Ordinal analysis

From HandWiki
Short description: Mathematical technique used in proof theory

In proof theory, ordinal analysis assigns ordinals (often large countable ordinals) to mathematical theories as a measure of their strength. If theories have the same proof-theoretic ordinal they are often equiconsistent, and if one theory has a larger proof-theoretic ordinal than another it can often prove the consistency of the second theory.

In addition to obtaining the proof-theoretic ordinal of a theory, in practice ordinal analysis usually also yields various other pieces of information about the theory being analyzed, for example characterizations of the classes of provably recursive, hyperarithmetical, or Δ21 functions of the theory.[1]

History

The field of ordinal analysis was formed when Gerhard Gentzen in 1934 used cut elimination to prove, in modern terms, that the proof-theoretic ordinal of Peano arithmetic is ε0. See Gentzen's consistency proof.

Definition

Ordinal analysis concerns true, effective (recursive) theories that can interpret a sufficient portion of arithmetic to make statements about ordinal notations.

The proof-theoretic ordinal of such a theory T is the supremum of the order types of all ordinal notations (necessarily recursive, see next section) that the theory can prove are well founded—the supremum of all ordinals α for which there exists a notation o in Kleene's sense such that T proves that o is an ordinal notation. Equivalently, it is the supremum of all ordinals α such that there exists a recursive relation R on ω (the set of natural numbers) that well-orders it with ordinal α and such that T proves transfinite induction of arithmetical statements for R.

Ordinal notations

Some theories, such as subsystems of second-order arithmetic (Z2), have no conceptualization or way to make arguments about transfinite ordinals. For example, to formalize what it means for a subsystem T of Z2 to "prove α well-ordered", we instead construct an ordinal notation (A,<~) with order type α. T can now work with various transfinite induction principles along (A,<~), which substitute for reasoning about set-theoretic ordinals.

However, some pathological notation systems exist that are unexpectedly difficult to work with. For example, Rathjen gives a primitive recursive notation system (ℕ,<T) that is well-founded if and only if PA is consistent,[2]p. 3 despite having order type ω. Including such a notation in the ordinal analysis of PA would result in the false equality PTO(PA)=ω.

Upper bound

Since an ordinal notation must be recursive, the proof-theoretic ordinal of any theory is less than or equal to the Church–Kleene ordinal ω1CK. In particular, the proof-theoretic ordinal of an inconsistent theory is equal to ω1CK, because an inconsistent theory trivially proves that all ordinal notations are well-founded.

For any theory that's both Σ11-axiomatizable and Π11-sound, the existence of a recursive ordering that the theory fails to prove is well-ordered follows from the Σ11 bounding theorem, and said provably well-founded ordinal notations are in fact well-founded by Π11-soundness. Thus the proof-theoretic ordinal of a Π11-sound theory that has a Σ11 axiomatization will always be a (countable) recursive ordinal, that is, strictly less than ω1CK.[2]Theorem 2.21

Examples

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ω

  • Q, Robinson arithmetic (although the definition of the proof-theoretic ordinal for such weak theories has to be tweaked) .
  • PA–, the first-order theory of the nonnegative part of a discretely ordered ring.

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ω2

  • RFA, rudimentary function arithmetic.[3]
  • IΔ0, arithmetic with induction on Δ0-predicates without any axiom asserting that exponentiation is total.

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ω3

Friedman's grand conjecture suggests that much "ordinary" mathematics can be proved in weak systems having this as their proof-theoretic ordinal.

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ωn (for n = 2, 3, ... ω)

  • IΔ0 or EFA augmented by an axiom ensuring that each element of the n-th level ℰn of the Grzegorczyk hierarchy is total.

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ωω

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ε0

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal the Feferman–Schütte ordinal Γ0

  • ATR0, arithmetical transfinite recursion.
  • Martin-Löf type theory with arbitrarily many finite level universes.

This ordinal is sometimes considered to be the upper limit for "predicative" theories.

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal the Bachmann–Howard ordinal

The Kripke–Platek or CZF set theories are weak set theories without axioms for the full powerset given as set of all subsets. Instead, they tend to either have axioms of restricted separation and formation of new sets, or they grant existence of certain function spaces (exponentiation) instead of carving them out from bigger relations.

