Editors
S. S. Chern J. L. Doob J. Douglas, jr.
A. Grothendieck E. Heinz F. Hirzebruch E. Hopf
S. Mac Lane W. Magnus M. M. Postnikov
W. Schmidt D. S. Scott
K. Stein J. Tits B. L. van der Waerden
Managing Editors
B. Eckmann J. K. Moser
Kurt Schutte
Proof Theory
SpringerVerlag
Berlin Heidelberg New York 1977
Kurt Schutte
Mathematisches Institut, LudwigMaximiliansUniversitat,
8000 Munchen 2/Germany
Translator:
J. N. Crossley
Department of Mathematics, Monash University, Clayton,
Victoria 3168/Australia
AMS Subject Classification (1970): 02B 10, 02B99, 02C 15, 02Dxx,
02E99, ION99
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data. Schutte, KUTt. Proof theory. (Grundlehren def
mathematischen Wissenschaften; 225). Translation of Beweistheorie. Bibliography: p. Includes
index. I. Proof theory. I. Title. II. Series: Die Grundlehren dec mathematischen
Wissenschaften in Einzeldarstellungen; 225. QA9.54.S3813. 511'.3. 7645768.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically those of translation. reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machine or similar means, and storage in
data banks. Under 54 of the German Copyright Law where copies are made for other
than private use, a fee is payable to the publisher, the amount of the fee to be determined
by agreement with the publisher.
2141/314()543210
Preface
This book was originally intended to be the second edition of the book "Beweis
theorie" (Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 103, Springer
1960), but in fact has been completely rewritten. As well as classical predicate logic
we also treat intuitionistic predicate logic. The sentential calculus properties of
classical formal and semiformal systems are treated using positive and negative
parts of formulas as in the book "Beweistheorie". In a similar way we use right
and left parts of formulas for intuitionistic predicate logic.
We introduce the theory of functionals of finite types in order to present the
Gi:idel interpretation of pure number theory. Instead of ramified type theory,
typefree logic and the associated formalization of parts of analysis which we
treated in the book "Beweistheorie", we have developed simple classical type
theory and predicative analysis in a systematic way. Finally we have given
consistency proofs for systems of lI~analysis following the work of G. Takeuti.
In order to do this we have introduced a constni'ctive system of notation for ordinals
which goes far beyond the notation system in "Beweistheorie".
My hearty thanks are due to Professor J. N. Crossley for his translation of my
German manuscript and for his careful checking of the proof sheets. I also wish
to thank Dr. W. Pohlers and Dr. W. Buchholz for the help which they have given
me technically and also in reading the proofs. I would especially like to thank
Frau Ernst (Munich) and Ms. Vandenberg (Monash University) for their very
careful typing of the text. I wish to thank SpringerVerlag for their kindness and
help in the production of the book.
Introduction . 1
Chapter 1. Fundamentals 7
1. Classical Sentential Calculus . 7
1. Truth Functions 7
2. Sentential Forms . 8
3. Complete Systems of Connectives 8
4. A Formal Language for the Sentential Calculus 9
5. Positive and Negative Parts of Formulas 10
6. Syntactic Characterization of Valid Formulas 12
2. Formal Systems 13
1. Fundamentals . 13
2. Deducible Formulas 14
3. Permissible Inferences . 15
4. Sentential Properties of Formal Systems. 16
5. The Formal System CS of the Classical Sentential Calculus 17
Bibliography . 293
In mathematics, dealing with infinite number systems and other infinite sets brings
a fundamental problem with it. For example consider the two statements:
I. Every even number greater than 2 can be represented as the sum of two
primes.
II. There is an even number which is greater than 2 but cannot be represented
as the sum of two primes.
According to classical logic the second statement is the contradictory of state
ment I. So far neither of these two statements can be proved. We cannot prove
statement I by testing its validity for all even numbers since there are infinitely many
such numbers. In order to prove statement I we must rather solve the following
problem:
(I) To give a general procedure which assigns to each even number g > 2 two
primes peg) and q(g) such that the equation
g = peg) + q(q)
We therefore have no grounds for assuming that one of the two statements I
and II is correct. The assumption would only be justified if a proof of I or II were
given. But then the general situation regarding the provability of mathematical
propositions would not be altered since there are always other cases where the
question Of provability of a statement or its contradictory remains open. Therefore
there is no immediate sense in saying that the principle of Tertium non datur, which
says that either a proposition or its logical contradictory is correct, be accepted as
satisfactory for mathematical propositions.
This brief critique of Tertium non datur leads us to the basic problem of proof
theory. We start from the premise that in mathematics Tertium non datur is not
meaningful as a general basic principle. But if one gives up this principle as a
method of proof then one loses the right to indirect proof procedures such as one
cannot do without in classical mathematics. In order to guarantee the correctness
of classical mathematics in a logically unobjectionable way there only remains the
possibility of basing mathematical statements not on provability as such hut on
formal deducibility. This deducibility which may be regarded as a notional
provability must be given axiomatically so that it is sufficient for the basic theorems
of classical mathematics. In this way one does not need to interpret the concept of
deducibility in a meaningful way, but only to establish its formal admissibility by
means of a consistency proof. This is in fact Hilbert's programme: to establish the
consistency of mathematics in its classical form.
Hilbert called the theory which solves this problem proof theory (Beweis
theorie). The object of a prooftheoretic investigation is a mathematical theory
which is precisely determined not only by its mathematical notions and axioms but
also by the basic logical concepts and modes of inference which it allows. Now one
must distinguish clearly between the laws of the theory which are to be investigated
and those of the theory in which the investigation is to be carried out. The notions
and theorems of the theory under investigation are represented in a formal system
and treated purely formally without reference to their meaning, while the proof
theoretic investigation is concerned with the logical meaning of the notions and
inference modes. Thus the formal theory is complemented by a meaningful meta
theory (proof theory). This metatheory is also called "metalogic" or "meta
mathematicl'. This does not mean that one is extending the usual logic or mathe
matics, as/ts the case with metaphysics and physics. Here it only delineates the
distinction between formalized mathematics and the logic in which the investigation
is carried out.
If proof theory is to provide a foundation for a problematic area of mathe
matics then its own methods and notions and modes of inference must be restricted
to those which lie outside this problematic area. The methods which Hilbert called
"finitist" (fin it) do lie outside. These consist of just elementary logical and
mathematical relations of a combinatorial nature which are used as bases for all
theoretical investigations and are generally acknowledged as admissible. In a
finitist proof Tertium non datur may not be used for propositions concerning in
finite totalities and existential propositions are only to be treated as valid if the
object whose existence is asserted can in fact be constructed.
But GOOel's investigations [1] have shown that the strictest finitist methods are
Introduction 3
basically inadequate for carrying out the consistency proof required by Hilbert's
programme. So proof theory needs not only the very strict finitist methods of a
combinatorial nature but also higher level proof procedures. Thus we arrive at
methods, first used by Gentzen [2], using induction which in fact goes beyond the
usual complete (mathematical) induction but still has a constructive character.
In this book we give a systematic presentation of the most important results
which have so far been achieved in the pursuit of Hilbert's programme. The main
emphasis is on consistency proofs but other investigations, which are closely re
lated in terms of methodology, are also carried out. We use inductive methods for
the consistency proofs but do not admit Tertium non datur as a proof procedure.
We need to forgo the constructive standpoint and use classical mathematics as a
foundation despite its problems only for the semantic treatment of classical predi
cate calculus (5) and classical simple type theory (12). Likewise we first con
sider the necessary systems of ordinals (in 13 and 24) from the standpoint of
classical mathematics but then (in 14, 25 and 26) we define these and treat them
constructively.
As in the first edition of this book we use the notions of "positive and negative
parts" as a basis for formalization in the realm of classical logic. These are a sort of
generalization of the notions of "succedent and antecedent formulas" of Gentzen's
sequence calculus (Sequenzenkalkul). In intuitionistic logic we use instead the
weaker notions of "left and right parts of a formula".
In Chapter I we collect together the general basic syntactic notions which are
n<teded in the book and used for the formalization of classical propositional
calculus.
Chapter II treats the constructive syntax (3, 4) and the nonconstructive
semantics (5) of classical predicate calculus. Intuitionistic predicate calculus is
developed in Chapter III but only syntactically (constructively) and related to
classical predicate calculus. The Interpolation Theorem proved here (9) also
yields the corresponding theorem for classical predicate calculus.
In Chapter IV we first assemble the basic syntactic properties for classical
simple type theory in IO and then introduce partial valuations in 11 which
are used to carry out the nonconstructive proof, following M. Takahashi [I]
and D. Prawitz [1], of Takeuti's Fundamental Conjecture (Eliminability of
Cuts).
In Chapter V we introduce a notation system for a segment of the ordinals
which is used later for the treatment of pure number theory (Chapter VI) and
predicative analysis (Chapter VIII). This system of notations is defined in 13 in
terms of an ordinary nonconstructive approach in the classical theory of ordinal
numbers and then defined as a constructive system of ordinal terms in 14. In this
section too we constructively prove the necessary properties of functions on
ordinal terms of this system (which are needed later) in an elementary way.
In Chapters VI and VII we develop the Godel interpretation of pure number
theory in a system offunctionals of finite type. Following W. Howard we prove (in
16) by transfinite induction up to 60 that the functionals introduced in 15 are
calculable. In 17 we introduce a formal system FT for these functionals in the
context of the positive implicational calculus. To this end Chapter VII treats, in
4 Introduction
18, an obvious formal system of pure number theory, and in 19 we carry out the
interpretation of this system in the .system FT.
In Chapter VIII we are concerned with the predicative limits of analysis and
first we develop a formal and a semiformal system of Ll~analysis whose
languages are that of classical second order arithmetic and which have restricted
comprehension axioms as opposed to classical mathematics. In 21 we give de
ductions of formalized transfinite induction in the spirit of S. Feferman in these
systems and in subsystems of Ll ~analysis. In 22 we introduce a semiformal system
for ramified analysis in which the system of Ll~analysis can be interpreted. This
yields the limits for the deducibility of transfinite induction for the formal and semi
formal systems considered and demonstrates the predicativity of these systems.
In Chapter IX we prove the consistency of a formal system of lItanalysis
following a proof ofG. Takeuti [4]. For this we need a transfinite induction which
goes far beyond those previously introduced. Here we do not use the ordinal dia
grams of Takeuti but a system of notations for ordinal terms based on normal
functions ()~ defined and studied by S. Feferman, P. Aczel and J. Bridge and con
structively characterized by W. Buchholz. Using these functions ()~ which are
introduced in 24 in the context of the classical theory of ordinals, we build a con
structive system of notations in 25. The necessary properties of this system of
notations which are needed for the consistency proof are developed in 25 and 26.
27 gives the consistency proof for the formal system of lItanalysis and essentially
this corresponds to the proof of Take uti but in a somewhat different way. Similarly
we give a consistency prooffor a semiformal system of lItanalysis in 28, but this
is done using a weaker transfinite induction than in 27. Finally we give construc
tive proofs of wellordering for the systems of ordinals which we have used and their
subsystems in 29.
Part A
Pure Logic
Chapter I
Fundamentals
1. Truth Functions
In the same way we could define arbitrarily many other connectives. But they
will not be used in the sequel.
2. Sentential Forms
Example. For a valuation V where VV I =f and VV2 =t we have V  (/\ (VI' v 2),
v (1.., ,(VI))) =( /\ (f, t), v (f, ,(f)) =(f, v (f, t =(f, t) = t.
:Two sentential forms A and B are said to be semantically equivalent if VA = VB
for every sentential valuation V.
Theorem 1.1. The connectives ', /\ and v form a complete system of connectives.
Corollary 1.2. The connectives , and v form a complete system of connectives.
Proof Immediate from Theorem 1.1 since every sentential form /\ (A, B) is
semantically equivalent to the sentential form , (v (, (A), , (B).
Corollary 1.3. The connectives , and 4 form a complete system of connectives.
Proof Immediate from corollary 1.2 since every sentential form v (A, B) is
semantically equivalent to the sentential form 4(' (A), B).
Proof Immediate from Corollary 1.3 since every sentential form , (A) is seman
tically equivalent to the sentential form 4(A, 1).
There are many other complete systems of connectives but we shall not go into
them as we shall not use them in the sequel.
sentential variables. Theformulas of our formal language are given by the following
inductive definition.
Fl. Every sentential variable is aformula.
F2. 1.. is aformula.
F3. If A is a formula then IA is aformula.
F4. If A and B are formulas then (A 1\ B), (A v B) and (A  B) are also
formulas.
Formulas may be identified with particular sentential forms where IA stands
for I (A) and the 2place connectives are placed between rather than in front of
their arguments following ordinary usage. The formulas 1.., lA, (A 1\ B), (A v B)
and (A _ B) are to be read "falsum", "not A", "A and B", "A or B" and "A
implies B".
For any valuation V every formula gets a truth value as defined for sentential
forms. Accordingly we have here the following particular defining rules for V2 and
V3 (from page 8):
V2. V 1..=f,
V3.1. If VA = t (respectively, VA = f), then V,A =f(respectively, V,A = t).
V3.2. If VA = t and VB= t, then V(A 1\ B) = t. Otherwise V(A 1\ B) = f
V3.3. If VA = tor VB= t, then V(A v B) = t. Otherwise V(A v B) = f
V3.4. If VA=for VB=t, then V(A B)=t. Otherwise V(AB)=f
A formula A is said to be valid if VA = t for every sentential valuation V.
Given a formula A we can decide, in an elementary way, whether it is valid or
whether there is a valuation under which it gets the value f Indeed there are only
finitely many possible combinations of truth values for the sentential variables
occurring in A and in order to decide whether A is valid we only have to compute
VA for these.
Our aim now is to characterize the valid formulas just by their structure and
without considering valuations and then to employ such a syntactic charac
terization again for stronger logical systems where the semantics cannot be ex
pressed in as elementary and constructive a way as they can for classical sentential
calculus.
A formula A which is part of a formula Fmay have the property that the truth value
VFis already determined by the truth value VA. We shall call A apositive(negative)
part of Fif VA =t (VA =f) implies VF=t.
Example. If Fis the formula ,(,(Vi 4 V2) A (V2 v ..L)) then we getthepositive and
negative parts of F as follows:
1. By PNI Fis a positive part of F.
2. By 1 and PN2 (, (Vi 4 V2) A (V2 v .1.)) is a negative part of F.
3. By 2 and PN4 ,(Vi 4 V2) and (V2 v.1.) are negative parts of F.
4. By 3 and PN2 (Vi 4 V2) is a positive part of F.
5. By 4 and PN5 Vi is a negative and V2 a positive part of F.
These are all the positive and negative parts of F.
By an NPform we mean a 2place simple nominal form f2 such that for every
formula B f2[ *1' B] is an Nform and f2[B, *1] is a Pform.
Convention. From now on &, &i will always denote Pforms, %; %i Nforms and
!2, !2i NPforms.
In the next few theorems we establish the semantic properties of positive and
negative parts.
Theorem 1.6. If, under a sentential valuation V, every minimal positive part of a
formula F takes the value f and every minimal ne.gative part of F takes the value t,
then every positive part of F takes the value f and every negative part of F takes the
value t. (In particular, VF= f, since F is a positive part of F.)
Proofby induction on the length of the positive (or negative) part C of the formula
F. By hypothesis we need only treat the following cases which are those where Cis
not a minimal positive or negative part.
1. C is a positive (negative) part , A. Then A is a negative (positive) part of F.
By I.H. VA=t (VA=f) hence VC=f(VC=t).
2. C is a positive part (A v B) (negative part (A /\ B. Then A and B are posi
tive (negative) parts of F. By I.H. VA=B=f(VA= VB=t), hence VC=f(VC=t).
