_
w AB
w 1\ (X, Y,
B()~, s for
Y, x)] m
for aa II~-formula
-formula B (X, Y,
B()~, s . By
Y, x) By the
the first
first claim
claim there
there isis aa 2:.-formula
E-formula
C'(X,
C'()~, Y, x) such
Y,Z) such that
that for Ad(a)
for Ad(a) and and X,
)~,YY Ee aa we
we get
get B(X,
B()~, Y,Y,Z)x) ++e+ C'(X,
C'()~, Y,
y,sx)a
provable
provable in KPlr.
in K P F . By axiom ((Lim)
By axiom Lim) wewe always
always find
find such
such anan aa and
and thus
thus obtain
obtain the the claim
claim
by
bydefining C(.X,sx) :{::}
defining C(X, (3Z)[Ad(Z)
:r (3Z)[Ad(Z) 1\ AX)~ E Z
E Z 1\A (3Y
(3Y E Z)(Y
E Z)(Y � C_w A C'(X,
w 1\ Y, x)Z] .
C'(fi,,Y,s
The
The last
last claim
claim follows
follows from
from the the second
second by
by taking
taking negations.
negations. DEl
As
As aa corollary
corollary of
of Theorem
Theorem 3.3.3.4
3.3.3.4 we
we get
get II �
-comprehension in
YI11-comprehension in K P F . KPlr.
3.3.3.5. m-Comprehension
3.3.3.5. I I ~ - C o m p r e h e n s i o n Theorem.
Theorem. Let
Let H(X, xs , x)) be
H(.~, x be aa II�-formula.
II~-formula. Then
Then
KPlr proves
K P F proves (\lX) (\lX E
(V.~)(V~ e w) (3y)[y = {z
w)(3y)[y ew
{z E w iI H(X,
H()(, x,
~, z) }].
z)}].

Proof. By
Proof. By Theorem
Theorem 3.3.3.4
3.3.3.4 there
there isis aa 2:.-formula
Z-formula C(X, x, x) such
C(.,~,Z,x) such that
that
KPlr
KP1 r �~ Ad(a) AX
Ad(a) 1\ E aa 1\
)~ E A X,
~, X E w
x E --+ (H(X,
w -+ (H()~, x,
~, x)
x) ++
+-~ C(X,
C()~, x,
s x)a) Using axiom
x)a).. Using axiom
288
288 w.
W. Pohlers

(Lim)
(Lim) wewe find
find such
such an admissible a
an admissible a and
and another admissible u
another admissible u such that a
such that a E Euu.. Now
Now
we
we apply
apply �o-Separation
A0-Separation relativized
relativized to to u u to
to obtain
obtain d := {x E d := {x
E w iI C(X,
C()~, x,Z, x) a} as
as aax)a}
set.
set. Obviously
Obviously d is d
is aa witness
witness forfor y in y
in the
the claim.
claim, D
r7
The
The Quantifier
Quantifier Theorem
Theorem is is aa good
good example
example for for reducing
reducing the
the complexity
complexity of analytical '
of ''analytical'
formulas
formulas by translating them
by translating them intointo the
the language
language of of Set
Set Theory.
Theory. (The
(The reason
reason for
for this
this
reduction
reduction isis the
the presence
presence of of the
the axiom
axiom (Found)
(Found) inin Set
Set Theory)
Theory).. Another
Another example
example isis
Axiom/3 which
Axiom fJ
which turns
turns thethe III
H1 notion
notion of of well-foundedness
well-foundedness intointo aa/k-notion.
�-notion. We We will
will
show
show that Axiom fl is
that Axiom fJis provable
provable in K P F . . This
in KPIT This needs
needs some
some notations.
notations. Define
Define
Found(a, r)
Found(a, r) :{:}:r (\fx)[x a x
(Vx)[x � A x =f.
C_ a 1\ ~ 0 -+ (3z x)(\fy x)((y, r) (128)
--+ (3z EE x)(Vy E E x)((y, zz)) �
r r)]] (128)
expressing that rr is
expressing that is aa well-founded
well-founded relation
relation onon the set a.
the set a. ToTo increase
increase readability
readability
we
we use
use the
the infix
infix notation
notation forfor relations, i.e., x
relations, i.e., x rr yy instead of ((x, y)
instead of y) E r. Recall
E r.
x, Recall that
that
Found(a,
Found(a, r) entails (\fx
r) entails E a)
(Vx E (x r//x).
a)(x x).
(AxfJ) (\fx)(\fr)[
(Axfl) (Vx)(Vr)[ Found(x,
Found(x, r) r) -+--+ (3f)(30:)(Fun(J)
(3f)(3a)(Fun(f) 1\ A dom(J)
dom(f) = =x A rng(J)
x 1\ rug(f) = 0: =

A (\fu
1\ (Vu E x)(Vvv E
E x)(\f E x)(u --4 f(u)
x)(u rr vv -+ f(u) << f(v)))
f(v)))].] .

3.3.3.6. T h e o r e m . Axiom
3.3.3.6. Theorem. Axiom fJ fl is
is aa theorem
theorem of of KPIT
KPF. .

P r o o f . We
Proof. We start
start with
with the
the obvious
obvious observation
observation
KPI" �
KPIT ~- Found(b, r) -+ Wf
Found(b,r)-+ b
(r) .
Wfb(r). (i)
(i)
Then
Then we
we obtain
obtain from
from Lemma
Lemma 3.3.3.1
3.3.3.1
KPIT
KP1 r �~- Ad(a)
Ad(a) 1\A b,
b, rr EE aa -+
--4 [Found(b,
[Found(b, r) r) +4 (\fy
+-+ (Vy EE b)(3�
b)(3~ E E a)(y
a)(y E I~(~, b,
E I�(�, b, r))
r))]] (ii)
(ii)
for B(x,
for S(x, S)
S) :r :{:} (Vy)[y rr x
(\fy)[y --4 yY E
x -+ E S]
S].. LetLet bb andand rr be given. By
be given. By (Lim)
(Lim) wewe choose
choose
an
an admissible a
admissible a such such that
that b, b, rr EE a.a. For
For x E
x E bb there
there is
is by (ii) aa �~ EE a such
by (ii) a that
such that
xx EE IB(�, b, r)r) and
IB(~, b, and we we define
define f(x) f(x) :=:= minmin {~{� eE a[al xx EE I~(~,
I�(�, b,b, r)}
r)}.. This defines aa
This defines
function ff with
function dom(J) == b.b. Defining
with dora(f) Defining a0: := := sup {J (x) + 1[1 1 xx EE b}b} we
sup {f(x) we see that ff is
see that is
an (r, E)-homomorphisms
an (r, E)-homomorphisms from from bb onto
onto a. 0:. DQ
Observe that
Observe that the function ff whose
the function whose existenceexistence is required by
is required by (AxfJ)
(Axl~) is is
uniquely determined and
uniquely determined and has has for for transitive well-founded rr the
transitive well-founded the property
property thatthat
f (x) =
f(x) { J (y) I yy rr x}.
= {f(y)[ x} . We We often
often denote
denote this this function
function by otyPr and
by otypr and define
define
otyp(r) rng( otYPr ). As
otyp(r) :=:= rng(otypr). As aa corollary
corollary of of the
the proof
proof ofof Theorem
Theorem 3.3.3.6
3.3.3.6 we we obtain
obtain
KPIT
K P F ~- � Ad(a)
Ad(a) A 1\ Found(b,
Found(b, r) r) 1\A b,b, rr EE aa -+
--4 otyPr
otyp~ E E a.a. (129)
(129)
As soon
As soon asas wewe have (AxfJ) we
have (Axfl) we see that well-foundedness
see that well-foundedness for for sets
sets isis in
in KP1 extensible
KPI extensible
to well-foundedness
to well-foundedness for classes.
for classes.

3.3.3.7. TTheorem.
3.3.3.7. heorem. Let be a �o-relation. Then
Let --<x
~ be a Ao-relation. KPI ~� Wf~(-<~)
Then KP1 Wfa(-<x) --~
-+
Tla( -<x, T)
TI~(-.<~, for any class-term For -classes this is already provable in
T) .for any class-term T. �o
T. For Ao-classes TT this is already provable in
KPIT
K P I r ..

Proof.
P Assume Wfa(-~).
r o o f . Assume Wfa( -<x) . We have to
We have to show
show that
that from the hypothesis
from the hypothesis Proga(-~,
Proga( -<x, T) T)
we
we oobtain a T.
b t a i n a C�
_ T . Definer r := {(x, y) 1 x a y E a x -<x y}.
Define := {(x,y) l x EEa A y1\E a A x - <1\~ y } . Then r is
Then is aa set
set r
 Set Theory
Set Theory and
and Second
Second Order
Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 289
289

by
by flo -separation and
A0-separation and we
we obtain
obtain Found(a, r) from
Found(a, r) from Wf a ( -<x) . By
td/fa(-~). (Axt1)
By (Axle) there
there is
is an
an
ordinal
ordinal ac~ and
and an
an order
order preserving mapping f: aa �) a
preserving mapping f:
onto
Put B(~) :"r
~.. Put B(�)
<=? ~ << a
~ -+�
(Vy a)[J (y) �
(Vy E a)[f(y) = - ~ -+ Yy E T ]
T].. Since
Since we
we have
have the
the scheme
scheme (FOUND)
(FOUND) we we have
have induction
induction
on
on ordinals,
ordinals, i.e.
i.e.,, especially
especially
(V{)[(Vr < �)B(()
(V�)[(V( {)B(r -+ --+ B(�)]
B({)] -++ (VOB(O.
(V{)B({). (i)
(i)

But from (V�)B(O

But from (V{)B({) we we immediately
immediately obtain obtain (Vy (Vy E a)[y
a)[y E T T ]] , , Le., C_ T. So
i.e., aa � So
assume (V(
assume (Vr <{�)B(()
) B ( r forfor �{ < ce. We
< a. We have
have to show B(�).
to show B({). LetLet x E aa such
x such that
that
� = f(f(x).) . For
= x all yy E
For all E aa such
such thatthat yy rr x we
x get f(y)
we get f(y) < < �{ and thus B(f(y)).
and thus B(f(y)). Hence
Hence
(Vy E a)(y
(Vy a)(y rr x -+
x --+ y E T) T) which
which by by Prog a ( -<x, T) implies
Proga(-~, implies x E T. Hence
x Hence B(�)
B({) and
and we
we
are
are done.
done. If T is
If T is aa flo-class
A0-class then then (flo-FOUND)
(A0-FOUND) suffices suffices to
to have
have (i) (i) which
which allows
allows to
to
formalize
formalize the the proof
proof in in KP
K P Flr. . 0
[:]

3.3.3.8. Corollary.
3.3.3.8. Corollary. The
The schemes (/]~-BI) as
schemes (II6-BI) well asas (Bi)
as well (Bi) are
are theorems
theorems ofKPI.
of KP1.

P r o o f . Let
Proof. Let -< x x be
-~)?,~ be arithmetically
arithmetically definable in .c�.
definable in Z:~. Then
Then itsits defining
defining formula
formula is
is
flo
A0 in in the sense �off /.c: ((EE,, . .. . ). ). . The
the sense The formula
formula Wf( -< x x) as
Wf(-~Z,~) .c( E, . )-formula becomes
�
as/::(E,...)-formula
. . becomes
WfW( -< x,x) . Hence
Wf~(-~,~). KPI � Wf~ -< x ,x) -+
Hence g P l ~ WfW( -~ TIW ( -< ,x ' T) for
TI~(-~)?,~,T) for every
every class
class term T by
term T by
Theorem
Theorem 3.3.3.7 which implies (m-BI)
which implies (II~ . As
As aa special
special case
case we obtain the
we obtain the provability
provability
of
of WfW(-<x)
k~/fw(-<x) -+~ TIW(-<x , T) which entails
TI~(-<x,T)which entails (Bi).
(Bi). 0
[:]
Summarizing
Summarizing the
the work
work of
of this
this section
section we
we have
have the
the following
following results.
results.

3.3.3.9. Theorem.
3.3.3.9. Theorem. The theory
The theory (rr�- is a subtheory of KPlr. The theory
CA)o is a subtheory of KP1 r. The theory
(YIx~- CA)o
(yI1-CA) is a subtheory of W-KPI and (rr�-CA) +
(rr�-CA) is a subtheory of w - g P 1 and (YI~X-CA) + (Bi) a subtheory ofKPI.
(Bi) a subtheory o f g P 1 .

3.3.4. The
3.3.4. T h e theories KPi
KP
t h e o r i e s K P i and f3
a n d KPf~

Much stronger
Much stronger than
than the
the theory KPI isis the
theory KP1 the theory KPi
theory K P i which we are
which we are going to
going to
study
study in this section.
in this section.

. 3 . 4 . 1 . Definition.
33.3.4.1. Definition. The theory
The KPi
theory K P i is
is the union of
the union the axioms
of the in K P w and
axioms in and KPw
KPI.
KP1.

The axioms in
The axioms KPi
in K P i describe
describe aa universe
universe which
which isis admissible
admissible and
and simultaneously
simultaneously the
the
union of
union of admissible
admissible universes.
universes. So
So we obtain IIKPiI]~ -= II where
we obtain IIKPilloo
where II denotes
denotes the
the first
first
recursively inaccessible
recursively inaccessible ordinal,
ordinal, i.e.,
Le., the
the least
least ordinal
ordinal which
which is
is admissible
admissible and
and the
the
limit of
limit of admissible
admissible ordinals.
ordinals. Most
Most of
of the
the properties
properties of
of the
the theory follow from
theory K P i follow from KPi
the previous
the previous sections.
sections.

33.3.4.2. Theorem.
.3.4.2. T heorem. (fl�-comprehension
1
(A2-comprehension in KPir) Suppose that A(X, y) is a
in K P i r) Suppose that A(X, ~,
X, y) is a
and B(~',Z',y)
m - and
H~- B(X, X, y) aa ~l-formula.
'2:,�-formula. ThenThen ((VyV y E ww)(A(X, , yy)
) ( A ( X , ~X, B(X,
) ~ B +-+ , yy))
( f , , ~X, ) ) -+
(3z)(z ={y E ww II A()(,
(3z) (z = (y A(X, ~,X, y)})
y)}) isis provable
provable inin gKPir.
Pff.
 90
2290 W. Pohlers

Proof. From
Proof. From thethe hypothesis (\ly w)(A(X, x, y) +-+ B(X, y))
X, and
hypothesis (Vy E w)(A(f,,Y~,y) ++ B(.~,Y.,y)) and the
the Quantifier
Quantifier
Theorem
Theorem 3.3.3 is is follows
follows that A(X, x, y)
that A()~, ~, y) is
is aa �-formula
A-formula of KPir.
of K P F . Therefore
Therefore z "= :=
{y
{y E
eww[! A( X , x,
A()~, ~, y)
y)}} is
is aa set
set by �-comprehension.
by A-comprehension. D
[:]
As
As an
an immediate
immediate consequence
consequence of
of Theorem
Theorem 3.3.4.2 we
we obtain
obtain the
the following
following theorem.
theorem.

3.3.4.3. Theorem.
3.3.4.3. Theorem. The theory (a�-The theory
( A ~ - CCA)o is a subtheory of KPir, the theory
A ) o is a subtheory of K P F , the theory
(a�-CA) is a subtheory of W-KPi and the theories
(A~-CA) is a subtheory of W-KPi and the theories (a�-CA) + (Bi) and (a�-CA)
(A~-CA)+(Bi) ( A ~ - C A ) ++ and
are subtheories ofKPi.
(Bi) are subtheories of KPi.

We
We have have seen
seen in in the
the previous
previous section
section that that KPI proves (Ax,B).
KP1 proves (Ax~). We We will
will now
now showshow thatthat
KPw
K P w cannot
cannot proveprove (Ax.B).
(Axfl). It It will
will moreover
moreover become become clearclear that
that augmenting
augmenting K KPwP w by by
(Ax,B)
(Axfl) will will give
give aa theory
theory of of the
the strength
strength of of KPi.
KPi.

Definition. Let
3.3.4.4. Definition.
3.3.4.4. Let KP,a
KP/3 be be the theory KPw
the theory KPw + + (Ax,B).
(Axfl).

Since we
Since we have
have already
already shown
shown that that KPlr
KPF � ~ (Ax.B)
(Axfl) we we get
get immediately
immediately

3.3.4.5. Theorem.
3.3.4.5. Theorem. The
The theory
theory KP/3 KP,arr isis aa subtheory
subtheory of of KPir.
K P i r. The The theory
theory
W-KP,a
W-KP/3 is is aa subtheory
subtheory of of W-KPi
W-KPi and and KP/3
KP,a isis aa subtheory
subtheory ofKPi.
o/KPi.

We
We will will show
show that conversely KP,a
that conversely KP/3 is is ofof the
the same
same proof
proof theoretical
theoretical strength
strength as as KPi.
KPi.
That,
That, however,
however, does does notnot mean
mean that that both both theories
theories coincide. Though !IKP,a
coincide. Though ]lKP/311oo ll oo ==
II = = IIKPilioo
[]gPilloo there there are ordinals a
are ordinals a such
such that
that La L~ F KP,a but
~ KP/3 but La L~ � ~ gKPi P i (e.g.,
(e.g.,
aa == Nt R~+ + cf.
cf. Platek
Platek [1966]
[1966] 5.11).
5.11). WeWe will will first
first check that KP,a
check that KP/3 allows
allows the
the embedding
embedding
of
of the
the same
same .c�-theories
s as KPi. Therefore
as KPi. Therefore we we need
need an an equivalent
equivalent for for the
the Quantifier
Quantifier
Theorems
Theorems of KPI.
of KP1.

3.3.4.6. Lemma.
3.3.4.6. Lemma. For
For every
every II l (KP,ar)-formula A(x)
IIl(KPi3r)-formula A(Z) therethere isis aa y:,-formula
E-formula
B(x)
B(2) such such that
that KP,ar
KP/3 r � (\lx)(A(x) +-+
~ (V2)(A(2) ~ B(x)).
B(2)). For For every
every y:,�-formula
E~-formula A(X, A(.~,Y~) x) there
there
isis aa y:,-formula
E-formula B(fi,,Y.) B(X, x) and and dually
dually for for every
every m-formula, II -formula such
II~-formula, aa H-formula such thatthat
KP,ar
KP/3 r � ~ (\lX)(\lx
(V)~)(V2 eE w )[X � -+
w)[)~ C_ w --+ (A(X,
(A()~, x)
~) +-+
~ B(X,
B()~, x))].
~))].

Proof. Let
Proof. Let -< x ,x � C_ w x x w be be aa �o-relation
A0-relation such that KP,ar
such that KP/3 r � ~- Wf ( -< x x) +-+
Wf(-~:~,~)
"~2,~
, ++
A(X,
A()(,~). x). ThenThen rr := := {(x,
{(x,y)l y) ! Xx eEwwA y/\eywEAWx -/\~ 2X, ~-<yx}'x is a set and we have
Y } is a set and we have
Wf( -< x ,x) +-+
Wf(-~2,~) ~ Found(w,
Found(w,r). r). ByBy (Ax,B)
(Axfl)we we obtain
obtain

Found(w, r) +-+
Found(w, (:]f)(:la)[f: field(r)
~ (3f)(3a)[J: field(r) � aa order
onto order preserving].
preserving].
The
The right
right hand
hand side,side, however,
however, is Et.l '
is y:,
For
For the
the second
second claim assume A(X,
claim assume A()~,sx) ~:~ (3Y)[Y
<=> (3Y)[Y � C_ w /\ A Ao( X , Y,
Ao()~, ]I, x)]
s where
where
Ao(X,
Ao()~, Y, Y, x)
s is is m II~.. The
The 'unsecured
'unsecured sequences'
sequences' argument
argument is is of
of course
course formalizable
formalizable in in
KP,arr (it
KP/3 (it needs
needs only only arithmetical
arithmetical comprehension
comprehension which which is is covered
covered by
I (KP ,ar)-formula. By by �o-separation)
Ao-separation)
and
and we we therefore
therefore get get Ao(X,
Ao()~,Y,s Y, x) asas aa IIHl(KP/3~)-formula. By the
the first
first claim
claim
wewe therefore
therefore have have aa y:,-formula,
E-formula, say say Co (X, Y,Y, x),
Co()~, s which
which is is in KP,ar~ equivalent
in KP/3 equivalent to to
Ao
Ao()~,(X, Y,Y, x).
~). Defining
Defining C (X, x)~) :~=~ (3Y)
C()~, :<=> (3Y)[Y [Y �c_ w /\A Co (X, Y,Y, x)]
Co()~, s we we get
get aa y:,-formula
E-formula
 Set
Set Theory and Second Order
Order Number Theory 291
291

which
which is
is in KP,Br
in KPf~ r equivalent
equivalent to A(X, x).
to A()~, Z). The
The dual
dual claim
claim follows
follows by
by taking
taking negations.
negations.
D
[3
N ow having
Now having also
also aa Quantifier
Quantifier Theorem
Theorem in
in K P ~ ~ we KP,Br
we get
get with
with the
the same
same proof
proof the
the
equivalent
equivalent of
of Theorem
Theorem 3.3.4.2.3.3.4.2.
3.3.4.7. Theorem. (��-Comprehension
3.3.4.7. Theorem. (A~-Comprehension in in KPW)
KPf~ ~) Let
Let A(X, x, y) bebe aa I-I~-
A(f,,Z,y) m- andand
B(X,
B(:~, x, ~, y)
y) aa '2:,�-formula.
2 ~ - f o ~ l a . Then
Th~
((Vyew)(A(f,,i,y)
'tIY E W)(A(X, x, y) t+ ~ B(X,
B()~,i,y)) � :lz)(z = {Y
x, y)) -+ ((3z)(z= E wlI A(X,
{year x, y)})
A()~,i,y)})
isis provable
provable in in KP,Br
KPf~r..

