Ordinal notations and induction

In order to prove that the simplification process for arithmetic eventually reaches a simple proof, it is necessary to measure the complexity of proofs in a more sophisticated way than for the cut-elimination theorem. There, a pair of numbers suffices, and the proof proceeds by double induction on this measure. This chapter develops the system of ordinal notations up to ε0 which serve as this more sophisticated measure for proofs in arithmetic. Ordinal notations are presented as purely combinatorial system of symbols, so that from the outset there is no doubt about the constructive legitimacy of the associated principles of reasoning. The main properties of this notation system are presented, and it is shown that ordinal notations are well-ordered according to its associated less-than relation. The basics of the theory of set-theoretic ordinals is developed in the second half of the chapter, so that the reader can compare the infinitary, set-theoretic development of ordinals up to ε0 to the system of finitary ordinal notations. Finally, Paris-Kirby Hydra game and Goodstein sequences are presented as applications of induction up to ε0.

A HIERARCHY OF COMPUTABLY ENUMERABLE DEGREES

We introduce a new hierarchy of computably enumerable degrees. This hierarchy is based on computable ordinal notations measuring complexity of approximation of${\rm{\Delta }}_2^0$functions. The hierarchy unifies and classifies the combinatorics of a number of diverse constructions in computability theory. It does so along the lines of the high degrees (Martin) and the array noncomputable degrees (Downey, Jockusch, and Stob). The hierarchy also gives a number of natural definability results in the c.e. degrees, including a definable antichain.

Learning correction grammars

We investigate a new paradigm in the context of learning in the limit, namely, learningcorrection grammarsfor classes ofcomputably enumerable (c.e.)languages. Knowing a language may feature a representation of it in terms oftwogrammars. The second grammar is used to make corrections to the first grammar. Such a pair of grammars can be seen as a single description of (or grammar for) the language. We call such grammarscorrection grammars. Correction grammars capture the observable fact that peopledocorrect their linguistic utterances during their usual linguistic activities.We show that learning correction grammars for classes of c.e. languages in theTxtEx-mode(i.e., converging to a single correct correction grammar in the limit) is sometimes more powerful than learning ordinary grammars even in theTxtBc-model (where the learner is allowed to converge to infinitely many syntactically distinct but correct conjectures in the limit). For eachn≥ 0. there is a similar learning advantage, again in learning correction grammars for classes of c.e. languages, but where we compare learning correction grammars that maken+ 1 corrections to those that makencorrections.The concept of a correction grammar can be extended into the constructive transfinite, using the idea of counting-down from notations for transfinite constructive ordinals. This transfinite extension can also be conceptualized as being about learning Ershov-descriptions for c.e. languages. Forua notation in Kleene's general system (O, <o) of ordinal notations for constructive ordinals, we introduce the concept of anu-correction grammar, whereuis used to bound the number of corrections that the grammar is allowed to make. We prove a general hierarchy result: ifuandvare notations for constructive ordinals such thatu<ov. then there are classes of c.e. languages that can beTxtEx-learned by conjecturingv-correction grammars but not by conjecturingu-correction grammars.Surprisingly, we show that—above “ω-many” corrections—it is not possible to strengthen the hierarchy:TxtEx-learningu-correction grammars of classes of c.e. languages, whereuis a notation inOforanyordinal, can be simulated byTxtBc-learningw-correction grammars, wherewis any notation for the smallest infinite ordinalω.

Assignment of ordinals to patterns of resemblance

In [2] T. J. Carlson introduces an approach to ordinal notation systems which is based on the notion of Σ1-elementary substructure. We gave a detailed ordinal arithmetical analysis (see [7]) of the ordinal structure based on Σ1-elementarily as defined in [2]. This involved the development of an appropriate ordinal arithmetic that is based on a system of classical ordinal notations derived from Skolem hull operators, see [6]. In the present paper we establish an effective order isomorphism between the classical and the new system of ordinal notations using the results from [6] and [7]. Moreover, on the basis of a concept of relativization we develop mutual (relatively) elementary recursive assignments which are uniform with respect to the underlying relativization.

Transfinite Progressions: A Second Look at Completeness

§1. Iterated Gödelian extensions of theories. The idea of iterating ad infinitum the operation of extending a theory T by adding as a new axiom a Gödel sentence for T, or equivalently a formalization of “T is consistent”, thus obtaining an infinite sequence of theories, arose naturally when Godel's incompleteness theorem first appeared, and occurs today to many non-specialists when they ponder the theorem. In the logical literature this idea has been thoroughly explored through two main approaches. One is that initiated by Turing in his “ordinal logics” (see Gandy and Yates [2001]) and taken very much further in Feferman's work on transfinite progressions, which also introduced the more general study of extensions by reflection principles, of which consistency statements are a special case. This approach starts from an assignment of theories to ordinal notations, and extracts sequences of theories through a suitable choice of a path in the set of ordinal notations. The second approach, illustrated in particular by the work of Schmerl and Beklemishev, starts instead from a suitably well-behaved primitive recursive well-ordering, which is used to define a sequence of theories. This second approach has led to precise results about the relative proof-theoretical strength of sequences of theories obtained by iterating different reflection principles. The Turing-Feferman approach, on the other hand, lends itself well to an investigation in qualitative and philosophical terms of the relevance of such iterated reflection extensions to mathematical knowledge, in particular because of two developments associated with this approach.