3. C is a positive part (A  B). Then A is a negative and B a positive part of F.
By I.H. VA=t and VB=f, hence VC=!
4. C is a negative part (A  1.). Then A is a positive part of F. By I.H. VA = f,
hence VC=t.
%[(A ~ B)] where, in the last case, B is not the formula ..1. Otherwise it is said to
be irreducible.
Theorem 1.7. An irreducible formula is valid if, and only if, it is oftheform oP[v, v]
or %[1..] (that is, if it contains a sentential variable v both as a positive and as a
negative part or has 1.. as a ne.qative part).
2. Formal Systems
1. Fundamentals
The formal systems we are going to deal with are defined syntactically in four steps.
1: 1. Certain symbols (in general denumerably infinitely many) are introduced
as primitive symbols.
14 I. Fundamentals
A 1 ,,A n IB
where A 1 , .. , An' B are formulas and in general n= I or n=2, are defined to be
basic inferences. A formula on the left of the symbol I is said to be a premise of the
given basic inference. The formula on the right of the symbol I is said to be the
conclusion of the given basic inference.
Re ~l. We shall not in fact specify explicitly what all the primitive symbols are
to be. We shall merely assume that the several primitive symbols are identifiable as
such and that primitive symbols of different kinds are different from one another.
(For example, a primitive symbol introduced as a connective shall not ~imul
taneously be used as a propositional variable which is a primitive symbol.) In
talking about primitive symbols we shall sometimes use the primitive symbols
themselves (for example, connectives or round brackets) and sometimes use
syntactic symbols (for example, v, V 1 , V 2 , ... for the propositional variables which
are primitive symbols).
Re ~2. Often, as well as formulas some further kinds of finite strings of
primitive symbols are inductively defined. These are the terms and expressions. In
order to define and characterise formulas we frequently use nominal forms.
By an nplace nominal form (n ~ 1) in a formal system ~ we mean a nonempty
finite string of symbols which contains, in addition to the primitive symbols of the
formal system~, at most the nominal symbols *1' ... , *n. These nominal symbols
are to be distinct from the primitive symbols of the formal system. In an nplace
nominal form the nominal symbols *1' ... , *n may occur in one or more places but
need not occur at all. We shall always denote nominal forms by script letters.
If d is an nplace nominal form (n ~ 1) and r 1, ... , rn are nonempty finite
strings of symbols, then d[r1' ... , rn] denotes the string of symbols which results
from the nominal form d when the nominal symbols *1' ... , *n are replaced at all
occurrences in d by r1> ... , r n , respectively.
We have already defined some nominal forms, in 1 as Pforms, Nforms and
NPforms.
2. Deducible Formulas
3. Permissible Inferences
A configuration
A 1 , . ,An IB
Example. Let the formulas of a formal system L be those of the sentential calculus
defined in 1.4. Let the only axioms of the system L be those formulas of the form
(A viA).
Let the only basic inferences of the system L be those inferences of the forms
A ~ (A v B) and B~ (A v B).
Obviously
B~((AvB)vC)
is a directly derivable inference of the system L since one can deduce (A v B) from
B by a basic inference and then deduce ((A v B) v C) from (A v B).
Every inference of the form
(A v A)~A
A formal system is said to be sententially closed (sclosed for short) if among its
primitive symbols it contains the connectives from a complete set of connectives
which are used for joining formulae as in the sentential calculus. All sentential
connectives can be defined in such a formal system because of the completeness of
the underlying system of connectives.
A formula in a formal system is said to be svalid if it is obtained by substituting
formulas of the formal system for the sentential variables in a valid formula A of the
2. Formal Systems 17
classical sentential calculus where every senteniial variable which occurs in more
than one place in A is always replaced by the same formula of the formal system.
(Ax. I) .?l[v, v]
(Ax. II) %[1..]
(fA) fJJ[A],fJJ[B]~fJJ[(AAB)]
(I v) %[A], %[B] ~ %[(A v B)]
(I ~) %[(A ~ 1..)], %[B] ~ %[(A ~ B).
The next two theorems show that (syntactic) deducibility given by the above
coincides with the semantic notion of validity.
Proof by induction on the deduction. It follows from Theorem 1.5, that every
axiom is valid. By Theorem 1.8, if both premises of a basic inference are valid then
so is the conclusion. Hence every deducible formula is valid.
18 I. Fundamentals
Proof Let Fbe a valid formula. Define the reducibility degree of Fto be the number
of connectives A, v and 4 occurring in the minimal positive and minimal
negative parts of F. We prove by induction on the reducibility degree of Fthat the
formula F is deducible.
1. F is an irreducible formula. Then by Theorem 1. 7 F is an axiom and hence
is deducible.
2. F is a reducible formula. Then F is of the form of the conclusion of a basic
inference both of whose premises have smaller reducibility degree than F and
hence by Theorem 1.8 are valid. By the induction hypothesis these premises are
therefore deducible. But then F is deducible by means of the basic inference involved.
It follows from the consistency theorem and the completeness theorem that the
system CS is sconsistent and scomplete.
Remark. For every formula of the system CS we can decide in an elementary way
whether and how the formula is deducible in the system CS. For we can easily see
whether a formula has the form of an axiom or of a conclusion of a basic inference
and because every premise of a basic inference has a lower reducibility degree than
the conclusion of the inference.
Chapter II
(Ax. I) fl[P, P]
(Ax. II) %[..1].
6. The basic inferences of the system CP are all inferences of the forms
The free object variable denoted by a in the premise ofa basic inference (S2) is
said to be the eigenvariable of the inference. The condition on the variable of an (S2)
inference is: The eigenvariable must not occur in the conclusion.
4. Deducible Formulas and Permissible Inferences 21
Remark. The notions of "negative part'" and "positive part" may be regarded as
generalizations of G. Gentzen's "antecedent formula" and "succedent formula".
The generalizations turn out so that there is no need to have any structural in
ferences as basic inferences. In 4 we shall prove that the inferences corresponding
to Gentzen's structural inferences are permissible. Then Theorem 4.6 corresponds
to Gentzen's Hauptsatz on the elimination of the cut rule.
.
1. Generalizations of the Axioms
Proof By Corollary 1.4 ..1 and > form a complete set of connectives. By 2.5 it
follows that every svalid formula which contains no connectives other than ..1 and
> is deducible from formulas only of the forms ~[C, C] and fi[..1] using (S 1)
inferences. By Theorem 4.1 it follows that CP is scomplete.
22 II. Classical Predicate Calculus
2. Weak Inferences
Theorem 4.2 (Substitution rule). If a 1 does not occur in the nominalform ff, then
ff[a 1] f ff[a z ]
is a weak inference.
Proofby induction on the deduction. Suppose the formula ff[a 1] is deduced with
order m.
1. Suppose ff[a 1] is an axiom. Then ff[a z ] is also an axiom.
2. Suppose ff[a 1] has been inferred by an (Sl) or (S3) basic inference from
Fi (i= 1, 2 or i= 1). Fi is a formula ~[a1] where a 1 does not occur in ffi . By the
induction hypothesis ffi[a Z ] is deducible with order <m.
~[az] (i= 1, 2 or i= 1) f ff[az] is then an (SI) or (S3) basic inference. Hence
ff[a z ] is deducible with order ~ m.
3. Suppose ff[a 1] has been inferred from F1 by an (S2)inference. We choose
a free object variable ao, different from a 1 and a z which does not occur in ff. Let
Fo be the formula obtained from F1 by replacing the eigenvariable of the (S2)
inference, wherever it occurs in F 1, by ao. By I.H. Fo is deducible with order <m.
Fo is a formula ff 0[a 1] where at does not occur in ff o. By I.H. ff o[az] is also
deducible with order <m.
Now
1. Proofof(1) and (2) by induction on the deduction. Suppose .H[(A > B)] is
deduced with order m. If B is the formula 1. thyn the assertions are trivial since then
the conclusion of(1) is the same as the premise and the conclusion of(2) is an axiom.
Now let B be a formula different from 1..
1.1. Suppose .H[(A > B)] is an axiom. Then .H[(A > 1.)] and .H[B] are
axioms.
1.2. Suppose .H[(A > B)] has been inferred by an (SI)inference whose
principal negative part is the part A > B) shown. Then the premises .H[(A > 1)]
and .H[B] are deducible with order <m.
1.3. Suppose .H[(A > B)] has been deduced in some other way by a basic
inference from Fi (i= 1, 2 or i= 1). Then Fi is a formula JV;[(A > B)] such that
and
%;[BJ (i= 1,'2 or i= 1) f %[BJ
are basic inferences. Hence the assertion holds by the induction hypothesis.
is a permissible inference.
Proofby induction on the number of > and \f symbols occurring in the formula A.
1. Suppose A is an atomic formula. For this case we have to do a subsidiary
induction on the order of a deduction of the formula .9'[A].
1.1. Suppose .9'[A] is an axiom. Then either &[B] is also an axiom or.9' is a
Pform 2[A, *1]. In the latter case (A > B) f! &[B]. Then by Theorem 4.4 from
~ (A > B) we have ~ .9'[B].
1.2. Suppose &[A] was obtained by a basic inference from Fi (i = 1,2 or i = I).
Then by Theorem 4.2 we may assume that the basic inference has no free object
variable which occurs in B as its eigenvariable. Then Fi is a formula of the form
&;[A] so
is also a basic inference. Then ~~[B] follows from ~~[A] and ~(A > B) by the
S.I.H. (subsidiary induction hypothesis). Using the given basic inference ~.9'[B]
follows.
2. Suppose A is a formula Al > A 2. By Theorem 4.3 from H(A l > A 2) > B)
we have H(A l > 1..) > B) and ~(A2 > B). Since.9' is a Pform so is .9'[(Al > *dJ.
Hence by the I.H. from ~&[(Al > A 2)] and ~(A2 > B) we have ~.9'[Al > B)]. By
Theorem 4.4 there follows ~(Al > .9'[B]). Since *1 > 1..) > B) is a Pform, from
~Al > 1..) > B) and ~(Al > &[B]) by I.H. we have ~.9'[B] > 1..) > B). We
have .9'[B] > 1..) > B) f! .9'[B]. Therefore by Theorem 4.4 we have ~&[BJ.
3. Suppose A is a formula \fxff[x]. In this case we use a subsidiary induction
on the order m of a deduction of the formula (\fxff[x] > B).
3.1. Suppose (\fxff[x] > B) is an axiom. Then .9'[B] is also an axiom.
3.2. Suppose (\fxff[x] > B) was inferred by an (SI) or (S2) basic inference
from Fi (i= I, 2 or i= I). Then by Theorem 4.2 we may assume that the basic in
ference has no free object variable which occurs in .9' as its eigenvariable. Then Fi
is a formula of the form (\fxff[x] > B i ) so
is also an (Sl) or (S2) basic inference. By the S.I.H. from f~[Vxff[x]] and
f(Vxff[x] > B i ) we have f~[BJ. Then by the given basic inference we have
fg>[B].
3.3. Suppose (Vxff[x] > B) was inferred by an (S3)inference from
(Vxff[x] > (ff[a] > B). By the S.I.H. we then have f g>[(ff[a] > B)]. f(ff[a]>
g>[B]) then follows by Theorem 4.4. By Theorem 4.3 from f ~[Vxff[x]] we have
fg>[ff[a]]. Then using f(ff[a] > ~[B]) we have by the I.H. f&[~[B]]. Now
g>[2P[B]] ~ &fB]. Therefore by Theorem 4.4 we have f g>[B].
3.4. Suppose Bis a formula JV[Vxoffo[xo]] and (Vxff[x] > JV[Vxoffo[xo]])
was inferred from (Vxoff o[x o] > (Vxff[x] > JV[ff ora]])) by an (S3)inference.
By Theorem 4.4 (Vxff[x] > (Vxoffo[xo] > JV[ffo[a]])) is also deducible with
order <m. Hence by the S.I.H. we have fg>[(Vxoffo[xo] > JV[ffo[a]])]. By
Theorem 4.4 we therefore have f(Vxoffo[xo] > g>[JV[ffo[a]]]). Since g>[JV] is
also an Nform, using an (S3)inference we have f g>[[JV[Vxoff o[x o]]].
The connectives ', /\, v and the existential quantifier 3 are defined as follows in
the system CP :
,A:=(A> 1)
(A /\ B): =A > (B> 1)) > 1)
(A v B) : = A > 1) > B)
3xff[x] :=(Vx(ff[x]> 1)> 1).
These connectives we have just defined satisfy the defining rules given in 1. 5
for positive and negative parts as we now show.
If , A (that is (A > 1)) is a positive (or negative) part of a formula F, then A is a
negative (or positive) part of F.
IfA > (B > 1)) > 1) is a negative part ofF, then (A > (B> 1)) is a positive
part, A is a negative part, (B > 1) a positive part and B a negative part of F. So we
have: If (A /\ B) is a negative part of F, then A and B are also negative parts of F.
If A > 1) > B) is a positive part of F, then (A + 1) is a negative part, A a
positive part and B a positive part of F.
So we have: If (A v B) is a positive part of F, then A and B are also positive parts
of F.
As we have defined negation, we therefore have:
A, ,A f 1
Proof (1) For every formula Cwe have &P[C] ~ &P[C  ..l)  ..l)]. TherefQre by
Theorem 4.4 from f &P[A] and f &P[B] we have f &P[A  ..l)  ..l)] and
f&P[B ..l) ..l)]. Since &P[(*1  ..l)] is an Nform, we obtain by an (SI)
inference f &P[A  (B  ..l  ..l)], that is f &P[(A A B)].
(2) Follows from Theorem 4.4 since ..;V[AJ ~ ..;V [(A 1 AA z)] (i= 1, 2) by the
definition of A .
(3) Follows from Theorem 4.4 since &P[AJ ~ &P[(A1 v A z)] (i= 1, 2) by the
definition of v .
(4) We have ";v[A] ~ ";v[A  ..l)  ..l)]. By Theorem 4.4 from f ..;V [A] we
therefore have f ..;V [A  ..l)  ..l)]. Using f ..;V[B] by an (SI)inference we have
f..;V[A  ..l)  B)], that is ..;V[(A v B)].
(5) By Theorem 4.4 from f&P[~[a]] we have f&P[~[a]  ..l)  ..l)]. Since
&P[(*1  ..l)] is an Nform Theorem 4.5 yields f&P[(\fx(~[x]  ..l)  ..l)], that is
&P[3x~[x]].
(6) From f ..;V[~[a]] by Theorem 4.4 we have f ..;V[~[a]  ..l)  ..l)].
..;V[( *1 ..l)] is a Pform. If a does not occur in ..;V[~], then by an (S2)inference
we have f ";v[(\fx(~[x]  ..l)  ..l)], that is f ";v[3x~[x]].
Remark. All the proofs we have given in this section which show that certain in
ferences are permissible are constructive. That is to say: In each case, if deductions
of the formulas A l' ... , An are given, then one can obtain a deduction of the formula
B from the proof of the permissibility of the inference
Although all the notions we have used so far and all the proofs we have given were
strictly constructive (jinitist in the sense of D. Hilbert), when it comes to classical
predicate calculus we have to deal with nonconstructive notions.
5. Semantics of Classical Predicate Calculus 27
1. Classical Models
Example. Let ~ be the set of positive integers. Let p be a 4place predicate letter and
set Vp to be the set of quadruples (Xl> . , (X4) of positive integers such that
~4+2 +~4+2 #(X~4+2. Let Fbe the formula \fx l \fX2 \fX3 \fX4P(x l , x 2 , x 3, x 4 ). Then
in the model <~, V) we have VF=t if, and only if, Fermat's last theorem is true,
that is iffor every n ~ 3 there are no positive integers (Xl' (X2' (X3 such that (X~ + (Xi = (X3
But Fermat's conjecture has not yet been fully established.