As
As in Theorem 3.3.3.7
in Theorem 3.3.3.7 wewe get from (Axj3)
get from (Ax;3) the
the well-foundedness
well-foundedness for
for classes
classes forfor every
every
�o-relation
A0-relation which
which is
is well-founded
well-founded for sets. I.e.,
for sets. I.e., we
we have
have with
with the
the same
same proof
proof

.3.4.8. Theorem.
33.3.4.8. Theorem. Let ~ be
Let --<x be aa �o-relation.
Ao-relation. Then KP,B f-~ Wr
Then KP/3 t'Vfaa(-~)
(-<x) --+ �
T/( -<, T)
7-1(-~, T) for
for any
any class-term
class-term T.
T. For
For �o-classes
Ao-classes T
T this
this is
is already provable inin KP,Br
already provable KPf~r..

Summing up
Summing up we obtain
we obtain

3.3.4.9. Theorem.
3.3.4.9. T heorem. The theory
The theory (a�-
(A~_ CA)o is a subtheory of KP,Br, the the­
CA)o is a subtheory of KPf} r, the the-
ory
ory ((A~-CA) is a subtheory of W-KP,B and the theories
a�-CA) is a subtheory of W-KP/3 and the theories (a�-CA)(A~-CA) + + (Bi)
(Bi) and and
(A~-CA) +
(a�-CA) + (Bi) are subtheories ofKP,B.
(Bi) are subtheories o f g P ~ .

It
It follows
follows from Theorem 3.3.4.9
from Theorem 3.3.4.9 that
that for
for every ordinal a
every ordinal c~ for
for which
which we
we have
have La F
KP,B we
KPf~ we also
also have N Pow(w)
L~ n
have La PoT(w) F ( A ~ - C A ) + (Bi).
~ (a�-CA) +
(Bi). But
But again
again the
the opposite
opposite
claim
claim is
is not
not true. S. Simpson
true. S. Simpson inin aa private
private communication
communication to G. Jager
to G. J~iger constructed
constructed
the
the following
following counterexample.
counterexample. Let Let ac~ be
be the
the least
least admissible
admissible ordinal
ordinal such
such that
that
L,~ F
La (3~)[~c is
~ (:lm( is uncountable] Then a
uncountable].. Then =
c~ = (l{�Q +. While
(R~))+. NT22 and
~ NT
L,~ F
While La and therefore
therefore
also L~ F
also La (A~-CA) +
~ (a�-CA) (Bi) we
+ (Bi) we have L~ �
have La ~= (Axle). (Axj3).
3.3.5. Theories
3.3.5. Theories of
of iterated
iterated admissibility
admissibility

There
There is
is aa tremendous
tremendous gapgap between KPI
between KP1-even KPir
-even K P i r -- and KPi. Within
and KPi. Within this
this
gap
gap there
there is
is aa whole
whole zoo
zoo of
of theories.
theories. M. M. Rathjen
Rathjen in in his
his thesis [1988]
thesis [1988] studied
studied these
these
theories
theories exhaustively.
exhaustively. Unfortunately
Unfortunately his his thesis
thesis never
never appeared
appeared in English. But
in English. But there
there
is
is not
not enough
enough space
space to introduce all
to introduce all these theories. As
these theories. As examples,
examples, however,
however, we
we will
will
introduce
introduce some
some theories
theories for
for iterated
iterated admissibility,
admissibility, i.e.,
i.e., theories
theories which
which axiomatize
axiomatize
universes
universes containing
containing aa certain
certain number
number of of admissibles.
admissibles. As As inin Barwise [1975]
Barwise [1975] we
we denote
denote
by T€
by T~ the (th admissible,
the ~th admissible, i.e.,
i.e., A( T~ enumerates
)~.. T€ enumerates the the class
class of
of admissible
admissible ordinals
ordinals
including w.
including w. So So we have TO
we have = W , = wfK =
To = w, 1'1T1 = W~K = n1 f21,, Tw
T~ = nw= etc.
~ ++11 etc.

3.3.5.1. Definition. Let

3.3.5.1. Definition. Let

tAd(a, J)
Ill:Ad(~,f) :4=> Fun(f) /\A aoL E On
:¢:? Fun(J) O n /\ dom(f) =
A dom(J) = a c~ /\ 'tI(c << a)[Ad(
A ((V~ J (())
c~)[Ad(f(~c))
'tI( << (~c)(f((~)
/\A (('v'(~ O) /\A (('v'x
)(J (() EE f(f(~)) ())(Ad(x) �~ (:I(
'tIx EE f(f(~c))(Ad(x) )(x == f(()))]
< (~)(x
(::I(~< f((~)))]
292
292 w.
W. Pohlers

express
express that
that there
there are
are at least a
at least a many
many admissibles.
admissibles. We
We define
define

KPI +
KPIv := KPI
KPI/l + ("If,
(V~ < )(3J)ltAd(f" 1)
< 1Iv)(3f)ltAd(~, f)..
If --<
If -< is
is aa well-ordering
well-ordering we
we put
put

KPI +
KPI-< := KPI
KPI.~ + WO( � ) +
WO(-<) + ("If,
(V~ E typ ( --<) )(31)ltAd(f" 1)
E ootyp(-<))(3f)ltAd(~, f)..
The
The theory
theory

Aut-KPI
A u t - K P I := KP1 +
:= KPI + (Va)(3J)ltAd(a,
(Va)(3f)ltAd(a, 1)
f)
axiomatizes
axiomatizes aa universe
universe whicH
which contains
contains as
as many
many admissibles
admissibles as
as ordinals.
ordinals. Observe
Observe that
that
we
we can
can define
define xx = Lnl :{:}
= Lnt :r Ad(x) A (Vy
Ad(x) 1\ x)-~Ad(y).. The
E x)--,Ad(y)
(Vy E The formula
formula x E Lnt
x E Ln~ is is aa
�-formula since x
A-formula since x E Ln~ {:}
E Lnt r (Vy)[Ad(y) --+ x
(Vy)[Ad(y) --+ xE y] {:}
E y] r (3y)[y
(3y)[y == Lnt Ax
Lnx 1\ x E ] . We
E yy]. We
define
define the
the theory
theory

KPI* :=
KPI* KP1 +
:= KPI + ("If,
(V~ E E Lnt ) (31) ItAd(f" 1).
Lnx)(3f)ltAd(~, f).

It
It follows
follows by
by (�o-FOUND)
(A0-FOUND) that that the
the enumerating
enumerating function
function of
of the
the admissibles
admissibles is
is
uniquely
uniquely determined,
determined, i.e.,
i.e., we
we have
have

KP1 r �
KPlr ~ ItAd(a, 1) A ItAd(a, g)
f) 1\ g) --+
--+ Jf =
= g. (130)
As
As a
a consequence
consequence of
of (130)
(130) we
we obtain KPI** �
obtain KPI ~ (Va E Lnt)(3!1)ltAd(a,
(Va E Lnl)(3!f)ltAd(a, 1)
f).. The
The for­
for-
mula
mula

RltAd(a,
RItAd(a, J, a))
f, a :{:} a
:r a E
E On A Ad(
O n 1\ a) 1\
Ad(a) A Fun(J) A dom(J)
Fun(f) 1\ dom(f) = a A J(O)
a 1\ f(O) = a 1\
A
("If,
(V~ < < a) [Ad (J(f,)) 1\A (V(
a)[Ad(f(~)) (V( << f,)(J(()
~)(f(() E E J(f,)
f(~)
1\ ("Ix E J(f,))(Ad(x) 1\ a E x --+
A (Vx E f(~))(Ad(x) A a E x -+ (3( < ~)(x (3( < f,)(x == f(())))]
J(())))]
expresses a-fold
expresses a-fold iteration
iteration of
of admissibility
admissibility relative to aa start-admissible
relative to a.. It
start-admissible a is easy
It is easy
to show
to show that
that
ut-KP1 r �
Aut-KPlr
A ~- Ad( a ) --+
Ad(a) -+ (Va)(3!1)RltAd(a,
(Va)(3!f)RItAd(a, J, a) .
f, a). (131)
(131)

The uniqueness
The uniqueness followsfollows again
again by (�o-FOUND). To
by (A0-FOUND). To prove
prove the existence of
the existence of the function
the function
fJ we choose by
we choose by axiom
axiom (Lim)(Lim) two
two admissible
admissible sets and u
sets bb and u such a, aa EE bb EE u.u. By
that a,
such that By
�o-separation relativized
A0-separation relativized to to u u we obtain {3
we obtain ~ :=
:= bb fq On E
n On u. Then
e u. Then {3~ @ i bb and
and thus
thus
{3 ir a. There
There is is aa function
function g9 such such that ItAd({3 ++ ~,
that ItAd(13 (3, g)
g).. By (�o-FOUND) we
By (A0-FOUND) obtain
we obtain
("If,
(V~ < < ~(3 ++ ~)(~
(3)(f, eE g(~ g(f, ++ 1)).
1)) . Because
Because of of ~(3 EE g(~g({3 ++ 1),
1 ) , ~(3 ri aa and
and axiom
axiom (Ad2)(Ad 2) wewe
g({3 ++ 1).
get aa EE g(~
get 1) . Therefore
Therefore therethere is is aa pp <::; ~(3 such
such that g(p) . We
that aa == g(p). may now
We may now define
define
fJ(f,)
(~) := g(pg(p ++ ~) f,) for
for ~f, << aa << Z(3 and
and easily
easily check RltAd(a, f,J, a).
check RItAd(a, a) .
We will now
We will now show show thatthat thethe theories
theories for for iterated
iterated inductive
inductive definitions
definitions can can be be
embedded into
embedded into the the theories
theories of of iterated
iterated admissibility.
admissibility. In In the
the following
following lemma
lemma we we use
use
So xx EE X
xry y) EE XX
the same
the same notational
notational conventions
conventions as as in
in Section
Section 3.2.3.3.2.3. So XyY stands
stands for (x, y)
for (x,
and for
and for aar erelation
l a t i o n rr we write xx EE X ry for
we write (3z)(z rr y A1\x x EE XZ).
for (3z)(z XZ) . TheThe capital
capital
letters serve
letters serve only
only to to improve
improve readability
readability and and to to emphasize
emphasize the the close
close connection
connection to to
Section 3.2.3.
Section 3.2.3. Their
Their meaning
meaning is is that
that ofof ordinary
ordinary variables
variables for for sets.
sets.
 Set Theory
Set Theory and
and Second
Second Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 293
293

3.3.5.2. Lemma. Let A(S,

3.3.5.2. Lemma. Let A(S, T,
T, x, be an -positive .6.0 -formula,
x, y,
y, ~Z) be an S-positive
S A0-formula, rr C w w and
� w xx w and
define C1':4 (S, T,
define C]~(S, T, y, :{:} (Yx
y, ~Z) :r (Vx E9 w)[A(S,
w) [A(S, T, x, y,
T, x, and
y, ~Z) ~-+ xx E9 S]Sl and
IT% (r, X, Z) :4=~
IT~(r,X,z-') :{:} rr C w w w)
(Vy E C1% (XY, XrY,
� w xx w A1\ (Vyew)CI~(XY, xry , y,z
y, Z)
-*)
w ~ -~ a% (y, z ry
(VY)(Y � -+ C1% (Y, x , y, Z) -+ z~
^1\ (vy)(y c ~, y, ~ -~ x y c_
� y).
Y).
Then we obtain
Then we obtain
� (:3X) IT%(-<, X, Z)
KPI-< ~-(3Z)lT~(-~,X,z-')
KPI.~ (132)
(132)
KPI* ~-
KPI* WOW (r) A
� WOW(r) r, z E9 La
1\ r,Z (:3X) IT% (r, X, Z)
-+ (3Z)lT~(r,X,z~
Lnl1 -+ (133)
and
and
Aut-KPI
A WOW (r) -~
u t - K P 1 ~� WOW(r) -+ (3X)IT~(r,X,Z).
(:3X) IT%(r, X, Z) . (134)
(134)

The proof
The proof of
of all
all three
three claims
claims is
is essentially
essentially the
the same.
same. We We sketch
sketch the
the most
most complicated
complicated
case
case of (134). Assume
of (134). WOW (r) and
Assume WOW(r) and chose
chose by by (Lim) ( )
Lim an admissible a
an admissible a such
such that
that
r,
r , ~z E9 a. Then field(r)
a. Then field(r) N w
n w E9 aa andand wewe get
get by by (129)
(129) otyp~
otyPr E9 a. Hence also
a. Hence also
a "-
c~ := otyp(r)
otyp(r) E9 a.a. By
By (131) there is
(131) there is function
function f such f that R/tAd(a,
such that a).. By
RltAd(a, f, a) f,
By ((Lim)
Lim )
we obtain
we an admissible
obtain an admissible setset uU such that a,
such that f u.. For
a , f,, aa E9 u For ~ <<a �let u~
a let ue "= f(�),
so
:= f(~), so
Uo -= a.
u0 a. By �-Recursion relativized
By E-Recursion relativized toto uU we obtain functions
we obtain functions g9 and hy for
and hu for y
y E9 w
w
satisfying
satisfying

{~e~,l
{x E w l A(U{hy(r
A( {hy (() I «r < n),O,x,y,
U zD} and
1J} , 0, x, y, Z)} and dom(hy ) = On
dom(hy)= O n nnaa
if y i.
if y r fie ld (r)
field (r)
h y ( 1J) =
hy(rl) -
({x U
A( {hy (() I r« < v),U{g(r
= eE~wl l A(U{h~(r U
1J }, { g (() 1 «r < oty Pr ( Y) ) , x, y, Z)}
otyp~(y)},x,y,~} i
(i) ()
and dom(hy )
and dom(hy) =: OnOn n NU OtyPr(y) and
Uotypr(u) and g(otyP r (Y)) =
g(otyp~(y)) : Urng(hy) U
rng (hy )
if
if Yy E9 fie ld (r).
field (r).
Put
Put
S := {((~,
s :- u) 1l yu Ee fie
(x, y) field(r)
ld(r) 1\A xx E9 g(otYP r ( Y) ) }}
g(otyp~(y))
uU{{ (x, Y) lI yY E9 w
(x, y) w 1\AY y i.~ field(r) U
field(r) 1\A xx E9 Urng(hy)}.
rng (hy ) } .
By
By construction
construction we
we have
have S,
S, hy , gg,, {{ (h
hy, y , y)
(hy, Y)Il yY E9 w u.. We
w}} E9 u We show
show
C1%(SY,
c/x (s~, sry , y,
s~, y, Z)
z-) ((ii)ii)
and
and
((vx)[x
VX) [X � g ~ -+w
-~ C1%(X,
a%(x, s y , y,
s r~, y, Z)
~ -+ s~y �
-~ s g Xx].l. ( )
iii
(iii)
First assume yy i.
First assume ~ fie ld (r) . Then
field(r). Then s ry =
Sry = 0.0. The
The function
function h hyy is �-definable in
is E-definable in the
the
admissible
admissible set a. We
set a. We havehave s y
S~ =- {{xx lI (:3(
(3~ E
E a)(x y (() ) } . Thus
a)(x EE hhy((~))}. Thus s S yy corresponds
corresponds
to
to the
the class A (Z) of
class IIA(~ of Section
Section 3.3.1
3.3.1 and and wewe show
show (ii) ()
ii and
and (ii) ii as()
as in
in the
the proof
proof ofof
Theorem 3.3.1.8.
Theorem 3.3.1.8.
Now assume yy E
Now assume E fie ld(r) . Let
field(r). Let �~ :=
: - otY Pr (Y) . We
otypr(y). We show
show

g r~ e u~ ((iv)
iv)
294
294 Pohlers
W. Pohlers

by induction
by induction on �.
on ~. From
From the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis we we obtain f(
obtain g9 r( E uru, E u~ue forfor
all (
all ( << ~. r TheThe function � (
function ~ >> ( ~H g9 r( f( isis thus
thus E-definable
�-definable in in u~ and because
u e and because of of
� eE aa E u~ we get
ue we (, f()
get {{ ((,
( g9 I()l I (« < ~}
0 eE u~ ue byby E-replacement
�-replacement relativized
relativized toto u~. This
u e . This
proves (iv)
proves (iv) in
in case
case that
that ~� E kim. ( ( otyPr (z)
Lim. IfIf ~� == ( ++ 11 then
then ( -= otypr(z) for for some
some zz E field(r)
field (r)
and dom(hz)
and dom(hz) -- = ur
u, asas well g f(
well as
as gI( areare elements
elements of of u~. By E-recursion
u e . By �-recursion relativized
relativized to to
u~
ue wewe obtain hz
obtain hz eE u~. gf� gf( {((, U rng(hz))}
Therefore gI~ =
u e . Therefore = gI( U U {((,Urng(hz))} e E u~. This proves
ue . This proves
(iv) . By
(iv). By (iv)
(iv) and
and the
the definition
definition of sry
we obtain
of SS we sy U rng(hy ).
obtain S ~ eE u~ and S y -= [.J rng(hy). For
ue and For
Tf we havehy (Tf) {x A(U,<'1 hy ((), sry , x, y, z)}
have hy(~?) = h
which shows
shows that
that hy isis
A(SY, sry , x, y, Z) y
r] eE u~
u e we = {x e E w Ii A((J~<,hy((),SrY, x , y , ~ } which
definable in
definable in u~ by E-Recursion.
ue by �-Recursion. Therefore
Therefore the the formula
formula A(SY, S ~y, x, y, z-') isis still
still E�
and we
and (3Tf ue)A(U,<'1 hy ((), sry , x, y, Z)
obtain (3r/eE u~)A([.Jr hy((), S ~u, x, y, ~ by
we obtain by E-reflection
�-reflection relativized
relativized to
to u~.
ue .
Hence x sy .
Hence x ~E S ~. This This proves (ii). To
proves (ii). prove also
To prove also (iii)
(iii) we
we show
show
Cl~(X,S~Y,y,z-') -+ hy(~) C_ X (v)
by induction on r/Tf E u~.
induction on From the
the induction hypothesis wewe have U < h (()
have [.Jr hy(() C_
A(U,q hy ((), sry , x, y, Z) A(X, 'sr'1y , x,y y, Z) .
by u{ . From induction hypothesis �
X which
X implies by
which implies X -positivity A([.Jr hy((), Sry, x, y, ~ ~-+ A(X, Sry, x, y, ~ .
by Z-positivity
Together with
Together with the
the hypothesis
hypothesis C~(X, sry , y, Z)
eft (X, S ~y, y, ~ this
this yields
yields hy(~) �hy (Tf)
X.
C_ X. 0
El
The following
The following theorem is aa consequence
theorem is consequence of
of Lemma
Lemma 3.3.5.2.
3.3.5.2.

3.3.5.3. Theorem.
3.3.5.3. Theorem.
(i)
(i) (II�-CAv ) o == (ID~)o
(rt~-CA~)o ( ID�) o c_� KPlr,
KPI�
(ii)
5i) (II� -CAv ) == ID~
(H~-CA~) ID� c_ � W-KPI~
W-KPlv
(iii) IDv
ID~ � C_ ((II
H 1�-CAv
- C A ~ )) ++ (Bi)= BID� �
(Bi) = BID~ C_ KPlv
gPl~
(iv) Aut-lID o =
((Aut-H~)o = ((Aut-ID)o
Aut-ID ) o � C_ Aut-KPIT
Aut-KPF
(v) (Aut-YI1�)
(Aut-II ~) == Aut-ID
Aut-ID � C_ W-Aut-KPI
W-Aut-KPI
(vi) ((Aut-H~)
Aut-lID + + (Bi)
(Bi) = = Aut-BID
Aut-BID � C_ Aut-KPI
Aut-gP1
(vii) ID-<*
ID.~. �
C_ BID· C_ KPI·
BID* � KPl*

Proof. Claims
Proof. Claims (i),
(i), (ii),
(ii), (iv),
(iv), (v)
(v) and
and (vii)
(vii) follow
follow immediately
immediately from
from Lemma
Lemma 3.3.5.2 and
and
Theorem 3.2.4.2. Claims
Theorem (iii) and
Claims (iii) and (vi)
(vi) follow
follow from
from Lemma
Lemma 3.3.5.2, Theorems
Theorems 3.2.4.2
and
and 3.2.3.2 and
and Corollary
Corollary 3.3.3.8.
3.3.3.8. 0
D
The
The opposite
opposite inclusions
inclusions in
in claims
claims (iv),
(iv), (v)
(v) and
and (vi)
(vi) areare also
also true.
true. InIn (i)
(i),, (ii)
(ii) and
and
(iii)
(iii) this
this can
can of
of course
course only
only be
be true
true for
for limit ordinals /Ju.. And
limit ordinals And this
this is
is the
the case.
case.

