In this paper we prove that the preordering $\lesssim $ of provable implication over any recursively enumerable theory $T$ containing a modicum of arithmetic is uniformly dense. This means that we can find a recursive extensional density function $F$ for $\lesssim $. A recursive function $F$ is a density function if it computes, for $A$ and $B$ with $A\lnsim B$, an element $C$ such that $A\lnsim C\lnsim B$. The function is extensional if it preserves $T$-provable equivalence. Secondly, we prove a (...) general result that implies that, for extensions of elementary arithmetic, the ordering $\lesssim $ restricted to $\Sigma_{n}$-sentences is uniformly dense. In the last section we provide historical notes and background material. (shrink)

In this note we study several topics related to the schema of local reflection \\) and its partial and relativized variants. Firstly, we introduce the principle of uniform reflection with \-definable parameters, establish its relationship with relativized local reflection principles and corresponding versions of induction with definable parameters. Using this schema we give a new model-theoretic proof of the \-conservativity of uniform \-reflection over relativized local \-reflection. We also study the proof-theoretic strength of Feferman’s theorem, i.e., the assertion of 1-provability (...) in S of the local reflection schema \\), and its generalized versions. We relate this assertion to the uniform \-reflection schema and, in particular, obtain an alternative axiomatization of \. (shrink)

In this paper we carry out a comparative study of $\mathrm{I}\Sigma_1$ and PRA. We will in a sense fully determine what these theories have to say about each other in terms of provability and interpretability. Our study will result in two arithmetically complete modal logics with simple universal models.

We consider fragments of uniform reflection for formulas in the analytic hierarchy over theories of second order arithmetic. The main result is that for any second order arithmetic theory $T_0$ extending $\mathsf {RCA}_0$ and axiomatizable by a $\Pi ^1_{k+2}$ sentence, and for any $n\geq k+1$, $$\begin{align*}T_0+ \mathrm{RFN}_{\varPi^1_{n+2}} \ = \ T_0 + \mathrm{TI}_{\varPi^1_n}, \end{align*}$$ $$\begin{align*}T_0+ \mathrm{RFN}_{\varSigma^1_{n+1}} \ = \ T_0+ \mathrm{TI}_{\varPi^1_n}^{-}, \end{align*}$$ where T is $T_0$ augmented with full induction, and $\mathrm {TI}_{\varPi ^1_n}^{-}$ denotes the schema of transfinite induction up (...) to $\varepsilon _0$ for $\varPi ^1_n$ formulas without set parameters. (shrink)

Proof-theoretic reflection principles are schemas which attempt to express the soundness of arithmetical theories within their own language, e.g., ${\mathtt{{Prov}_{\mathsf {PA}} \rightarrow \varphi }}$ can be understood to assert that any statement provable in Peano arithmetic is true. It has been repeatedly suggested that justification for such principles follows directly from acceptance of an arithmetical theory $\mathsf {T}$ or indirectly in virtue of their derivability in certain truth-theoretic extensions thereof. This paper challenges this consensus by exploring relationships between reflection principles (...) and principles of mathematical and transfinite induction as well as the status of the latter with respect to various foundational characterizations of number theory. (shrink)

Let T be a second-order arithmetical theory, Λ a well-order, λ < Λ and X ⊆ ℕ. We use $[\lambda |X]_T^{\rm{\Lambda }}\varphi$ as a formalization of “φ is provable from T and an oracle for the set X, using ω-rules of nesting depth at most λ”.For a set of formulas Γ, define predicative oracle reflection for T over Γ ) to be the schema that asserts that, if X ⊆ ℕ, Λ is a well-order and φ ∈ Γ, then$$\forall \,\lambda (...) < {\rm{\Lambda }}\,.$$In particular, define predicative oracle consistency ) as Pred–O–RFN{0=1}.Our main result is as follows. Let ATR0 be the second-order theory of Arithmetical Transfinite Recursion, ${\rm{RCA}}_0^{\rm{*}}$ be Weakened Recursive Comprehension and ACA be Arithmetical Comprehension with Full Induction. Then,$${\rm{ATR}}_0 \equiv {\rm{RCA}}_0^{\rm{*}} + {\rm{Pred - O - Cons\ }}\left \equiv {\rm{RCA}}_0^{\rm{*}} + \,{\rm{Pred - O - Cons\ }}\left \equiv {\rm{RCA}}_0^{\rm{*}} + \,{\rm{Pred - O - RFN}}\,_{{\bf{\Pi }}_2^1 } \left.$$We may even replace ${\rm{RCA}}_0^{\rm{*}}$ by the weaker ECA0, the second-order analogue of Elementary Arithmetic.Thus we characterize ATR0, a theory often considered to embody Predicative Reductionism, in terms of strong reflection and consistency principles. (shrink)

By a theorem of R. Kaye, J. Paris and C. Dimitracopoulos, the class of the Πn+1-sentences true in the standard model is the only consistent Πn+1-theory which extends the scheme of induction for parameter free Πn+1-formulas. Motivated by this result, we present a systematic study of extensions of bounded quantifier complexity of fragments of first-order Peano Arithmetic. Here, we improve that result and show that this property describes a general phenomenon valid for parameter free schemes. As a consequence, we obtain (...) results on the quantifier complexity, finite axiomatizability and relative strength of schemes for Δn+1-formulas. (shrink)

A well-known result states that, over basic Kalmar elementary arithmetic EA, the induction schema for ∑n formulas is equivalent to the uniform reflection principle for ∑n + 1 formulas . We show that fragments of arithmetic axiomatized by various forms of induction rules admit a precise axiomatization in terms of reflection principles as well. Thus, the closure of EA under the induction rule for ∑n formulas is equivalent to ω times iterated ∑n reflection principle. Moreover, for k < ω, k (...) times iterated ∑n reflection principle over EA precisely corresponds to the extension of EA by k nested applications of ∑n induction rule.The above relationship holds in greater generality than just stated. In fact, we give general formulas characterizing in terms of iterated reflection principles the extension of any given theory by k nested applications of ∑n or Πn induction rules. In particular, the closure of a theory T under just one application of ∑1 induction rule is equivalent to T together with ∑1 reflection principle for each finite Π2 axiomatized subtheory of T.These results have closely parallel ones in the theory of subrecursive function classes. The rules under study correspond, in a canonical way, to natural closure operators on the classes of provably recursive functions. Thus, ∑1 induction rule precisely corresponds to the primitive recursive closure operator, and ∑1 collection rule, introduced below, corresponds to the elementary closure operator. (shrink)