Theories with larger proof-theoretic ordinals

Unsolved problem in mathematics:
What is the proof-theoretic ordinal of full second-order arithmetic?[4]
(more unsolved problems in mathematics)
  • Π11-CA0, Π11 comprehension has a rather large proof-theoretic ordinal, which was described by Takeuti in terms of "ordinal diagrams",[5]p. 13 and which is bounded by ψ0(Ωω) in Buchholz's notation. It is also the ordinal of ID<ω, the theory of finitely iterated inductive definitions. And also the ordinal of MLW, Martin-Löf type theory with indexed W-Types (Setzer 2004).
  • IDω, the theory of ω-iterated inductive definitions. Its proof-theoretic ordinal is equal to the Takeuti–Feferman–Buchholz ordinal.
  • T0, Feferman's constructive system of explicit mathematics has a larger proof-theoretic ordinal, which is also the proof-theoretic ordinal of the KPi, Kripke–Platek set theory with iterated admissibles and Σ21-AC+BI.
  • KPi, an extension of Kripke–Platek set theory based on a recursively inaccessible ordinal, has a very large proof-theoretic ordinal ψ(εI+1) described in a 1983 paper of Jäger and Pohlers, where I is the smallest inaccessible.[6] This ordinal is also the proof-theoretic ordinal of Δ21-CA+BI.
  • KPM, an extension of Kripke–Platek set theory based on a recursively Mahlo ordinal, has a very large proof-theoretic ordinal θ, which was described by (Rathjen 1990).
  • TTM, an extension of Martin-Löf type theory by one Mahlo-universe, has an even larger proof-theoretic ordinal ψΩ1(ΩM+ω).
  • KP+Π3−Ref has a proof-theoretic ordinal equal to Ψ(εK+1), where K refers to the first weakly compact, due to (Rathjen 1993)
  • KP+Πω−Ref has a proof-theoretic ordinal equal to ΨXεΞ+1, where Ξ refers to the first Π02-indescribable and 𝕏=(ω+;P0;ϵ,ϵ,0), due to (Stegert 2010).
  • Stability has a proof-theoretic ordinal equal to Ψ𝕏εΥ+1 where Υ is a cardinal analogue of the least ordinal α which is (α+β)-stable for all β<α and 𝕏=(ω+;P0;ϵ,ϵ,0), due to (Stegert 2010).

Most theories capable of describing the power set of the natural numbers have proof-theoretic ordinals that are so large that no explicit combinatorial description has yet been given. This includes Π21−CA0, full second-order arithmetic (Π∞1−CA0) and set theories with powersets including ZF and ZFC.[7] The strength of intuitionistic ZF (IZF) equals that of ZF.