3.4.
3.4. Ordinal
O r d i n a l analysis
analysis for
for set-theoretic
set-theoretic axioms
axioms systems
systems

3.4.1.
3.4.1. Ramified
Ramified set
set theory
theory

We
We introduce
introduce the
the language
language .eRS
l:as and
and of Ramified Set Theory.
of Ramified Set Theory. The
The basic
basic symbols
symbols
are
are E ~,, Ad,
E,, � ~Ad and
Ad, ,Ad constant La
and aa constant [~ for
for every
every ordinal
ordinal a
a..
 Set Theory and Second Order Number Theory 295
295

3.4.1.1. Definition. ((Inductive

3.4.1.1. Definition. Inductive definition
definition of of the
the set
set terms
terms of Z:as)) Every
of CRS Every constant
Let atomic set term aI, . . . , an
constant
In is
is an
an atomic set term of of stage If a l , . . . , an are
c~.. If
stage 0:: are set
set terms
terms of
of stages
stages < c~ and
< 0::
F(x, Xl, . . . , xn )
and
F(x, x l , . . . ,xn) is
is an
an sC formula
formula without
without further
further free free variables
variables then
then

{x E Let I F(x, al, . . . , an)L,,}}

{xeL,
is composed set term
is aa composed set term of
of stage ~.. We
stage 0:: We denote
denote the
the stage
stage of
of aa set
set term
term s by
by stg
stg (s). s (s) .
There
There are
are only
only sentences
sentences in
in CRS
Z:as.. An
An CRS
s -sentence is is obtained
obtained from
from an
an C ( E, Ad)­
)
Z:(E, Ad)-
formula ((in
formula in 'Tait '-style by
'Tait'-style) by replacing
replacing all
all free
free variables
variables by
by CRS-terms
Z:as-terms and
and restricting
restricting
all
all unbounded
unbounded quantifiers to CRS-terms.
quantifiers to Z:as-terms. ToTo have
have aa uniform
uniform notation
notation we
we refer
refer to
to
CRS -terms and
Z:as-terms -sentences as
and-sentences -expressions.
Z:as-expressions. Let
as CRS Let
To {t l (t) o:: } .
T~ := {t I stg <
stg(t) < c~}. ((135)
135 )
We
We do
do not
not count
count the
the equality
equality symbol
symbol among
among the
the basic
basic symbols
symbols of
of CRS
s but
but defi ne
define

s t
= :¢:} (\Ix E s)[x E t] /\ (\Ix E t)[s E s].
We
We transfer
transfer the
the Levy hierarchy to
Levy hierarchy to the
the language
language CRS
Z:as.'

3.4.1.2. Definition. Let

3.4.1.2. Definition. Let :F
jc be
be aa complexity
complexity class
class in
in the
the Levy
Levy hierarchy.
hierarchy. WeWe call
F
call
an Z:as-sentence F an
an CRS-sentence an :Fet-sentence
~'~-sentence if if there
there is
is aa :F-formula
~'-formula G(x)G(Z) in in the
the language
language CZ:
which
which has only the
the shown
shown free
free variables
variables and
and aa tuple
tuple a~ of
o f /CRS-terms
: a s - t e r m s of
of stages
stages less
F
has only less
than c~ such
than 0:: that F ==
such that - G(a)L"
G(g) L,..
If
If FF LL~
� is
is aa :Fit -sentence, we denote by by F z the FZ
the sentence
sentence which which is obtained by
EL E
~'~-sentence, we denote is obtained by
replacing
replacing allall quantifier
quantifier restrictions
restrictions E / ~it by
by E z.

The
The standard
standard interpretation
interpretation of
of CRS
s is
is given
given by
by
LetLaLL = Let
= La
{X Ee LetI
c,, I F(x,
F(x, al,
al,..., an)L,,}L} r,, {x{x Ee Letl
. . . , an)L" =
__
Lo, I Let
Lo, P~ F(x,
F(x, at, · · · , a�)}.
a~,..., a n ) ).
L

It
It is
is obvious
obvious thatthat for
for every
every set term ss of
set term of stage
stage 0:: a we have sL
we have s ~" E
E Let
L~+t.+ !. We We have have
LL ~ps EsLE, Let r LL ~Ps -st t for
¢:} = for some
some set term tt with
set term with stg stg (t)
(t) < <c~,0:: , (136)
LL ~PA dAd( t()t) r LL ~Pt =tk ~ Lit for
¢:} = s o m e a",EERReg
for some e g s usuch
c h t h athat
t a _ <",s:::;
t g stg(t)
(t) (137)
and
and
LL p~ Ss Ee {X{x eE LetL~]I F(x)}
F(x) } ¢:}
r LL p~ tt = ss /\A F(
= t)
F(t) (138)
(138)
for
for some
some set term t with
set term t
with stg(t)
stg(t) < ~.. This
< 0:: This motivates
motivates the
the following
following definition.
definition.

3.4.1.3. Definition. We
3.4.1.3. Definition. We saysay that CRS-sentences of
that/:as-sentences of the
the shape
shape s E
E r, A Ad(t), s r, (t)
d , AA VV BB
and (3x E r)G(x)
have V
and (3x E r)G(x) have V - -type. Dually sentences
t y p e . Dually sentences of
of the shape s ~ t, ...,
the shape Ad A
-~Ad(t), s � t, (t),
A /\
AB B
and (\Ix E r) (x)
G
and (Vx E r)G(x) are
are said
said to have I\
to have -type.
A-type.
We
We put
put
296 W.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

CC(s(s Ee r)r) .:== { {t{t{t{t ==== sss~11I\nstg (t) << a}

stg (t)
F(t)
a}
F(t) 1l stg (t)) <
stg (t < a}
a} ifr
if rr =
if
if r =
= La
La
= {X
{x E
E lkol
a I F(x)},
F(x)},
C(Ad(t))
6 (Ad(t)) := := {l{ k,~l< = = ttll a Ee Reg
K, K, A K; �
R e g 1\ stg (t)
_< stg (t) },
},
C(
C(A A vv B) B):= := {{A,B} A, B }
and
and

(( 3x E r)G(X)) :=:= { {F(t)

CC((=txEr)G(x)) {G(t)
{a(t) 1l stg
{ F ( t ) A1\ a(t)l
< a}
(t) <
stg (t) a}
G(t) 1 ststg(t)(t) << a}
ga} ifr
if rr =
if = La
L~
{ x eEkl~al IFF(x)}.
i f r == {x (x)}.

This
This defines the characteristic
defines the characteristic sub-sentences-set
sub-sentences-set C 6 (F)(F) for
for all sentences F
all sentences F ofof V -type.
V-type.
Dually
Dually we
we define
define
Cc (F)
(F) :=
:= {{-~al
...,G I G
a Ee Cc (...,
( - FF)) }
for sentences F
for sentences F of 1\-type.
of A-type.
If F
If F isis not
not aa conjunction
conjunction or or disjunction
disjunction then every G
then every G E EC (F) isis ofof the
C(F) the form
form H (t)
H(t)
for
for some
some characteristic
characteristic set term t.
set term t. We define tF(G)
We define rE(G) ::=
= tt and OF(G) :=:-- stg(t)
and oF(G) stg(t).. For
For
FF == Ao 0
A0 o AIA1,, o E
0 E {V, I\} and
{V,A} and G G E E C(F)
C(F) we put tF(G)
we put tF(G):= := liki and
and OF(G)oF(G):= := i/ i iff
GG == AAii for i E {a, I}.
for i E {0,1}.

The
The following
following lemma
lemma is
is an
an immediate
immediate consequence
consequence of
of Definition
Definition 3.4.1.3
3.4.1.3 and
and its
its
preceding
preceding remarks.
remarks.

3.4.1.4.
3.4.1.4. Lemma.
Lemma. For
For every
every sentence
sentence F
F of
of V -type we
V-type we have
have

L
L ~FF F {::}
~ L ~F V
L V F Ga
()
GG EE CC(F)
and
and dually
dually
L ~FF F {::}
r162L ~F A G
1\ G
(F)
GGEE CC(F)
for sentences ofof 1\
for sentences -type.
A-type.

Lemma 3.4.1.4
Lemma 3.4.1.4 is
is the
the basis
basis for
for the
the following
following infinitary
infinitary calculus.
calculus.

3.4.1.5. Definition. We
3.4.1.5. Definition. We define
define the relation p
the relation ~ �
A for
for finite
finite sets
sets of
of CRS-sentences
s
�A inductively
inductively by by the
the following
following two
two clauses:
clauses:

(( VV) ) If,s~F is~ ofos V -type and

V-,,,,~ ~ " ,�
o,,,~ � ~ , G as well as a o<
~,o ~,a
o~,,,~,,,,~ , and
a,,d OF(G)
o,~(~) <~ , ,a hold for
,,o,dSo,-
some GG EE C(F)
some 6(F) then
then p~ �A ,,FF
and
and
(1\)
(A) IfF
isF is os 1\
~ of A ,-type
- ~ and ~ �
o~ � ", , G
a as
o~ well
~ , , as
o~ a
~G <
< a
,, hold for all
~o~so~ o. Ga~E C(F) then
c(~),,,o,,
p~ A�, F,.F .
 Set Theory and Second Order Number Theory 297
297

From
From Definition
Definition 3.4.1 .5 we
3.4.1.5 we get
get for
for eR s -sentences F
L:Rs-sentences F
L
L~FF F (3a) � F
{::}
r (3a)~F (139)
(139)
and
and for
for aa � l -sentence F
El-sentence F and
and an ordinal -y we
an ordinal 'Y
we have
have
�~ FFL�L~ =~ LL~a F~ F.F.
:::} (140))
(140
If
If we
we put
put

:= {
to(F)) :=
tc(F min {a F F } if L F F
{ minoo{aIl ~ F } otherwiseifL
oo
~ F (141))
(141
otherwise
for eRs -sentences F
for/:as-sentences F we
we obtain
obtain from
from (140)
(140)
IFIL
IFI~,l :::;< tc(FL�)
tc(F L~) (142))
(142
for
for all
all � l -sentences F
El-sentences F and
and all ordinals 7.
all ordinals 'Y .
We
We are
are going
going to
to define
define aa rank
rank function
function for
for eR s -expressions in
L:Rs-expressions in such
such aa way
way that
that all
all
sentences
sentences in
in the characteristic sub-sentences
the characteristic sub-sentences set
set of F
sentence F get
of aa sentence get lower
lower rank.
rank.

3.4.1.6.
3.4.1.6. Definition.
Definition. For
For an
an eRs -expression E
L:Rs-expression E we define rk(E)
we define rk(E) by
by the
the following
following
clauses:
clauses:
rk(L a ) ::=- w.. ao~
rk(L~) w

rk( {x E LL~Ia l F(x)})

rk({x max{rk(La ) + 1,I, rk(F(Lo))
F(x)} ) := max{rk(L~)+
:= rk(F(L0))+ + 2}
2}
rk(Ad(t)) := rk(-,
rk(Ad(t)) Ad(t)) := rk(t)
rk(-~Ad(t)):= rk(t)++ 55
rk(s
rk(s Ee tt)) : = rk(s
:= rk(s (j. ~ t) = max{rk(s)
t ) ::= max{rk(s)+ + 6, rk(t) + I}
rk(t) + I}
rk(A V B)
rk(A = rk(A
B ) ::= rk(A 1\ A B) = max{rk(A),
B ) ::= max{rk(A), rk(B)} rk(B)} ++ 11
rk((3x E s)F(x))
rk((3x s ) F ( x ) ) : = rk((
:= V'x E s)F(x))
rk((Vx = max{rk(s),
s ) Y ( x ) ) ::= max{rk(s), rk(F(Lo)) + 2}
rk(F(L0)) + 2}

The
The crucial
crucial property
property of
of the
the rank
rank function
function is
is stated
stated in
in the
the following
following theorem.
theorem.

3.4.1.7.
3.4.1.7. Theorem.
Theorem. For
For G
G E C(F)
C(F) we
we have
have rk(G)
rk(G) < rk(F)
rk(F)..

The
The proof
proof of
of the
the theorem
theorem is
is aa bit
bit lengthy
lengthy and
and we will not
we will not give
give all
all details.
details. Let
Let a, b a, b
and cbe eRS -expressions. First
and c be/:Rs-expressions. First we
we show
show
stg(a) << stg(b(Lo)) :::}=~ rk(b(a))
rk(b(a)) < < rk(b(Lo)) ((i)i )
by
by an
an easy
easy induction
induction onon rk(b(Lo)).
rk(b(Lo)). The
The next
next step
step is
is to
to show
show
stg(c)
stg(c) < aa =~ rk(b(c))
:::} < max
rk(b(c)) < max{w{ ·.a,a, rk(b(Lo))
rk(b(Lo))+
w + I}
1} ((ii)
ii)
by
by induction on rk(b(Lo)).
induction on From ((ii)
rk(b(Lo)). From ii) we
we get
get easily
easily
stg(c) < a
stg(c) < =~ rk(F(c))
a :::} rk(F(c)) ++ 11 < rk(s E {x
< rk(s a lI F(x)}).
{x E LLa
E F(x)}). ((iii)
iii)
Now
Now we
we compute
compute
298
298 W. Pohlers

rk(a b) = max{rk(a),
rk(a = b)
= max{rk(a), rk(b)}
= rk(b)} + 4.
+ 4. (iv)
(iv)
Finally
Finally we
we show
show
GG E CC (F)
(F) '*
=~ rk(G) < rk(F)
rk(G) < rk(F) (v)
(v)

by
by distinguishing
distinguishing casescases on on the
the shape
shape of F.
of F. WeWe onlyonly consider
consider sentences
sentences of of VV - -type.
type.
The
The case of 1\
case of A --type
t y p e is is dual.
dual.
F Ad(t)
If F ==
If - Ad(t) then G (t Lit)
then G == - (t = = L~) for K,
for some stg(t)
some ~ E Reg l . 1 . Hence
R e g Nns t g ( t ) + + Hence
rk(G) max{rk(t), K,}
rk(G) = = max{rk(t), ~} + rk(t)
+ 44 < rk(F).
< rk(t) + + 55 == rk(F).
IfF (s La ) G (t s)
If F === (s E La) then then G - == ( t ==s ) for t for some stg(t)
some t such such that
that stg(t) < a. But
< c~. But then
then
rk(G) max{rk(t), rk(s)}
rk(G) = = max{rk(t), rk(s)} + max{w ·
+ 44 < < max{w 9a rk(s) 6} rk(F).
c~ + 1, rk(s) +
+ 1, + 6} = = rk(F).
IfF (s {x La l H(x)})
If F == =_ (s E G (s t H(t))
e { x eEk ~ l H ( x ) } ) then then G == = (s = = t /\ t
A H ( t ) ) for for some
some t
such
such that stg(t)
that stg(t) < < a. a. rk(G) max{rk(s t), rk(H(t))}
Hence rk(G) =
Hence = max{rk(s = = t),rk(H(t))} + +11 = =
max{rk(s) rk(t) rk(H(t)) I}.
max{rk(s) + 5, r k ( t ) ++ 5,
+ 5, rk(s)
5, r k ( H ( t ) ) ++ 1}. But rk(s) 6 :::; rk(F),
But rk(s) + + 55 < < rk(s) + + 6 _ rk(f),
rk(t)
rk(t) + + 55 <w · rk(F)
< w . aa :::;
_ rk(F) and and by rk(H(t))
by (iii) rk(F).
also r k ( g ( t ) ) ++ 11 <
(iii) also < rk(F).
The
The claim
claim is
is obvious F
obvious for for F == - (A (A V B) .
Y B).
F (3x La)H(x) G H(t)
If F ==
If = (3z E e L~)H(x) then then G == t stg(t)
= H(t) forfor some
some t with with stg(t) < < a. a. Then
Then by by (ii)
(ii)
rk(G) max{w · rk(H(Lo)) I} :::; max{w · rk(H(Lo)) 2} rk(F).
rk(G) < < max{w .oL, a, rk(H(Lo))++ i} _< max{w .o~, a, rk(H(Lo))++ 2} = = rk(r).
IfF (3x {y La l H(y)})K(x)
If F == =_ ( 3 x eE {yEE k~[H(y)})K(x) then G H(t) K(t)
then G == t
= H ( t ) A/\ K(t) for for some
some t such such
that stg(t)
that stg(t) < < aa.. Then
Then by rk(G) max{rk(H(t)), rk(K(t))}
(ii) rk(G) =
by (ii) = max{rk(g(t)),rk(g(t))} + max{w · + 11 < max{w.
a rk(H(Lo)) 2, rk(K(Lo)) 2} max{rk( {x La l H(x)}), rk(K(Lo)) 2} rk(F).
a,, rk(H(Lo))+ + 2, rk(K(Lo))+ + 2} = = max{rk({x EEEL~,IH(x)}), rk(K(Lo))+ + 2} = = rk(F).
o

Because
Because of of rk(G)
rk(C) << rk(F)
rk(F) for all G
for all a e C(F)
C (F) we
we get
Eget by
by induction
induction onon rk(F)
rk(F)

LL ~FF F ~ IIrk(F)
rk(F) F
'* F.. ((143)
143)
Hence
Hence
tC(F) :::; rk(F) for all LRS-sentences F.F.
tc(F) < rk(F) for all s (144)
(144)

3.4.2.
3.4.2. A
A semi-formal
s e m i - f o r m a l calculus
calculus for
for ramified
ramified set
set theory
theory

It
It follows
follows by
by (139)
(139) that
that the
the rules
rules

(cut)
(cut) p A , ,AA and
~ � and �
~ � A '*
A , ,~--,A =~ �
~ �
A
and
and
(Ref) A,, F L~ '*
~ �
(Ref) p =~ �FL.
~ � e L~)[z =I
A,, (3z E (3z LIt)[z
~: 00 /\ PZ] for K,
Reg, F L~ a II�
e Reg,
A f z] for ~ E II~-sentence FL. -sentence
are
are admissible
admissible for
for some
some ordinal o. However,
ordinal 6. However, we
we do
do not
not yet
yet know
know how
how to
to compute
compute 06
from
from a or a
c~ or c~ and
and/~f3 respectively.
respectively. Therefore
Therefore we
we design
design aa semi-formal
semi-formal system
system having
having
these
these rules
rules as
as basic
basic inferences.
inferences.

3.4.2.1. Definition. Let

3.4.2.1. Definition. Let �
A be
be aa finite
finite set
set of
of LRS-sentences
s and a
and c~ and
and p ordinals.
ordinals.
We
We define
define the relation �
the relation ~ �
A by
by the
the following
following clauses:
clauses:
 Set Theory
Theory and Second Order Number
Number Theory 299
299

IfF
( A ))
(/\ E�
If F E Ann 1\ -type, �
A-type, ~ �, G and
A, G and ac <a
ac < a for
for all
all G
GE E C(F)
C (F) then
then �
~ �.
A.