In the definition of VF' for a ~formula F' the connectives..l and  4 are treated
as they were in I in the definition of VA for a formula A ofthe sentential calculus.
Consequently, corresponding to Theorem 1.5 we have:
PNLemma. If cff is a Pform (or an Nform) and VA =t (or VA= f) for a valuation
V in a model, then Vcff[A] = t.
A formula F is said to be true in a model J( = <~, V) if VF= t. We also say in
this case that J( is a model of the formula F.
A formula is said to be valid if it is true in every model. It is said to be satisfiable
if there is some model in which it is true.
28 II. Classical Predicate Calculus
Proofby induction on the deduction. Let Fbe a deducible formula and .It = <!!J, V)
an arbitrary model. We have to prove that VF=t.
1. SupposeFis an axiom ~[P, P] or ';v[1]. By the PNIemma we have VF=t.
2. Suppose Fis a formula .;V[(A  B)] inferred from .;V[(A  1)] and .;V[B]
by an (S1)inference. By I.H. we have V';v[(A  1)] = t and V.;V[B] = t. If VB= t,
then V(A  B)= VB and V';v[(A  B)] = V';v[B]=t. If VB=j, then V(A  B)=
V(A  1) and V';v[(A  B)] = V';v[(A  1)] = t. So in either case
V';v[(A  B)] = t.
3. Suppose F is a formula &I[\fxff[x]] inferred from ,o//[ff[aJ] by an (S2)
inference. If V\fxff[x] = t, then V&I[\fxff[x]] = t by the PNIemma. Now suppose
there exists IX E!!J with Vff[lX] =f We define a new model .It' = <!!J, V') )Vhere
V' a = IX and otherwise V' agrees with Von free object variables, predicate letters
and sentential variables. Then, since the eigenvariable a does not occur in &I[ff] we
obtain
V'ff[a] = Vff[IX]=f
V'\fxff[x] = V\fxff[x] =f
and
In order to prove that, conversely, every valid formula is deducible we need several
auxiliary notions.
First we let
formula ..l. A formula is said to be reducible if it has at least one reducible part,
otherwise it is said to be irreducible. According to this definition a formula F is
irreducible if, and only if, every minimal positive part and every minimal negative
part of F is an atomic formula. The reducibility degree of a formula F is the number
of > and V symbols occurring in the reducible parts of F.
By the distinguished part of a reducible formula Fwe mean that reducible part
of F which occurs furthest to the right.
ADchain (deduction chain) for a formula F is a sequence of formulas
constructed as follows:
01. The initial formula F o of the Ochain is the formula F.
02. If the formula Fn of the Ochain is an axiom or an irreducible formula,
then it is the last formula of the Ochain. We then say that the Ochain has length n.
03. If the formula Fn of the Ochain is a reducible formula which is not an
axiom then Fn has an immediate successor Fn + 1 in the Ochain determined as
follows by Fo, ... , Fn.
03.1. If Fn is a formula %[(A > B)] with distinguished negative part (A > B),
then Fn+ 1 is either the formula %[(A > ..l)] or the formula %[B].
03.2. If Fn is a formula &>[Vx$'[x]] with distinguished positive part Vx$'[x],
then Fn+ 1 is the formula &>[$'[IJ(J] where i is the least number such that lJ(i does not
occur in Fn.
03.3. If Fn isa formula %[Vx$'[x]] with distinguished negative part
Vx$'[x], then Fn+ 1 is the formula (Vx$'[x] > %[$'[IJ(J]), where i is the least
number such that $'[IJ(J does not occur as a negative part in any of the formulas
among Fo, ... , Fn if the nominal symbol *1 occurs in $'.
Ochains are therefore formed inversely to the basic inferences.
We shall shortly prove:
Proof Let F be a valid formula. By the principal semantic lemma every Ochain
of F contains an axiom. From the principal syntactic lemma it follows that F is
deducible.
Proof Let Fbe a satisfiable formula. Then the formula (F > 1..) is not valid, so by
Theorem 5.1, not deducible. From the principal syntactic lemma it follows that
there is a Dchain for (F > 1..) which contains no axiom. By the principal semantic
lemma it follows that there is a model.A =(N, V) such that V(F > 1..) =f Then
VF= t so F is true in the model.A.
In order to prove the principal syntactic lemma we need the following version
of Konig's Lemma:
If a formula F has infinitely many Dchains then there is an infinite Dchain
for F.
Proof of the principal syntactic lemma. Let F be a formula such that every D
chain of F contains an axiom. Then such an axiom is the last formula of such a
Dchain. Hence every Dchain of F is finite. From Konig's lemma it follows that
there are only finitely many Dchains. So these have a maximal length m. We prove
by induction on mn that every formula Fn which occurs as the nth formula in a
Dchain of F is deducible. If Fn is the last formula of a Dchain of F then Fn is an
axiom. Otherwise Fn is of the form of a conclusion of a basic inference whose
premises come after Fn in Dchains of F. By I.H. these premises are deducible.
Consequently Fn is also deducible. In particular the formula Fa, that is, F, is
deducible, as was to be shown.
Proofby induction on the number k of + and Vsymbols occurring in the reducible
parts of Fn to the right of C. If C is the distinguished part of Fn then the assertion is
satisfied with m = n. Otherwise Fn is followed by a formula Fn + I with positive (or
negative) part C which contains less than k + and V symbols in reducible parts to
the right of C. But then the assertion follows from the induction hypothesis.
Lemma 3. If a formula Fn of the Dchain has a negative part Vx"[x], then the
Dchain contains infinitely many reducible formulas with distinguished negative part
Vx"[x].
Proof It follows from the definition of Dchain that the formula Vx"[x] occurs
as a negative part in every formula Fm (m ~n) in the Dchain. Therefore every
f9rmula in the Dchain is reducible. Since the Dchain contains no axiom it follows
that the Dchain is infinite. The assertion now follows from Lemma 2.
We say that a formula is a positive (or negative) part of (DC) if it occurs as a
positive (or negative) part in some formula of the Dchain (DC). We now define a
model.lt=<N, V) as follows:
1. VlX i : =i
2. Ifp is an nplacepredicate letter (n ~ 1) then Vp is the set ofntuples (iI' ... , in)
of natural numbers such thatp(lX i1 , , lX i ) is a negative part of (DC).
3. If v is a negative part of (DC) then set Vv: = t. Otherwise set Vv: = f
The following lemmata hold for this model.
Lemma 4. If P is an atomic formula then VP= t if, and only if, P is a negative part
of (DC).
Proof Since the Dchain (DC) contains no axiom, 1. is not a negative part of
(DC). For the remaining atomic formulas the assertion follows immediately from
the definition of the model.
Lemma 5. IfC is a positive (or a negative) part of (DC) then VC=f(or VC= t).
F or brevity we write
for
every modelult = (!!},V): V(A 1 , , An ~ ..l) = t and hence VAi=ffor at least one
formula Ai from the set S.
Now, in order to prove that every consistent set of formulas is satisfiable, we
proceed as for the proof of the completeness theorem. We again start with an
enumeration
which contains all and only formulas from the set S. (This sequence must contain
some formula infinitely many times if the set S of formulas is finite.)
From this sequence of formulas we define a Dchain for S as a sequence of
formulas
formed as follows:
DSI. The initial formula Fo of the Dchain is the formula (Ao ~ ..l).
DS2. If a formula Fn of the Dchain is an axiom, then it is the last formula of
the Dchain. We then say that the Dchain has length n.
DS3. If a formula Fn of the Dchain is not an axiom then the Dchain has as
the immediate successor Fn+ 1 of Fn a formula (An+ 1 ~ Gn), where Gn is determined
as follows by F o, ... , Fn.
DS3.1. If Fn is an irreducible formula, then Gn is the formula Fn.
DS3.2. If Fn is a reducible formula JV[(A ~ B)] with distinguished negative
part (A ~ B), then Gn is either the formula JV[(A ~ ..l)] or the formula JV[B].
DS3.3. If Fn is a reducible formula &'[V'xff[x]] with distinguished positive
part V'xff[x] , then Gn is the formula &,[ff[rx2i+ 1]] where i is the least number such
that rx 2i + 1 does not occur in Fn.
DS3.4. If Fn is a reducible formula JV[V'xff[x]] with distinguished negative
part V'xff[x], then Gn is the formula (V'xff[x] ~ JV[ff[rxJ]) where i is the least
number such that ff[rxJ does not occur as a negative part in any of the formulas
Fo, ... , Fn if the nominal symbol * 1 occurs in ff.
Principal syntactic lemma for sets offormulas. If every Dchainfor S isjinite, then
the set S is inconsistent.
34 II. Classical Predicate Calculus
Proof It follows from Konig's lemma that there are only finitely many Dchains
for S. Let m be the maximal length of such a Dchain. We prove by induction on
mn:
If a formula Fn occurs in the nth place of a Dchain for S, then the formula
Principal semantic lemma for sets of formulas. If there is an infinite Dchain for S,
then the set S offormulas is satisfiable in a model (N, V) with domain the natural
numbers N.
The proof proceeds just as for the Dchain of a formula. One defines the model
(N, V) as before and has the same Lemmata 15. Since every formula Ai of the set
S occurs as a negative part in the Dchain, it follows that VAi= t for all Ai E S.
Theorem 5.5 (Compactness Theorem). Ifevery finite subset ofa set S offormulas is
satisfiable, then S is satisfiable.
Proof If a finite set {A l' ... , An} is satisfiable, then the formula
5. Semantics of Classical Predicate Calculus 35
is not valid and hence by the consistency theorem not deducible. It therefore follows
from the hypothesis of our theorem, that the set S is consistent. Then by Theorem
5.4 it is satisfiable.
P~oof By hypothesis there is a finite subset {A 1, ... , An} of S such that the formula
Proof From SF F it follows that the set Su{(F ~ ..i)} of formulas is not satis
fiable. By the satisfiability theorem it follows this set is inconsistent. Hence there is a
finite subset {Al' ... , An} of S such that the formula
A 1 , , An~ F ~ ..i) ~ ..i)
is deducible. From this formula and the deducible formula
F~ ..1)~ ..1)~ F
by Theorem 4.6 it follows that the formula
In intuitionistic predicate calculus the connectives /\, v and the existential quanti
fier 3 cannot be defined in terms of ..l, > and If as in classical predicate calculus.
We therefore use as primitive symbols: The primitive symbols of the system CP
and the symbols /\, v and 3.
Consequently in addition to the defining rules for formulas of the system CP
we have the following defining rules for formulas:
2.4'. If A and B are formulas, then (A /\ B) and (A v B) are also formulas.
2.5'. If ff[a] is a formula and x is a bound object variable which does not occur
in the Iplace nominal form ff, then 3xff[x] is also a formula.
Atomic formulas are defined as in the system CPo
We use the same syntactic symbols for free and bound object variables, prop
ositional variables, formulas and atomic formulas as in the system CPo
6. Formalization of Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus 37
for
(Ax. 1) A A.
(Str) r  B f ,1 B if re,1 holds.
(Cut) r
A, A  B f B. r
This says that a formula r  B should only be deducible if one can get from
the formulas in the sequence r to the formula B in a trivial way. We call a (Str) in
ference a structural inference and a (Cut) inference a cut (with cut formula A).
Restricting to formulas built up only from propositional variables by using the
connective  and using (Ax. 1), (Str) and (Cut) gives the positive implicational
calculus of P. Bernays.
Now for the connective 1.. we add the axiomschema
and we fix the syntactic use of the symbols /\, v, V and :3 by two basic inferences
each depending on whether these symbols are.introduced in a left or right com
ponent of a formula.
(/\ 1) A  B  C f (A /\ B)  C
( /\ r) r  A, r  B f r  (A /\ B)
( v 1) A  C, B  C f (A v B)  C
(vr) rAifr(AlvA2) (i=I,2)
(VI) ff[a]  C f Vxff[x]  C
(Vr) r ff[a] f r  VXff[X]} if a does not occur
(:31) ff[a]  C f :3xff[x]  C in the conclusion
(:3r) r  ff[a] f r  :3xff[x].
38 III. Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus
We call the system with axioms (Ax. 1), (Ax. 2) and basic inferences (Str), (Cut),
( /\ 1), ... , (3r) the formal system IP 1 of intuitionistic predicate calculus.
r 4 A, A 4 B ~ r 4 B
are the only inferences where a formula A may occur in the premises which need
bear no formal relation to the conclusion. Thus the deducibility of a formula
r 4 B may, because of a cut, depend in a roundabout way on an arbitrary formula
A. However, G. Gentzen arrived at just as straightforward a pattern of inference
for intuitionistic as for classical predicate calculus in which in every premise,of an
inference only subformulas of the conclusion occur (where one regards ff[a] as a
subformula of'v'xff[x] and 3xff[x]). One obtains a straightforward pattern of
inference if one takes a suitable basic rule of inference for implication so that the
cut is no longer needed as a basic inference but nevertheless still can be proved
permissible.
One rule of inference for introducing implication, which corresponds to the
straightforward pattern of inference, is (41) r 4 A, B 4 C ~ r 4 (A 4 B) 4 C.
Such an (4 I)inference is permissible in the system IPI as one sees as follows:
1) (A 4 B) 4 A 4 B is an (Ax. 1),
2) A 4 (A 4 B) 4 B follows from 1) by a structural inference,
3) r 4 A is the first premise of the (4 I)inference,
4) r 4 (A 4 B) 4 B follows from 3) and 2) by a cut,
5) B 4 C is the second premise of the (4 I)inference,
6) r 4 (A 4 B) 4 C follows from 4) and 5) by a cut.
If one adds (4 1) as a basic rule of inference then (Ax. 1) can be restricted to
(Ax. 1A) P 4 P
(Ax.2A) ..l4 P.
We denote by IP2 the formal system with axioms (Ax. 1A), (Ax. 2A) and basic
inferences (Str), (41), ( /\ 1), ... , (3r). This system has the desired property that only
subformulas of the conclusion occur in each premise of a basic inference. This has
certain advantages for syntactic investigations. For example it is immediately
apparent that the system IP2 is consistent since no atomic formula has the form of
an axiom or a conclusion of a basic inference of the system IP2 it follows that no
6. Formalization of Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus 39
atomic formula is deducible in IP2. In order to prove this is also true for IPI one
has to show that an atomic formula cannot be shown to be deducible using a cut.
This is not immediately obvious, since the conclusion of a cut can be an atomic
formula.
In IP2 it turns out that the formulas A  A and 1.._ A are deducible and the
cut is a permissible inference whence it follows that precisely the same formulas are
deducible as in IPI. We shall not carry out the proof of the deducibility of A  A
and 1.._ A and of the permissibility of cut in IP2 since we shall pass to another
formal system IP3 and give the corresponding proof for it in 7.
rB
where B is not of the form (B1  B2). The left parts of such a formula are all
f.ormulas ofthe sequence rand therightpartsaretheformulaBand,ifr=A 1, ... , An
(n ~ 1), so too are An B and all formulas Ai  ...  An B (i= 1, ... , nI).
Logical symbols are introduced into a left part of the conclusion by ( 1), ( "1),
( v 1), (VI) and (31) basic inferences, and into a right part of the conclusion by ( "r),
( v r), (Vr) and (3r) basic inferences.
In order to be able to do without the ( "1) inference as a basic inference we
make the notion of "left part" somewhat wider in that we also regard A and Bas
left parts of a formula F if (A "B) is a left part of F.
In order to characterize left and right parts of a formula we use Lforms (left
partforms) and Rforms (right partforms) which are inductively defined as Iplace
nominal forms as follows:
LRF 1. *1 is an Rform.