Table of ordinal analyses

Table of proof-theoretic ordinals
Ordinal First-order arithmetic Second-order arithmetic Kripke–Platek set theory Type theory Constructive set theory Explicit mathematics
ω Q, PA−
ω2 RFA, IΔ0
ω3 EFA, IΔ0+, BΣ1[8]Theorem 4.1 RCA0*, WKL0*
ωn[1] EFAn, IΔ0n+
ωω PRA, IΣ1[9]p. 13 RCA0[9]p. 13, WKL0[9]p. 13 CPRC
ωωω IΣ2[9]p. 13
ωωωω IΣ3[10][9]p. 13 RCA0+(Π20)−−IND[11]: 40 
ω↑↑(n+1)[2] IΣn[9]p. 13
ε0 PA[9]p. 13 ACA0[9]p. 13, Σ11−AC0[9]p. 13, R-𝐄Ω^[12]p. 8, RCA[13]p. 148, WKL[13]p. 148, Δ11−CA0[14] KPur[15]p. 869 EM0
εω ACA0+iRT,[16] RCA0+∀Y∀n∃X(TJ(n,X,Y))[17]: 8 
εε0 ACA[18]p. 959
ζ0 ACA0+∀X∃Y(TJ(ω,X,Y)),[19][17] p1(ACA0),[20]: 7  RFN0[19]p. 17, ACA0+(BR)[19]p. 5
φ(2,ε0) RFN, ACA+∀X∃Y(TJ(ω,X,Y))[19]p. 52
φ(ω,0) ID1#, TID0[21]p. 137 Δ11−CR, Σ11−DC0[22] EM0+JR
φ(ε0,0) ID^1, KFL[23]p. 17, KF[23]p. 17 Δ11−CA[24]p. 140, Σ11−AC[24]p. 140, Σ11−DC[24]p. 140, W-𝐄Ω^[12]p. 8 KPur+(INDN)[15]p. 870 ML1 EM0+J
φ(εε0,0) 𝐄Ω^[12]p. 27, 𝐄𝐈𝐃^1[12]p. 27
φ(φ(ω,0),0) PRSω[25]p. 9
φ(<Ω,0)[3] Aut(ID#)
Γ0 ID^<ω,[26] U(PA), 𝐊𝐅𝐋*[23]p. 22, 𝐊𝐅*[23]p. 22, 𝒰(NFA),[27] TID0+[21]p. 137 ATR0, Δ11−CA+BR, Δ11−CA0+(SUB),[28] FP0[29]p. 26 KPi0[15]p. 878, KPu0+(BR)[15]p. 878 ML<ω, MLU
Γωω KPI0+(Σ1−Iω)[30]p. 13
Γε0 ID^ω ATR[31] KPI0+F−Iω
φ(1,ω,0) ID^<ωω ATR0+(Σ11−DC)[20]: 7  KPi0+Σ1−Iω
φ(1,ε0,0) ID^<ε0 ATR+(Σ11−DC)[20]: 7  KPi0+F−Iω
φ(1,Γ0,0) ID^<Γ0 MLS
φ(2,0,0) Aut(ID^), FTR0[32] AxΣ11−ACTR0[33]p. 1167, AxATR+Σ11−DCRFN0[33]p. 1167 KPh0 Aut(ML)
φ(2,0,ε0) FTR[32] AxΣ11−ACTR[33]p. 1167, AxATR+Σ11−DCRFN[33]p. 1167
φ(2,ε0,0) KPh0+(F−Iω)[32]: 11 
φ(ω,0,0) (Π21−RFN)0Σ11−DC[34]p. 233, Σ11−TDC0[34]p. 233 KPm0[35]p. 276 EMA[35]p. 276
φ(ε0,0,0) (Π21−RFN)Σ11−DC[34]p. 233, Σ11−TDC[20] KPm0+(ℒ*−IN)[35]p. 277 EMA+(𝕃−IN)[35]p. 277
φ(1,0,0,0) p1(Σ11−TDC0)[20]: 7 
ψΩ1(ΩΩω) RCA0*+Π11−CA−,[36] p3(ACA0)[20]: 7 
ϑ(ΩΩ) TID, TID1[21]p. 171 p1(p3(ACA0))[20]: 7  FIT[21]p. 171
ψ0(εΩ+1)[4] ID1 W-𝐄Ω~[12]p. 8 KP,[2] KPω, KPu[15]p. 869 ML1V CZF EON
ψ(εΩ+ε0) 𝐄Ω~[12]p. 31, 𝐄𝐈𝐃~1[12]p. 31, 𝐀𝐂𝐀+(Π11-CA)−[12]p. 31
ψ(εΩ+Ω) (ID12)0+BR[37]
ψ(εεΩ+1) 𝐄Ω[12]p. 33, 𝐄𝐈𝐃1[12]p. 33, 𝐀𝐂𝐀+(Π11-CA)−+(BIPR)−[12]p. 33
ψ0(ΓΩ+1)[5] U(ID1), ID^<ω∙[29]p. 26, Σ11−DC0∙+(SUB∙)[29]p. 26, ATR0∙[29]p. 26, Σ11−AC0∙+(SUB∙)[29]p. 26, 𝒰(ID1)[29]p. 26 FP0∙[29]p. 26, ATR0∙[29]p. 26
ψ0(φ(<Ω,0,Ω+1)) Aut(U(ID))
ψ0(Ωω) ID<ω[4]p. 28 Π11−CA0[4]p. 28, Δ21−CA0 MLW SUS+(S−IN)[38]p. 27
ψ0(Ωωωω) Π11−CA0+Π21−IND[39]
ψ0(Ωωε0) W−IDω Π11−CA[40]p. 14 W−KPI
ψ0(ΩωΩ) Π11−CA+BR[41]
ψ0(Ωωω) Π11−CA0+Π21−BI[39]
ψ0(Ωωωω) Π11−CA0+Π21−BI+Π31−IND[39]
ψ0(εΩω+1)[6] IDω Π11−CA+BI KPI
ψ0(Ωωω) ID<ωω Δ21−CR[4]p. 28 SUS+(N−IN)[38]p. 27
ψ0(Ωε0) ID<ε0 Δ21−CA[4]p. 28, Σ21−AC W−KPi SUS+(L−IN)[38]p. 27
ψ0(ΩΩ) Aut(ID)[7]
ψΩ1(εΩΩ+1) ID≺*, BID2*, ID2*+BI[42] KPl*, KPlΩr
ψ0(Φ1(0)) Π11−TR0, Π11−TR0+Δ21−CA0, Δ21−CA+BI(impl−Σ21),Δ21−CA+BR(impl−Σ21),𝐀𝐔𝐓−𝐈𝐃0pos, 𝐀𝐔𝐓−𝐈𝐃0mon[42]: 72  KPiw+FOUNDR(impl−)Σ),[42]: 72  KPiw+FOUND(impl−)Σ),[42]: 72 