(V) If
(V) I: F ~ �
F E nV
~ n -type, �
V-tup~. ~ �, c and
A. G a.~ OF(G) , ac <
o~(C)..~ < a ~ for
Io~ some
~om~ G ~ C(F)
C E C (F) then
t~.
Lrp� � .
(Ref IfK, FLK
it ) IS~ Ee Reg,
(Rely) l e g , F L~ E(3z LIt)[z =I- FZ]
II2, (~z Ee L~)[z # 00 1\
e n;. ^ F "] E FLK and
e ~�,, fT A . F L~ a - d ~K". ~ao+
~ �, o + l1 <
<
a then
a then �
~ �.
A.
We call F
We call the main
F the main part
part in
in instances of ((1\)
instances of and ((V)
A ) and V ) and (3z EE/~)[z
and (3z LIt)[z =I---~ 00 1\A PZ]
F z]
the
the main
main part
part in
in an
an instance
instance of
of (Refit ) .
(Rely).
If
(cut) If fT
(cut) ~po �,
A, A, fTA,
~pO�, -.A for some
A,-~A for some ao
ao < a and some A such that rk(A)
a and some A such that rk(A) < pp then then
� �.
We
We say that �
say that A is
is semi-formal
semi-formal derivable
derivable in
in .cRS
s if
if there
there are ordinals a
are ordinals and p
a and p such
such
that �
that ~ �.
A.
As
As an
an immediate
immediate consequence
consequence of of the
the soundness
soundness ofof all
all rules
rules we
we get
get the
the soundness
soundness
of
of the
the semi-formal calculus, i.e.,
semi-formal calculus, i.e.,
A => L ~ V A. (145)
(145)

Since �
Since ~ �A is
is aa correct
correct calculus
calculus which
which derives
derives sentences
sentences we
we get
get cut
cut elimination
elimination nearly
nearly
for
for free.
free. We
We prove:
prove:
IfIf �~ A,�, rr and
and L ~ F
L � forall
F for all F
F E
E rr then
then �
~ �
A (146)
(146)
by
by induction
induction on on a.a. The
The claim
claim isis immediate
immediate from from the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis if if the
the
last
last inference
inference is is according
according to to ((1\)
A ) oror ((V)
V ) and
and its
its main
main part
part does
does not belong to
not belong r.
to F.
If
If the
the main
main part
part isis in
in r F wewe have
have inin the
the case
case ofof an
an inference
inference according
according to to (V)
( V ) an
an
F r
F EEFn MV V --type
t y p e and
and the premise fT
the premise ~2_ �,
A, r,
F, G
G for
for some
some G GE C(F) .
E C (F). Then
Then L L � ~ GG and
and
� �A follows
follows by induction hypothesis.
by induction hypothesis. In In the
the case
case of
of an
an inference according to
inference according to (1\)
(A)
there
there isis an F r
an F E EFn M I\
A --type
t y p e and therefore aa G
and therefore GE C(F)
E C (F) such
such that
that L ~ G.
L IF G. ButBut then
then
there
there is premise �
is aa premise ~ �, r,
A, F, G G with
with ac c~c << ac~ and
and we we obtain �
obtain ~ � A by by the
the induction
induction
hypothesis.
hypothesis. If If the
the last
last inference
inference is is aa cut
cut with F
cut-sentence F then
with cut-sentence then either
either L L � ~ FF
or
or LL � -.F.
~ ~ F . We We pick
pick the
the corresponding
corresponding premise
premise andand obtain
obtain the claim by
the claim by induction
induction
hypothesis.
hypothesis. If If the
the last
last inference
inference is is according
according to to (Ref it ) we
(Ref~) we distinguish
distinguish the
the cases
cases that
that
for
for its
its main
main part
part wewe have
have L (3z LIt)FZ
L F~ (3z E E L~)F z oror not.
not. In
In the
the second
second case
case we
we also
also have
have
L
L � FLK
~ F [~ andand obtain
obtain thethe claim
claim by the induction
by the induction hypothesis.
hypothesis. In the first
In the first case
case wewe
have (3z LIt)[z =I-
have (3z E E L~)[z ~: 00 1\ PZ]
A F z] E E� �
A and get ~ �
and get A from rk((3z LIt)FZ) K,
from rk((3z E E L~)F z) = = a < < aa and
and
(143).
(143). 0
[:]
Summing up
Summing up and
and taking
taking r F as
as the
the empty
empty set
set in
in (146)
(146) wewe get
get the
the following
following theorem.
theorem.

3.4.2.2. T h e o r e m . The
3.4.2.2. Theorem. The semi-formal
semi-formal calculus
calculus is
is sound
sound and
and allows
allows cut
cut elimination.
elimination.
Especially
Especially we
we get
get � ~ �A from
from �~ �.
A.
300
300 w.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

3.4.3. Operator-controlled
3.4.3. O p e r a t o r - c o n t r o l l e d derivations
derivations

It
It follows
follows from
from Theorem
Theorem 3.4.2.2
3.4.2.2 that
that cut-elimination
cut-elimination alone
alone cannot
cannot be
be crucial
crucial for
for
the
the ordinal
ordinal analysis
analysis of theories Ax for
of theories Ax
for which
which we
we have
have
Ax
A x ef-
- Wf(-<)
Wf(-~) {:}
r Axf-
A x ~ (3�
(3~ E wcK )H� (�),),
e LL~,xc~)H.~(~
1

i.e.
i.e. for
for theories
theories inin which
which thethe well-foundedness
well-foundedness of of aa �o-definable
A0-definable ordering
ordering can can be be
expressed
expressed by by an
an I;�'
C
wOK K
E11 -sentence.
-sentence. This
This is is true
true for
for all
all theories
theories comprising
comprising KPw K P w . . The The
main
main problem
problem there
there is is to
to collapse
collapse the
the ordinals
ordinals which
which arise
arise canonically
canonically in in the
the embed- embed-
CK -sentences into ordinals below co~KK.. Collapsing
wOK
ding
ding procedure
procedure of lC1x -sentences
of I;�' into ordinals below Wf Collapsing is is therefore
therefore
the
the Leitmotiv
Leitmotiv of of Impredicative
Impredicative Proof-Theory
Proof-Theory (but (but wewe will
will see
see that
that cut-elimination
cut-elimination
will
will be
be needed
needed for
for collapsing)
collapsing).. We We will
will use
use the
the technique
technique of local predicativity,
of local p r e d i c a t i v i t y , first
first
introduced
introduced in in Pohlers
Pohlers [1982a,1982b]
[1982a,1982b], Buchholz
' Buchholz et et al.
al. [1981]
[1981], but
' but wewe areare goinggoing to to
use
use anan essential
essential simplification
simplification of of the
the original
original technique
technique whichwhich has has been
been introduced
introduced
by
by Buchholz
Buchholz [1992]
[1992].. We We already
already used
used collapsing
collapsing techniques
techniques in in the
the rrg-analyses
YI~ of
of
Sections
Sections 2.1.4
2.1.4 and
and 2.1.5.
2.1.5. WeWe will,
will, however,
however, not not give
give rrg-analyses
II~ for
for impredicative
impredicative
theories. Already for
theories. Already for nt-analyses
II~-analyses the the matter
matter is is sufficiently
sufficiently complicated.
complicated. We We just just beg beg
the reader
the reader toto believe
believe that that the refinement to
the refinement to rrg-analyses
II~ can
can be be done
done byby modifying
modifying
the
the techniques
techniques ofof Section
Section 2.1.5
2.1.5 (cf.
(cf. Blankertz
Blankertz and and Weiermann
Weiermann [1996],
[1996], Blankertz
Blankertz [1997] [1997]
for
for more
more details). Another way
details). Another way to
to extend
extend thethe following
following analyses
analyses to to rrg-analyses
ri~ is
is to
to
apply Section
apply Section 2.2.2.
2.2.2.
Our
Our presentation
presentation will will follow
follow quite
quite closely
closely that
that ofof Buchholz
Buchholz in in Buchholz
Buchholz [1992] [1992]..
(Those
(Those whowho have
have tried
tried know
know that
that it
it is
is hardly
hardly possible
possible to to improve
improve Buchholz
Buchholz's ' s presen­
presen-
tations.)
tations.)

3.4.3.1. An
Definition. An
3.4.3.1. Definition. (ordinal-)operator
( o r d i n a l - ) o p e r a t o r is
is a
a map
map
7/" Pow(On)
1i: Pow(On) -+~ Pow(On)
Pow(On)..

We introduce the
We introduce the abbreviations
abbreviations
a :{:} a
E 1i E 1i(0)
M
MC_7r� 1i M � 1i(0)
:{:}
:r MC_7-/(0)
(147)
(147)
1i � M
7/C_M 1i(0) �C_MM
:{:}
: ~ 7/(0)
n1i c� 1i'
n' :,~ ((vx)[n(x)
:{:}'v'X )[1i(X) �c n'(x)] 1i'(X)]
and call
and call an
an operator 1i closed under
operator 7/closed under aa function function f" Onnn -+> O
f: On Onn if if
Pow(On))('v'6 ) · · · ('v'�n )[J(6 , . . . ' �n ) eE 7/(X)
('IX eE Pow(On))(Vr162
(VX 1i(X) r {r162
{:} { 6 , · · · ' �n } C_� 7/(X)].
1i(X)].
In case
In case that 1i isis closed
that 7t closed under a l , , .. .. .. ,, aann)) :=
under f! ((al := wetl o we call
. . . ##ww'~"n we
w ~1 ## "'" call itit CCantorian­
antorian-
closed.
closed.
A set
A M C_� On
set M On and and an
an operator
operator 7t 1i induce
induce aa new operator ~1i[M] by
new operator by
1i[M](X) := 7t(M
7t[M](X) 1i(M uU X).
X). (148)
For an
For let
an sCRS -expression EE let
 Set Theory and Second Order
Order Number Theory 301
301

par - - {a
(E) ::=
par(E) {~1I La occurs in
E }} .
L~ o ~ u ~ i~ E (149)
(149)
If {3 is
If 8 is aa set
set of
of £R
s s -expressions and
and 7i an 1l
an operator
operator we
we define ~ [8] :=
define 1l := 1l [par(8)] .
"//[par(O)].

3.4.3.2.
3.4.3.2. Definition.
Definition. An
An operator
operator ~ is 1l acceptable
is acceptable if if it
it satisfies
satisfies the
the following
following
conditions:
conditions:
1l(0)
o E~ n(O)
1l
7/isis Cantorian-closed
Cantorian-closed
(150)
(VX E
('<IX E Pow(On) ) [X �
Pow(On))[X C_ 1l
~ (X)] (150)
(vx Ee Pow(On))
('<IX ('<IY Ee Pow(On))
pow(On))(VY [X �
Pow(On))[X 1l(Y) 1l(X)
c_ ~ / ( y ) ~=> ~/(X) � c_ 1l(Y)].
n(y)].
3.4.3.3. Definition. Let
3.4.3.3. Definition. Let 7r Pow(On)1l:
Pow(On) --t Pow(On)be
---4 Pow(On) be an
an operator.
operator. For
For aa finite
finite
set A of
set Do of £R
s s -sentences we define 7/ �
we define A iff
~ Do 1l
iff par(Do)
par(A)t0U {a}
{a} �C_ 7t and
and one
one ofof the
the 1l
following
following conditions
conditions is
is satisfied:
satisfied:
(/\)
(A) There
There is is aa sentence
sentence FF EE Don
AM /\A - t-type
y p e such
such that
that 1l[tF(G)]
7-l[tF(G)] � A, G
~ - Do, G and
and aaar < a a
for
for all
all GGE EC (F) .
d(F).
(V) There
(V) There is is aa sentence
sentence FF E AM V
E Don -type such
V-type such that
that 1l
7-I � Do, G
~ - A, G and
and OF(G),
oF(G), aaav < a a
for
for some
some G G EEC (F) .
d(F).
(Ref~) There
(Ref,,) There is is aa II2 -sentence FFL[~K such
H~-sentence such that (3z E L,,) [z =I-
that (3zEl~)[z r 0 1\ A FF']
~] E E Do
A,,
1l7-l �
~po Do F [~K and
A,, FL K"
ao +
and a, ao + 11 < aa..
(cut) There
(cut) There is is aa sentence
sentence AA such
such that rk(A) < p, 1l
that rk(A) p,
7-I �
~po Do A and
A,, A and 1l
7-I �
~po Do , --.A for
A,-~A for
some aoao < a.~.
some
We say
We say that
that Do
A isis operator controlled derivable
operator controlled derivable ifif there
there are an acceptable
are an operator 1l
acceptable operator 7t
and ordinals
and ordinals aa and p
and p such
such that 1l ~� A.
that 7t Do .
From now
From now on we will
on we will only
only regard acceptable operators
regard acceptable operators without mentioning it
without mentioning it
explicitly.
explicitly.
The following properties
The following properties of
of operator-controlled
operator-controlled derivations are immediate
derivations are immediate conse­
conse-
quences
quences of Definition 3.4.3.3.
of Definition 3.4.3.3.
If 1l � 1l 1l',
/f 7t ~ Do
A,, 7/C_
� 7~', A f , aa _<
� F,
D. C_ f3 E
s:: 13 1l',
E 7/', pp s::
_< aa and par(f) �
and par(F) C_ 7~' 1l' (151)
(151)
then 1l'
then 7t' � f.
~ F.
If 1l �
/f 7t ~ Do
A,, (3x
(31 E Lo)F(x) and 50 <_
E L6)F(x) and
s:: ~f3 E 1l then 1l �
Do , (3x
E 7-I then 7t ~ A, E L~)F(x).
(31 E (152)
L,B)F(x) . (152)
If 7/1l ~� A,Do, (Vx
If ('<Ix EE L~)F(x)
L,,)F(x) andand ~f3 EE a Mn 7-I1l then
K, then 7/1l ~� D.A,, (Vx
('<Ix E
E L~)F(x). ( 153)
L,B)F(x) . (153)
If 7i1l ~� A,Do , FF V GG then
If then 741l ~� A,Do , F,F, G.G. (154)
(154)
We refer
We refer to (151 ) as
to (151) Structural Rule,
as Structural Rule, toto (152)
(152 ) as Upward Persistency,
as Upward Persistency, toto (153)
(153) as as
Downward Persistency
Downward Persistency and and to ( 154) as
to (154) V -exportation. All
as V-exportation. All these
these properties
properties are easily
are easily
proved by induction
proved by on a.
induction on a.
The predicative
The predicative cut-elimination
cut--elimination procedure
procedure works
works also
also for
for operator
operator controlled
controlled
derivations. First
derivations. First we
we prove
prove
 02
3302 W. Pohlers

3.4.3.4.
3.4.3.4. Inversion Lemma.
Inversion L emma. IfIf 1£7-l �~ �, F and
A ,F and F
F E
E
A -type
1\ -type then
then
1£[t F (G) ] �~ �,
7t[tF(a)] G for
A, G for all
all G e C(F)
G E C (F)..

The
The proof
proof is
is aa straightforward
straightforward induction on a.
induction on c~.

3.4.3.5.
3.4.3.5. Reduction
R e d u c t i o n Lemma.
Lemma. IfIf FF E V
E -type, rk(F)
V-type, rk(F) -= pp �r Reg and
R e g and 1£
7/ �
~ �,
A, --'
~F F
asas well
well asas 1£7/ 1 ,8
rp
~ F F then 1£
r, F then 1"+,8 A�, rF .
7/ , pP ~ 9

The
The proof
proof is
is that
that of
of the
the Reduction
Reduction LemmaLemma ((Lemma
Lemma 2.1.5.7)
2.1.5.7) of
of Section
Section 2.1.5.
2.1.5. Since
Since
we
we restrict
restrict ourselves
ourselves toto IT t -ordinal analysis
II~-ordinal analysis we
we consider
consider finite
finite ordinals
ordinals asas trivial.
trivial.
Therefore
Therefore we don't have
we don't have toto compose
compose the the controlling
controlling operators.
operators. This
This makes
makes thethe proof
proof
simpler.
simpler. The
The hypothesis
hypothesis p p� R e g is
~ Reg is needed
needed to
to exclude
exclude the
the case that F
case that F is
is the
the main
main
part
part of
of an
an inference
inference according
according to to ((Ref).
Ref) .
As
As in Section 2.1.2
in Section 2.1.2 we
we obtain
obtain thethe Predicative
Predicative Elimination
Elimination Lemma
Lemma as as aa straight­
straight-
forward
forward consequence
consequence of of the
the Reduction
Reduction Lemma.
Lemma.

3.4.3.6.
3.4.3.6. Predicative
P r e d i c a t i v e Elimination L e m m a . Let 1£
E l i m i n a t i o n Lemma. Let be an operator which is closed
7-l be an operator which is closed
under the function
under the function a, t3 �
~, 13 qo~t3 ,, 1£
~ 'P"f3 7-l 1I~+~p
;+wp �,
A, [13,
[13, 13
t3 + w Pp)) n
+ fq Reg and E 174.
-- 00 and pp E
Reg = £.
ICPP"
Then
Then 1£ ~i~ �
7-l rp- A.

The
The proof
proof is
is that
that of
of the
the Predicative Lemma ((Lemma
Elimination Lemma
Predicative Elimination Lemma 2.1 .2.9) with
2.1.2.9) with some
some
extra
extra care
care on
on the controlling operator.
the controlling operator. As
As an
an example
example we
we treat
treat the
the case
case of
of aa cut.
cut.
There
There we
we have
have the
the premises
premises
17t£ 1I~+w
;:wpp �, F and 17i
and £ 1I~+~p
;: wp �,
A, --'F. ((i)i )
o~o ~o
A, F ~F.

Using
Using the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis we
we obtain
obtain
1£ ;P "o �,
7/ I[Z~2_ A F
't~
and 17/
F and
'
P"o �,
£ I;[Z~2Z A --.
~F.F.'8 '
((ii)
ii)
If
If rk(F) </313 we
rk(F) < we obtain
obtain

1n£ ~�A�
,8

by
by aa cut since 'P
cut since pao <
qOpC~0< 'Ppa EE 1£.
~Op~ ~ . If 13 �
If/3 _ rk(F) /~ +
rk(F) =NF 13 + ' .' ". . +
px +
+ w P1 +wwP" fl +
Pn < 13 +wwPP we
we
first obtain
first obtain
1qt~£ p"0'2 A
CP~~176
,iIrk( F) �
rkCF)
((iii)
iii)
by
by the
the Reduction Lemma ((Lemma
Reduction Lemma Lemma 3.4.3.5).
3.4.3.5). Since
Since par(F) C_ 17t
par(F) � £ we
we also
also get
get rk(F) E 1£
rk(F) E 7/
and
and therefore { p l ,, .. ...., , Pn
therefore {pr c_ 1£
p,}} � From ((iii)
7/.. From iii) we
we first
first get
get
p
17/£ rk("F) �A
Icp~irk(f) ((iv)
iv)
and
and finally
finally
1£
n ~�A�
,8
 Set Theory and Second Order Number Theory 303
303

by
by n-fold
n-fold application
application of
of the
the main
main induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis since
since 'Pp, 'Pp a =
~om~Opa - 'P pa for
~Opa for
1 , .. .. ..nn.
ii -= 1, . 0
[]

3.4.3.7.
3.4.3.7. Boundedness
Boundedness T Theorem.
heorem. Let 7"L �Let H
~p b.
A ,,F L~ forFl.
for aa �K -sentence Fl• .
~-sentence F L~.
Then H
Then 7-l �
~ b.
A, , FL~ for Fl,3
for all
all f3
~3 E [a,
E [a, K~)) n
N t£.
7-l.

The
The proof
proof is
is by induction on
by induction a. The
on a. The claim
claim follows immediately from
follows immediately from the
the induction
induction
hypothesis
hypothesis if if the
the main
main part
part of
of the
the last
last inference
inference isis different
different from Fl. .
from F L~. SoSo assume
assume
that F L~ is
that Fl.
is the
the main
main part
part of
of the
the last
last inference.
inference. If
If F L~ EFl.
E 1\
A --type
t y p e then
then every
every member
member
of C (Fl.)
of C (F L~) is
is aa �K-sentence
Z;~-sentence of
of the
the form Gl•
form G L~ and
and we
we have
have the
the premise
premise

7-l[tfL~ (GL~)] U A, F L~, G L~. (i)

(i)
Hence
Hence
7-l[tFL~(GL~)] ~ A, FL~, GL~ for all G L~ E C (F L~) (ii)
(ii)

by
by induction
induction hypothesis.
hypothesis. But
But since Fl.
since F L~ isis aa �K-sentence
2~-sentence we
we have tFL. (Gl.)
have tfL~ (G L~) =
---
tFL,3 (Gl,3)
tEL~ (G L~) and
and get
get the
the claim
claim from (ii) by
from (ii) by an
an inference
inference according to (1\).
according to (A)"
If Fl.
If E V
F L~ E V --type and FFl.
t y p e and L~ '¥.
~ (3x E LK)G(X)
(3x E L~)G(x) then
then every
every member of C
member of C ((Fl.)
F k~) is
is
again
again aa �K-sentence
2n-sentence of of the form Gl•
the form G L~ and
and we
we have
have the
the premise
premise
7t ~2_ A, F L~, G L~ (iii)
(iii)
for
for some a0 <
some ao a. Applying
< a. Applying the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis to
to (iii)
(iii) we
we get
get the
the claim
claim by
by an
an
inference (V)
inference (V). .
If Fl. (3x LK)G(X)l.
if F L~ ==
- (3x E then we
E k~)G(x) L~ then we are
are either
either in
in the
the case
case of
of an inference (V)
an inference (V)
whose
whose premise
premise is is
H74 � b., Fl.,
~po A, G(tl·
FL,,G(t)L. (iv)
(iv)

with a0 <
with ao < a and stg(t)
a and stg(t) < a or
< a or in
in the
the case
case of
of an
an inference
inference (Ref K)
(aef~)
H"t/ � A, Fl.,
~ b., F k', (\Ix
(Vx EE LK)(3y
L~)(3y E E LK)G(X,
L~)G(x, y)
y)
(v)
=~ H
=> 7/ � b., (3z
~ A, (3z EE LK)(\lX
L,)(Vx E z)(3y EE x)G(x,
E z)(3y x)G(x, y)
y)
for + 11 <
a0 +
for ao In the
a. In
< a. the first
first case
case we
we get
get
H7-I � A, Fl,3,
~o~ b., G(tl,3L~
FL,,G(t) (vi)
(vi)

by
by induction
induction hypothesis.
hypothesis. WeWe have
have G(t) L~ E G(t)l,3 C ((3x Lfj)G(x)lil)
E C ((3x EE [.~)G(x) L~) because
because of stg(t)
of stg(t) <
a �
a _ / 3f3 and
and we
we get
get the
the claim
claim from (iv) by
from (iv) by an inference (V)
an inference (V)" . In
In the
the second
second case
case we
we
get
get by
by the
the Inversion
Inversion Lemma
Lemma and
and the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis
H[t]
7~[t] �
~ b. f lL~,
A,, F ,3, (3y oo )G(t, y)y)
(3y EE Lk~o)G(t, (vii)
(vii)
for
for all .eRs -terms tt such
all/:as-terms such that tg(t) << a. Since
that sstg(t) K. a0 <
Since ao a �
< a < f3
fl < K
< a we
we obtain
obtain
304
304 w.
W. Pohlers

tI. 1;0+ 1 �,
"Jr/ ~I ~ A FEe
' pL{l ,' ((Vx
"Ix Ee Lk~o)(3y oo ) G (x, y)
oo )(3y Ee LL,o)G(x, y) (viii)
(viii)

from
from (vii)
(vii) by
by an inference (/\)
an inference (A)". But
But

("Ix
(Vx E oo) (3y Ee Loo
e LL~o)(3y ) G (x, y) Ee CC (((3z
L~ola(z, (3z Ee L,B )(Vx Ee zz)(3y
La)(Vx ) (3y Ee zz)G(x,
) G (x, y)
y)))
and
and we
we obtain
obtain the
the claim
claim from (viii) by
from (viii) by an inference (V).
an inference (V). o