LRF 2. If fYl is an Rform and B is a formula, then fYl[(*l  B)] is an Lform
and fYl[(B  *1)] is an Rform.
LRF 3. If 2is an Lform and Ba formula then 2[(*1 "B)] and 2[(B "*1)]
are Lforms.
We have the following consequences of this inductive definition:
LRF 4. No Rform is an Lform.
LRF 5. If fYl is an Rform and tilt is an Lform (or an Rform) then ~[tiIt] is an
Lform (or an Rform).
LRF 6. If tilt is an Lform or an Rform and A is a formula then tiIt[A] is also
a formula.
We now define : A formula A is said to be a left part (or a right part) ofa formula
Fifthere is an Lform (or an Rform) tilt such that tiIt[A] is the formula F. From this
40 III. Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus
definition by means of the defining rules LRF ILRF 3 we obtain the following
inductive characterization of left and right parts of a formula F.
LR I. F is a right part of F.
LR 2. If(A . B) is a right part of F, then A is a left part and B a right part of F.
LR 3. If (A A B) is a left part of F, then A and B are also left parts of F.
As corollaries we have:
LR 4. If F is not an implication, that is not a formula of the form (A . B),
then F is the unique right part of F.
LR 5. If F is an implication (A . B), then the right parts of F are the formula
F and the right parts of B.
LR 6. Every formula Fhas precisely one right part which is not an implication.
We call this the end part of the formula F.
LR 7. The end part of a formula F is also the end part of every right part of F.
By a Dform (double form) we mean a 2place nominal form [f) such that
[f)[*1' B] is an Lform and [f)[A, *1] is an Rform.
For syntactic symbols we use
for Lforms,
for Rforms,
for Dforms.
In order to get this invariance with respect to F ~ G too we replace (Ax. lA) by
~[P, P] and (+ I) by
(Ax. I) ~[P, P]
(Ax. II) 2[1].
The basic inferences of the system IP3 are all inferences of the following sort:
The free object variable denoted by a in the premises of the ('1R) and (3L)
inferences is said to be the eigenvariable of the given inference. The condition on
variables for these inferences is: The eigenvariable must not occur in the conclusion.
The left part denoted by (A + B) in the conclusion of an (+ L)inference is
called the prinCipal part, the right part of the conclusion denoted by C is called the
secondary part of the given basic inference. For any other basic inference the
principal part is the left or right part of its conclusion shown. In every case the
principal part ofa basic inference is either a minimal left part or the end part of the
conclusion. For + one only has a basic Linference with principal left part, for /\
only a basic Rinference with principal right part and for v, '1, 3 one basic L
inference and one basic Rinference.
By the degree of a formula we mean the number of +, /\, v, V' and 3 symbols
occurring in the formula.
It follows easily from the results of the next section that precisely the same
formulas are deducible in the system IP3 as in the system IPl. However, the
system IP3 has the advantage that induction on deductions is particularly simple
and transparent since here the derivation is direct and also no structural inference
occurs as a basic inference.
42 III. Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus
2. Weak Inferences
Theorem 7.2 (Substitution rule). If a 1 does not occur in the nominalform ff then
is a weak inference.
Theorem 7.3. The following are weak inferences for the elimination oflogical symbols
1. Proof for (4 E), (/\ E) and (v E). Suppose OU[(A1 x A 2)] is a formula
2[(A1 4 A 2)], 9I![(A1/\ A 2)] or 2[(AJ v A 2)] which is deducible with order n.
7. Deducible Formulas and Permissible Inferences in the System IP3 43
We prove by induction on the deduction that Olt[AJ is then deducible with order
~n. For this let i=2 if Olt[(Al x A z)] is the formula 'p[(Al ~ A z)], otherwise
i= lor i=2.
1.1. Suppose Olt[(Al x A z)] is an axiom. Then Olt[AJ is also an axiom.
1.2. Suppose Olt[(Al x A z)] was obtained by a basic inference whose principal
part is the left or right part (Al x A z) shown. Then Olt[AJ is a premise of this basic
inference and therefore is deducible with order < n.
1.3. Suppose Olt[(Al x A z)] was obtained by an (~L)inference whose
secondary part contains the part (Al x A z) shown. The premises of this (~ L)
inference are of the form E&[(Bl ~ B z), B l ] and E&[Bz, OltO[(Al x A z)]] where
Olt[AJ is the formula E&[(Bl ~ B z), Olto[AJ]. Since E&[Bz, OltO[(Al x A z)]] is
deducible with order <n, by I.H. E&[Bz, Olto[AJ] is also deducible with order <no
Since E&[(Bl ~ B z), B l ] is also deducible with order <n it follows by an (~ L)
inference that E&[(Bl ~ B z), Olto[AJ] is deducible with order ~n.
1.4. Suppose OU[(Al x A z)] was obtained in some other way by a basic in
ference. Then every premise of this basic inference is of such a form Oltj[(Al x A z)]
that
is also a basic inference. By I.H. Oltj[AJ is deducible with order <no Using the given
basic inference it follows that Olt[AJ is deducible with order ~ n.
is a basic inference. From 18l[A] and I(A > B;) by the S.I.H. we have IBl[BJ.
Using the given basic inference we have IBl[B].
Corollary to Theorem 7.6. Theformal system IP3 is sconsistent, that is, there is no
formula A such that A and (A > l..) are both deducible in IP3.
is a permissible inference in the system IP3. Were A and (A > l..) deducible then l..
would also be deducible. But this is not the case since l.. is not an axiom nor does it
occur as the conclusion of a basic inference.
Proof 1. Were (v v(v> l.. deducible then by Theorem 7.7 v or (v> l..) would
be deducible. But this is not the case since neither v nor (v > l..) occurs as an axiom
or as the conclusion of a basic inference.
2. Were ('Ix p(x) v (3x(p(x) > l.. deducible th~n by Theorem 7.7 'Ix p(x) or
3x(p(x) > l..) would be deducible. By Theorems 7.3 and 7.7 pea) or (p(a) > l..)
would then be deducible for some free object variable a. But this is not the case
since neither pea) nor (p(a) > l..) occurs as an axiom or as the conclusion of a basic
inference.
7. Deducible Formulas and Permissible Inferences in the System IP3 47
5. Properties' of Negation
Proof By Theorem 7.4 from f[A, B] we have ff[(B> .1.), (A > B)l By an
(> L)inference using the axiom f[.1., (A > .1.)] we have 1f[(B > .1.), (A > .1.)],
hence 1f[,B, ,Al
Proof 1. By Theorem 7.1 we have IA > .1.) > (A > .1.. By Theorem 7.4 there
follows I(A > A > .1.) > .1.), that is, I(A > "A).
2. From the axioms (.1.> .1.)> .1.)> (.1.> .1. and (.1.>.1.) by an (> L)
inference we have f(.1. > .1.) > .1.) > .1.), that is, 1(".1. > .1.).
3. By (1) we have f(A > , ,A). By Theorem 7.8 there follows
f{",A > ,A).
4. By Theorem 7.1 we have f,A > A) > (,A > ,A. From (1) we have
f(A>('A>.1.. By an (>L)inference there follows f,A>A)>
(,A > .1.), that is, f,A > A) > , ,A).
6. Syntactic Equivalence
(1) ALA.
(2) ALB implies BLA.
(3) ALB and BL C imply ALe.
(4) ALB and ~A imply ~B.
(5) A kB implies ALB.
(6) ALB implies (A > C) L (B> C) and (C > A) L (C > B).
Proof (1) holds by Theorem 7.1. (2) holds by the definition of L. (3) and (4) follow
from Theorem 7.6.
48 III. Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus
. From I(A + A) and A ~ B by Theorem 7.4 we have I(A + B). This gives (5).
From I(A + B) we have I(A + (C + B. Using 1 C + A) + (C + C we
obtain IC+ A)+ (C+ B by an (+ L)inference. From I(B+ A) there
follows IA+ C)+ (B+ A. Using I(C+ (B+ C we obtain IA+ C)+
(B+ C. This gives (6).
1. Embedding IP3 in CP
We now regard every formula of the system IP3 as also being a formula of the
system CP where A, v and 3 are defined as in 4.4. We need the following lerpmata
in order to show that every formula deducible in IP3 is also deducible in CPo
Proof By Lemmata 1 and 2 every axiom of the system IP3 is an axiom of the
system CPo By Lemmata 2 and 3 every (4 L)inference is permissible in CPo By
Lemma 1 every ('v'R)inference is an (S2)inference. By Lemmata 1 and 3 every
('v'L)inference is permissible in CPo By Lemma 1 and Theorem 4.8 all the remaining
basic inferences of the system IP3 are permissible in CPo
2. Interpretation of CP in IP3
Proof By Theorem 7.9 (1) and Lemma 4 we have BL, ,B. Therefore
(,A4BL(,A4" B). Since (,A4" B)d:(, B4 "A) holds we
have (,A4B)L(,B4 "A). Using "ALA we obtain (,A4B)L
(,B4A).
Lemma 7. For every Pform flJ there is an Rform f!Il such that gt'[AJ"!' f!Il[AJ holds
for every formula A.
Lemma 8. For every Nform JV there is an Lform f' such that JV[AJ ,.!,f'[AJfor
every formula A.
Proof JV is an Nform gt'[( *1  B)]. By Lemma 7 there is an Rform f!Il such that
JV[AJ"!' f!Il[(A  B)]. The assertion is therefore satisfied by f': = f!Il[( * 1  B)].
Theorem 8.3. A ~ A.
As a sort of converse of the cut rule we have an interpolation theorem which was
first formulated and proved for classical predicate calculus by W. Craig. Here we
prove the corresponding theorem for the formal system IP3 and then show that this
yields the interpolation theorem for the system CP.
If X is a formula or a nominal form then we write <X) for the set of free object
variables, sentential variables and predicate letters occurring in X.
Interpolation Theorem. For every formula ~[B] deducible in IP3 there is aformula
A with the following properties:
1. ~[A] and (A 4 B) are deducible in IP3.
2. A contains only free object variables, sentential variables and predicate letters
which occur in both ~ and B, that is to say, <A) <qt)n<B).
Proof of the interpolation theorem. Suppose the formula ~[B] was deduced with
order n. We prove, by induction on the order n of the deduction, that there is an
interpolant between ~ and B.
52 III. Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus
is a basic inference. So from I(Al ~ B l ) we have I(Al ~ B). Since I~[Al] also
holds, Al is an interpolant between !Yt and B.
2.3. Suppose the basic inference was an (VL)inference or an (3R)inference.
These have one premise ~[Bl]. Then
is also a basic inference. So from I(Al ~ B l ) we have I(Al ~ B). There is a free
object variable a such that <B l ) <B)u{a}. Ifaoccursin Bthen <AI) <~)n<B).
Since we also have I~[Al]' Al is therefore an interpolant between ~ and B. Now
assume that a does not occur in B. Then Al is a formula ffl[a] such that a does not
occur in the Iplace nominal form fFl . By an (3R)inference and an (3L)inference,
from 1~[fFl[a]] and I(ffl[a] ~ B) we have 1~[3xfFl[X]] and 1(3xffl[X] ~ B).
Then <3xfFl [x]) <~)n<B). Hence 3xfFl [x] is an interpolant between ~ and B.
3. Suppose ~[B] was obtained by a basic inference whose principal part is not
contained in B. Then this basic inference is an Linference.
3.1. Suppose the basic inference was an (~ L)inference whose secondary part
9. The Interpolation Theorem 53
contains the formula B. This inference has two premises ~[(C1 ~ C 2), C 1] and
~[C2' 9l o[B]], where &l is the Rform ~[(C1 ~ C 2), 9l o]. By I.H. for the second
premise there is a formula A such that 1~[C2' 9l o[A]], I(A ~ B) and <A) S;
<~[C2' &lo])n<B). Hence <A) s;<9l)n<B) .. By an (~L)inference from
1~[(C1 ~ C 2), C 1] and 1~[C2' 9l o[A]] we have 1~[(C1 ~ C 2), &lo[A]], that is,
I 9l[A]. Hence A is an interpolant between &l and B.
3.2. Suppose the basic inference was an (~ L)inference whose secondary term
does not contain the formula B. This inference has two premises ~[(C1 ~ C 2 ),
9l o[ C 1]] and ~[C2, &lo[Bo]], where B is the formula &lo[Bo] and 9l is the Rform
~[(C1 ~ C 2), *1]. Since the first premise ~[(C1 ~ C 2), &lo[C 1]] is deducible with
order <n, by Theorem 7.4 9l0[~[(C1 ~ C 2), C 1]] is also deducible with order
<no By I.H. there is therefore a formula A1 such that l&lo[A 1], I(A1 ~
~[(C1 ~ C 2), C 1]) and <A1)S;<&lO)n<~[(C1 ~ C 2), C 1J>. Since the second
premise is also deducible with order < n, by I.H. there is also a formula A2 such that
1~[C2' A 2], I(A2 ~ 9l o[Bo]) and <A 2)s; <~[C2' *lJ>n<9l o[BoJ>. Since
<~[(C1 ~ C 2), C 1J>s;<9l), <~[C2' *1])S;<&l) and 9l o[Bo]=B, it follows that
A 1 ~ A 2s; <&l)n<B). By Theorem 7.4 from I(A1 ~ ~[(C1 ~ C 2), C 1]) and
1~[C2' A 2] we have 1~[(C1 ~ C 2), (A1 ~ C 1)] and 1~[C2' (A1 ~ A 2)]. Using
an (~ L)inference we have 1~[(C1 ~ C 2), (A1 ~ A 2)], that is, 19l[(A1 ~ A 2)].
By Theorem 7.4 from 19l 0[A1] we have 1A1 ~ A2)~ 9l 0[A1])' This together
with I(A2 ~ &lEBo]) by an (~ L)inference gives IA1 ~ A 2) ~ 9l o[Bo]), that is,
1A1 ~ A 2) ~ B). Hence (A1 ~ A 2) is an interpolant between &l and B.
, 3.3. Suppose the basic inference was an ( v L)inference. This inference has
two premises ~[Ci' B] (i= I, 2) where &l is the Rform ~[(C1 v C 2), *1]. By I.H.
there are formulas Ai such that I~[Ci' A;], I(Ai~ B) and <A;)S;
<~[Ci' *lJ>n<B). Hence <CAl v A 2)s; <&l)n<B). By an (v R)inference from
I~[Ci' AJ we have I~[Ci' (A1 v A 2)] (i= 1,2) and by an (v L)inference
1~[(C1 v C 2), (A1 v A 2)], that is, 19l[(A1 v A 2)]. By an (v L)inference from
I(Ai~ B) (i=1,2) we have IA1 VA2)~ B). Hence (A1 vA 2) is an interpolant
between 9l and B.
3.4. Suppose the basic inference was an (V'L)inference. This inference has a
premise ~[(V'xff[x] 1\ ff[a]), B] where &l is the Rform ~[V'xff[x], *1]. By I.H.
there is a formula A1 such that I~[(V'xff[x] 1\ ff[a], A 1]), I(A1 ~ B) and
<A 1) s;<~[(V'xff[x] 1\ ff[a]), *lJ>n<B). Consequently <A 1) s;&l)u
{a})n<B). By an (V'L)inference from 1~[(V'xff[x]l\ff[a]),A1] we have
I~[V'xff[x], AIl, that is, 19l[A 1]. If a occurs in 9l, thert <A 1) s; <&l)n<B) and
hence A1 is an interpolant between &l and B. Now assume that a does not occur in
&l. A 1 is a formula ff 1[a], where a does not occur in ff l' By an (V'R)inference and
by Theorem 7.5 from 19l[ff l[a]] and I(ff 1[a] ~ B) we have 1&l[V'Xff1[X]] and
1(V'Xff1[X] ~ B). Then <V'xff1[xJ> S; <&l)n<B). Hence V'xff1[x] is an interpolant
between &l and B.
