The proof-theoretic ordinal of a theory $T$ is (commonly) defined as
where $\mathrm{otyp}({\prec})$ is the order-type of the well-order $\prec$ and $\mathrm{TI}({\prec},X)$ means that $X$ (a free parameter) satisfies transfinite induction along $\prec$; this is the constructive way to say that $\prec$ is well-ordered. For most theories, this ordinal is equal to the $\Pi^1_1$-ordinal of the theory,
where $\mathrm{tc}(F)$ is the truth-complexity of the $\Pi^1_1$-sentence $F$ (if $T$ is a first-order theory, we interpret $T \vdash \forall X.F(X)$ as $T \vdash F(X)$ with a free set parameter $X$).
The proof-theoretic ordinal is always a recursive ordinal ($\lt\omega_1^{\mathrm{CK}}$) if the theory is recursive.
Note that the proof-theoretic ordinal is a rather blunt invariant, because if $F$ is any true $\Sigma^1_1$-sentence, then
So this tells us nothing about the provable arithmetical sentences of $T$! And indeed, all true arithmetical sentences have truth-complexity less than $\omega$.
The solution is to refine the analysis to give a $\Pi^0_2$ ordinal analysis of the theory, using a measure of the computational complexity of provable $\Pi^0_2$-sentences/provably recursive functions. However, there’s no natural hierarchy of all subrecursive functions. We can define such a computational complexity depending on a choice of starting function and a choice of ordinal notation system (indeed, the $\Pi^0_2$ ordinal should be thought of as an ordinal notation, rather than an actual ordinal). But for all the ordinal analyses we have so far, these choices turn out not to matter, basically because any natural ordinal notation system will give the same result. A major issue is, however, that we have no definition of what a natural ordinal notation system is (but we know one when we see it!).
All of the ordinal analyses mentioned below also give a $\Pi^0_2$ ordinal analysis, and thus control of the computational complexity of the provably recursive functions.
Most ordinal analyses proceed by embedding the theory in an infinitary proof calculus deriving judgments $\vdash^\alpha_\rho F$ meaning $F$ has an infinitary derivation of height less than $\alpha$ using only cuts of rank less than $\rho$, or some refinement of such, for instance using operator controlled derivations. Then one analyzes how the height of a derivation changes during cut-elimination. For predicative theories, we’ll have
One sets up the calculus so that $\vdash^\alpha_0 F$ implies $\mathrm{tc}(F)\lt\alpha$, so this yields upper bounds for the proof-theoretic ordinal.
Lower bounds are usually done by directly deriving $T \vdash \mathrm{TI}({\prec_n},X)$ for a sequence of primitive recursive well-orderings $\prec_n$ whose order-types approximate the proof-theoretic ordinal. We get these primitive recursive well-orderings from good ordinal notation systems, see below.
See below for explanations.
Ordinal | FOA | SOA | Other |
---|---|---|---|
Finitist systems | |||
$\omega^3$ | EFA | RCA$_0^*$ | |
$\omega^\omega$ | PRA,I$\Sigma_1$ | RCA$_0$, WKL$_0$ | CPRC |
Predicative systems | |||
$\varepsilon_0=\varphi(1,0)$ | PA | ACA$_0$ | EM$_0$ |
$\varphi(1,\varepsilon_0)$ | ACA | ||
$\varphi(\omega,0)$ | ID$_1^#$ | $\Delta_1^1$-CR | EM$_0$+JR |
$\varphi(\varepsilon_0,0)$ | $\widehat{\mathrm{ID}}_1$ | $\Delta_1^1$-CA, $\Sigma^1_1$-AC | EM$_0$+J, ML$_1$ |
$\Gamma_0=\varphi(1,0,0)$ | $\widehat{\mathrm{ID}}_{\lt\omega}$, U(PA) | ATR$_0$,$\Delta^1_1$-CA+BR | ML$_{\lt\omega}$, MLU, KPi$^0$ |
Meta-predicative systems | |||
$\varphi(1,0,\varepsilon_0)$ | $\widehat{\mathrm{ID}}_{\omega}$ | ATR | KPl$^0$+F-I$_\omega$ |
$\varphi(1,\omega,0)$ | $\widehat{\mathrm{ID}}_{\lt\omega^\omega}$ | ATR$_0$+($\Sigma^1_1$-DC) | KPi$^0$+$\Sigma_1$-I$_\omega$ |
$\varphi(1,\varepsilon_0,0)$ | $\widehat{\mathrm{ID}}_{\lt\varepsilon_0}$ | ATR+($\Sigma^1_1$-DC) | KPi$^0$+F-I$_\omega$ |
$\varphi(1,\Gamma_0,0)$ | $\widehat{\mathrm{ID}}_{\lt\Gamma_0}$ | MLS | |
$\varphi(2,0,0)$ | Aut($\widehat{\mathrm{ID}}$) | KPh$^0$ | |
$\varphi(\omega,0,0)$ | KPm$^0$ | ||
Inductive types | |||
$\psi_\Omega(\varepsilon_{\Omega+1})$ | ID$_1$ | KP$\omega$, CZF, ML$_1$V | |
$\psi_\Omega(\Gamma_{\Omega+1})$ | U(ID$_1$) | ||
$\psi_\Omega(\Omega_\omega)$ | ID$_{\lt\omega}$ | $\Pi^1_1$-CA$_0$,$\Delta^1_2$-CA$_0$ | |
$\psi_\Omega(\Omega_\omega \varepsilon_0)$ | W-ID$_\omega$ | $\Pi^1_1$-CA | W-KPl |
$\psi_\Omega(\varepsilon_{\Omega_\omega+1})$ | ID$_\omega$ | $\Pi^1_1$-CA+BI | KPl |
$\psi_\Omega(\Omega_{\omega^\omega})$ | ID$_{\lt\omega^\omega}$ | $\Delta^1_2$-CR | |
$\psi_\Omega(\Omega_{\varepsilon_0})$ | ID$_{\lt\varepsilon_0}$ | $\Delta^1_2$-CA, $\Sigma^1_2$-AC | W-KPi |
$\psi_\Omega(\varepsilon_{I+1})$ | $\Delta^1_2$-CA+BI, $\Sigma^1_2$-AC+BI | KPi, T$_0$, CZF+REA | |
$\psi_\Omega(\Omega_{I+\omega})$ | ML$_1$W | ||
$\psi_\Omega(\Omega_L)$ | KPh, ML$_{\lt\omega}$W | ||
Inductive-recursive types | |||
$\psi_\Omega(\varepsilon_{M+1})$ | $\Delta^1_2$-CA+BI+(M) | CZFM, KPm | |
$\psi_\Omega(\Omega_{M+\omega})$ | KPM$^+$, MLM, “Agda” |
The sections of the table corresponds roughly to the kinds of reasoning captured by the systems:
Note that these are all very much weaker than full second-order arithmetic, and of course much weaker than Zermelo or Zermolo-Fraenkel set theory.