3.4.4.
3.4.4. Collapsing
C o l l a p s i n g functions
functions

In
In order
order to to define operators which
define operators which allow
allow the the collapsing
collapsing of of derivations
derivations we we need
need
to
to know
know more about ordinals.
more about ordinals. ThisThis theory
theory turns
turns out out to
to be
be very
very complicated.
complicated. To To
simplify
simplify things
things we we are
are going
going toto use
use anan abstraction.
abstraction. Instead Instead ofof using
using admissible,
admissible, Le. i.e.,,
recursively
recursively regular ordinals, we
regular ordinals, we will
will develop
develop thethe theory
theory on on the
the basis
basis ofof just
just regular
regular
ordinals.
ordinals. ThisThis has
has the the advantage
advantage not not to
to have
have to bother about
to bother about thethe complexity
complexity of of
the
the ordinal
ordinal functions
functions which which we we are
are going
going to
to define. Complexity arguments
define. Complexity arguments will be
will be
replaced
replaced by by simple
simple cardinality arguments. The
cardinality arguments. The disadvantage,
disadvantage, however,
however, is is that the
that the
replacement
replacement of regular ordinals
of regular ordinals by recursively regular
by recursively regular onesones isis not
not atat all
all easy.
easy. SeeSee
Rathjen
Rathjen [1995]
[1995] and Schliiter [1993,n.d.]
and Schliiter [1993,n.d.] for details. It
for details. It is
is outside
outside thethe scope
scope ofof this
this
contribution
contribution eveneven toto give
give a a hint
hint how
how this
this can
can bebe performed.
performed. All All we
we can indicate is
can indicate is that
that
the
the segment below W
segment below I , the
the first
first regular
regular ordinal,
ordinal, is is recursive
recursive andand therefore
therefore already
already aa
wlOK
wl,
segment below W
segment below w~fKK.. This
This yields
yields atat least
least aa correct computation of
correct computation of the
the E�
cK
E 1l -ordinals
-ordinals
of
of the
the analyzed
analyzed axiom
axiom systems.
systems.
In
In this
this section
section we we denote
denote by R e g the
by Reg the class
class of of regular
regular ordinals
ordinals above
above w w.. By By
R e g we
Reg we denote
denote itsits topological
topological closure,
closure, i.e.,
i.e., the
the class class of
of uncountable
uncountable cardinals.
cardinals. Let Let
A�. n{
~ . f2~ denote
denote thethe enumerating
enumerating functionfunction of Reg U
of Reg U {O}
{0}.. Then
Then f~0 = no n1 �1
0, ftl =
= 0, = R1 == W I,
wl,
nw �w
f~ = = R~ etc.
etc. WeWe reserve
reserve the the letters 1'\,, 11", 1'\,1 , , 11"1 ,
letters n, 7r, h i , . . . , 7rl,... to
• • • to denote
denote members
. • . members of of Reg
Reg
exclusively.
exclusively. We We putput
aa ++ : = mmin
:= g 1I a
i n { ~{I'\,E R eReg
E a <<~ }I'\,.} .
For
For the
the following
following we
we assume
assume that
that there
there exist
exist aa weakly
weakly inaccessible
inaccessible ordinal.
ordinal. Let
Let II
be the
be the least
least such ordinal, i.e.
such ordinal, Le. II is
is aa regular ordinal for
regular ordinal for which
which we have f~I =
we have - II and
and n[
a <
a nO"
< f~,, for
for all a E Reg
all a Reg nA II.. Then
Then wewe have
have I'\,~ =
= f~,,+i for
for all nO"+!
all I'\,
~ E Reg
Reg nA I.
I.

3.4.4.1. Definition. We
3.4.4.1. Definition. We define
define sets
sets Cl(a, (3)
fl) and Cl(a,
and functions
functions

'I/Jr "a := min {(3 I I'\,~ E Cl(a,

min {/51 Cl(a,/3)
E A Cl(a,
(3) 1\ Cl(a, (3)
~) nA I'\,~, � (3}
C_/~}
by
by recursion
recursion on on a.
a.
The
The set set Cl(a,
Cl(a,/~)(3) is
is the
the least
least set
set which
which contains
contains/3(3 tJ {O, U
{0, II}} and
and is
is closed
closed under
under
ordinal addition
ordinal addition +, +, the Veblen-function A�.
the Veblen-function A(. A'T}.
A~. 'P{'T}
~o~r/,, the
the enumerating
enumerating function
function
A�
A~.. n{
f~ ofof the the class R e g and
class Reg and the function A�
the function A~ < a.a. ATr. 'I/Jr ,,� .
A1r .

We call Cl(a,
We call Cl(a, (3) the a-iterated
fl) the a-iterated closure
closure of (3. There
of ft. There are are some
some immediate
immediate consequences
consequences
of
of Definition
Definition 3.4.4.1
3.4.4.1..
 Set
Set Theory
Theory and
and Second
Second Order
Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 305
305

ao
C~o�< ac~ and
and {30 <_{3fl �
flo � =:> Cl(ao,
Cl(c~o, {30)
~o) �c Cl(a,
Cl(c~, {3)
~) (155)
(155)
{3 E Lim � Cl(a, {3) = U Cl(a, 1'}) (156)
(156)
f} E {3
Cl(a,, {3) 1 < r
IIcl( (157)
(157)
Cl(a,
cl( , 1/J/ta) n K, = = 1/J/ta. (158)
(158)
Since a < nu+1
Since a ft~+l == K,a �
C_ Cl(a,
Cl(a, K,) for K,~ < JI we
,~) for we get
get

K,~; EE Cl(a, ~) for

Cl(a, K,) for all
all a.a. (159))
(159
A
A little
little more
more effort
effort is
is needed
needed to
to show
show

1/J/ta
r < K,,~ and
and 1/J/ta
r ¢r Cl(a,
Cl(c~, 1/J/ta).
r (160)
(160)

By
By ((156) 156) and and (159)
(159) we have 1'}r/00 :=
we have "= minmin {�I {~1 K, ~E E Cl(a,
Cl(a,~)} �) } < K,.~. Putting
Putting

n+1 :=
1'}r/~+l min {�I
:= min {~l Cl(a,
Cl(a, 1'}rln)n ) nM K,,~ �C_0 ~}
we obtain 1'}r/~
we obtain n << K,~ from
from (157)
(157) by by induction
induction on on n. Hence 1'}r/ :=
n. Hence := sUP
supne~nEw 1'}r/nn < K,~ andand
CI(a, 1'}) n K, = UnEw
Cl(a, rl)M~ - Cl(a,
U~e~oCl(a, 1'}n )
rln)M~ n K, �
C_ sUP
sup~e~nEw 1'}n +1
r/~+l =
= 1'}
77. . This
This shows
shows 1/J/ta
r �
_< 1'}
r / <
< K,
~ and,
and,
since
since Cl(a, Cl(a, 1/J/ta)
r M K,
n ~== r1/J/ta, alsoalso 1/J/ta
r Cl(a, 1/J/ta)
¢r Cl(a, r .
Putting Jr
Putting I r "=:= min
min b {7 EE SC SC II IJ < < 7}'Y} itit follows
follows fromfrom (160) that Cl(a,
(160) that Cl(a,~) {3) �c_ Jr I r for
for
{3/ 3 c�_ IJrr..
ao
C~o < a a and
and aoao EE Cl(a,
Cl(a, 1/J/ta)
r => 1/J/tao
� r < 1/J/ta
< r (161)
(161)
follows since
follows since 1/J/tao
r E Cl(a, r1/J/ta) M
E Cl(a, K, .
n ~.
We obtain
We obtain
r r (ft~ I a < ft~} ((162)
162)
since
since the assumption 1/J/ta
the assumption r = nu >> aa EE Cl(a,
= ft,, Cl(a, r1/J/ta) leads to 1/J/ta
leads to r E Cl(a,
E Cl(a, r1/J/ta) which
which
contradicts (160).
contradicts (160) .
We have
We have

r1/J/ta E SC
E SC ( 163)
(163)
�, r1'}/ << r1/J/ta C_
since ~,
since Cl(a, r1/J/ta) entails
� Cl(a, CP�1'} EE Cl(a,
entails ~o~rl Cl(a, r1/J/ta) Mn ~K, == r1/J/ta.
By definition we have f ~ E Cl(a, ~) for a E Cl(a, ~). . This
By definition we have nu E CI(a, {3) for a E CI(a, {3) extends to
This extends to
fnu
~ EE Cl(a, {3) r{:} aa EE Cl(a,
Cl(a, ~) Cl(a, ~)
{3) ( 164)
(164)
which isis obvious
which obvious for for aa == ft~. nu . IfIf we we assume
assume ft~ nu >> aa ~¢ Cl(a,~)Cl (a, {3) then
then we we get
get
nu r¢ flU{0,
ft~ {3u {O, I}I} asas well
well as nu #=I- r1/J/t 1'} for all
as ft~ K, and
all ,~ 1'}. IfIf ft~
and r/. nu == ~+r/or
�+1'} or ft~nu == qo~r/for
CP�1'} for some
some
� and 1'} then gt~
and r/then nu EE {~, {�, 77}.
1'}}. This
This shows
shows that that the
the set Cl(a, Z)
set Cl(a, {3) \\ {ft~}
{nu} contains
contains ~U{3u {0,
{O, I}I}
and has
and has the
the same
same closure
closure properties
properties as Cl(a, fl).
as Cl(a, {3) . Hence Cl(a, fl)
Hence Cl(a, {3) == Cl(a, {3) \\ {f~},
Cl(a, fl) {nu},
nu r¢ Cl(a,
i.e., ft~
i.e., Cl(a, ~5).
{3) .
We define
We define the
the setset of strongly critical components
of strongly critical components SC(a) SC(a) of of an ordinal aa by
an ordinal by
306
306 W. Pohlers
W. Pohlers

0 iiff aa ==00
sc(~) .= {~} if ~a eE sc
~f SC (165)
(165)
SC(r U SC(r/) =N F ~('r/
ifif aa =NF 'Pt;'TJ
sc(~l) u... sc(~.) if ~a ==NF
~f ~ ~a1 ++. .. .. . ++ ~..
an ·
Then obviously
Then obviously SC(a)
SC(a) c� SC and SC(a)
SC and SC(a) c_
� aa 4- 1 . Now
+ 1. Now we
we get
get
"I eE cl(~,
Cl(a, ~)
{3) {:} sc(~)
,~ SC('TJ) c� cl(~,
Cl(a, ~).
{3). ( 166)
(~66)
The claim
The claim isis trivial
trivial for
for 7/"I E SC.Sc. So So assume
assume 77 "I ~� SC.
Sc. The The direction
direction "r " <=: " is
is clear
clear
by definition.
by definition. We show the
We show the opposite
opposite direction
direction by by induction
induction on on 7. "I. Assume
Assume SC(r/)
SC('TJ) g;
Cl(a, {3) . Then
Cl(a,~). Then r/"I r� /~U {3 U {0, {O, I}.
I} . IfIf 77 =NF q0~1~2
"I =NF 'Pf;!6 or "I == ~1
or 77 6 4-+ ~2 �i << r/"I we
for ~i
6 for we get
get
SC('TJ) C_
SC(r/) SC(6) U SC(~2)
� SC(~Cl)U SC(6) and and SC(~,)
SC(�i) gg; Cl(a,Cl(a, fl) {3) =~ ~ ~� Cl(a,
=> �i Cl(a, fl) by induction
{3) by induction
hypothesis. Therefore
hypothesis. Therefore we we can't have r"I/ == qor
can't have 'Pf;!6 or "I == ~1
or 77 6 4- 6 such
+ ~2 that ~i
such that �i EE Cl(a,
Cl(a, ~){3)
for ii -= 1,
for 1 , 2.
2. ThusThus Cl(a,/~)
Cl(a, {3) \\ {r/} {"I} contains/3
contains {3 U U {0,
{O, I}
I} and
and satisfies
satisfies the the same
same closure
closure
conditions as
conditions as el(a,
Cl(a, 1~),
{3) , i.e., "I � Cl(a,
i.e., r/~ Cl(a, 1~).
{3) .
If ~K, =
If n",+! then
= f~+l then a Cl(a, r'IjJ/ta) by
a E Cl(a, by the
the definition
definition of of r'IjJ/ta and
and (164)
(164).. Hence
Hence
n", E Cl(a,
~'~a N K,
'IjJ/ta) n
Cl(a, ~)~a) ~ = = r'IjJ/ta < n",+! and
< ~'~a4-1 and we we have
have
(167)
Let �~ << a.
Let a. By
By (167)
(167) we obtain ~K, E Cl(~,
we obtain Since Cl(~,
Cl(�, r'IjJ/ta) . Since M K,
Cl(�, r'IjJ/ta) n � Cl(a,
~ c_ el(a, r'IjJ/ta) n
M
K, =
= 'IjJ/ta
r we
we get
get 'IjJ/t�
r162 ::;
<__'IjJ/ta
r and
and therefore
therefore
�r ::;
<a a =>
=~ 'IjJ/t�
r162 ::;< r'IjJ/ta /\ Cl(~, r'IjJ/t�) �
A Cl(�, c Cl(a,
el(a, 'IjJ/ta).
r 168)
((168)
Together
Together with 161 ) this
with ((161) this gives
gives
a < {3
a A a
~ /\ a E
E Cl(
Cl(7, r 'Y ) for
r , 'IjJ/t for some
some 'Y7 ::; {3 =>
<--/~ =~ 'IjJ/ta
r < 'IjJ/t{3.
< r (169)
(169)
It
It follows
follows from
from (167)
(167) that for K,
that for n < II the
the ordinal
ordinal 'IjJ/ta
r is
is not
not in For K,
Reg. For
in Reg. n == II the
the
situation
situation is
is different.
different. There
There we
we have
have
nr = r 170)
((170)
showing
showing that that 'IjJ[a
r is
is aa limit
limit ofof regular
regular ordinals.
ordinals. To To prove 170) choose
prove ((170) choose a a such
such that
that
n",
~'~a ::;
_~ 'IjJ[a
~/3Ia < < n",+!
flaW1". Then
Then n",+!
~"~a-t-1 << II which entails n",+!
which entails ~'~a+l �r Cl(a,
Cl(a, 'IjJ[a)
r . Hence
Hence
a �~ Cl(a,
Cl(a, 'IjJ[a)
r . But
But then
then 'IjJ[a <_a
e t a ::; <_n",
a ::; f]~ ::;
<_'IjJ[a.
r
Since n",
Since f~ E SC and n",
SC and f~ =f.
~- 'ljJ1f'TJ
r for 7r
for 7r =f.
r II by
by (167)
(167) we
we also
also get
get
f~ =
n", =a
a E Cl(a, ~) =>
Cl(a, {3) => a=
= or a =
II or CPl for
= 'IjJ['TJ some "I.
for some ~7. (171)
(171)
So II and
So and the
the ordinals
ordinals of of the
the form
form 'ljJI�
r are
are the
the only
only ordinals
ordinals in
in Cl(a, ~) which
Cl(a, {3) which are
are
fixed
fixed points
points of A~.. nt;
of A� f~r .
[ ~ , ~+~) n c~(~, ~) # 0 ~ ~ e c~(~, ~). 172 )
((17~)
We
We prove 172) by
prove ((172) by contraposition.
contraposition. AssumeAssume thatthat n",
f~ �r Cl(a,
Cl(a,Z).{3) . We
We areare going
going to
to
show
show that then M
that then M :=
:- Cl(a,
Cl(a,/~) n"" n",+!)
{3) \\ [[f~, f~+l) satisfies
satisfies the
the same
same closure
closure condition
condition asas
Cl(a,
Cl(a, {3)
1~). Then M
. Then M =- Cl(a,
el(a, {3)~) which
which shows
shows Cl(a, Z) nn [[f~,
el(a, {3) f~+l) =
n"" n",+!) O. First
= 0. First we
we
have {3/3 U
have U {O,
{0, I} C_ M
I} � M.. If ~, "Ir/ �r [n""
If �, [f~, n",+ d we
~'~a+l) we get + "I77 �r [[f~,
get �~ + n"" n", + l) as
~'~a4-1) as well
well as
as
 Set Theory and Second Order
Order Number Theory 307
307

t.p~or162 ncr, ncr+l). IfIf 'lf1r 1t� EE [[flo,

(fJ ¢ [[f~,f~+l). ncr, ncr + ! ) for
flo+l) �, II; } �c_ Cl(a,
for {{~,~} Cl(a, f3) but II;tr, � ¢r [ncr,
fl) but [flo, ncr + !)
f~o+l)
then
then we have II;~ =
we have - ncr+l
f~+l by by (167) Hence ncr
(167).. Hence f~o EE Cl(a,
Cl(a, (3~)) by
by (164).
(164). A A contradiction.
contradiction.
That M
That M isis closed under A�
closed under ,k~.. ne
f~r is
is obvious.
obvious.
Next
Next we
we observe
observe
cl( , = cl( , (173)
(173)

To
To prove
prove (173) put �~ :=
(173) put : : min 1] i 1]~/r¢ Cl(a,
min {{77[ Cl(a, ncr)
f~)}.} . Then
Then �~ �
c_ Cl(a,
Cl(a, ncr)
fl,)Mn ncr+!
~'~a+l which
which
entails Cl(a,
entails Cl(a, ncr)
~o) == Cl(a,
Cl(a, €) ~).. Therefore
Therefore we have �~ ¢
we have r Cl(a,
Cl(a, �) and �~ < ncr+!
~) and fl,+l which
which
implies 'lf1
implies r n,,+,a
a � _< �~r because
because ncr+!
fla+l E E Cl(a, ncr) �C_ Cl(a,
Cl(a,~o) �) . Hence
Cl(a,~). Hence Cl(a, ncr) �c_
Cl(a,f~a)
Cl(a,r'lf1n,, +,a) �
Cl(a, C_Cl(a,
Cl(a,~) �) == Cl(a,
Cl(a, ncr) fl~) by(167).
by(167).
From
From (173)(173) we
we obtain
obtain especially
especially
Cl(Ir,
Cl(I r, O)
0) n
Mnl
~'~1 =
----- 'lf1
r w, (Ir).
(ir). (174)
(174)
It
It follows
follows from
from (174) (174) that that all all ordinals below 'lf1w,
ordinals below r Ir can can be be represented
represented byby terms
terms
which
which are built up
are built up fromfrom 0, O, I,I, by
by the
the unary function A�
unary function ,~(.. n
f~r{ and
and the binary functions
the binary functions
A�
~ . . A1].
It/. �~ +
+ 1]77,, A� I ( . . A1]
Ar].. t.p
~oCr] and A7r
{1] and 1~r.. )~.
A1] . 'lfr1,,'T} solely.
solely. We
We already
already defined
defined the
the notions
notions
aa =N
=NeF alal ++ ' '. '. . +
+ a and a
a~n and a =NF
=Ne t.pe1].
~r ThisThis gives gives unique
unique term term notations
notations for
for terms
terms not
not
in Sc. IfIf we
in SC. we define
define
a--NF ~"~a :r a-- ~'~a A G < a

and
and
=,F :,, = A Cl( ,

we
we get
get
/\ a : N F ~'~r/ ~=} ~ = 77
a = N F n{ a =NF n'1
a : N F ~"~ /k � = 1] (175)
(175)

as well
as well as
as
a=NFr162 =~ ( a = f l r ~=77). (176)
(176)
While
While (175) (175) holds holds obviously
obviously we we get because ~� << r/and
(176) because
get (176) 1] and ~� EE Cl(�,
Cl(~, r'lf11t€) implies
implies
r'lf11t � _<
� r'lf11t 1] by (168)
(168) and therefore ~� E
and therefore Cl(1], r'lf11t 1]) nM 77.
E Cl(~, 1]. Hence
Hence a a < f3 by
< fl by (161).
(161). This
This
entails
entails also also the the opposite
opposite direction.
direction.
As
As aa consequence
consequence of of (176),
(176), (167)
(167) and
and (170)
(170) we we obtain
obtain thatthat aa --NF
=N F 'lf1,,1]
r determines
determines
7r
r and 'T} uniquely. In
and r/uniquely. In order
order to to decide whether 'lf1lta
decide whether r is in
is normal form,
in normal form, we we have
have to to
decide a
decide a E Cl(a, 'lf1lta)
E Cl(a, r . By (173), however,
By (173), however, it it suffices
suffices to decide a
to decide a E E el(a, Ir l )
Cl(a, i'lf1lta
where lena]
where i'lf1ltai denotes
denotes the the cardinality
cardinality ofof r'lf1lta. For
For #J.L EE R Reg
e g wewe get
get more
more generally
generally
flf3 EE Cl(a,
Cl(a, #) J.L) ifif and
and only
only ifif one
one of
of the
the following
following conditions
conditions is is satisfied:
satisfied:
f3 E J.Lu{0,I}
#e U {O, I}
f3 r¢ SC
Z and
SC(f3) C_
SC and SC(fl) Cl(a, #)
� el(a, J.L)
(177)
� flf3 =
#J.L <_ = r'lf1,,1], 77
1] < aa and {Tr, and
{7r, 77}
'T}} C_ Cl(a, #)
� Cl(a, J.L) (177)
� flf3 =
#J.L <_ = flo and
ncr and aa EE Cl(a,#).
Cl(a, J.L).
This gives
This raise for
gives raise for the the following
following definition.
definition.
308
308 W. Pohlers

3.4.4.2. D e f i n i t i o n . For
3.4.4.2. Definition. For ordinals a, J.L
ordinals a # E Cl(I r, 0) we , E Cl(Ir,O)
we define sets KJ.
finite sets
define finite ' (a) by
K,(a) by
U {KJ. '(j3) II j3Z Ee SC(a)}
{K.(Z) sc(~)} ifi f aa ¢it SC
i f aa E # UU {I,O}
KK,,(,~)
{ 00 if E J.L
�iff J.L# :::;_ aa == 7/Jr 1f �
{I, 0}
J.' (a) .:=-
._

{~} Uu K
{O K,,(r K,,(~)
J.' (�) U KJ.' (7r) .
K~,(a)
KJ.
' (a) If
if J.L
# :::; a =
_< a = nO".
ft~.