𝐀𝐔𝐓−𝐊𝐏𝐥r, 𝐀𝐔𝐓−𝐊𝐏𝐥r+𝐊𝐏𝐢r[42]: 72 

ψ0(Φ1(0)ε0) Π11−TR, 𝐀𝐔𝐓−𝐈𝐃pos, 𝐀𝐔𝐓−𝐈𝐃mon[42]: 72  𝐀𝐔𝐓−𝐊𝐏𝐥w[42]: 72 
ψ0(εΦ1(0)+1) Π11−TR+(BI), 𝐀𝐔𝐓−𝐈𝐃2pos, 𝐀𝐔𝐓−𝐈𝐃2mon[42]: 72  𝐀𝐔𝐓−𝐊𝐏𝐥[42]: 72 
ψ0(Φ1(ε0)) Π11−TR+Δ21−CA, Π11−TR+Σ21−AC[42]: 72  𝐀𝐔𝐓−𝐊𝐏𝐥w+𝐊𝐏𝐢w[42]: 72 
ψ0(Φω(0)) Δ21−TR0, Σ21−TRDC0, Δ21−CA0+(Σ21−BI)[42]: 72  𝐊𝐏𝐢r+(Σ−FOUND), 𝐊𝐏𝐢r+(Σ−REC)[42]: 72 
ψ0(Φε0(0)) Δ21−TR, Σ21−TRDC, Δ21−CA+(Σ21−BI)[42]: 72  𝐊𝐏𝐢w+(Σ−FOUND), 𝐊𝐏𝐢w+(Σ−REC)[42]: 72 
ψ(εI+1)[8] Δ21−CA+BI[4]p. 28, Σ21−AC+BI KPi CZF+REA T0
ψ(ΩI+ω) ML1W[43]: 38 
ψ(ΩL)[9] KPh ML<ωW
ψ(ΩL*)[10] Aut(MLW)
ψΩ(χεM+1(0))[11] Δ21−CA+BI+(M)[44] KPM CZFM
ψ(ΩM+ω)[12] KPM+[45] TTM[45]
ΨΩ0(εK+1)[13] KP+Π3−Ref[46]
Ψ(ω+;P0,ϵ,ϵ,0)εΞ+1[14] KP+Πω−Ref[47]
Ψ(ω+;P0,ϵ,ϵ,0)εΥ+1[15] Stability[47]
ψω1CK(ε𝕊++1)[48] KPω+Π11−Ref,[48] KPω+(M≺Σ1V)[49]
ψω1CK(ε𝕀+1)[48] Σ31−DC+BI, Σ31−AC+BI KPω+Π1−Collection+(V=L)
ψω1CK(ε𝕀N+1)[50] ΣN+21−DC+BI, ΣN+21−AC+BI KPω+ΠN−Collection+(V=L)
ψω1CK(𝕀ω)[50] PA+⋃N<ωTI[Π01−,ψω1CK(ε𝕀N+1)][50] 𝐙2, Π∞1−CA, Bar KP+Πωset−Separation λ2[51] CZF+Sep[52]