3.5. Suppose the basic inference was an (3L)inference. This inference has one
premise ~[ff[a], B] where 9l is the Rform ~[3xff[x], *1]. By I.H. there is a
formula A such that I~[ff[a], A], I(A ~ B) and <A) S; <~[ff[a], *lJ>n<B).
The eigenvariable a of the (3L)inference does not occur in B. Therefore it does not
occur in A either. Consequently <A) S; <&l)n<B), and by an (3L)inference from
54 III. Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus
This theorem can be proved directly in CPo But we can derive it as follows from
the interpolation theorem for the system IP3.
By Theorem 8.2 from ~(A 4 C) we have fl(A 4 C). By the interpolation
theorem for the system IP3 it follows that there is a formula B such that fl(A 4 B),
fl(B4 C) and (B) (A)n(C). By Theorem 8.1 wehave~A4 B)and~B4 C).
By Theorem 8.3 we have ~A 4 A) and ~(C 4 C). By Theorem 4.6 therefore
~A4 B)and~B4 C). From (B) (A)n(C) we have (B) (A)n(C). Hence
B is an interpolant between A and C.
We now give two applications of the interpolation theorem.
is deducible then there is a oneplace nominal form ", in which neither p nor q occurs,
such that the formulas
are deducible. Here p and q are to be two distinct oneplace predicate letters which
do not occur in the nominal form d'.
That is to say: If the uniqueness condition (1) is deducible for d'[p] then a
ptedicate is defined which can be expressed in predicate calculus by a nominal form
". By (2) and (3) this predicate is uniquely determined by the nominal form d'.
This definability theorem holds not only for classical predicate calculus but
also for intuitionistic predicate calculus. Following G. Kreisel it can be proved
from the interpolation theorem as follows.
Since the formula (1) is deducible so too is the formula
Here a is a free object variable which does not occur in the nominal form d'. By the
interpolation theorem there is therefore a formula A, in which neither p nor q
occurs, such that the formulas
From (4) it follows that (2) is deducible and from (5) it follows that (3) is deducible.
Versions of the definability theorem for manyplace predicates can also be
formulated and proved in analogous fashion.
Chapter IV
Like predicate calculus, simple type theory deals with a nonempty domain of basic
objects. But it deals not only with predicates over this domain, but also with
arbitrary predicates of predicates. Further, quantification is permitted n<;>t only
over the basic domain but also over predicates of all types.
We denote the type of the basic objects by 0, the type of statements (formulas)
by 1 and the type of predicates with arguments of types 'b ... , '. by ('1' ... , '.).
The primitive logical symbols we use are just  4 and V from which we can define
1.., ', 1\, v and 3. We use the abstraction symbol A to form the predicate
Ax~I ... x~nd[Xl',,x~nJ of type ('1' ... ".). This predicate holds for those and
only those elements e~', ... , e~n of types '1' ... , '. for which the statement (formula)
d[e~', ... , e~nJ holds (is deducible). In addition we use symbols for particular basic
objects and for functions on the basic domain.
We first develop classical simple type theory purely syntactically using only
constructive methods and then define a corresponding semantics which can only
be adequately developed by using nonconstructive methods.
2. Chains of Subterms
We need to give formulas a rank for our proofs by induction. We define this rank
with the aid of chains of subterms.
58 IV. Classical Simple Type Theory
Lemma 1. If d[ai] is a regular term, then d[a~] is a regular term with the same rank
as o[ai].
Lemma 2. If every sub term of a term ttr is regular, then ttr is regular.
Proof If a term has infinitely many regular subterms (by ST5 or ST6), then by
Lemma I these have the same rank, m say. This yields the assertion since then ttr
has rank m + I.
Lemma 3. The following conditions are sufficient for a term d[ttr] to be regular:
(I) d[a tr ] and ttr are regular terms.
(2) For every type 'i of height less than (J we have: If1f'[ai i ] and tii are regular
terms, then 1f'[ti i ] is a regular term.
(3) For every regular term di [atr] of smaller rank than d[a tr ], d;[ttr] is a regular
term.
10. The Formal System CT 59
Proof l. Suppose 0 is the nominal form * l' Then o[t"] is the term t" which is
regular by condition (I).
2. Suppose 0 is a nominal form *1(01' ... , 0.) (n~ I), where 01, ... , o. are
Iplace nominal forms. Then O"=('b ... , '.) where 0i[t"] is of type 'i. For
i= I, ... , n, oJa"] is a regular term of smaller rank than o[a"]. It follows by
condition (3) that oJt"] is regular.
2.l. Suppose t" is a prime term. Then o[t"] has the subterms 0l[t"], ... , o.[t"].
Since these are regular, o[t"] is regular.
2.2. Suppose t" is a term .A.xtd[xt] where '='1' ... , ' .
Then t" has a subterm
d[at] where at =a~', ... , a~n. This subterm is regular since t" is regular by con
'i
dition (l). For i= I, ... , n, has a smaller height than 0". Since oJt"] is regular it
follows by condition (2) that d[ol[t"], ... , o.[t"]] is regular. This is the only
sub term of o[t"]. Hence o[t"] is regular.
3. In every other case every subterm of o[t"] is of the form oJt"], where 0i[a"]
is a subterm of o[a"]. Since 0i[a"] is then a regular term of smaller rank than o[a"],
it follows by condition (3) that every subterm 0i [t"] of o[t"] is regular. Hence
o[t"] is also regular.
Lemma 4. If o[a"] and t" are regular terms then o[t"] is also a regular term.
Proof It follows from Lemma 3 by induction on the rank of the regular term o[a"]
that o[t"] is regular if conditions (l) and (2) of Lemma 3 hold. The assertion now
f?llowS by induction on the height of the type 0".
We define the length of a term t" to be the number of primitive symbols which
occur in t".
Proof Immediate from the definition of the rank of a formula and the definition
of subterm of a term.
60 IV. Classical Simple Type Theory
We set
and define Pforms, Nforms, NPforms, positive parts, negative parts, minimal
positive and negative parts and
as in 3.
As before we use the following syntactic symbols:
f!J, f!Ji for Pforms,
%, %i for Nforms,
8, 8 i for Pforms and Nforms,
fl, fli for NPforms.
The axioms of the system CT are all formulas of the form fl[P, P].
Proofby induction on the rank of the formula C in the same way as for Theorem
4.1. For the case that C is a formula Axtd[xt](tt) we start from the assumption
that, by I.H., fl[d[tt], d[tt]] is deducible. Using (S4)inferences we have
I fl[C, C].
Coronary to Theorems 10.3 and 10.4. The formal system CT is sententially complete.
10. The Formal System CT 61
Proof The sentential completeness follows from Theorem 10.4 in the same way as
for the system CP (see 4.1) since the connective 1.. is defined by V'X 1 X 1 and hence
Pforms and Nforms are defined as in CPo
Theorem 10.5. (Particular substitution rule). If a~ does not occur in the nominal
form fF, then
is a weak inference.
Theorem 10.9 (General substitution rule). If if does not occur in the nominalform
fF, then
is a permissible inference.
While hitherto all the proofs that certain inferences are permissible have been
constructive, the cut rule
gJ[A], (A  B) f gJ[B]
We define deduction chains in the same way as for the system CP (see 5.3). We
first assume that for each type (J an enumeration
part of a reducible formula Fwe mean the reducible part of Fwhich occurs furthest
to the right in F.
By the critical parts of a formula Fwe mean the negative parts of Fwhich are
of the form VxtJ 3"[xtJ ]. A formula is said to be critical if it is not reducible and has
at least one critical part.
A formula is said to be primitive if it is neither reducible nor critical. This is
obviously the case if, and only if, every minimal positive part and every minimal
negative part of the formula is an atomic formula.
By a Dchain (deduction chain) of aformula Fwe mean a sequence offqrmulas
formed as follows:
DI. The initial formulaFo of the Dchain is the formula F.
D. Ifa formula Fm of the Dchain is an axiom or an atomic formula, then it is
the last formula of the Dchain. We then say that the Dchain has length m.
D3. If a formula Fm of the Dchain is a reducible or critical formula but not an
axiom, then Fm has an immediate successor Fm+l in the Dchain, where Fm+l is
determined by Fm as follows:
D3.I. If Fm is a reducible formula %[(A  B)] with distinguished negative
part (A  B), then Fm+ 1 is either the formula %[(A  VX 1 X 1 )] or the formula
%[B].
D3.2. If Fm is a reducible formula &'[VxtJ3"[xtJ]] with distinguished positive
part Vx tJ 3"[xtJ ], then Fm+ 1 is the formula &'[3"[o:iJ] where i is the least number
such that o:i does not occur in Fm.
D3.3. If Fm is a reducible formula C[htd[xt](tt)] with distinguished
positive or negative part Axtd[xt] (tt) then Fm+l is the formula C[d[tt]].
D3.4. If Fm is a critical formula with critical parts
2. Partial Valuations
V3. If V'v'x" 3i'[x"] = t, then V3i'[t"] = t for every term t" of type (J.
V4. If V'v'x"3i'[x"]=f, then there is a free variable a" of type (J such that
V3i'[a"] = f (In this case V3i'[t"] need not be defined for every term t" of type (J.)
V5. If VAx"d[x"] (t") is defined then Vd[t"] = Vh"d[x"] (t").
3. Principal Lemmata
As in 5.3 we have:
Principal Syntactic Lemma. If every Dchain ofa formula F contains an axiom then
the formula F is deducible.
Proof In this case every Dchain of F is finite. Hence by Konig's lemma Fhas only
finitely many Dchains. These constitute a deduction of the formula F.
Proof Suppose
(DC) F o, F l , F2''''
is a Dchain which contains no axiom where Fo is the formula F. We now prove, in
analogy with 5.3:
Proof By induction on the sum of the ranks of the reducible parts of Fn which
occur in Fn to the right of C.
Lemma 3. If a formula Fn of the Dchain has a negative part 'v'x"3i'[x"] then the
Dchain contains infinitely many critical formulas with negative part 'v'x"3i'[x"].
Proof Under the hypothesis for Lemma 3 it suffices to prove that the Dchain
contains a critical formula Fm (m > n) with negative part 'v'x"3i'[x"]. We call the
sum of the ranks of the reducible parts of a formula the reducibility rank of the
12. Semantics 65
Now we set VC= t (or VC=f) if C occurs in the Dchain (DC) as a negative
(or positive) part.
12. Semantics
By a system M of sets we mean a collection of non empty sets Ma for each type (1,
such that Mal and Ma 2 are disjoint if (11 # (12'
For a given system M of sets we introduce the following terminology.
The basic Mterms of type (1 are the names ofthe elements of M a.
The Mterms of type (1 are the expressions which result from terms of type (1
66 IV. Classical Simple Type Theory
when all the free variables occurring in them are replaced by basic M terms of the
same type.
The Mformulas are the Mterms of type 1.
By an Mvariant of a formula Fwe mean an Mformula which is obtained from
Fby replacing the free variables occurring in Fby Mterms of the same type where
a free variable which occurs more than once in F is replaced at all occurrences by
the same Mterm.
As syntactic symbols we use
c", cii for basic Mterms of type CT, rio
c< for sequences ell, ... , c~" (n ~ 1) of basic Mterms,
utI, Uii for Mterms of type CT, rio
u< for sequences ul l , , U~" (n~ 1) of Mterms,
A', B', C', F', G', 'Ix"ffTx"] for Mformulas and
Ax<dTx<] for Mterms of type (r) = (rl' ... , tft)'
Bya total valuation over a system M of sets we mean a function Wwhich assigns
a truth value WF' = t or WF' = fto each Mformula F' such that the following hold:
WI. W(A'B)=tif,andonlyif, WA'=for WB'=t.
W2. W'Ix"ffTx"]=t if, and only if, Wff'[u"]=t for every Mterm utI of
type CT.
W3. WAx<dTx<] (u<)= WdTu<].
A formula Fis said to be true in a total valuation Wover M if WF' = t for every
Mvariant F' of F.
A formula is said to be valid if it is true in every total valuation over a system
of sets.
2. Soundness Theorem
We denote by f!IJ', %' and!2' the nominal forms obtained from Pforms, Nforms
and NPforms when the free variables in them are replaced by basic Mterms of the
same types.
For every total valuation Wover M we obviously have:
Inductive definition of a set pta (of possible valuations) for each term t a (by induction
on the height (see p. 58) of the type 0").
PI. Pt O :={t o }.
P2. If Vt l is defined, let Pt l : = {Vt l }. Otherwise let Pt l : = {t,J}.
P3. For "t"="t"l' ... ,"t"n (n~ 1) Po E PtS) if, and only if, the following conditions
are satisfied:
P3.I. Po is a set of ntuples
For every type 0" let M a be the set of ordered pairs (ta,p) with P E pta.
Obviously Ma is nonempty. So the sets M a form a syste~ M of sets. We now con
sider this system M and use the syntactic symbols introduced in I2.1.
68 IV. Classical Simple Type Theory
If utI is an Mterm of type ulet utI. be the term of type u obtained from utI by
replacing each basic Mterm (tj',p;) by the term t?
Inductive definition of Wu" for each Mterm utI (by induction on the degree du").
WI. Wuo:=uo*.
W2. W(t",p):=p for PEPt". (If u=O, we have p=tO, hence W(tO,p)=
to= (to, p)* by W2, in accordance with WI.)
W3. Wu~)(ul', ... , U~") : = t, if
W~'[c"] = t for every basic Mterm c"0 of type (Jo and therefore Wu 1 = t. If
Vu 1" =f, then there is a free variable if of type (Jo such that V~[ifO]=f Then by
I.H. W~'[c"O]=ffor some basic Mterm c"o of type (Jo and therefore Wu 1=f
4. Suppose if is an Mterrn htd'[x'] where (J=(')=('I,"" 'n) (n~ 1).
Then if" is a term Axtd[xt]. If Vif"(c l l ", , c~n") is defined then Vd[cl iO , , c~n"] =
Vif"(c l lO , , c~n.). Then by I.H. Wd,[cl l , , c~n] = Vd[cl l ., , c;"]. In this case
by the definition of Wif
if, and only if, VifO(cII . , , c~n")=t. Hence we have Wu" E Pu"" by the definition
of Pif.
Proof By Lemma 1 Wif E PifO and therefore (if", Wif) is a basic Mterm of
type (J. If 0=*1 then the assertion holds by the definition of W(if, Wif). In the
other cases the assertion follows by induction on the length of the nominal form o.
Proof Let c~;: = (u;;, WuD (i = 1, ... , n) and ct : = cI\"" c~n. By definition
WAx'd'[xt](ut)=t if, and only if, (cll , , c~n) E Whtd'[x']. This is the
case if, and only if, Wd'[ct]=(and then by Lemma 2 Wd'[ut]=t.
Indirect proof Suppose F is not deducible. Then by the principal syntactic lemma
(11.3) there is a Dchain of F which contains no axiom and therefore by the
principal semantic lemma (11.3) there is a partial valuation V with VF=f It
follows from Theorem 12.2 that F is not valid.
Proof Suppose the formulas &I[A] and (A + B) are deducible, then they are valid
by Theorem 12.1. Let Wbea total valuation over a system M of sets. If&l'[A'] and
(A' + 8) are Mvariants of the formulas &I[A] and (A + B) then W&I'[A'] = t
and W(A'+B')=t. If WB'=t, thenW&I'[B']=t by the PNlemma (p. 66). If
W8 =f, then since W(A' + 8) = t, we have WA' =f Then from W&I'[A'] = t we
have W&I'[B']=t. In any case, therefore, W&I'[B']=t. Hence &I[B] is valid and,
by Theorem 12.3, deducible. .