It does not
not matter
matter that
that the
the above definition is is not deterministic in in the
the case that a
case that
=0
It does above definition not deterministic a
is
is an ordinal below
an ordinal below J.L
# which
which is
is not
not strongly
strongly critical.
critical. We We get ' (a) - 0 regardless
get KJ.
K,(a) regardless ofof
the clause we
we apply.
E Cl , E
the clause apply.
From
From (177)
(177) and
and Definition
Definition 3.4.4.2
3.4.4.2 we get j3
we get ~ E e l ((aa, #J.L)) {:} (V� ' (j3))[� << a]
(V~ E KJ. a]..
E
r K~(/?))[~
Putting KJ.'(a)
Putting < j3
Kt,(a ) < ~ :{:}
:r (V�
(V~ E KJ.' (a))[� << j3~]] we
K~(a))[~ we get
get

O / -=NF
a = 7/J1f'TJ and
- N F 7/J1f'TJ
~)~r~ {:}
r and KKIrltPw'lI ('TJ) < 'TJr/..
a
a - ~)lr?~ (178)
(178)
Observe
Observe that
that for ordinals a
for ordinals a EE Cl(Ir,
Cl(I r, 0)
O) the
the cardinality
cardinality is is determined
determined by
by
a if a
if a = nO" ~t~ or or a r r'TJ
a = 7/J
=
lal
I~1= IIvl
max d ·
{
{la
max{l~l,...,
=
,
a

. . , I~.1}
lan l } �
iff
if a
If
a
a =
a a
= ifJ{
l
~r 'TJ
+ . . . +
=
an
=
=
a 1 -[-- 9 9 9 -4- a n
(179)
(179)
'TJ I
nO" if a
if a = = 7/Jr 1f 'TJ and I > 7r
I > ~r = nO"H ' = ~a+l.

All
All that
that opens
opens the
the possibility
possibility to
to define
define simultaneously
simultaneously aa term-system
term-system T T together
together
with
with an
an evaluation
evaluation function 7" ----+> On
0: T
function 1I 1iv: O n and
and aa "less
"less than"
than" relation
relation < < on
on the
ao bo
the
ordinal-terms
ordinal-terms such
such that
that a < b {:} r a b
l < IIbio
l]alo l and
and the
the "less-than"
"less-than" relation
relation on
on the
the
ordinal terms
ordinal terms becomes
becomes primitive
primitive recursive.
recursive. We We will
will not
not do
do this
this in
in all
all details
details but
but only
only
indicate
indicate the
the essential
essential steps.
steps. There
There are
are the
the following
following sets
sets of
of ordinal-terms
ordinal-terms
• the set comprising all ordinal terms
9 the set T
T comprising all ordinal terms
•9 the set PP of principal
the set principal terms
terms denoting
denoting additively
additively indecomposable
indecomposable ordinals
ordinals

•9 the set SC
the set SC denoting
denoting strongly
strongly critical
critical ordinals
ordinals in SC
in SC
•9 the set KK ofof cardinal
the set cardinal terms
terms denoting
denoting ordinals
ordinals in
in Reg
Reg
•9 the set FF ofof fixed-point
the set fixed-point terms
terms denoting
denoting ordinals
ordinals which
which are
are fixed-points
fixed-points of
of the
the
enumerating
enumerating function
function ofof Reg
Reg
•9 the set RR ofof regular-terms
the set regular-terms denoting
denoting ordinals
ordinals in
in Reg
Reg
which
which are
are defined
defined by:
by:
• R � � � P � TT
9 RcKK
c S C cSC
Pc
• 9 F�
FcKK
• 9 II
O_E E TT,, IIOlo:-0 llio := 0
• / E
9 I E R R nn F IIo ::== Iz
F,, IIZlo
•9 aa lI,, ... .. ,. a, ,an EE PP and al �>_ .. ". . �>_ aa,n al
+ . .. .. . +
=~ al +
� an E l a l
+ ' .". . +
T,, la~ +
+ a, E T nl :=a o :=
laI~xlo
do + ' " + I~.lo l a nl o
and al + a.lo
+ . . . +
 Set
Set Theory
Theory and
and Second
Second Order
Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 309
309

• a, bb EE T
9 a, - ~aab bEE PP,, l-q5
=~ -q5
T � a bl o := -q5lalo I b l o
]-~ab[o:-~l~lolb[o

where ~ is
where -q5 is the
the fixed-point
fixed-point free
free version
version of
of the
the function
function ~, i.e.
i.e. 'P,
'Pof3 '' =9= {L~ 'Po(f3
_ qp~(fl +
'Pof3
~ f l
+ 1) if f3
1) if = ,"),+
fl =
otherwise,
otherwise,
+ nn for
for some
some nn <
< w
w and
and ,-), such that 'Po,
such that ~o~q,=
- ,
,),

•9 Ifp R, aa =J
I.fp EE R, ~ LI, aa EE T and K
T and KilCpal (a) <
I 1PpallI(a) < aa then
then 'l/J
Cpap a Ee SC
SC and 'l/Jp a l o :=
and IICpalo al o
r lp lo llalo
"- 'l/J
•9 If
If aa EE T and K
T and KIICL~II (a) <
II1P]all (a) < aa then
then 'l/J
CLara EE F
F and
and I'l/Jra l o :"-= 'l/Jl
ICLalv r l al o
• If aa EE T\
9 If F then
T\ F f ~a EE K
then D K and
and D a+l EE RR and
and ID a l o :=
'- D
f~a+l If~lo 1a 1o
f~l~lo

where
where 1 'P!&
1 :"=- 9~o0.
The
The definition
definition ofof the
the sets Kp(a) for
sets Kp(a) for pp EE KK and
and aa EE TT should
should be
be obvious
obvious from from
Definition
Definition 3.4.4.2.
3.4.4.2. Similarly
Similarly obvious
obvious is
is the
the definition
definition of
of the
the "cardinality"
"cardinality" Ilicit
i a ll =
= Iilalo]
ial o l
of
of an
an ordinal
ordinal term
term aa from
from (179).
(179).
Finally
Finally we have ((omitting
we have omitting some
some obvious cases))
obvious cases

= 00 1\
aa = -7(=0,
A bb =J 0, or I all <
or lIlall I bll, or
< Ilibl], a ll =
or Iilicit ]]bi] and
- Ilbll and one
one of
of the
the following
following
conditions
conditions is
is satisfied
satisfied
aa = r p c 1\
= 'l/J A bb -=e n'l/Jdpd 1\ A cc < < dd
aa = -q5cd 1\A bb EE SC
=-~cd 5 C A1\ c,c,dd < < bb

a < b 4=~
aa EE SC
aa =
S C A1\ bb -=

-q5cd 1\A bb =
=-~cd
c d 1\
- ~-q5cd

=-~ef
A (a
{
(a � < cc V aa �
{ cc<< e Aedl\
-q5e f 1\A cc -=- ee 1\A dd <
<_ d)
d)
< bd < b
< ff
ee <<c Ac al\<af < f
aa -=- a1
al+ +' .. .. . +
+ aam m 1\A bb -= b1 bl ++ ' ." . . +
+ bn
bn
1\ (3k�n)
A (3k<n)[(Vi [('v'i < k) [ai =
< k)[ai = bi]bi] 1\ [(k <� m
A [(k m A ak << bk)
1\ ak bk) VV mm << k]]
k]]
for
for m,m, nn � _ 11
shows that
This shows
This the set
that the set T together with
T together with the the setssets Kp(a),
Kp(a) , thethe cardinality
cardinality lIallIlal] and
and
the relation
the a <
relation a can be
< bb can be simultaneously
simultaneously defined defined by by course-of-values recursion. It
course-of-values recursion. It
follows that
follows that T and the
T and the <<-relation
-re l a t i on on on TT are are primitive recursive and
primitive recursive and itit is
is pretty easy
pretty easy
to realize
to realize that
that
{{ lalo T} == CCl(Ir,
Ial o Il aa EE 7-} 0).
l ( I r, 0).
Since Cl(I
Since Cl(Ir, O) Nf~l
r, 0) n Dl is
is aa segment
segment of of the
the ordinals
ordinals we
we obtain
obtain Cl(I
Cl(Ir, 0) n Dl C_
r, O)Nf~ � w~WfKK which
which
entails r
entails r'l/JwJ << w~ K
WfK by ( 174) . This
by (174). This shows
shows that
that we
we at
at least
least may
may replace
replace f~lD1 byby w~ K.
WfK.
needs, however,
It needs,
It however, considerably
considerably more more effort
effort to
to show
show that
that we
we can
can replace
replace all all regular
regular
ordinals by
ordinals by recursively
recursively regular
regular ones
ones without
without changing
changing the
the segment
segment CCl(I r , O)
l ( I r, 0) Nn w~ K.
WfK.
Nevertheless, we
Nevertheless, we will
will pretend
pretend thatthat we
we have
have done
done that
that and
and interpret
interpret the
the ordinals
ordinals in in
Reg
R as recursively
e g as recursively regular,
regular, i.e.
i.e. admissible
admissible ordinals.
ordinals.

3.4.5. TThe
3.4.5. Collapsing
he C Theorem
ollapsing T heorem

We are
We are now
now prepared
prepared toto define
define the
the controlling
controlling operator
operator which
which allows
allows to
to collapse
collapse
the controlled
the controlled derivation.
derivation.
310
310 W. Pohlers

3.4.5.1. Definition. Put

3.4.5.1. Definition. Put

1i..,
n . ((xX) =n
) :.= N {{Cl(a
cl(., , �Z)) 1l X
x �c Cl(a Z)) 1\
cl(., , � ^ 'Y < a}. .}

We
We certainly have 00 E
certainly have E 1i..,
7/7 for
for all 7 and
all 'Y and obtain from (166)
obtain from (166) that all 1i..,
that all 7/7 are
are Cantorian
Cantorian
closed
closed andand closed
closed under cpo
under ~. By definition we
By definition get X
we get X � C_ 1i..,(X)
7/7(X) for all X
for all X � On. If
C_ On. If we
we
assume X
assume X � C_ 1i..,(Y)
7/~(Y),, �~ E
E 1i.., (X) and
7/7(X) and YY �C_ Cl(a
Cl(a, , mfl) for
for some
some 'Y7 << a c~ then
then we
we obtain
obtain
also X
also X �C_ Cl(a,
Cl((~, m ~) and
and therefore
therefore also E Cl(a,
also �~ E el(a, m Hence �~ E
fl).. Hence E 1i..,(Y)
7/7(Y) andand we
we have
have
1i..,
7/~(X)(X) �c_ 1i.., (Y). Pulling
~7(Y). Pulling this
this together
together wewe have the following
have the following lemma.
lemma.

3.4.5.2.
3.4.5.2. Lemma.
Lemma. The operators 1i..,
The operators 7-l7 are
are all
all acceptable
acceptable andand closed
closed under
under the
the
Veblen -function cp~ and
Veblen-function and the
the function ~. . O
function A� f~re ..

But
But we
we also
also get
get the
the closure
closure of
of the operators 7/~ under
the operators under the 1i..,
the functions r e in
functions 7/J in the
the
following
following sense.
sense.

< 'Y
� ::; ^ �, /'i, E n
7 1\ 1i..,(X)
(x) :::} 7/J1t� E 1i..,(X). (180)
(180)
From (172)
From and (164)
(172) and (164) we
we get
get

[0 0' , 0
[~"~a, ]n
0'++1 1]
~"~o' 1i..,(X) =f:. 0 =:~ {O
N n 7 ( X ) # 0 :::} O' , O
{~"~o-, O'+l } �
~"~o-+1} 1i..,(X).
C_ n T ( X ) . (181)
(181)

The operators are

The operators are also
also cumulative.
cumulative. We
We have
have

7_<5 ~ 7/~c_7/6. ((182)

1 82 )
The
The aim
aim ofof this
this section
section is
is to
to prove
prove the Collapsing Theorem,
the Collapsing Theorem, i.e.,i.e., to
to show
show that
that every
every
derivation
derivation ofof a
a set
set of
of �It-sentences
E~-sentences can can be
be collapsed into aa derivation
collapsed into derivation whosewhose derivation
derivation
length
length is
is less than /'i,
less than n.. Obviously
Obviously suchsuch an an derivation
derivation must
must notnot contain
contain cutscuts whose
whose
cut-sentence
cut-sentence has has a a complexity
complexity aboveabove a./'i,. Therefore
Therefore collapsing below /'i,
collapsing below a has
has toto come
come
together
together with
with the elimination of
the elimination of all
all cuts
cuts of of complexities
complexities aboveabove n. /'i,. Cut
Cut elimination
elimination
as
as stated
stated inin Theorem
Theorem 3.4.2.2
3.4.2.2 is
is of
of no
no help
help since
since it doesn't say
it doesn't say anything
anything aboutabout the the
controlling operators.
controlling operators. However,
However, we we know
know already
already from
from thethe Predicative
Predicative Elimination
Elimination
Lemma
Lemma 3.4.3.6
3.4.3.6 that
that wewe can
can eliminate
eliminate cuts cuts whose
whose cut-ranks
cut-ranks are are in in (0).,
(F/h, 0>' + 1 ] for
~,k-t-1] for
Lim or
A EE I_im or in (Q~ +
in (00' + 1, 00'+ 1 ] without
1,~+1] without losinglosing information
information about about the the controlling
controlling
operator.
operator. Therefore
Therefore we we introduce
introduce thethe class
class of of left
left initial
initial points
points ofof these
these intervals,
intervals, Le.,
i.e.,
we
we put
put

Reg :={ I{I+ l+} Ul}{ fU~ l{OO' I O'a EEI Cl Ink iLim}
Reg:= m } UU{ ~{OO'
, , + l+
[ 1 1 O'
a EEI \IL\i m
Lim}
}

The
The crucial
crucial situation
situation which
which is
is not
not yet
yet covered
covered by
by the
the Predicative
Predicative Elimination
Elimination Lemma
Lemma
are
are derivations
derivations of
of the
the form
form

1i f; � for tL E Reg.
In
In thethe case
case that
that �
A is
is a
a set
set of
of E it -sentences we
E~-sentences we want
want to
to collapse
collapse this
this derivation
derivation below
below
/'i,. We
a. We are
are going
going to
to show
show the
the following
following theorem.
theorem.
 Set Theory
Theory and Second
Second Order
Order Number Theory 3311
11
-

Let LJ. -sentences, j),# EE Reg,

A

3.4.5.3. Collapsing TTheorem.

3.4.5.3. Collapsing heorem. Let A be
be aa set of �I<
set of E~-sentences, Reg,
{K, " j),} �C_ 1i"(
{n,.y,#} 7/7 and
and assume 7-l~ f;
assume 1i"( ~ LJ.
A.. Then
Then this
this derivation
derivation is
is collapsed
collapsed toto
wI'+" ) LJ.A .
�("(++wl'
1i,,(+wI'+" 1 ,p,p0~(~+~+~)
�("( +" )
To
To make
make the induction work
the induction work we
we assume that 8
assume that e is
is aa set
set of
of .eRS-terms
s and
and prove
prove the
the
more
more general
general claim
claim

}
LJ.A �C_ �I<
2 ~,, j),
# E e Reg
Reg
par(8) �c n {Cl(r ++ l1,, 1/1r (r ++ l1))1 )) I 1' �-> K} => 1i"( wl'+,, [8] [el 1 ,p� ("(+wl'+" ) LJ.
A ((i)
,p� ("(+wl'+" ) i)
N{cl(
K" , j), E 1i"([8] +
1i"([8] f; LJ.
by
by main induction on
main induction on j), # with
with side induction on
side induction a. To
on c~. To simplify notations we
simplify notations we abbreviate
abbreviate
the
the first
first three
three lines
lines in in the the assumptions
assumptions of claim ((i)
of claim by Asm
i ) by p(LJ. j 8j
Asmp(A; e; j),
#;j Kj
a; , ) . So
7). So ((i)
i)
becomes
becomes
7/~[O] Ir.;-
,) /\A 1i"([8]
8j j),#;j Kto;j ~/) ~£>.. LJ. [O] lI,pr �("(
+wl'+" ) LJ..
+
Asmp(LJ.j
Asmp(A; O" '
A => =~ 1i,,( +wl'+" [8]
7/~+~,+~
,pK ("(+Wl' " ) A
r "
((ii)
ii)
To prepare
To prepare the induction we
the induction we first
first observe
observe that
that by
by Lemma
Lemma 3.4.5.2
3.4.5.2 we
we have
have
Asmp(LJ.j
Asmp(A; 8j O; j),
#;j K ')')) /\
~;;j , Aac~ E 1i"([8] =>
E 7-/.y[O] =~ , 7+ + w lJ+£> Ee 1i"([8].
w~'+'~ ~ ]. ((iii)
iii)
From ((iii),
From 182) , ,"f' �
iii) , ((182), _< ,~' + + wlJ +
w~+~£> and
and ((180)we
180 ) we thenthen obtain
obtain
Asm
Asmp(A; p(LJ. j 8j
O; j),
#;j K
a;j , ) /\A a~ EE 7/~[O]
")') 1i"([8] => =~ 1/11<(r
0~(~/+ + wlJ +£» EE 1i,,(
w"+~) +wI'+" [8].
7/~+~+. [O]. ((iv)
iv)
Most
Most important
important is is the
the following collapsing property
following collapsing property of of the function 1/11<
the function r (, + + w lJ+£» .
w~+~).
Asmp(LJ.j
Asmp(A; 8j O; j),
#;j Kj
a; ,)
"7) /\ Aa 7-/~[O] /\
c~ E 1i"([8] A, lJ
+ w ~+a
~'+w +£> << (3fl => 11<(r ++ WIJ
=~ 1/0,(~, +£» << 1/11<
w"+a) r {3. ((v) v)
To obtain ((v)
To obtain v) it
it suffices
suffices by by (169)(169) toto find some 05 �
find some _ (3fl such that ,
such that 7 +wlJ
+ w"+~ +£> EE Cl(o,
Cl(5, 1/11<0).
0,5).
But
But we
we have
have , 7++ 11 � _ , 7++ wlJ +
w"+~£> andand , +wlJ +
7 + w"+~£> e 7/~[O]
E �
1i"([8] c_ Cl Cl(7 + 1, 1/01, ( 7 +
(r + 1 , 1<(r )) by
+ 11)) by ((iii)
iii)
and
and the assumption par(
the assumption par(O) 8 ) �
C_ Cl(r
Cl(9/+ + 1
1,, 1/11<(r
0~(7 ++ 1 ))
1)). . So
So we
we may
may choose
choose 0
5 :
"== ,
")f +
+ 1
1. .
To
To prove claim ((i)
prove claim i ) we
we run
run through
through thethe cases.
cases. If
If the
the last
last inference
inference was
was by ( A ))
by (/\
then
then there
there is sentence F
is aa sentence E LJ.
F E An MA1\--type
t y p e and
and we
we have
have the
the premises
premises