After the meta-predicative systems, all ordinals use a notation which refers to a much larger ordinal, often patterned on a large cardinal.
Rathjen (2005) analyzed systems up to $\Delta^1_2$-CA+BI+$\Pi^1_2$-CA$^-$ (the last part is parameter-free $\Pi^1_2$-comprehension), corresponding to a stable ordinal, Arai has work on a bit stronger systems, up to about $\Sigma^1_4$-DC, in terms of ordinal diagrams defined in terms of iterated stability.
With current technology, we are very far from having ordinal analyses of stronger systems such as full second order arithmetic, ZFC set theory, or impredicative type theories such as the calculus of (inductive) constructions.
The $\psi$ functions are ordinal collapsing functions.
These assert some hierarchy of inductive defined sets of natural numbers.
Many of the results in the table concerning these can be summarized as
For any of these, we get the same proof-theoretic ordinal whether we use classical or intuitionistic logic. For the ID$_\nu$-systems, this is due to Sieg.
The unfolding systems U(PA) and U(ID$_1$) are not exactly first-order arithmetic systems, but capture what we can get by predicative reasoning based on the natural numbers or one generalized inductive definition, respectively.
A zero subscript indicates that we have the induction axiom rather than the induction scheme, except for RCA$_0$ which has the $\Sigma^0_1$-induction scheme.
A superscript zero indidcates that $\in$-induction is removed.
About the Mahlo level: this also corresponds to inductive-recursive definitions (Dybjer-Setzer).
Aczel, The Type Theoretic Interpretation of Constructive Set Theory, Logic Colloquium 1977.
Arai, A sneak preview of proof theory of ordinals, arXiv 1102.0596.
Arai, Proof theory for theories of ordinals III: $\Pi_N$-reflection, arXiv 1007.0844.
Buchholz, A simplified version of local predicativity, Proc. Proof Theory Meeting Leed ‘90.
Buchholz, A Note on the Ordinal Analysis of KPM (2002).
Buchholz, Feferman, Pohlers and Sieg, Iterated inductive definitions and subsystems of analysis: recent proof-theoretical studies, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 897 (1981).
Dybjer and Setzer, Induction-recursion and initial algebras, APAL 124(1-3), 2003, pp. 1-47. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-0072(02)00096-9
Feferman: Iterated inductive fixed-point theories: Application to Hancock’s conjecture, in: G. Metakides (ed.): Patras Logic Symposium (North-Holland, Amsterdam, (1982), 171–196.
Jäger, Kahle, Setzer, and Strahm, The proof-theoretic analysis of transfinitely iterated fixed point theories, Journal of Symbolic Logic
Jäger and Strahm, Fixed point theories and dependent choice. Archive for Mathematical Logic.
Rathjen, Ordinal notations based on a weakly Mahlo cardinal, Archive for Mathematical Logic 29 (1990), 249-263.
Rathjen, Proof-theoretic analysis of KPm, Archive for Mathematical Logic (1991).
Rathjen, The Recursively Mahlo Property in Second Order Arithmetic, Mathematical Logic Quarterly 42 (1996), 59-66.
Rathjen, The strength of Martin-Löf type theory with a superuniverse. Part II, 2001, AML, DOI: 10.1007/s001530000051
Rathjen, The strength of Martin-Löf type theory with a superuniverse. Part I, 2000, AML, DOI: 10.1007/s001530050001
Rathjen, An ordinal analysis of parameter free $\Pi^1_2$-comprehension. Arch. Math. Log. 44(3), 263–362 (2005).
Rathjen, The constructive Hilbert program and the limits of Martin-Löf type theory (2005), Synthese, DOI: 10.1007/s11229-004-6208-4
Rathjen, Griffor and Palmgren, Inaccessibility in Constructive Set Theory and Type Theory, APAL 94 (1998), 181-200.
Setzer, An upper bound for the proof theoretical strength of Martin-Löf Type Theory with W-type and one universe (2006)
Strahm, Autonomous fixed point progressions and fixed point transfinite recursion, Proc. of Logic Colloquium ‘98, 449-464, web
Last revised on March 27, 2019 at 16:14:09. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.