Part B
Systems of Arithmetic
Chapter V
In this section we restrict our attention to the ordinals of the 1st and 2nd number
classes and we represent these by a set 0 which is characterized as a set of ordinals
by the three axioms below. These axioms uniquely determine, up to isomorphism,
the set of ordinals of the 1st and 2nd number classes as it arises in the context of an
axiomatic set theory. Here we are sticking to an axiomatic determination of the
concept of set, in general in what follows we shall be dealing with a naive concept
of set.
Ax. II. Every bounded subset of 0 is denumerable. That is: if, given Me 0 there
exists IX E 0 such that ~ < IX for all ~ E M, then M is a finite or denumerably infinite
set.
Ax. III. Every denumerable subset of 0 is bounded. That is: for each finite or
denumerably infinite set Me 0 there exists IX E 0 such that ~ < IX for all ~ E M.
We call the elements of 0 ordinal numbers (ordinals, for short). We denote them
by small Greek letters. We write rx ~ 13 for rx < 13 or rx = 13, rx > 13 for 13 < rx and rx ~ 13
for 13 ~ rx. All the definitions introduced in this section refer to the axiomatically
given set O.
If d(rx) is a statement about an arbitrary ordinal rx then the property d of
ordinals is said to be progressive if, for all ordinals rx, d(rx) can be deduced from the
hypothesis that d(~) holds for all ~ <rx.
Induction Theorem. If d is progressive then d(rx) holds for all ordinals rx.
Proof Suppose d(rx) did not hold for every ordinal rx. Then the set of ordinals ~
such that d(~) is false is nonempty. By Ax. I this set must contain a least element.
This contradicts the hypothesis that d is progressive.
The induction theorem shows that in order to prove a theorem d(rx) about
ordinals it is sufficient to prove d is progressive. That is: it is sufficient to prove
d(rx) for arbitrary rx EO under the
Induction hypothesis: d(~) holds for all ~<rx.
This proof principle for d(rx) is called transfinite induction (on rx). We shall
frequently apply this transfinite induction below to prove theorems about ordinals
of the set 0.
Proof {rx} is a denumerable subset of 0. By Ax. III it follows that the set of ~ > rx
is nonempty. By Ax. I this set contains a unique smallest element. We call this the
successor rx' of rx.
Proof rx < 13 implies rx' ~ p. If 13 is a limit number then rx' # 13, hence rx' < p.
For every denumerable set Me 0 there is a unique smallest ordinal rx such that
all ~ E M. (This follows from Ax. III and Ax. I.) We call this ordinal rx the
~ ~ rxfor
76 v. Ordinal Numbers and Ordinal Terms
Proof Since M has no maximal element, sup M If M. For all ~ EMit follows that
~ < sup M. Since M is nonempty it follows that sup M =f. O. If rx'::::; sup M then
e
rx < sup M. Then there exists E M such that rx <~. It follows that rx'::::; ~ < sup M.
Therefore sup M is neither 0 nor a successor number, and hence is a limit number.
Definition. The set N ofjinite ordinals is the smallest subset of 0 which contains 0
and is such that if rx is in the subset then so is its successor rx'.
This set N which consists of the ordinals 0, 0', 0", ... , corresponds to the set of
natural numbers. Accordingly we set I : =0', 2: =0", .... Obviously N is a de
numerably infinite set which contains no maximal element and no limit number.
Definition. w: = sup N.
Theorem 13.2. w is the smallest number and rx < w holds if, and only if, rx EN.
4. Ordering Functions
For rx E 0 let O( rx) be the set of all ~ < rx. 0(0) is the empty set, and by Theorem 13.2
O(w) = N. Every set O(rx) is denumerable by Ax. II.
proper IOsegment. Obviously every lO(a) is a proper IOsegment. The converse also
holds:
Every proper IOsegment is an lO(a).
Definition. A function f: A
> B is said to be an ordering function of a set B 10 if
the following holds:
1. The domain A of the functionfis an IOsegment.
2. The function f is strictly monotone, that is, for all ~ < 17 E A we have
f{~)<f{17)
3. The image of the functionfis the set B.
Lemma 3. If every proper segment ofa set Be 10 has an ordering function then B also
has an ordering function.
Proof Letfp: Ap > B(f3) be an ordering function of B(f3) for each proper segment
B(f3) of B. By Ax. II the set B(f3) is denumerable. Since fp is bijective, Ap is also
denumerable and therefore a proper IOsegment. Therefore to each ordinal fJ E B
there is an ordinal g(f3) such that Ap = lO(g(f3. 9 is a map from B into 10.
(l) If f31' f32 EBand f31 < f32 then g(f3 d <g(f32)'
Proof f p2 is a map of lO(g(f32 onto B(f32)' Since f31 EB(f32), there exists a <g(f32)
such thatfp,(a) = f31' The restriction offp2 to lO(a) is an ordering function of B(f31)'
Since f P1 : lO(g(f31 > B(f3d is also an ordering function, it follows by Lemma 2
1
that lO(a) = 10 (g(f3 and therefore g(f31) = a <g(f32)'
78 v. Ordinal Numbers and Ordinal Terms
Proof Let 13 E B and (X <g(f3). We have to prove that (X E g(B). Since fp is a map of
O(g(f3)) onto B(f3) and (X <g(f3) there exists 130 E B(f3) withfp(X) = 130. The restriction
ofjp to O(X) is an ordering function of B(f3o). Sincefpo: O(g(f3o)) ~ B(f3o) is also an
ordering function, so by Lemma 2 (X = g(f3o) and therefore (X E g(B).
From (1) and (2) gis an order preserving map of B onto an Osegment A. The
inverse of 9 is an order preserving map of A onto B and therefore an ordering
function of B.
Theorem 13.5. The ordering function of a set B 0 is continuous if, and only if,
B is closed.
Theorem 13.6. The ordering function of a set B 0 is a normal function if, and only
if, B is closed and unbounded.
13. Theory of Ordinals of the 1st and 2nd Number Classes 79
Proof By Ax. II and Ax. III a subset of I[j) is bounded if, and only if, it is de
numerable. It follows that if f:A > B is an ordering function, then the set B is
unbounded if, and only if, A is unbounded, but then A = I[j). This together with
Theorem 13.5 yields the assertion.
5. Addition of Ordinals
For a E I[j) let B~ be the set of all ordinals ~ a and f~ the ordering function of B~.
Obviously the set B~ is closed and unbounded. So by Theorem 13.6f~ is a normal
function. In this way f~(P) is defined for all a, 13 E I[j). We write a + 13 for f~(f3). This
definition of addition immediately yields
(+1) a~a+f3
( + 2) 13 < y =;. a + 13 < a + y (right strict mono tonicity)
( + 3) If a ~ 13 there is a unique ~ such that a + ~ = 13.
Since f~ is a continuous function we have
(+6) a+O=a
(+7) a+f3'=(a+f3)'
(+8) f3~a+f3 (by Theorem 13.3).
(+9) 0+13=13.
(+10) (a+f3)+y=a+(f3+y).
Proof The ordering function for the set Bd p of all ordinals ~ a + 13 is such that
fdP(y)=(a+f3)+y. Let C~.p:={a+(f3+Y):YEI[j)} and g~.p(y):=a+(f3+y). It
follows from ( + 2) that the function g~. p is strictly monotone. Its image is the set
C~. p. Hence g~.P is the ordering function of C~. p. It follows from ( + 1)( + 3) that
80 V. Ordinal Numbers and Ordinal Terms
(+11) lY..~f3=lY..+y~f3+y.
Proof It follows from IY. ~f3 by ( + 3) that there exists ~ with IY. + ~ = 13. By ( + 8)
Y ~~ +y. From (+2)and (+ 10) it follows thatlY..+Y ~IY..+(~ +y)= (IY..+ 0 +Y= 13 +y.
From ( + 6) and ( + 7) one sees that addition of finite ordinals corresponds to
addition of natural numbers. If IY.., 13 E N then IY. + 13 EN.
If IY. is an additive principal number then the set O(IY..) is closed under addition.
That is: ~<IY.. and 11<1Y.. imply ~+I1<IY...
Proof If 11 < IY. then ~ + 11 < ~ + IY.. If IY. is an additive principal number and ~ < IY. then
~+IY..=IY.., and therefore ~ +11 <IY...
Proof of unboundedness. Let IY. be an arbitrary ordinal. We have to prove that there
isan additive principal number >IY... Let 130 :=IY..', f3n+ 1: =f3n+f3n' M: = {f3n: n EN}
and 13= sup M. 'Then f3n<f3n+l and lY..<f3o<f3 and therefore 13#0. If ~<f3 then
there exists n E N such that ~ < f3n. It follows that for all m ~ n, ~ + 13m ~ 13m + 13m =
13m + 1 <13 Hence sup (~+ M) ~f3. From ( + 8) and ( + 4) it follows that f3~ ~ + 13 =
sup (~ + M) ~ 13. Hence ~ + 13 = 13 for all ~ < 13 13 is therefore an additive principal
number >IY...
Theorem 13.7 (Cantor Normal Form). For every ordinal 0(#0 there are unique
0(1 ~ . ~ O(n (n~ I) such that o(=W~l + ... + w~n.
Uniqueness proof Suppose o(=W~l + '" +w~rn=wfll + ... +wPn where 0(1 ~ '" ~O(m
(m~l) and P1~"'~Pn (n~I). We prove by induction on m that m=n and
O(i = Pi for all i = 1, ... , m. It follows from the properties of additive principal
numbers that oW~l", 0wfl1 ", 0(1 <P1" and P1 <0(1'. Hence 0(1 ~P1 and P1 ~0(1 and
therefore 0(1=P1' Hence either m=n=1 or m>l, n>1 and w~2++w~rn=
wfJ2 + ... + wfJn. The assertion now follows from the induction hypothesis.
6. O(Critical Ordinals
Definition. We define a set Cr (0() c (I) and a function <P~ for each ordinal 0( induc
tively as follows:
82 V. Ordinal Numbers and Ordinal Terms
Proofof closure. Let M be a nonempty denumerable subset ofCr (a). Then for all
e < a and" E M we have 4Je" =". Since 4Je is continuous it follows that 4Je(sup M) =
sup M for all e < a and therefore sup M'E Cr (a). Hence Cr (a) is closed.
Theorem 13.8. For every ordinal a, 4J1l is a normal function and All = O.
Theorem 13.9. 4Ja1P1 = 4Ja2P2 holds if; and only if, one of the following holds:
1. a1<a2 and P1=4Ja2P2,
2. a1 =a2 and PI =P2'
3. a2 <a1 and 4Ja1P1 =P2'
Theorem 13.10. 4Ja 1 Pl <4Ja 2P2 holds if, and only if, one of the folio wing holds:
1. a 1 < (1.2 and P1 < 4Ja2P2'
2. (1.1 =(1.2 and PI <P2'
3. (1.2 <a 1 and 4J(1.1P1 <P2'
13. Theory of Ordinals of the I st and 2nd Number Classes 83
Proof by transfinite induction on rx. If e < rx then eO < e( <prxO) = rxO. By the
induction hypothesis it follows that e < rxO for all e < rx. Hence rx ~ rxO.
Proof If /3 E Cr (rx) then there exists I'f such that /3 = rxl'f. It follows that rx ~ rxO ~
rxl'f = /3.
Theorem 13.12. For every additive principal number'}' there exist unique rx and /3 <'}'
such that'}' = rx/3.
Existence proof By Theorem 13.11, '}'~'}'O. Since O<,}" '}' <'}"}'. Hence there is a
least ordinal rx ~'}' such that'}' # rx'}'. If rx #0 then e'}' ='}' for all e < rx and therefore
'}' E Cr (rx). By the hypothesis'}' E Cr (0). In any case therefore'}' E Cr (rx). Therefore
there exists /3 such that'}' = rx/3. Since,}, # rx'}' it follows that'}' < rx'}' and /3 < '}'.
Ul'Iiqueness proof If /31 <,}" /32 <'}' and ,},=rx 1/31 =rx2/32 then by Theorem 13.9
rx 1 = rx2 and /31 = /32
Theorem 13.13. rx is strongly critical if, and only if, rxO = rx.
Proof If rx E Cr (rx) then there exists /3 such that rx=rx/3. Now from rx~rxO (by
Theorem 13.11) it follows that /3 = 0 and hence rxO = rx. Conversely: if rxO = rx then
rx E Cr (rx).
Theorem 13.14. The set of strongly critical ordinal numbers is closed and unbounded.
From this it follows that sup e U ~ /3. Since ~ is a normal function it follows that
e/3 = /3 for all e < /3, and therefore /3 E Cr (/3). Hence /3 is a strongly critical ordinal
>rx.
84 v. Ordinal Numbers and Ordinal Terms
Definition. An ordinal ')I is said to be maximal acritical if ')I e Cr (a) and ')I f/= Cr (~)
for all ~ > a.
Obviously an ordinal ')I is maximal acritical if, and only if, there exists P< ')I
such that ')I = ljJap. It therefore follows from Theorem 13.12 that for every additive
principal number ')I there is an ordinal a such that ')I is maximal acritical.
We define ifJap in such a way that ifJ, where ifJ(p):=ifJap, is the ordering
function of the maximal acritical ordinals.
Proof ifJaPi = ljJaPt where Pt =Pi or Pt = p; (i = 1, 2). Now P1 < P2 implies Pt ~ /12
If P1=P2 then P1=P'1 and P1=PO+n where ljJapo=po and neN. But then
P2=PO+n' and P~=P~ In every case therefore P1<P~. Hence ljJaP1<ljJap~ and
therefore ifJaP1 <ifJaP2
Theorem 13.15. For each additive principal number ')I there are unique a and P such
that ')I=ifJap.
Existence proof By Theorem 13.12 there exist a and P1 <')I such that ')I=ljJaP1.
If ifJap 1 = ljJap 1 then the assertion is satisfied with P : = P1. Otherwise there exist
13. Theory of Ordinals of the 1st and 2nd Number Classes 85
Po and n E N such that P1 = Po + nand </Japo = Po Since P1 < </JaP1 it follows that
n =F O. Therefore there is an mEN such that m' = n. Putting P : = Po + m we obtain
I/Iap = </Jap' = y.
Uniqueness proof Suppose I/Ia 1P1 =I/Ia 2P2. By definition there exist pr such that
I/IaiPi = </JaiPr (i = 1, 2). By Lemma 6 Pr < </JaiPr (i = 1, 2). Then by Theorem 13.9
</Ja1Pt=</Ja2P! implies a 1=a2' By Lemma 8 it follows that P1 =P2'
Theorem 13.16. The function 1/1II. given by 1/1 rz<P) : = I/Iap is the ordering function of the
maximal rt.critical numbers.
THeorem 13.17. 1. If y = I/Iap then a <y if, and only if, y is not a strongly critical
ordinal.
2. For all p, P < I/Iap.
Theorem 13.18. I/Ia 1p 1 < I/Ia2p 2 holds if, and only if, one of the following holds:
1. a1<a2 and 131 <I/Ia2p2'
2. rt.1=a2 and 131<132'
3. rt.2 <a 1 and I/Ia 1p1 ~p2'
Proof 1. Suppose a1 <a 2 and 131 <I/Ia 2p2' Then I/Ia2p2 is an additive principal
number> 1. Therefore 131 <I/Irt. 2p2 implies 13'1 <I/Ia 2p2 and then I/Ia 1p1 ~</Ja1p'1 <
</Ja1(I/Ia2p2)' Since I/Ia2p2ECr(a2) and a1<rt.2 we have </Ja 1(I/Ia2p2) = I/Ia2p2'
Therefore I/Ia1p1 < I/Ia2p2'
2. Suppose a1=a2 and 131 <132' Then by Lemma 8 I/Ia 1p1 <I/Ia2p2'
3. Suppose I/Ia1p1 ~p2' By Theorem 13.17 132 <I/Ia2p2' Therefore I/Ia1p1 <
I/Ia2p2'
86 V. Ordinal Numbers and Ordinal Terms
4. Suppose none of cases 13 holds. Then eitheu l =a1 and Pl = P1 so "'alPl =
",alPZ or one of cases 13 for ",azpz < "'alP 1 holds.