Key

This is a list of symbols used in this table:

  • ψ represents various ordinal collapsing functions as defined in their respective citations.
  • Ψ represents either Rathjen's or Stegert's Psi.
  • φ represents Veblen's function.
  • ω represents the first transfinite ordinal.
  • εα represents the epsilon numbers.
  • Γα represents the gamma numbers (Γ0 is the Feferman–Schütte ordinal)
  • Ωα represent the uncountable ordinals (Ω1, abbreviated Ω, is ω1). Countability is considered necessary for an ordinal to be regarded as proof theoretic.
  • 𝕊 is an ordinal term denoting a stable ordinal, and 𝕊+ the least admissible ordinal above 𝕊.
  • 𝕀N is an ordinal term denoting an ordinal such that L𝕀N⊨KPω+ΠN−Collection+(V=L); N is a variable that defines a series of ordinal analyses of the results of ΠN−Collection forall 1≤N<ω. when N=1, ψω1CK(ε𝕀1+1)=ψω1CK(ε𝕀+1)
  • Additional symbols can be found in the notes.

This is a list of the abbreviations used in this table:

  • First-order arithmetic
    • Q is Robinson arithmetic
    • PA− is the first-order theory of the nonnegative part of a discretely ordered ring.
    • RFA is rudimentary function arithmetic.
    • IΔ0 is arithmetic with induction restricted to Δ0-predicates without any axiom asserting that exponentiation is total.
    • EFA is elementary function arithmetic.
    • IΔ0+ is arithmetic with induction restricted to Δ0-predicates augmented by an axiom asserting that exponentiation is total.
    • EFAn is elementary function arithmetic augmented by an axiom ensuring that each element of the n-th level ℰn of the Grzegorczyk hierarchy is total.
    • IΔ0n+ is IΔ0+ augmented by an axiom ensuring that each element of the n-th level ℰn of the Grzegorczyk hierarchy is total.
    • PRA is primitive recursive arithmetic.
    • IΣ1 is arithmetic with induction restricted to Σ1-predicates.
    • PA is Peano arithmetic.
    • IDν# is ID^ν but with induction only for positive formulas.
    • ID^ν extends PA by ν iterated fixed points of monotone operators.
    • U(PA) is not exactly a first-order arithmetic system, but captures what one can get by predicative reasoning based on the natural numbers.
    • Aut(ID^) is autonomously iterated ID^ν (in other words, once an ordinal is defined, it can be used to index a new series of definitions.)
    • IDν extends PA by ν iterated least fixed points of monotone operators.
    • U(IDν) is not exactly a first-order arithmetic system, but captures what one can get by predicative reasoning based on ν-times iterated generalized inductive definitions.
    • Aut(U(ID)) is autonomously iterated U(IDν).
    • W−IDν is a weakened version of IDν based on W-types.
    • TI[Π01−,α] is a transfinite induction of length α no more than Π01-formulas. It happens to be the representation of the ordinal notation when used in first-order arithmetic.
  • Second-order arithmetic

In general, a subscript 0 means that the induction scheme is restricted to a single set induction axiom.

  • Kripke–Platek set theory
    • KP is Kripke–Platek set theory with the axiom of infinity.
    • KPω is Kripke–Platek set theory, whose universe is an admissible set containing ω.
    • W−KPI is a weakened version of KPI based on W-types.
    • KPI asserts that the universe is a limit of admissible sets.
    • W−KPi is a weakened version of KPi based on W-types.
    • KPi asserts that the universe is inaccessible sets.
    • KPh asserts that the universe is hyperinaccessible: an inaccessible set and a limit of inaccessible sets.
    • KPM asserts that the universe is a Mahlo set.
    • KP+Πn−Ref is KP augmented by a certain first-order reflection scheme.
    • Stability is KPi augmented by the axiom ∀α∃κ≥α(Lκ⪯1Lκ+α).
    • KPM+ is KPI augmented by the assertion "at least one recursively Mahlo ordinal exists".
    • KPω+(M≺Σ1V) is KPω with an axiom stating that 'there exists a non-empty and transitive set M such that M≺Σ1V'.