1i"([8
7{~[O u U tF(G)]
tF(C)] � ~ A, LJ., GG andand aa ac < <a a for all G
for all GEC C (F)
(F).. ((vi)
vi)
Since F
Since F E E �I< n 1\ -type there
E~MA-type there is is aaS0 E par(F) nK �C 7/~[O]M~
E par(F)M~ 1i"([8] nK such that par(
such that tF(G)) �C
par(tF(G))
o5 for all G
for all G E C(F)C(F).. For For T � l' _> K ~ wewe getget 1i"([8]
7/~[O] n MT �l' C_ Cl( , + 1, 1/Ir(r + 1)) n
Cl(~/+l,r
l'V =
= 1/I Hence par(tF(G))
r (, ++ I1).). Hence
Or(')' par(tf(G)) � C_ 05 < < 1/I r r(, + I1)) � el(7, +
C_ Cl( + 11,, 1/Ir (r ++ l1)))) which
0r(7 which
shows par(8
shows par(O u U tF(G))
tf(G)) � C_ n r>1< Cl(r
Nr>, Cl(~/+ + 1,1, 1/Ir r (r ++ 1))
1)) for all G
for all G E E C(F)
C(F).. So So we we have
have
As m p(LJ., GG;j 8O UU tF(G)
Asmp(A, tf(G);j j), a; ,y)
#;j Kj all G
for all
Z/) for GE e C(F)C(F) andand getget
,pK ("(+wI'++"G ) LJ.,
,pK ("(+Wl' "G ) G
"(+wl'+"G [8 U tF(G)] I[0"(~+~"+"~
1i7-l.~+~,+,o[OUtf(G)] A G ((vii)
vii)
for all G
for all G E C(F)C(F) by by the
the side induction hypothesis.
side induction hypothesis. By By ((v) v) we have 1/I1<(r
we have r ++ wlJ +£>G ) <
w'+"G)
1/I1<(r
r ++ wlJ
w'+~)+£» and
and r1/I1<(r +
+ wlJ +£» EE 1i,,/+
w'+~) w "I'+
7/~+~,+~[O] [8] by
by ( iv
(iv).) . Therefore
Therefore we
we obtain
obtain
312
312 w.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

(-y+Wl'+a)
[0] II1/!,r'/'''K (-yC~§Wl'++''a))) �
1/."H.,.,,+,.,.+,:,,
"),+wl'+a [8] 1/!K +
from
from (vii)
(vii) by
by an inference (A)
an inference (A)..
In
In the
the case
case of
of an inference ((V)
an inference V ) there
there is
is aa sentence F EE �
sentence F AnNV -type, aa sentence
V-type, sentence
GG EE C(F)
C (F) and
and some
some o!Soo < O!
e such
such that
that
1/.")'
3/~[0] ~ - A�, ,GG
[8] � F (G) < O!.oL.
and OoF(G)< (viii)
(viii)
By
By side
side induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis we
we obtain
obtain

1/.")' +wl'+ao [8] 1/!K/! (-y+Wl'+ao ) �~ , G.

[o] IIrr176176
n~+~.+oo
1 K (-y+Wl',+~o) +ao ) ' c (ix)
(ix)

From 'Y
From "),+w +<>o < 'Y" y++ wwl'u+a
+ wl'u+~~ +<> and
and o! Soo Ee 1/.")' [8]] we
7/7[0 obtain 'l/I"b
we obtain r +<>o) <
+ wl'u+a~
r'l/I"b + wl'u+") +<» by
by (v)
(v).. Since Since OF (G) Ee par(�
oF(G) , G) n K � 1/.")'[8] n K � 'l/I"b + l)1) �_
par(A,G)Cl ~ C_ 7/~[0] Cl n C_ r
r'l/I,,('Y + + wl'
wu+a) +<» we
we obtain
obtain
K (-y+Wl'+a) A
[0] I,rI1/!1/!r K (-y+W..+a) �
"),+wl'+a [8]
1/.~/~+~.+~
from
from (ix) (ix) by by an inference (V)
an inference (V). .
In
In thethe casecase of
of an
an inference
inference (Ref,,) (Ref~) there
there isis aa II� sentence ((Vx
II~ sentence "Ix EE L,, )( 3y EE L,,
L~)(3y )F(x , yy))
L~)Y(x,
such
such that that ((3z 3z EE L,, )[z =f.~ 0 /\A ("Ix
L~)[z (Vx Ee z)( 3y eE z)F(x
z)(3y z)F(x,, yy)]) ] Ee �A,, an ordinal o!
an ordinal aoo such
such that
that
O!
Kn,, o!C~oo ++ 11 << a and and
1/.")'
7/~[O1 [8] �~2_ �A,, ("Ix
(Vx E e L,, )( 3y Ee L,,
L~)(3y )F(x , yy).).
L~)F(x, (x)
(x)
By
By inversion
inversion we
we obtain
obtain from
from (x)
(x)
1/.")'[8, t] � � , (3y L,, )F(t , y)
3/~[0, t] ~2_ A, (3y eE k~)f(t, y) (xi)
(xi)
all tt eE T~.
for all
for ", . Let TJ := r'l/I"b ++ wu+~~
Let r/:= wl'+<>o+ l ) and and 'Yn := 'Y
7n := 7 ++ wl'+<>o . n. By
wu+~~ By /-t,
#, 'Y, o!o E
7, ao 1/.")'[8]]
E 7/7[0
we get 'Yn
we get ~n E e 1/.")'[8]
3/~[0] C_ 1/.")'n [8, t]t] for
� 3/~.[0, for all all nn EE w w.. For For tt E
E 7;, there is
T~ there is an
an n n E w such
e w that
such that
stg(t) << 'l/I,,'Yn.
stg(t) r We par(8) C_
have par(O)
We have Clb ++ 1,
� Cl(7 1)) c_� Cl('Yn
1 , r'l/Irb ++ 1)) Cl(Tn ++ 1,1 , 'l/Irbn
Cr(Tn + 1)) and
+ 1)) and
par(t) �C_ stg(t)
obtain par(t)
obtain stg(t) << 'l/I,,'Yn
r 1/.")'n [8]nT C_
EE 7"IT,[O]NT Clbn+1, r'l/Irbn +
� C/(Tn+l, 1))nT == Cr(Tn
+ 1))Fl~- 'l/Irbn ++ 1) 1)
for all
for all TT >� n.K. Hence par(t) C_
Hence par(t) Clbn ++ 1,
� Cl(% 1 , r'l/Ir bn ++ 1)) 1)) for all TT _� K.
for all SO we
n. So we have
have
Asm p(� , ((3y
Asmp(A, 3y EE /L,,~ ))F(t
r ( t , , y); 8, t;t; #;/-t; n;K; 7n)
y) ; (9, 'Yn) (xii)
(xii)
for all tt E
for all 7;, . Observing
E T~. Observing that that 'Yn 7, + wl'+<>o == 'Yn+
+ wU+"~ %+1l the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis applied applied
to (xi) yields
to (xi) yields

1/.")'n+ 1 [e,
n..,,,,+, �")'n 1�
[8, t]t] I.,rIr11/!/!KK ")'n+H �A,, (3y
( 3y eE L.~)F(t,
L,,)F(t , y)y) (xiii)
(xiii)

for all tt EE T~.

for all 7;, . Using
Using the
the Boundedness
Boundedness Theorem 3.4.3.7 we
Theorem 3.4.3.7 we obtain
obtain

n~,,,+,[e, �KtnH�
1/.")'nH [8, t]t] IrIr " "Yn+l ~ ~,� , (3y
(3y eE t.)F(t,
L'I )F(t, y)y) (xiv)
for all
for t 7;, . Since
all t EE T~. Since ~/. +<>o+ l << "y
'Yn << ?'Y ++ wWl'u+~~ 'Y ++ w +<> we
wl'u+~ we get
get
w..+ao + 1 )
1/.�, +wl'+ao + 1 [8] Ir1/!K1/!K ((W"+aoo +1 ,) �A,, ("Ix E L'I)( 3y E L'I )F(x , y)
"H..,,+,.,.,.+..,,o+,[e] (xv)
 Set
Set Theory
Theory and
and Second
Second Order
OrderNumber
Number Theory
Theory 313
313

by
by an
an inference (A).) . Since
inference (/\ Since 1lo
no ~0(3x �
(3x EE L1))
k,)(x In) for
(x EE L1)) some 65 << ,¢,,,(-y
for some r +O (cf.
) (cf.
++ wwl'~+(')
(191) below)
(191) below) we
we obtain
obtain
,pK (-y+ l'+a )
1l'Y+wl'+a [8] , r +W ) fl [ # 0O1\A (\Ix
,pK (-y Wl'+a , (3z L,,) z =J
A, (3z Ee L~)[z (Vx Ee zz)(3y )F(x, y)]
) (3y Ee zz)F(x, y)]

from
from (xv)
(xv) by inferences (/\
by inferences n d (V).
( A )) aand (V).
In
In the
the case
case ofof an
an inference
inference (Ref,..
(Ref~)) with < K~ we
with 7r~T< we obtain
obtain the
the claim
claim directly
directly from
from
the
the side
side induction
induction hypotheses.
hypotheses.
The
The real
real crucial
crucial case
case is
is aa cut.
cut. There
There we
we have
have aa sentence
sentence AA with
with rk(A) _< /l# and
rk(A) ::; and
an
an ordinal
ordinal Qa0o such
such that
that
?-/~[e] ~2_ A , A and ?t~[e] ~2_ A,-~A. (xvi)
(xvi)
The
The simple
simple case
case is rk(A) < K.
is rk(A) a. Since n~[O] is
Since 1l'Y[8] is Cantorian
Cantorian closed
closed and
and par(A)
par(A) � C_ 1l'Y[8]
7-/7[0 ]
we get rk(A)
we get HT[O] n
rk(A) EE 1l'Y[8] n Ka � r "b +
c_ '¢' + 1)
1) ::;
_< '¢'"b
r +
+w l'+O ) . 9This
w~+") This together
together with
with the the side
side
induction
induction hypotheses
hypotheses applied
applied to to (xvi)
(xvi) yields
yields thethe claim
claim byby aa cut.
cut.
Now assume Ka ::;
Now assume rk(A) ::;
__ rk(A) _< /l.
#. First
First we we consider
consider the the sub-case
sub-case thatthat rk(A)
rk(A) (j.
Reg. Then
Reg. Then Kg ::;
_< rk(A) rk(A) ++ =:
rk(A) < rk(A) ='~T7r ::;
_< /l.
#. AsAs before
before we we have
have rk(A)
rk(A) E E 1l'Y[8]
~7[O]
and
and thus
thus also
also 7r 1l'Y[8]] by
r E 7/7[0 (199) and
by (199) and trivially
trivially �A UU {A}{A} U -.A} �
U {{-~A} C_ �,..
E ' . . Hence
Hence
Asmp(fl, -.)A; O;
Asmp(A, ((-~)A; 8; /l;
#; 7r;
~T;,)
7) and
and thethe induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis applied
applied to to (xvi)
(xvi) yields
yields

7-/7+,.,,.+,,,0[0] Jr176
'r '
A and nT+.,,`+o,o[O] 1rr176 -~A. (xvii)

In this
In this situation
situation we
we want to make
want to make aa cut,
cut, apply
apply the
the Predicative
Predicative Elimination
Elimination Lemma
Lemma
(Lemma
(Lemma 3.4.3.6) and then
3.4.3.6) and then use the main
use the main induction
induction hypothesis. Since the
hypothesis. Since the same
same
situation will
situation will return
return we are going
we are going to
to state this in
state this in aa more
more general
general form.
form.
Let "7
, <_ ,+
::; ~1] < "7 + w"+~,
l'+o , ~l E ?-/,[O], rk(A) << 7r
1] 1l1)[8] , rk(A) /l, 7-/,7[0]
::; #,
7r _< 1l1)[8] ~ A,
fl , AA and
and �
�f3f3 fl , -.A for some Z(3 < 7r .9 Then 1l-y+wl'+a [8]
Let
,pK (-y+Wl'+a ) (xviii)
(xviii)
1l1)[8]
n,[o] I, r fl .
W,~,`l'+a
"~"0' ))
A
I r,pI,f'K,,(('Y+
7 "i- ~Jl

Applying (xviii)
Applying (xviii) with
with rl1] == ff, ++ w'+~~ and (3 == r'¢',.. b ++ w"+~~
w l'+oo and/? to (xvii)
l'+OO ) to (xvii) will
will then
then finish
finish
the case.
the case.
To prove
To prove (xviii)
(xviii) put
put 56 := max{rk(A) , (3} ++ 11 << r7r and
:= max{rk(A),/~} and choose
choose pp eE Reg such
Reg such
that pp << 56 << p+.
that p+ . Defining
Defining t~ p :=:= ppi fifp p r� Reg
Reg and p := pp++l 1 otherwise
and jh:= otherwise wewe get
get
6) nn Reg
[p, ~p ++ wWO)
ItS, Reg == 0.0. From
From the the hypotheses
hypotheses we we obtain
obtain
?-/,110] ,f3H
1l 1) [8] ',~+J
~ w' A
p+
fl (xix)
(xix)

by aa cut.
by cut. Since
Since par(A)
par (A) C_
� 7-/,7[0] and ~(3 eE 7-/,110]
1l1)[8] and we have
1l1)[8] we have 56 eE n,[O]. Using the
1l1)[8] . Using the
Predicative Elimination
Predicative Elimination Lemma
Lemma (Lemma
(Lemma 3.4.3.6)
3.4.3.6) we
we therefore
therefore obtain
obtain
n,,[o] V35(~+1) A . (XX)
( xx)
By (199)
By (199) we we get
get ~p EE 7/,[O].
1l1)[8] . From ff, <::; r]1] we
From we also
also obtain
obtain par(O)
par(8) _C �
Cl(,+l , r'¢'T ( ' ++ 1))
nT>" C/(-y+l,
~r>~_ 1)) c� Nr>~ Cl( 1]+l, Or(r]
nT>" C/(rl+l, '¢'T ( 1] ++ 1)). Sowe
1)). So wehave
have Asmp(A;
Asmp(�; O; p; ~;K; r/)
8 ; t~; 1])
andf~p << #./l. The
and The main
main hypothes]-s
hypothesls applied
applied to (xx) thus
to (xx) thus yields
yields
314
314 w. Pohlers
W. Pohlers

(xxi)
r ~6( )) "

Since p + ~o6(fl
Since/5+ <(J/j((3 ++ 1) 1) << r'Tr <::; #J.L we
we have have w WP+105(fH
~+~6(~+1) l ) << co".
wJJ. From
From r/<'T/ < 7'Y++wwJJ+<> we either
"+~ we either
get 77
get ::; 7'Y and
'T/ <_ and thus thus also 'T/+WP+105(fH
also r/+w l
~+~(~+1)) << 7+w" 'Y+wJJ _< ::; 7+w
'Y+wJJ+<>
"+~ oror 77 'Y+ ( with
'T/ == 7+~ wJJ+<>
with r( << co"+~
which entails
which entails 77 'T/ ++ wWP+105(fH
~+~(~+1) l) << 7'Y ++ r( ++ cow wJJ << 7'Y ++ w"+~.
wJJ+<> . Hence WP+105(f1+
Hence r'l/J,,('T/ + w l )) _<
~+~6(~+1)) ::;
r'l/J,,(-y ++ w"+~)
wJJ+<» and and we we obtain
obtain the the claim claim from (xxi) by
from (xxi) by aa structural
structural rule.
rule.
Now we
Now we consider
consider the the sub-case
sub-case that that ~K, <_ ::; rk(A)
rk(A) =: =: r'Tr EE Reg.Reg. Then Then ei- ei­
ther A
ther A or or ~A --,A has has the
the shape shape ((3x L,,)G(x) . Since
3 x eE L~)G(x). Since ~K, _::; ~r 'Tr we
we easily check
easily check
Asmp(�,
Asmp(A, (3x (3x eE L~)G(x); 8;
L,,)G(x) ; O; #; 'Y) and
J.L; r;'Tr; 7) and obtain
obtain thusthus byby the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis
"',,(,+wl'+ao ) A,
1i-y+Wl'+ao [el
?-/.y+.,.+oo ",,,(-y+wl'+ao ) �, (Sx
[8] I'rIr176 L,,)G(x).
(3x eE k~)V(x). (xxii)
(xxii)

Defining r( :=
Defining := r'l/J,,(J.L ++ co +<>o ) we
w-Y"Y+~~ we have
have
( eE 7/~+~,+~o[O]
1i,+Wl'+ao [8] nn lr'Tr (xxiii)
(xxiii)
by (iv) and
by (iv) and get
get from
from (xxii) by the
(xxii) by the Boundedness
Boundedness Theorem (Theorem 3.4.3.7)
Theorem (Theorem 3.4.3.7)
"'"(-y wl'+ao
1i-y+wl'+ao [8] IIr176176 + ) �, (3= Lr G(x).
n~+~.+oo[O] r",,, (-y+wl'+aO ~ ' (3x eE Ld
) (xxiv)
(xxiv)

Respecting (xxiii)
Respecting (xxiii) we may apply
we may apply Downward
Downward Persistency
Persistency (153)
(153) to
to the second premise
the second premise
in (xvi)
in (xvi) and obtain
and obtain
1i-y+wl'+ao [8]
� A, (Vx
7/~+~,+.o[e] ~- �,
("Ix eE L()~C(x).
Ld--,G(x) . (xxv)
(xxv)
Since
Since 'Y
7 < < 'Y")'+wJJ+<>o 1i-y[8] we
+ w"+a~ eE 7/~[(~] we obtain Asmp(�, ((Vx
obtain Asmp(A, "Ix E Lr G(x) ; O;
e Ld--, 8; J.L#;; r;'Tr; "y'Y +w
+wJJ+<>o)
"+e~
and may
and therefore apply
may therefore apply the the side
side induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis to to (xxv)
(xxv).. This
This yields
yields
"'" (-y+wl'+"o +wl'+ao ) �, (xxvi)
1i"/L~+,,.,,,+,,o+,,,,,+,,o
-y+wl'+aO +Wl'+a0 [8] [~1] I",'~'r176176176176
r ,, (,+wl'+"O +wl'+"0 ) ,a, ((v= e Ld--,
"Ix E Lr G(x) . (xxvi)
Putting
Putting 'T/ := 'Y7 +
77 "- + wJJ+<>o
c~176 + + wJJ+<>o
w"+~~ and and (3 := 'l/J
fl "= + wJJ
r ,, ('Y + +<>o ++ wJJ+<>O)
co"+~~ w"+~~ we we obtain obtain from from
(xxiv) and (xxvi)
(xxiv) and (xxvi)

'1[8] �~ �,
1i~[e] z~, (3x
(~ Ee LdG(x)
~)c(~) and ~[e] �
a~ 1i'1[8] ~ �,
~, ((w
"Ix Ee Ld--,G(x)
~)~a(~).. (xxvii)
(xxvii)

We
We realize
realize that
that rk((3x d G(x)) <
~ LL~)G(x))
rk((~x E < 'Tr,
~r, (3
fl < ~r, 'Y
< 'Tr, _ 'T/
~/ ::; < 'Y
77 < -~ +
+ wJJ+o
w"+~ and
and obtain
obtain by
by
(xviii)
(xviii) the
the claim.
claim. 0
~]
One should notice
One should notice that
that the
the collapsing procedure not
collapsing procedure not only
only collapses
collapses the
the derivations
derivations
but
but also
also removes
removes applications
applications of
of the
the rules
rules (Ref,,)
(Ref~)..

3.4.6.
3.4.6. Controlling
C o n t r o l l i n g operators
o p e r a t o r s for
for axiom
a x i o m systems
s y s t e m s of
of set
set theory
theory

The
The aim
aim of
of the
the following
following section
section is
is to
to determine
determine controlling
controlling operators
operators for
for different
different
axiom
axiom systems
systems for
for Set
Set Theory.
Theory. We We will
will see
see that
that this
this is
is aa fairly
fairly straightforward
straightforward
procedure
procedure which
which parallels
parallels the
the last
last part
part of
of Section
Section 2.1.5.
2.1.5. Due
Due toto extensionality
extensionality of
of sets,
sets,
however,
however, it
it will
will turn
turn out
out to
to be
be more
more painstaking.
painstaking. We
We start
start with
with pure
pure logic.
logic.

Controlling
C o n t r o l l i n g operators
o p e r a t o r s for
for pure logic. First
p u r e logic. First we
we show
show an
an analogue
analogue of
of (95)
(95)
 Set
Set Theory
Theory and
and Second
Second Order
Order Number
Number Theory
Theory 315
315

3.4.6.1.
3.4.6.1. Lemma. Let �
L e m m a . Let A be
be aa finite
finite set
set of of .cRS -sentences and
f~Rs-sentences and F
F be
be aa sentence
sentence such
such
[par(�)] 110
2 . rk ( F )
0 for every acceptable operator tl
that
that {F, -,F} �C_ �
{F,-~F} A.. Then
Then tl
74[par(A)] 2.rk(F) � A holds
holds.for 74..