By Theorems 13.7, 13.15 and 13.17 every ordinal # which is not strongly critical
can be expressed in terms of + and",. Accordingly we introduce a set T of terms
denoting the ordinals < r 0 and at the same time we formally fix their lengths in the
following way.
Inductive Definition of the set T of terms.
I. The symbol is a term in the set T with length 0.
2. If al, ... ,an,pl> ... ,Pn(n~l) are terms in the set T whose lengths are
Lal, ... , Lan' LP1' ... , LPn then (a l , Pl) ... (a n, Pn) is a term in the set T of length
Interpretation. 1. The term denotes the ordinal 0.
2. If al> ... , an' Pl' ... , Pn (n ~ I) are terms in the set T which denote ordinals
al , ... , al, 131, ... , Pn then the term (al> Pl) ...(an, Pn) denotes the ordinal "'alPl +
... + "'anPn'
These terms in the set T do not give a system of unique notations for ordinals.
For example the terms
both denote the same ordinal (J) = ",0(",00) = ",00 + "'O( ",00) according to the given
interpretation.
In order to obtain a system of unique notations for the ordinals < rowe single
out a subset of OT of T. At the same time we inductively define the < relation.
Inductive Definition of a set OTc T of ordinal terms and a relation < on ~T.
I. The symbol is an ordinal term in the set ~T.
2. If al, ... ,an,Pl, ... ,Pn (n~l) are ordinal terms in the set OT and
(ai+l,Pi+l)~(a;,Pi) for all i=I, ... ,nI then (al,Pl) ... (an,Pn) is an ordinal
term in the set OT.
We call the ordinal terms (a, p) E OT principal terms.
3. If a E OT then a < 0 does not hold.
4. If P E OT then < P if, and only if, P# O.
14. A Notation System for the Ordinals <r 0 87
5. If (lXI' PI)' (1X 2,P2)EOT then (1X 1,/31)1X2,P2) exactly when one of the
following holds:
5.1. 1X1<1X2 and Pl1X2,P2),
5.2. IXI =1X2 and IXI <P2,
5.3. 1X2 <IXI and (lXI' Pl)~P2.
6. If Y=Yl ...YmEOT and t5=t5 1 t5 n EOT where Yl, ... ,Ym, t5 1 , ,t5n (m~l,
n ~ I, m + n > 2) are principal terms then Y< t5 exactly when one of the following
holds:
6.1. m<n and Yi=t5 i for all i= I, ... , m.
6.2. There existsj~min (m, n) such that Yj<t5 j and Yi=t5 i for all i= I, ... ,j1.
IX=P means that IX and P are identical terms. IX~P means that IX<P or IX=P.
We also write IX> P for P < IX and IX ~ P for P ~ IX.
In the sequel only the elements of the inductively given set OT are called
ordinal terms.
It is clear from 13 that the. inductive definition ofthe <relation corresponds
to that in the interpretation we gave of the ordinal terms as notations for ordinals
< r o. The principal terms denote the additive principal numbers < r o.
In this section we started out from the point of view of the nonconstructive
theory of ordinals developed in 13. Now the ordinal terms are to be understood
without reference to their interpretations and simply as formal strings of symbols
for which we have a constructively defined < relation. All the theorems about
orpinal terms in this section will be proved constructively using only the above
inductive definition. In this way we lay a constructive foundation for the proof
theoretic applications in the next chapter.
We first confirm that we are dealing with decidable properties of ordinal terms.
It is obviously decidable for each string of symbols whether it is a term of the set T.
By the following theorem it is also decidable whether a string of symbols is an
ordinal term of the system OT.
Theorem 14.1. (1) It is decidable whether IX < P, IX = P or P < IX for aI/IX, P E OT.
(2) If YET it is decidable whether Y E OT.
Proofby induction on the maximum of La., LP and Ly and within that by induction
on LIX+Lp.
(I) Fore,,, E(e,,,)
E OT let denote: It is decidable whether e <", e =" or,,<e.
We prove E(IX, P) for IX, P E ~T.
1. Suppose IX or P is O. Then E(IX, P) is trivial.
2. 1X=(1X 1, 1X 2), P=(Ph P2). Then by the induction hypotheses we have
E(IXI, PI), E(1X2, P2), E(1X 2, P) and E(IX, P2). Now E(IX, P) follows by the inductive
definition of the < relation.
3. 1X=1X 1 lXm, P=Pl ... Pn where IXh ,lXm, Pl, ... ,Pn (m~l, n~l, m+n>2)
are principal terms. Then by the induction hypotheses E( IX;, Pi) for all i ~ min (m, n).
If lXi = Pi for all i ~ min (m, n) then IX < P, IX = P or P < IX according as m < n, m = n or
n<m. If there is a least indexj~min (m, n) such that IXj=FP j then IX<P or P<IX
according as IXj<Pj or Pj<lX j .
88 V. Ordinal Numbers and Ordinal Terms
(2) If y=O then Y EOT. Otherwise Y=(lXl, Pl)"'(lXn , Pn) (n~ 1). By the main
induction hypothesis it is decidable whether IX; E OT and P; E OT for all i = I, ... , n.
If this is the case, then we also have (IX;, Pi) E ~T. If n> 1 then by the induction
hypotheses it is decidable whether (1X;+l,P;+l)~(IX;,P;) for i=I, ... ,n1. Hence
YE OT is decidable.
In the following parts of this section small Greek letters will always denote
ordinal terms in the system ~T.
Theorem 14.2. The ordinal terms are linearly ordered by the < relation, that is,
for all y, Yl' Y2' Y3 E OT we have:
(I) Not Y<Y
(2) Yl <Y2 or Yl =Y2 or Y2 <Yl
(3) Yl <Y2 and Y2 <Y3 imply Yl <Y3'
Proof (1) follows at once by induction on Ly and (2) by induction on LYl +LY2'
Using (2) we prove (3) by induction on LYl +LY2 +Lh We only give the details
of the proof of (3) for the case Y; =(IX;, Pi) (i= I, 2, 3) since in the other cases the
assertion follows easily from the induction hypothesis. The hypotheses Yl <Y2
and Y2 < Y3 produce one of the following seven cases:
1. IXl < 1X 2' Pl <Y2 and 1X2 ~1X3'
By I.H. IXl <1X2 and 1X2~1X3 yield IXl <1X3'
By I.H. Pl <Y2 and Y2 <Y3 yield Pl < h
IXl < 1X3 and Pl <Y3 yield Yl <Y3'
2. IXl < 1X 2, Pl <Y2 and 1X3 < 1X2' Y2 ~P3'
By (2) either IXl <1X3 or IXl =1X3 or 1X3 <lXl'
2.1. Suppose IXl < 1X3'
By I.H. Pl <Y2 and Y2 <Y3 imply Pl < h
IXl < 1X 3 and Pl <Y3 imply Yl <Y3'
2.2. Suppose IXl = 1X 3 .
By I.H. Pl <Y2 and Y2 ~P3 imply Pl <P3'
IXl = 1X 3 and Pl <P3 imply Yl <Y3'
2.3. Suppose 1X3 < IX l
By I.H. Yl <Y2 and Y2 ~P3 imply Yl <P3'
1X3 <lXl and Yl <P3 imply Yl <Y3'
3. IXl =1X2' Pl <P2 and 1X2 < 1X 3' P2 <Y3'
Then IXl <1X3' By I.H. Pl <P2 and P2 <Y3 imply Pl < h
IXl < 1X 3 and Pl <Y3 imply Yl <Y3'
4. IXl =1X2' Pl <P2 and 1X2 = 1X 3' P2 <P3'
Then IXl =1X 3 . By I.H. Pl <P2 and P2 <P3 imply Pl <P3'
IXl = 1X 3 and Pl <P3 imply Yl <Y3'
5. 1X2 ~ IXl and 1X3 < 1X2' Y2 ~ P3'
By I.H. 1X3 < 1X2 and 1X2 ~ IXl imply 1X3 < IX l
14. A Notation System for the Ordinals < r 0 89
Remark. We require ordinal terms in the succeeding chapters in order to carry out
induction over OT with respect to the < relation. That is to say: we use the prin
ciple of proof by transfinite induction over the segment of the ordinals < r 0
represented by ~T. However, the wellordering of OT, on which this transfinite
induction is based, cannot be proved in as elementary a way as Theorem 14.2.
Later we shall establish transfinite induction for OT, using stronger methods step
by step.
The following properties are easily established for this addition of ordinal
terms.
1X~IX+p and p~lX+p,
P<y => 1X+/3<IX+Y,
lX~p => lX+y~/3+y,
IX + (13 + y) = (IX + 13) + y.
If IX = 1X1" .lXn (n ~ 2) where 1X 1, "., IXn are principal terms IX = 1X1 + ". + IXn'
IX' is the successor of IX since we obviously have
IX < IX'
IX < /3 => IX' ~ /3
lX<p' => 1X~/3.
The principal terms have the properties of additive principal numbers since
the definition of addition yields
We call the ordinal term 0 and the ordinal terms 1X1".lXn (n~ 1) such that IXj=(O, 0)
(i = 1, ... , n) finite ordinal terms.
Obviously IX < w holds if, and only if, IX is a finite ordinal term.
Proof of (1). If 4Ja.p = P then the assertion holds. If 4Jrxp = (rx, p) then P < 4Jrxp by
Theorem 14.3(1). Otherwise we have P=(PI,P2)+Y' where rx<PI and y<w and
4JrxP=(rx,(PI,P2)+Y)' In this case (0,0)PI,P2)+Y' By Theorem 14.3(1) we
,obtain (P b P2) + Y < 4Jrxp and (0,0) < 4Jrxp. Hence P < 4Jrxp.
Proofof(2). If P=(PI' P2) where rx<PI then 4Jrxp=p. By Theorem 14.3(2) we then
have PI <po It follows that rx<4Ja.p. Otherwise we have 4Jrxp=(rx, Po). Then by
Theorem 14.3(2) again we have rx < 4Jrxp.
Proof Following the definition we have the following three cases to consider for
4Jrxp and 4Jrxy.
1. 4Jrxp = p. Then P < Y implies 4Jrxp < 4Jrxy since Y ~'4Jrxy by Theorem 14.4( 1).
2. 4Jrxp = (rx, Po) where P=Po or P=P'o and 4JrxY=Y=(YI, Y2) where rx<YI'
Now P<y implies Po<y. Using rx<YI it follows that 4Jrxp=(rx, Po) <y=4Jrxy.
3. 4Ja.p = (rx, Po) where P=Po of P=P'o and 4Jrxy=(rx, Yo) where Y=Yo ory=Y'o
N.ow P < Y implies P ~ Yo. If P = Yo then Y = Y'o. By the definition of 4Jrxy we then have
P=YO=(Yb Y2)+<> where rx<YI and <><w. Since we have 4Jrxp=(rx, Po) it follows
that <>#0. Then P=P'o. In any case we therefore have Po<Yo. It follows that
4Jrxp = (rx, Po) < (rx, Yo) = 4Jrxy.
Theorem 14.5. 4Jrx i PI =4Jrx2P2 holds if, and only if, one of the following holds.
1. rx l <rx2 and PI =4Jrx2Pb
2. rx l =rx 2 and PI =Pb
3. rx2 <rx l and 4Jrx i PI =P2'
Theorem 14.6. 4Ja. IPI <4Jrx 2P2 holds if, and only if, one of the following holds:
1. rx l <rx 2 and PI <4Jrx 2Pb
2. rx l =rx 2 and PI <P2,
3. rx2<rxl and 4Jrx i PI <P2'
Joint Proof for Theorems 14.5 and 14.6. By definition 4Jrx 2P2 is an ordinal term
(YI, Y2) with rx2 ~YI' If rx l <rx 2 then rx l <YI and then again by the definition
4Jrx l (4Jrx 2P2)=4Jrx 2P2' The assertions of Theorems 14.5 and 14.6 for rx l <rx 2 now
follow by Lemma I. The case where rx 2 < rx l is similar. If rx 1 = rx 2 then the assertions
follow immediately from Lemma 1. These are all the cases since rx 1 <rx 2 or rx 1 =rx2
or rx 2 <rx 1
Theorem 14.7. For each principal term Y there exist unique rx and P < Y such that
y=4Jrxp. Moreover, Lrx<Ly and LP<Ly.
92 V. Ordinal Numbers and Ordinal Terms
Uniqueness Proof y=c/>txlPl =c/>tx 2P2 where Pl <y and P2 <y implies txl =tx2 and
Pl =P2 by Theorem 14.5.
Remark. A comparison of Theorems 13.9, 13.10 and 13.12 with Theorems 14.5
14.7 shows that the ordinal terms c/>txP have the properties corresponding to those
of the ordinals c/>txP defined in 13.
Theorem 14.8. For each ordinal term y #0 there are unique ordinal terms
txl,,txn, Pl,,Pn (n~l) where Pi<c/>txiPi (i=I, ... ,n), c/>txlPl~~c/>tx~Pn and
y = c/>txlPl + ... + c/>txnPn
Proof We have y=Yl ... yn (n~I) with principal terms Yl~~yn' By Theorem
14.7 there are unique txi and Pi < Yi such that Yi = c/>tx i Pi' Hence the assertion is
established.
Lemma 3. For each principal term P there is a unique ordinal term tx such that P = w~.
Proof By Theorem I4.7we have P=c/>P1P2' If Pl =0 then the assertion holds with
tx: = P2' Otherwise by Theorem 14.5 it holds for tx: = p. The uniqueness of tx follows
from Lemma 2.
Theorem 14.9. For each ordinal term tx#O there are unique txl ~ ... ~txn (n ~ I) such
that tx=W~1 + ... +w~n.
Proof This follows from Lemma 3 and the properties of addition of ordinal terms.
Corollaries:
w~(O, O)=w"
=
P<y w~P<w"y
w~ P + w~ y = w~ (P + y)
w~ (w p y)=w"+P .y.
;rheorem 14.11. For each oc and P there are unique ~ and11 <w~ such that P= w~ ~ +11.
Uniqueness Proof Suppose P=w~ ~1 +'11 =w~' ~2 +1'/2 where 111 <w~ and 1'/2 <w~.
Then
It follows that ~1 <~~ and therefore ~1 ~~2' Similarly ~2~~1' It follows that
~1 =~2' Therefore 111 =112'
Proof y<w~p implies y' ~w~p. Since oc#O, w~p is not of the form y'=y+wo.
It follows that y' < w~ p.
Theorem 14.12. Ify < w~ pandoc 1 < oc then there exists P1 such thaty < W~l. P1 <w~ p.
Proof By Theorem 14.11 we have y = W~l . ~ + 11 where 1'/ < W~l. Therefore
94 V. Ordinal Numbers and Ordinal Terms
Since w(O,O)=w, it follows by Theorem 14.11 that for each a there are unique
C; and 1'/ < w such that
For I'/<w, there is a unique nE N such that I'/=won. We define q(a) :=C; and
r(a): =n. In this way, we have q(a) E OT and r(a) EN for each a E OT such that
a=wq(a) +wo r(a)
holds.
Corollaries.
I p= P
n(p +y)=n P +ny
n#O, P<y ~ np<ny.
