The central result of this paper is the small‐is‐very‐small principle for restricted sequential theories. The principle says roughly that whenever the given theory shows that a definable property has a small witness, i.e., a witness in a sufficiently small definable cut, then it shows that the property has a very small witness: i.e., a witness below a given standard number. Which cuts are sufficiently small will depend on the complexity of the formula defining the property. We draw various consequences from (...) the central result. E.g., roughly speaking, (i) every restricted, recursively enumerable sequential theory has a finitely axiomatized extension that is conservative with respect to formulas of complexity ; (ii) every sequential model has, for any n, an extension that is elementary for formulas of complexity, in which the intersection of all definable cuts is the natural numbers; (iii) we have reflection for ‐sentences with sufficiently small witness in any consistent restricted theory U; (iv) suppose U is recursively enumerable and sequential. Suppose further that every recursively enumerable and sequential V that locally inteprets U, globally interprets U. Then, U is mutually globally interpretable with a finitely axiomatized sequential theory. The paper contains some careful groundwork developing partial satisfaction predicates in sequential theories for the complexity measure depth of quantifier alternations. (shrink)

In this paper we study the interpretations of a weak arithmetic, like Buss’s theory $\mathsf{S}^{1}_{2}$, in a given theory $U$. We call these interpretations the arithmetics of $U$. We develop the basics of the structure of the arithmetics of $U$. We study the provability logic of $U$ from the standpoint of the framework of the arithmetics of $U$. Finally, we provide a deeper study of the arithmetics of a finitely axiomatized sequential theory.

In this paper we study local induction w.r.t. Σ1‐formulas over the weak arithmetic. The local induction scheme, which was introduced in, says roughly this: for any virtual class that is progressive, i.e., is closed under zero and successor, and for any non‐empty virtual class that is definable by a Σ1‐formula without parameters, the intersection of and is non‐empty. In other words, we have, for all Σ1‐sentences S, that S implies, whenever is progressive. Since, in the weak context, we have (at (...) least) two definitions of Σ1, we obtain two minimal theories of local induction w.r.t. Σ1‐formulas, which we call Peano Corto and Peano Basso.In the paper we give careful definitions of Peano Corto and Peano Basso. We establish their naturalness both by giving a model theoretic characterization and by providing an equivalent formulation in terms of a sentential reflection scheme.The theories Peano Corto and Peano Basso occupy a salient place among the sequential theories on the boundary between weak and strong theories. They bring together a powerful collection of principles that is locally interpretable in. Moreover, they have an important role as examples of various phenomena in the metamathematics of arithmetical (and, more generally, sequential) theories. We illustrate this by studying their behavior w.r.t. interpretability, model interpretability and local interpretability. In many ways the theories are more like Peano arithmetic or Zermelo Fraenkel set theory, than like finitely axiomatized theories as Elementary Arithmetic, and. On the one hand, Peano Corto and Peano Basso are very weak: they are locally cut‐interpretable in. On the other hand, they behave as if they were strong: they are not contained in any consistent finitely axiomatized arithmetical theory, however strong. Moreover, they extend, the theory of parameter‐free Π1‐induction. (shrink)

In this paper we show that the degrees of interpretability of finitely axiomatized extensions-in-the-same-language of a finitely axiomatized sequential theory—like Elementary Arithmetic EA, IΣ1, or the Gödel–Bernays theory of sets and classes GB—have suprema. This partially answers a question posed by Švejdar in his paper (Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae 19:789–813, 1978). The partial solution of Švejdar’s problem follows from a stronger fact: the convexity of the degree structure of finitely axiomatized extensions-in-the-same-language of a finitely axiomatized sequential theory in the degree (...) structure of the degrees of all finitely axiomatized sequential theories. In the paper we also study a related question: the comparison of structures for interpretability and derivability. In how far can derivability mimic interpretability? We provide two positive results and one negative result. (shrink)

Sufficient conditions for first-order-based sequent calculi to admit cut elimination by a Schütte–Tait style cut elimination proof are established. The worst case complexity of the cut elimination is analysed. The obtained upper bound is parameterized by a quantity related to the calculus. The conditions are general enough to be satisfied by a wide class of sequent calculi encompassing, among others, some sequent calculi presentations for the first order and the propositional versions of classical and intuitionistic logic, classical and intuitionistic modal (...) logic S4, and classical and intuitionistic linear logic and some of its fragments. Moreover the conditions are such that there is an algorithm for checking if they are satisfied by a sequent calculus. (shrink)

We investigate the development of terms during cut-elimination in first-order logic and Peano arithmetic for proofs of existential formulas. The form of witness terms in cut-free proofs is characterized in terms of structured combinations of basic substitutions. Based on this result, a regular tree grammar computing witness terms is given and a class of proofs is shown to have only elementary cut-elimination.

We present sharpened lower bounds on the size of cut free proofs for first-order logic. Prior lower bounds for eliminating cuts from a proof established superexponential lower bounds as a stack of exponentials, with the height of the stack proportional to the maximum depth d of the formulas in the original proof. Our results remove the constant of proportionality, giving an exponential stack of height equal to d — 0(1). The proof method is based on more efficiently expressing the Gentzen-Solovay (...) cut formulas as low depth formulas. (shrink)