A superscript zero indicates that ∈-induction is removed (making the theory significantly weaker).

  • Type theory
    • CPRC is the Herbelin-Patey Calculus of Primitive Recursive Constructions.
    • MLn is type theory without W-types and with n universes.
    • ML<ω is type theory without W-types and with finitely many universes.
    • MLU is type theory with a next universe operator.
    • MLS is type theory without W-types and with a superuniverse.
    • Aut(ML) is type theory without W-types and with autonomously iterated universes.
    • ML1V is type theory with one universe and Aczel's type of iterative sets.
    • MLW is type theory with indexed W-Types.
    • ML1W is type theory with W-types and one universe.
    • ML<ωW is type theory with W-types and finitely many universes.
    • Aut(MLW) is type theory with W-types and with autonomously iterated universes.
    • TTM is type theory with a Mahlo universe.
    • λ2 is System F, also polymorphic lambda calculus or second-order lambda calculus.
  • Constructive set theory
    • CZF is Aczel's constructive set theory.
    • CZF+REA is CZF plus the regular extension axiom.
    • CZF+REA+FZ2 is CZF+REA plus the full-second order induction scheme.
    • CZFM is CZF with a Mahlo universe.
  • Explicit mathematics
    • EM0 is basic explicit mathematics plus elementary comprehension
    • EM0+JR is EM0 plus join rule
    • EM0+J is EM0 plus join axioms
    • EON is a weak variant of the Feferman's T0.
    • T0 is EM0+J+IG, where IG is inductive generation.
    • T is EM0+J+IG+FZ2, where FZ2 is the full second-order induction scheme.

See also

Notes

1.^ For 1<n≤ω
2.^ The Veblen function φ with countably infinitely iterated least fixed points.[clarification needed]
3.^ Can also be commonly written as ψ(εΩ+1) in Madore's ψ.
4.^ Uses Madore's ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.
5.^ Can also be commonly written as ψ(εΩω+1) in Madore's ψ.
6.^ K represents the first recursively weakly compact ordinal. Uses Arai's ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.
7.^ Also the proof-theoretic ordinal of Aut(W−ID), as the amount of weakening given by the W-types is not enough.
8.^ I represents the first inaccessible cardinal. Uses Jäger's ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.
9.^ L represents the limit of the ω-inaccessible cardinals. Uses (presumably) Jäger's ψ.
10.^ L*represents the limit of the Ω-inaccessible cardinals. Uses (presumably) Jäger's ψ.
11.^ M represents the first Mahlo cardinal. Uses Rathjen's ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.
12.^ K represents the first weakly compact cardinal. Uses Rathjen's Ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.
13.^ Ξ represents the first Π02-indescribable cardinal. Uses Stegert's Ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.
14.^ Y is the smallest α such that ∀θ<Y∃κ<Y('κ is θ-indescribable') and ∀θ<Y∀κ<Y('κ is θ-indescribable →θ<κ'). Uses Stegert's Ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.
15.^ M represents the first Mahlo cardinal. Uses (presumably) Rathjen's ψ.
16.^ For n∈ℕ,n≥1. ω↑↑n(n∈ℕ) represents tetration (denoted as ωn in the source)

