scholarly journals FROM STENIUS’ CONSISTENCY PROOF TO SCHÜTTE’S CUT ELIMINATION FOR ω-ARITHMETIC

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
ANNIKA SIDERS

AbstractThe book Das Interpretationsproblem der Formalisierten Zahlentheorie und ihre Formale Widerspruchsfreiheit by Erik Stenius published in 1952 contains a consistency proof for infinite ω-arithmetic based on a semantical interpretation. Despite the proof’s reference to semantics the truth definition is in fact equivalent to a syntactical derivability or reduction condition. Based on this reduction condition Stenius proves that the complexity of formulas in a derivation can be limited by the complexity of the conclusion. This independent result can also be proved by cut elimination for ω-arithmetic which was done by Schütte in 1951.In this paper we interpret the syntactic reduction in Stenius’ work as a method for cut elimination based on invertibility of the logical rules. Through this interpretation the constructivity of Stenius’ proof becomes apparent. This improvement was explicitly requested from Stenius by Paul Bernays in private correspondence (In a letter from Bernays begun on the 19th of September 1952 (Stenius & Bernays, 1951–75)). Bernays, who took a deep interest in Stenius’ manuscript, applied the described method in a proof Herbrand’s theorem. In this paper we prove Herbrand’s theorem, as an application of Stenius’ work, based on lecture notes of Bernays (Bernays, 1961). The main result completely resolves Bernays’ suggestions for improvement by eliminating references to Stenius’ semantics and by showing the constructive nature of the proof. A comparison with Schütte’s cut elimination proof shows how Stenius’ simplification of the reduction of universal cut formulas, which in Schütte’s proof requires duplication and repositioning of the cuts, shifts the problematic case of reduction to implications.

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 1009-1029 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Aschieri ◽  
Stefan Hetzl ◽  
Daniel Weller

AbstractHerbrand’s theorem is one of the most fundamental insights in logic. From the syntactic point of view, it suggests a compact representation of proofs in classical first- and higher-order logics by recording the information of which instances have been chosen for which quantifiers. This compact representation is known in the literature as Miller’s expansion tree proof. It is inherently analytic and hence corresponds to a cut-free sequent calculus proof. Recently several extensions of such proof representations to proofs with cuts have been proposed. These extensions are based on graphical formalisms similar to proof nets and are limited to prenex formulas.In this paper, we present a new syntactic approach that directly extends Miller’s expansion trees by cuts and also covers non-prenex formulas. We describe a cut-elimination procedure for our expansion trees with cut that is based on the natural reduction steps and shows that it is weakly normalizing.


1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 678-692 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. D. Goldfarb ◽  
T. M. Scanlon

In this sequel to [7] the method of the consistency proof presented there is extended to provide a proof of the ω-consistency of the systems of number theory which were there shown consistent. This proof yields sharp bounds on the ordinal recursions required to establish the κ-consistency of these systems. The main technical innovation of this proof is the extension of what are essentially the methods of Ackermann [1] for handling finite sets of critical formulae of the first and second kinds to apply as well to sets of critical formulae in which the rank ordering is transfinite. The notation, definitions, and results of [7] will be presupposed throughout; we suggest the reader keep a copy of that paper at hand.


1994 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-156
Author(s):  
JÜRGEN DIX ◽  
MARTIN KUMMER

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 541-553
Author(s):  
Yu-Yan Chao ◽  
Li-Feng He ◽  
Tsuyoshi Nakamura ◽  
Zheng-Hao Shi ◽  
Kenji Suzuki ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document