Online research in philosophy

Goodman's theorem states that intuitionistic arithmetic in all finite types plus full choice, HA + AC, is conservative over first-order intuitionistic arithmetic HA. We show that this result does not extend to various subsystems of HA, HA with restricted induction.

In [15], [16] G. Kreisel introduced the no-counterexample interpretation (n.c.i.) of Peano arithmetic. In particular he proved, using a complicated ε-substitution method (due to W. Ackermann), that for every theorem A (A prenex) of first-order Peano arithmetic PA one can find ordinal recursive functionals Φ A of order type 0 which realize the Herbrand normal form A H of A. Subsequently more perspicuous proofs of this fact via functional interpretation (combined with normalization) and cut-elimination were found. These proofs however do (...) not carry out the no-counterexample interpretation as a local proof interpretation and don't respect the modus ponens on the level of the no-counterexample interpretation of formulas A and A → B. Closely related to this phenomenon is the fact that both proofs do not establish the condition (δ) and--at least not constructively-- (γ) which are part of the definition of an 'interpretation of a formal system' as formulated in [15]. In this paper we determine the complexity of the no-counterexample interpretation of the modus ponens rule for (i) PA-provable sentences, (ii) for arbitrary sentences A, B ∈ L(PA) uniformly in functionals satisfying the no-counterexample interpretation of (prenex normal forms of) A and A → B, and (iii) for arbitrary A, B ∈ L(PA) pointwise in given α( 0 ) -recursive functionals satisfying the no-counterexample interpretation of A and A → B. This yields in particular perspicuous proofs of new uniform versions of the conditions (γ), (δ). Finally we discuss a variant of the concept of an interpretation presented in [17] and show that it is incomparable with the concept studied in [15], [16]. In particular we show that the no-counterexample interpretation of PA n by α( n (ω))-recursive functionals (n ≥ 1) is an interpretation in the sense of [17] but not in the sense of [15] since it violates the condition (δ). (shrink)

We show how to extract effective bounds Φ for $\bigwedge u^1 \bigwedge v \leq_\gamma tu \bigvee w^\eta G_0$ -sentences which depend on u only (i.e. $\bigwedge u \bigwedge v \leq_\gamma tu \bigvee w \leq_\eta \Phi uG_0$ ) from arithmetical proofs which use analytical assumptions of the form \begin{equation*}\tag{*}\bigwedge x^\delta\bigvee y \leq_\rho sx \bigwedge z^\tau F_0\end{equation*} (γ, δ, ρ, and τ are arbitrary finite types, η ≤ 2, G0 and F0 are quantifier-free, and s and t are closed terms). If τ (...) ≤ 2, (*) can be weakened to $\bigwedge x^\delta, z^\tau\bigvee y \leq_\rho sx \bigwedge \tilde{z} \leq_\tau z F_0$ . This is used to establish new conservation results about weak König's lemma. Applications to proofs in classical analysis, especially uniqueness proofs in approximation theory, will be given in subsequent papers. (shrink)