Citations

  1. ↑ M. Rathjen, "Admissible Proof Theory and Beyond". In Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 134 (1995), pp.123--147.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Rathjen, The Realm of Ordinal Analysis. Accessed 2021 September 29.
  3. ↑ Krajicek, Jan (1995). Bounded Arithmetic, Propositional Logic and Complexity Theory. Cambridge University Press. pp. 18–20. ISBN 9780521452052. https://archive.org/details/boundedarithmeti0000kraj/page/18.  defines the rudimentary sets and rudimentary functions, and proves them equivalent to the Δ0-predicates on the naturals. An ordinal analysis of the system can be found in Rose, H. E. (1984). Subrecursion: functions and hierarchies. University of Michigan: Clarendon Press. ISBN 9780198531890. 
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 M. Rathjen, Proof Theory: From Arithmetic to Set Theory (p.28). Accessed 14 August 2022.
  5. ↑ Rathjen, Michael (2006), "The art of ordinal analysis", International Congress of Mathematicians, II, Zürich: Eur. Math. Soc., pp. 45–69, archived from the original on 2009-12-22, http://www.icm2006.org/proceedings/Vol_II/contents/ICM_Vol_2_03.pdf, retrieved 2024-05-03 
  6. ↑ D. Madore, A Zoo of Ordinals (2017, p.2). Accessed 12 August 2022.
  7. ↑ "Proof-Theoretic Ordinal of ZFC or Consistent ZFC Extensions?" (in en). https://mathoverflow.net/questions/144041/proof-theoretic-ordinal-of-zfc-or-consistent-zfc-extensions. 
  8. ↑ Arai, Toshiyasu (2023). "Lectures on Ordinal Analysis". arXiv:2511.11196v1 [math.LO].
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 J. Avigad, R. Sommer, "A Model-Theoretic Approach to Ordinal Analysis" (1997).
  10. ↑ M. Rathjen, W. Carnielli, "Hydrae and subsystems of arithmetic" (1991)
  11. ↑ Jeroen Van der Meeren; Rathjen, Michael; Weiermann, Andreas (2014). "An order-theoretic characterization of the Howard-Bachmann-hierarchy". arXiv:1411.4481 [math.LO].
  12. ↑ 12.00 12.01 12.02 12.03 12.04 12.05 12.06 12.07 12.08 12.09 12.10 G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "Second order theories with ordinals and elementary comprehension". Archive for Mathematical Logic vol. 34 (1995).
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 H. M. Friedman, S. G. Simpson, R. L. Smith, "Countable algebra and set existence axioms". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic vol. 25, iss. 2 (1983).
  14. ↑ Follows from theorem IX.4.4 of S. G. Simpson, Subsystems of Second-Order Arithmetic (2009).
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 G. Jäger, "The Strength of Admissibility Without Foundation". Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 49, no. 3 (1984).
  16. ↑ B. Afshari, M. Rathjen, "Ordinal Analysis and the Infinite Ramsey Theorem". In Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 7318 (2012)
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Marcone, Alberto; Montalbán, Antonio (2011). "The Veblen functions for computability theorists". The Journal of Symbolic Logic 76 (2): 575–602. doi:10.2178/jsl/1305810765. 
  18. ↑ S. Feferman, "Theories of finite type related to mathematical practice". In Handbook of Mathematical Logic, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 90 (1977), ed. J. Barwise, pub. North Holland.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 M. Heissenbüttel, "Theories of ordinal strength φ20 and φ2ε0" (2001)
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 D. Probst, "A modular ordinal analysis of metapredicative subsystems of second-order arithmetic" (2017)
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 F. Ranzi, From a Flexible Type System to Metapredicative Wellordering Proofs. Doctoral thesis, University of Bern, 2015.
  22. ↑ A. Cantini, "On the relation between choice and comprehension principles in second order arithmetic", Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 51 (1986), pp. 360--373.
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 Fischer, Martin; Nicolai, Carlo; Pablo Dopico Fernandez (2020). "Nonclassical truth with classical strength. A proof-theoretic analysis of compositional truth over HYPE". arXiv:2007.07188 [math.LO].
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 S. G. Simpson, "Friedman's Research on Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic". In Harvey Friedman's Research on the Foundations of Mathematics, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 117 (1985), ed. L. Harrington, M. Morley, A. Šcedrov, S. G. Simpson, pub. North-Holland.
  25. ↑ J. Avigad, "An ordinal analysis of admissible set theory using recursion on ordinal notations". Journal of Mathematical Logic vol. 2, no. 1, pp.91--112 (2002).
  26. ↑ S. Feferman, "Iterated inductive fixed-point theories: application fo Hancock's conjecture". In Patras Logic Symposion, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 109 (1982).
