Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T19:58:37.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A system of abstract constructive ordinals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

W. A. Howard*
Affiliation:
University of Illinoisat Chicago Circle, Chicago, Illinois 60680

Extract

As Gödel [6] has pointed out, there is a certain interchangeability between the intuitionistic notion of proof and the notion of constructive functional of finite type. He achieves this interchange in the direction from logic to functionals by his functional interpretation of Heyting arithmetic H in a free variable theory T of primitive recursive functionals of finite type. In the present paper we shall extend Gödel's functional interpretation to the case in which H and T are extended by adding an abstract notion of constructive ordinal. In other words, we obtain the Gödel functional interpretation of an intuitionistic theory U of numbers (i.e., nonnegative integers) and constructive ordinals in a free variable theory V of finite type over both numbers and constructive ordinals. This allows us to obtain an analysis of noniterated positive inductive definitions [8].

The notion of constructive ordinal to be treated is as follows. There is given a function J which embeds the nonnegative integers in the constructive ordinals. A constructive ordinal of the form Jn is said to be minimal. There is also given a function δ which associates to each constructive ordinal Z and number n a constructive ordinal δZn which we denote by Zn. When Z is nonminimal, each Zn is called an immediate predecessor of Z. The basic principle for forming constructive ordinals says: for every function f from numbers n to constructive ordinals, there exists a constructive ordinal Z such that Zn = fn for all n. The principle of transfinite induction with respect to constructive ordinals says: if a property Q(Z) of constructive ordinals Z holds for minimal Z, and if ∀nQ(Zn) → Q(Z) holds for all Z, then Q(Z) holds for all Z.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1]Bachmann, H., Die Normalfunktionen und das Problem der ausgezeichneten Folgen von Ordnungzahlen, Vierteljahrsschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich, vol. 95 (1950), pp. 115147.Google Scholar
[2]Brouwer, L. E. J., Zur Begründung der intuitionistischen Mathematik. III, Mathematische Annalen, vol. 96 (1927), pp. 451489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Curry, H. and Feys, R., Combinatory logic, Vol. 1, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1958.Google Scholar
[4]Gerber, H., An extension of Schütte's Klammersymbols, Mathematische Annalen, vol. 174 (1967), pp. 203216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Gerber, H., Brouwer's bar theorem and a system of ordinal notations, Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Intuitionism and Proof Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1970.Google Scholar
[6]Gödel, K., Über eine bisher noch nicht benützte Erweiterung des finiten Standpunktes, Dialectica, vol. 12 (1958), pp. 280287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Howard, W. A., Functional interpretation of bar induction by bar recursion, Compositio Matkematica, vol. 20 (1968), pp. 107124.Google Scholar
[8]Kreisel, G. and Troelstra, A. S., Formal systems for some branches of intuitionistic analysis, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 1 (1970), pp. 229387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Tait, W. W., Infinitely long terms of transfinite type, Formal systems and recursive functions, ed. Crossley, J. and Dummett, M., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1965, pp. 176185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Tait, W. W., Intensional interpretations of functionals of finite type. I, this Journal, vol. 32 (1967), pp. 198212.Google Scholar
[11]Zucker, J., Proof-theoretic studies of systems of iterated inductive definitions and subsystems of analysis, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1971.Google Scholar