The
The proof
proof is
is by
by induction
induction on
on rk( F) . Without
rk(F). Without loss
loss of
of generality
generality we
we assume F EE
assume F
V
V -type . Then we have
-type. Then we have
2.2"rk(G)
rk(G) �
G)] 1Io
0 ((i)
i)
tl [par(�, G)]
7-/[par(A,
A , G,
G,~G
-,G
for
for all
all G
GEEC (F) by
C (F) by the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis and
and obtain
obtain first
first
k(
· r G) + l �
n[par(A,
tl Io~.rk(a)+l
G)] 1�
[par(�, G)] A , F, -,G
F,-~G ((ii)
ii)

for
for all
all G
G EE C (F) by
C(F) by an inference ((V
an inference V )) and, since 22.· rk(G)
and, since r k ( G ) ++ 11 <
< 22.· rk(F)
rk(F) and
and
par(�,
par(A, G)
G) � par(A U
c par(� u tF from ((ii)
(G) ) , from
tF(a)), ii) finally
finally
2. rk(F) �
tl [par(�)] 112"rk(F)
, 00
A , F,
,
F, -,F
~F

by
by an
an inference (A)..
inference (/\) D
[-1

For
For aa finite
finite set A of
set � of .cRS-sentences
LRs-sentences we
we define
define

rk(�) := max
rk(A) := max {{rk(F)]
rk(F) I F
F E
E� }.
A}. (183)
(183)
Now
Now recall
recall the
the cut-free
cut-free Tait-calculus
Tait-calculus introduced
introduced in
in Section
Section 2.1.2.
2.1.2. We
We obtain
obtain the
the
following
following lemma.
lemma.

3.4.6.2.
3.4.6.2. Lemma.
Lemma. Let
Let �(XI
A ( x l ,, .,. ,. ,, X, Xn)
n ) be
be aa finite
finite set
set of
of .c (E, Ad)
f_.(E, -formulas whose
Ad)-formulas whose
free
free variables
variables occur all in
occur all in the
the list {Xb ' . . ,Xn}
list {Xl,... , xn } such
such that p. A�(XI
that ~-- ( x l ,'. .. .. . ,,Xn).
xn) . For any
For any
ordinal A, any
ordinal )~, n -tuple ((al
any n-tuple a l ,, ... .. . ,an)
, an) of of LRs-terms
.cRS -terms of of stages
stages less
less than than A)~ andand any
any
acceptable
acceptable operator tl we
operator 74 we obtain
obtain
tl [par(�(al " ' " an
7-/[par(A(a,,..., an)Lx)] 12.(a+m)
) LA )] Io02.(~+m) �(a an)) LLxA
A(all ", ..' " , an

for aa :--
for := rrk(�
k ( A (ab
( a l , .. ... ., , an)Lx).
an) LA) .

The proof
The proof is by induction
is by induction on on m.
m. WeWe abbreviate
abbreviate � A ((aI
a l , ,. .. .., a. ,nan)
) LA L~ by by �' A'.. In
In the
the
case of an axiom ( AxL ) we obtain the claim from
case of an axiom (AxL) we obtain the claim from Lemma 3.4.6.1. In the case Lemma 3.4.6.1 . In the case
of an
of an inference
inference (V) there is
(V) there is a sentence A
a sentence Ao0(aI n ) LA
( a l,, .. .. .., a, an) Lx V V Al A l ((aI ) LL~
a l ,,... .. ,. a, nan) A EE �'.
A'.
LA ) C_

I�·(a+mo)
Then par(Ai(al,...,an)
Then par(Ai (ab . . . , an) L~) � par(�')
par(A') and
and rk(Ai (al
rk(Ai(al,...,an) , . . . , an)LA) L~) <
< rk(�')
rk(A') and
and we
we
12'(a+mo)A',
I�·(a+m)
get from
get from the
the induction
induction hypothesis
hypothesis 7/[par(A')]
tl [par(�')] ,0 �', AAii ((aa b
l , .. ... ,. , an)
an) L~ for some
LA for some
ii E
E {0,
{O, 1}. By an
I } . By an inference
inference ( V ) we (V)
we finally
finally obtain
obtain 7/[par(A')]
tl [par(�')] [02.(~+m) A'.
�' .
The case
The case ofof an
an inference
inference (A)(1\) isis treated
treated analogously.
analogously.
In the
In the case
case ofof an
an inference
inference (3) there are
(3) there are two
two subcases.
subcases. FirstFirst assume that
assume that
we are
we are inin the
the situation
situation of of an
an unrestricted
unrestricted quantifier.
quantifier. Then
Then there
there is
is aa sentence
sentence
(3X EE L~)F(x,~)
(3x L>.)F(x, a)LA L~ E �' . For
E A'. For aa E E T~ we have
T>. we LA EE C((3x
F(a, a) L~
have F(a,~) L>.)F(x, a) LA ) ,
C ( (3X EE L~)F(x,~)L~),
O(3xeL~)f(x,~)L L
0(3xElA )F(x,ci) ~A (F(a,
(F(a, d) L A) == stg(a)
a) L~) stg(a) << A ::; aa and
A _< and rk(F(a,
rk(F(a, d))
a)) << a. Moreover, we
a. Moreover, we have
have
316 w.
W. Pohlers
Pohlers

the
the premise � L\(x), F(y, x). y E {Xl, . . . , X } par(F(ai,
premise ~ A(Z),F(y,Z-). If If y e {xl,...,xn} then par(F(a,,~) L~) �
n then C_ par(A').
2. ( a a)L>.)
mo )
par(L\').
Otherwise
Otherwise we replace y by
we replace y Lo.
by L0. In
In both
both cases
cases we
we get
get 7/[par(A')] 10 1£ [par(L\')] 1 0
2.(a+mo )
A', F(a, g)L~ + L\', F(a, a)- L>.
by
by the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis and
and obtain
obtain the
the claim
claim by by an
an inference
inference (V). (V ).
In
In the
the case
case of
of an
an restricted
restricted quantifier
quantifier there
there is
is aa sentence
sentence (3z E ai)F(x, d) L~ in(::Ix E ai)F(x, a)L>. L\'.
in A'.
Assume
Assume that
that a, = ai {x E Lo l G(x, a)} .
= { x e L~I G(x,~)}. FromFrom the
the premise
premise ~ A,y e ~i 1\ �
A F(y,~)
·(a m o L\, y E Xi F(y, x)
we
we obtain
obtain by
by the induction hypothesis
the induction hypothesis 7/[par(A')] 10 1£ [par(L\')] I�
2.(~+mo) A', a E ai 1\ +
A F(a, ~) ) L\', a E ai F(a, a)
for aa E
for E 0.
T~ as as in in the
the previous subcase.
previous subcase. By 1\
By -inversion this
A-inversion implies
this implies
1£"]-/[par(A')] 2. ( a
[par(L\')] 112.(~+m~
00 + mo ) L\',
A' ~aa Ee ai and 1£[par
ai and
2.
(L\')] 1100
"]-/[par(A')]
( a +
2.(aTmo) mo ) L\',
A', F(a,
F(a, a) _
d) . We .
We easIly
easily prove
prove

1£ fi L\, a E {x E Lo l G(x)} 1£ fi L\, G(a)'* (184)

( 84)
by
by induction
induction on ct .
on a. Using
Using (184) obtain 1£
we obtain
(184)we "]-/[par(A')]
m
[par(L\')] I10�2.(.+mo)+~ l
·(a+ o )+ L\A'' , G(a, G(a, a) /X F(a,
~) 1\ F(a, a)~)
and obtain the
and obtain claim by
the claim by an inference ((V).
an inference V ).
In
In the
the case
case of of an inference (\1')
an inference (V) we have the
we have premise �
the premise ~ L\(x),
A(~), F(y, F(y, x) with yy �
:~) with r
{Xl, ...
{xl,...,xn}.
, Xn } The
. induction hypothesis
The induction implies 1£[par(L\'),
hypothesis implies 7/[par(A'),b] ·a+mo L\',
b] IIo�2.a+mo F(b,
A',F(b,d) a)L>.
t~
for
for allall bb E
E 0.
T~.. Using
Using an inference (1\)
an inference (A) we obtain 17/[par(A')]
we obtain ·a+m L\'.
£ [par(L\') ] I10�2.a+m /V.
0
['7

Regarding
Regarding identity
identity axioms
axioms asas part
part ofof Pure
Pure Logic
Logic the
the next
next step
step is
is to
to deal
deal with
with
these
these axioms.
axioms. We We already
already mentioned that, because
mentioned that, because ofof the
the extensionality
extensionality of of sets,
sets, this
this
is by
is by far
far not simple. The
not simple. The tedious
tedious point
point is is the
the bookkeeping
bookkeeping of of derivation
derivation lengths.
lengths.
To
To obtain
obtain precise
precise bounds
bounds we we are
are forced
forced to to derive
derive all
all axioms
axioms step
step byby step
step which
which isis aa
bore. However,
bore. However, we we do
do not
not need
need absolutely
absolutely exactexact bounds.
bounds. TheThe collapsing
collapsing procedure
procedure
will
will equalize
equalize too
too precise
precise bounds
bounds anyway.
anyway. We We already
already observed
observed thatthat the
the rank
rank ofof aa
sentence
sentence is is always
always an an upper bound for
upper bound for its
its truth
truth complexity.
complexity. So So we
we will introduce
will introduce
aa more
more liberal
liberal derivation calculus �
derivation calculus ~ A and L\
and show
show afterwards
afterwards thatthat � ~ A entails
entails L\
1£ [par(L\)] � L\
7/[par(A)] ~ A where where cta is
is computable
computable from from rk(A). rk(L\).
For
For aa set
set e
(9 � On we
C_ On we define
define eO to be the
to be the closure
closure of
of e tJ {w} under
(9 u {w}
successor, i.e.,
under successor, i.e.,
�H ~ �~ +
+ 11 and
and regular
regular successor,
successor, i.e., ~ �~+.. We
i.e., �~ H +
We define
define the relation �
the relation ~- A byby the
the L\
rules
rules
(A')' )
(1\ � L\, GGlorallG~C(F)
[-A, for all G E C(F) '*
~ �~ AL\,
, FF
and
and
((V')
V') ~- L\,
� A, ffF �c_ C(F)
F, , C (F) and and par(L\,
par(A, fF)) �
C_ par(L\,
par(A, F) F) =~ � ~- L\,
A, F.
'*F.

Here
Here we want L\,
we want . . , toto denote
A, ...., multi-sets, i.e.,
denote multi-sets, i.e., sequences
sequences which which are
are independent
independent
from
from the
the order
order ofof their
their elements but count
elements but count their
their multiplicity.
multiplicity.
To
To avoid
avoid distinctions
distinctions by by cases
cases we
we introduce
introduce for for aa E
E Tstg(
Tstg(b)b) the
the relation
relation

a € b 1\ G(s) . { F(a) . F(a) 1\

¢:}
G(s)
G(s) ifif bb == {x{x Ee LL~Ia I F(x)}
A G(s)
if - LL,.
if bb = a.
F(x)} (185)
(185)

Dually we
Dually we put
put
 Set Theory
Theory and Second
Second Order
OrderNumber
Number Theory
Theory 317
317

aa rfL bb VY G(
'
s ) .:r¢:>
G(s)
{{ G(s)
,F(a)
G(s)
V G(s)
-~F(a) V G(s) if
if bb =
if
if bb =
{x EE Lo
= {x
= Lo'
k~.
k, lI F(x)}
F(x)}
(186)
(lS6)
For
For multi-sets
multi-sets we
we defi ne analogously
define analogously
{
G ( s ) ,), .. .. ..}} :=
{( .. ... . ,, aa I-f b,b, G(s . . . ' 'F ( a) , G ( s ) , . . . } if
S {{.'.,-~F(a),G(s),...}
: - ~ { {. . . ,,G(s),...}
G(s ) , . . . }
ifbb = = {x{z E Lo
i f bb -=k ~Lo.
if .
k~[I F(x )}
F(x)}

This
This has
has the the notational
notational advantage advantage that that C C ((aa EE b)b) == {t{t (e bb 1\A tt = stg(t) < stg(b)
= aa lI stg(t) stg(b)}}
and
and C ( (:lx E b)F(x))
C((3x b)F(x)) = - {{tt d e b 1\
A F(t) stg(t) < stg(b)
F(t)l I stg(t) stg(b)}} independent
independent of of the
the shape
shape of
of
b.b.
There
There is
is aa number
number of
of inference
inference rules
rules which
which are
are derivable
derivable or
or admissible
admissible within
within the
the
~ . . We
calculus �
calculus We list
list the
the most
most important
important ones
ones
((Str)
Str) �
~ A� and
andA�� r =}
C_F =~ �
~-Fr
Taut ) �
((Taut) ~ A, ,A
A,-~A
Sent ) �
((Sent) , AA =}
~ A�, =~ �
~ A�"
, ~ BB,
, AA AI\BB
(E)
(E) � �, tt e(bbA1\t -ta=
~-A, f oar sfor
o msome ( b )b) =}
e t E TtsEt gTstg( =~ � �, aa EEb b
~--A,
((ri ) �
~- �, # aa for
A, tt I-f bb,, tt =I: all tt E Tstg(
for all %tg(b)b) =}
:=~ �
~- �,
A, aa i
r bb
(V0~)) �
(\1 ~- �, F(t) for
A,F(t) T~ =}
for all t E To. =~ � ~ A�,
, ( V(\Ix
x EEL ~Lo)F(x)
)F(x)
(3 0~)) tt E
(:1 E To. C_ par(�,
par(t) �
T~,, par(t) par(A,F(Lo)) and �
F(Lo )) and ~- �, ( tt)) =}
A , FF( ::~ �
~- �,
A, ((3x
:Ix E Lo)F(x)
La)F(x)
(Vbb))
(\l � �, tt/[I- b,
~- A, b, F(t)
F(t) for all tt E Tstg(
for all b) =}
Tstg(b) =~ �
~- �,
A, (\Ix
(Vx E b)F(x)
b)F(x)
(:l
(~b)b) tt E Tstg( b) , par(t)
Tstg(b), par(t) � par(A, F(L
C_ par(�, and �
o )) and
F(L0)) �, tt (e bb 1\
~ A, A F(t)
F(t)
=} � �, (:Ix E b)F(x)
We refer
We refer to ( Str) as
to (Str) Structural Rule,
as Structural Rule, to (Taut ) as
to (Taut) as Tautology
Tautology Rule, to ((Sent)
Rule, to Sent ) as
as
Sentential Rule
Sentential Rule,, toto ((E),
E ) , (r as E-rule
(i) as E -rule or -rule, etc.
or i~-rule, The proofs
etc. The proofs are all obvious.
are all obvious.
For
For aa multi-set
multi-set � A of eRs -sentences we
of/:as-sentences we define
define
~:A
#� := "~----~Ew,k( F)
Wrk(F)
FE
FEA Ll
/
and observe
and observe that
that in
in rules according to
rules according V\ ) and
to (A') and (V') wewe always
always have (V')
#�p << #Ac
have #Ap #�c
if Ap denotes
if �p denotes aa premise
premise and
and Ac the conclusion
�c the conclusion of the rule.
of the rule. This
This will be the
will be main
the main
argument in showing
argument in showing

3.4.6.3. LLemma.
3.4.6.3. emma. Let 1-£ be
Let 74 be an
an acceptable
acceptable operator
operator which
which is
is closed
closed under
under ~� ~+ �+ .
f--t ~+.

�A
Then ~-
Then � implies 1-£ [par(�)] 0 ~ A.
implies 74[par(A)] �. �
proof isis by
The proof
The by induction
induction on
on the
the definition
definition of
of ~� A. In the
� . In the case
case of
of an
an inference
inference
I
V\ ) we
(A') we get
get thethe claim
claim immediately
immediately from the induction
from the induction hypothesis,
hypothesis, the
the previous
previous
remark and
remark and thethe fact
fact that
that for G E C(F)
for G we have
C (F) we par(G) c� par(F
have par(G) par(F UU tf(G)). In
tF(G) ) . In
the case
the case of
of an
an inference we have
inference ( V ' ) we (V')
1-£ [par(�, F)]
have 7/[par(A, r)] I#(A'r)
,0 � ,, Fr ,, Fr C
A � C (F) and
- C(F) and1�(Ll ,r)
318
318 W. Pohlers
W. Pohlers

par(L\, F)
par(A, � par(A,
f) C_ par(L\, F). Since ?11./ i sis Cantorian
F) . Since Cantorian closed
closed and
and closed
closed under
under ~c
� ~_~ �+ the
t-+ ~c+ the
latter implies
latter implies ?/
1I. [par(A,
[par(L\, F)] _� ?/[par(A,F)].
r)] C So we
11. [par(L\, F)] . So we get
get ?/[par(A,
1I. [par(L\, F)]
F)] I,0
I#(~'r) :
(A,r) AL\, , Ff

which entails
which entails ?/[par(A,F)]
1I. [par(L\, F)] l0 :
(A rl+ 1r l A F where IFI denotes the cardinality of the
1#(~,r)+lrl
, L\ , F where If I denotes the cardinality of the
finite set
finite set F. Since rk(A)
f . Since rk(A) << rk(F) for all
rk(F) for all AAEE CC (f) we get
(F) we E
get ~ w W,k(A)
rk(A) ++ iFI W,k(F)
If! << w rk(f),,
AE r
AEF
hence #(A,
hence #(L\, F) If I << #(A,
f) ++ IFI #(L\, F) and this
F) and this yields
yields the
the claim.
claim. 0
D
We are
We are now
now going
going to
to derive
derive aa series
series of
of sentences
sentences which
which will
will be
be needed
needed in
in the
the
computation of
computation of the
the truth
truth complexities
complexities of of identity
identity and
and non-logical axioms of
non-logical axioms of Set
Set
Theory.
Theory.
� aa ri aa for
for all
all s£RS - terms
terms a.
a. (187)
(187)
The proof
The proof isis by
by induction
induction onon rk(a).
rk(a) . We obtain ~� bb ~i bb for
We obtain for all
all bb EE Tstg(,) by the
Tstg(a) by the
induction hypothesis.
induction hypothesis. Hence
Hence ~-b� b f/. a,
a, bb ef aa A i bb by
/\ bb ~( by (Sent)
(Sent) which
which inin turn gives
turn gives
~-bb /.
� a, (3x
X a, (:Jx E
E a) [x ~(
a)[x i b] (:Jb ) . This
by (3b).
b] by This implies
implies � ~-bb f/. a,b
a, b ~=I- aa for all bb EE Tstg(
for all a) '
Tstg(,).
Hence ~-a
Hence by (i)
� a i~( aa by (r . 0
D

� aa �
C_ aa hence
hence also � aa =
also ~- = aa .for all seRs -terms aa
for all (188)
(188)
The proof
The proof is
is by
by in
in induction
induction onon rk(a). We get
rk(a) . We get � ~-bb � for all
C_ bb for all aa E
E Tstg( a) by
Tstg(,) by the
the
induction
induction hypothesis.
hypothesis. For
For symmetry
symmetry reasons
reasons this implies �
this implies ~ bb = b. So
= b. So �~ bb /.f a,
a, bb fe
ac a/\b -b = bb by (Sent) and
by (Sent) and � ~-bb /.
t a a,
, bb E
E aa for
for all
all bb E
E Tstg( a) by
T~tg(,) (E) which
by (E) which implies
implies
�
~- (\Ix
(Vx E a)
a)[x a] by
[x E a] by (\la).
(V'). 0
D
As
As aa corollary
corollary of
of the
the proof
proof of (188) we
of (188) we obtain
obtain
F- b /.,~ a,
� a, bb Ee aa for Tstg(~).
all bb Ee Tstg(
for all a) ' (189)
(189)
By
By (Sent)
(Sent) we
we have
have �
~- (:Jx
(3x EE a) [x ir b],
a)[x b], (:Jx
(3x EE b) [x i~ a],
b)[x a], (\Ix
(Vx EE b) [x EE a]
b)[x a] /\
A (\Ix
(Vx EE a) [x EE
a)[z
b] which
b] which entails
entails
�
b aa =I-
:fi b,
b, bb =
= a.
a. ((190)
190)
Since
Since we
we have ~- bb = bb for
have � all bb EE 'To
for all T~ we
we get
get
b bb E
� E La
L~ for all bb EE 'To
for all T~.. (191)
(191)
Now
Now we
we show
show
[--- 7mn(La).
� Tran(L,~). (19 2)
(192)
For T~ and
For aa EE 'To and bb EE Tstg( a) we
Tstg(a) we get
get stg(b)
stg(b) < < a.
e. Hence
Hence by
by (191)
(191) �~- bb /.f a, L~ which
a, bb EE La which in