  27. ↑ S. Feferman, T. Strahm, "The unfolding of non-finitist arithmetic", Annals of Pure and Applied Logic vol. 104, no.1--3 (2000), pp.75--96.
  28. ↑ S. Feferman, G. Jäger, "Choice principles, the bar rule and autonomously iterated comprehension schemes in analysis", Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 48, no. (1983), pp.63--70.
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 U. Buchholtz, G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "Theories of proof-theoretic strength ψ(ΓΩ+1)". In Concepts of Proof in Mathematics, Philosophy, and Computer Science (2016), ed. D. Probst, P. Schuster. DOI 10.1515/9781501502620-007.
  30. ↑ T. Strahm, "Autonomous fixed point progressions and fixed point transfinite recursion" (2000). In Logic Colloquium '98, ed. S. R. Buss, P. Hájek, and P. Pudlák . DOI 10.1017/9781316756140.031
  31. ↑ G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "Fixed point theories and dependent choice". Archive for Mathematical Logic vol. 39 (2000), pp.493--508.
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 T. Strahm, "Autonomous fixed point progressions and fixed point transfinite recursion" (2000)
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 C. Rüede, "Transfinite dependent choice and ω-model reflection". Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 67, no. 3 (2002).
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 C. Rüede, "The proof-theoretic analysis of Σ11 transfinite dependent choice". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic vol. 122 (2003).
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 35.3 T. Strahm, "Wellordering Proofs for Metapredicative Mahlo". Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 67, no. 1 (2002)
  36. ↑ F. Ranzi, T. Strahm, "A flexible type system for the small Veblen ordinal" (2019). Archive for Mathematical Logic 58: 711–751.
  37. ↑ K. Fujimoto, "Notes on some second-order systems of iterated inductive definitions and Π11-comprehensions and relevant subsystems of set theory". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 166 (2015), pp. 409--463.
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "The proof-theoretic analysis of the Suslin operator in applicative theories". In Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics: Essays in Honor of Solomon Feferman (2002).
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 Krombholz, Martin; Rathjen, Michael (2019). "Upper bounds on the graph minor theorem". arXiv:1907.00412 [math.LO].
  40. ↑ W. Buchholz, S. Feferman, W. Pohlers, W. Sieg, Iterated Inductive Definitions and Subsystems of Analysis: Recent Proof-Theoretical Studies
  41. ↑ W. Buchholz, Proof Theory of Impredicative Subsystems of Analysis (Studies in Proof Theory, Monographs, Vol 2 (1988)
  42. ↑ 42.00 42.01 42.02 42.03 42.04 42.05 42.06 42.07 42.08 42.09 42.10 42.11 42.12 42.13 42.14 M. Rathjen, "Investigations of Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic and Set Theory in Strength between Π11−CA and Δ21−CA+BI: Part I". Archived 7 December 2023.
  43. ↑ M. Rathjen, "The Strength of Some Martin-Löf Type Theories"
  44. ↑ See conservativity result in Rathjen (1996), "The Recursively Mahlo Property in Second Order Arithmetic", Mathematical Logic Quarterly 42: 59–66, doi:10.1002/malq.19960420106, https://doi.org/10.1002/malq.19960420106  giving same ordinal as KPM
  45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 A. Setzer, "A Model for a type theory with Mahlo universe" (1996).
  46. ↑ M. Rathjen, "Proof Theory of Reflection". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic vol. 68, iss. 2 (1994), pp.181--224.
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 Stegert, Jan-Carl, "Ordinal Proof Theory of Kripke-Platek Set Theory Augmented by Strong Reflection Principles" (2010).
  48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 48.2 Arai, Toshiyasu (2023-04-01). "Lectures on Ordinal Analysis". arXiv:2304.00246 [math.LO].
  49. ↑ Arai, Toshiyasu (2023-04-07). "Well-foundedness proof for Π11-reflection". arXiv:2304.03851 [math.LO].
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 50.2 Arai, Toshiyasu (2024-02-12). "An ordinal analysis of ΠN-Collection". arXiv:2311.12459 [math.LO].
  51. ↑ Blot, Valentin (2022-08-02). "A direct computational interpretation of second-order arithmetic via update recursion" (in en). Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. ACM. pp. 1–11. doi:10.1145/3531130.3532458. ISBN 978-1-4503-9351-5. https://inria.hal.science/hal-03698879/document. 
  52. ↑ Lubarsky, Robert (2015-10-02). "The Veblen functions for computability theorists". The Journal of Symbolic Logic 76 (2): 575–602. doi:10.2178/jsl/1305810765. 

References