Theorem 14.13. If y<2~p and a l +w~a, then there exists Pl such that
y<2~1'Pl <2~p.
It follows that
14. A Notation System for the Ordinals < r 0 95
It follows that
These ordinal terms B~ are called Bterms. They are precisely the ordinal terms ~
such that w~ = e.
It follows from Lemma 1 that
Theorem 4.15. For each OC<Bp there exists nE N and either y=O or Y=B' ~ (where
1'/<P) such that oc<wn(Y)
~I< GfJ and L~I < L~. By I.H. there exist therefore n E N and a Y of the required kind
such that ~1<Wn(Y)~Wn+I(Y). Since wn+I(Y) is a principal term it follows that
~<Wn+I(Y).
Theorem 14.16. For every ordinal term ~ there exists n EN such that ~n.
PE OT then ~ < Pif, and only if, either ~, Pare from OT and ~ < Por ~ E OT
If~,
and P= r o. Obviously OT is ordered by this < relation.
Let N + be the set of positive natural numbers.
14. A Notation System for the Ordinals < r 0 97
Nr (IX) : = Il P1t(Nr(~;)
i= 1
I, Nr(p;) I)'
We also set
3. Nr(r o) :=0.
Then Nr is a map of OT into the set N of natural numbers.
{l, ... , n} such that')' f(1) ~ ... ~')' fin) then let t(m) : =')' f(1) ... ,), fin)'
Theorem 14.17 Nr is a bijection ofOT onto N with inverse t: N ~ ~T. That is: the
following hold:
(1) t(Nr) (IX = IX for all IX E OT
(2) Nr(t(m=m forallmEN.
Proof (I) and (2) are immediate from the definition. This yields the assertion.
The < relation of OT induces an ordering relation < of the natural numbers
under the bijection as follows:
Theorem 14.18. < is a decidable arithmetic relation, that is, for any two natural
numbers m, n it is decidable whether m < n, m = nor n < m.
Proof Given natural numbers m, n the terms t(m) , t(n) E OT are effectively
calculable. We can then decide whether t(m) <t(n), t(m)=t(n) or t(n) < t(m).
Chapter VI
In this chapter we treat the theory of functionals of finite type in which, following
K GOdel [2] pure number theory can be interpreted (19). The functionals con
cerned are introduced in 15 and they are shown to be calculable in 16 following
W. Howard by transfinite induction up to 8o, in fact, by using the ordinal terms of
14. In 17 we develop a formal system on the basis of the positive implicational
calculus (with equality) as a logical setting for the theory of functiorrals of finite
type.
1. Types
We now introduce function types in contrast to the predicate types of Chapter IV.
2. Terms
Syntactic symbols:
x', y', z' for variables of type 1:,
a', b', c', d', e' for terms of type 1:.
We shall also use these syntactic symbols with subscripts. The superscripts always
give the type.
According to the above definition of term every term which is not primitive is
of the form
.
where aa, .. .a n, is a primitive term .
3. Interpretation
The term iftba denotes the image of ba under the map if': CT + 1:. This image is
of type 1:.
The successor functional!/ maps each term aO of type 0 onto its successor !/a O
Thus !/ denotes a map 0 + 0 of type 00.
Ka.a' denotes the constant function CT + 1: which maps every term ba of type CT
to a'. Thus Ka.a'b a=a'. This mapping Ka.a t is of type CT1:. The combinator Ka,
denotes the function 1: + CT1: which maps (J,' to the constant function K.rtrx.. Con
sequently K a , is a functional of type 1:CT1:.
Spatapa'bPa denotes the function p + 1: which maps the term cP to the term
apatcP(bPacP) of type 1:. Thus we have
Consequently Spatapa'bPa is oftype p1:, Spatapat is of type (PCT)p1: and Spa, is of type
(PCT1: )(PCT) p1:
100 VI. Functionals of Finite Type
The iterator J t only has a meaning when together with a numeral N n Then the
functional J.Nn maps a function att: t + t onto its nfold iteration. That is, the
following holds:
where att occurs n times on the righthand side of the equation. In particular we have
and
Consequently JtNnOtt is of type tt, J.Nn of type (tt)tt and J t of type O(tt)t1;.
The interpretation we have just given serves only to clarify the theory we are
dealing with. In the sequel we shall not refer to this interpretation and the meaning
of the terms will be fixed purely formally by an appropriate reduction procedure.
Corollary. For each at there exists bt such that at l> 1 bt if, and only if, at is reducible.
In this case bt is uniquely determined by at.
Proof (1) is immediate from the defining rules for reduction. (2) holds because at
most one (one step) reduction is possible for any given term.
5. Characterization of Numerals
Theorem 15.1. The numerals are the only irreducible functionals of type o.
6. Substitution Properties
We denote by c" (:: ) the term which results from c" when every occurrence of the
variable xt in c" is replaced by the term at.
Lemma 1. If c" is an open term and c"l>l d" then c"(::)l> 1 d"(::}
102 VI. Functionals of Finite Type
Proof This follows at once from the rules for reduction of open terms.
Proof In this case the reducible term aT occurs in ca(::) and hence the assertion
Lemma 3. If ca is a term which is not open and does not begin with x" and if aT is
Proof Suppose ca is a term c~cfl ... c~n where P=Pl ... Pn (n~O) and where c~ is a
basic term different from x T. Then the term ca(::) also begins with ~.
1. Suppose c~ is a variable or an arithmetic basic term. Then trivially ca (::)
is not open.
2. Suppose c~ is a combinator. Then ca(::) is not open since ca is not open.
3. Suppose c~ is an iterator.
Theorem 15.2. If aT 1:>1 bTand ca(::) I:>m ea where ea is irreducible then ca(~:) I:> ea.
Proof Without loss of generality we may assume that x Tdoes not occur in aT, bT.
For we can choose a variable yT which does not occur in a" b"
ca. Then the terms
ca(::} cae:) are the same as the terms ca(~:)(;:} caG:)G:) so we can replace
ca and x Tin the hypotheses and statement of Theorem 15.2 by ca(~:) andyT where
y' does not occur in a"
bT.
Now we assume that x Tdoes not occur in aT, bTand prove Theorem 15.2 by a
multiple nested induction, namely, by induction
I. on the length of the term a"
2.onm,
3. on the length of the term ca.
15. The System of Terms of Finite Type 103
where c: is irreducible and ci' is reducible. It follows by Lemma 2 that xt does not
occur in c:. It now follows from the hypothesis cal>m ea that there is an irreducible
termei' such that ci'l>m, ei' where 1 ~ml ~m. Sincem 1 ~m and ci' is shorter than
ca it follows by the second or third I.H. that ci'l>ei'. Hence
and
3.1. Suppose at is open or ca is not open. Then it follows from the hypotheses
of the theorem that
3.2. Suppose at is not open and c" is open. Then it follows from at 1>1 b t that
and
where p = t 1'" tr t (r ~ 1) and where a~ is irreducible and aI' I> 1 b~' holds. Let yt' be
a variable which does not occur in at, bt , c".
Let dr be the term a~y"a~2 ... a~rc!' .. .c:" so that (lr ( at')
1
yt'
is the term C". Since c"
is open and at, a~' are reducible it follows from Lemma 3 that di is also open. Hence
we have a term di such that di I> 1 di. It follows by Lemma 1'that
and
C"1>1 J" ( b 1 .
t
')
2 y"
Since ai' 1>1 bi' holds and ai' is shorter than at it follows by the first I.H. that
J,,(byt'i') I>e".
2
Proof at I>b t and at I>ct imply bt I>ct or ct I>bt If bt and ct are irreducible then it
follows that bt and ct are identical.
In the next section we shall prove that every term has a normal form.
16. Orders of Terrns 105
Remark. The existence of the normal form can be proved somewhat more simply
by using a strong metamathematical predicate (see J. R. Shoenfield: Mathematical
Logic 1967, pp. 225,227). W. Howard's proof, which is given in 16, requires sub
stantially more machinery but yields more information, since by its reference to the
ordinals < Eo it gives a connection with the consistency proofs which we shall carry
out in the later chapters using transfinite induction.
In order to assign ordinal terms to terms we use the natural sum IX # P and the
natural product 21Z x Pof the ordinal terms IX, p and we first define these.
Definition of IX # p.
1. IX # 0 : = IX and 0 # P:= p
2. If IX = W lZ1 + ... +wlZm and P=wlZm + 1 + ... +WlZn (I ~m<n) where IXI ~ ... ~lXm
and IXm + I ~ ... ~ IXn and f is a permutation of {1, ... , n} such that IX f(l) ~ ~ IX fin)
then
Corollaries.
(# 1) IX#P=P#IX
(#2) 1X#(P#y) =(IX# p) #y
(#3) P<y => IX#P<IX#y.
Definition of 21Z x p.
By Theorem 14.11 for each IX there are unique lXo and m < w such that IX =
106 VI. Functionals of Finite Type
(xl) P~2"xP
( x 2) P< y =.> 2" x P< 2" x Y
(x3) 2"x(P=II=y)=(2"xP>=II=(2"xy)
(x4) 21 xP=P=II=p.
We also have
Inductive Definition of an ordinal term [a']i for each term a' and natural number i.
1. If a' is a variable or an arithmetic basic term 0 or [/ then set
16. Orders of Terms 107
t] .. ={I ifi~gr.
[ a.. O.f
1 i>gr.
I ifi~gp+ I,
[Jp];:= { w ifi=gp+2,
o ifi>gp+2.
I ifi~gp+ I,
[JpNn ];:= { n if i=gp+2,
o if i>gp+2.
This last rule is inductive since [aUtbU]gu+ 1 = [aUt ]gu+1 and therefore [aatb a ];
is determined for i ~g(1 by induction on g(1  i.
Corollaries. 1. For every term a' there exists kE N such that [at];=Ofor all i>k.
2. If at does not contain an iterator then [at]; < w for all i EN.
3. For all terms a' we have [at]; <Ilo
Lemma 2. (I) If aatb a is not of the form JpNn then [aUt];~ [aatba]Jor all i EN.
(2) For all i~g(1 we have [bU];~[iftba];.
Proof (I) follows immediately from the definition of [aatb a];. (2) likewise follows
from this definition if if'ba is not of the form JpNn. Otherwise (2) follows from
Lemma I.
Lemma 3.
ifi~g(1,
Proof 1. Suppose aa'ba is not of the form JpNn. Then the assertion follows from
the definition of [aatb a ];.
108 VI. Functionals of Finite Type
2. Suppose aUW' is a term JpNn Then u=o and therefore gu=O and
if i=O,
By the order of a term a' we mean the ordinal term [a']o. We shall prove that b'
has a smaller order than a' if a' reduces to b' in one step.
[a<] < [b'] means that [a']o < [b']o and [a']j ~ [b']j for all i ~gr.
Proof. For brevity we put aj:=[aPU'l, bj:=[bPUl and cj:=[cPl. From the
definition and Lemma 3 we have
max(gp + 2, gu + 2, gr + I).
max(gp + I, gu + I, gr).
16. Orders of Terms 109
max(gp+ 1, g(1).
Proof Here 'i=ei~ai and Yi=Pi=a. i =21Z I+l x (1 #aiai' and therefore 'i<Yi'
(2) lfgp<i~max(gp+I,g(1) then
ei#'1i#'i#2~2'i+l#1 x (1 #ai#b;)
and
Further
and
The assertion now follows on using the induction hypothesis ej+ 1 * '1j+ 1 *
Cj+ 1 *2~yj+l'
It follows from (I) and (3) that ej < Yj for all i~!JT and therefore [aPt1t c"(II"'cP)] <
[SPt1taPt1tbPt1 c"].
By Lemma 2(2) if i~gr: then [bt]j ~ [JtOa"br:]i" This yields the assertion.
Proof For brevity we write a j : = [att]j and bj : = [bt]j' By definition and Lemma 3
we have
if i~gr:+ I,
if i=gr:+2,
if i>!JT+2
Y, .=[
'o,'
''(IN "bt)],~ { 2"+' x (a j
a t na ,..... a
*'1j ) 'f'
1'f'~
l ..... gr:
j 1 1>!JT
x (I *aJ if i~gr:+ I
{
2~i+'
(Xj:=[JtNn+latt ]j= n+1 ifi=gr+2
o if i>gr+2
P,:=[J
,
M
t"'n+l
{2
a"bt].=
'(Xj
f1 + I ( .u. b)
x (Xj"11" j
'f' ~
1 l ..... gr:,
if i>gr.
16. Orders of Terms 111
Therefore
'7i#'i# 1 ~(2~i+l#~i+I#'1+1#2 x (l #a;#(2~i+I#'i+l#1 x b;)
Proof By Lemma 1, [b"] < [c"] implies that c" is not a numeral. Therefore a"tc"
is not of the form JpNn It follows from the definition and Lemma 3 that
By hypothesis [ba]j ~[C1i for all i~gu. It follows by induction on gui that
[aatba]i~[a"tca]i for all i~gu. Hence [aatba]i~[a"tca]i for all ie N. Using the
hypothesis [ba]o<[ca]o it also follows that [aatba]o<[aatca]o' This yields the
assertion.
Lemma 9. If bat is not an iterator then [aat] < [bat] implies [aatc a] < [batca].
Theorem 16.1. If a~o 1>1 a~o then a~o has a smaller order than ala.
Proof Suppose ala 1>1 a~o. We prove [a~o] < [ala] by induction on the length of the
term ala. This will yield the assertion.
There are two cases to consider when ala I> 1 a~o :
1. For i= I, 2, afo is a term bfd~\ ... , d~m where" = "I' ... , "m"o (m ~o). This
gives the following four subcases for bl, b~ :
1.1. bl is K"tatb" and b~ is at,
1.2. bl is Sp,,~P"tbpaeP, and b~ is aP"teP(bP"eP),
1.3. b~ is JtOatW and b~ is b"
1.4. bl is JtNn+ Jattbt and b~ is att(JtNnattbt).
2. For i= I, 2, aiD is a term a"tbf d 1T!, , d:,m where"="I ... "n"o
(n~O) where
a"t is irreducible and b~:} 1 b~.
In the first case [b~] < [bl] holds by Lemmata 47. Then by Lemma 9 it follows
that [a~o]<[a~o]. In the second case [bn<[bn by the induction hypothesis.
Then [Q:(Jtb~] < [a"tbn by Lemma 8 and [a~o] < [a~o] by Lemma 9.
Proof This follows at once from Theorem 16.1 by induction on the ordering re
lation of the ordinal terms < eo, in other words by transfinite induction up to eo.
4. Equality of Terms
Definition. If a", bt are terms then a" = bt means that a" and bt have the same normal
form.
Obviously this equality relation is an equivalence relation such that
Proof By hypothesis at and bt have the same normal form dt. It is therefore
sufficient to prove:
By Theorem 16.2 CO"(::) has a normal form eO". Therefore there exists mE 1\1
such that
Remark. It follows from 16.3 that equality for terms is compatible with arbitrary
reductions. That is: In order to reduce a term we do not need to use the uniquely
determined reduction procedure given above but can carry out the reduction of a
term at at any place in at without altering the normal form.
for
114 VI. Functionals of Finite Type
2. Deduction Procedures
Inductive Definition of j!!B ("B is deducible with order n") for n EN:
1. If B is an axiom then j!!B.
2. If A I B is a basic inference (Str) and j!!A then j!!+ 1 B.
3. If Ai' A2 I B is a basic inference (Cut) or (CI) and j!!iA; (i= 1, 2) then j!!B
where n: =max(n i , n 2 )+ l.
I B ("B is deducible in the system FT") means that there exists n E N such that
p! B.
Theorem 17.1 (Substitution rule) . .lfj!!~[xtJ, where the variable xt does not occur
in the nominalform~, then j!!~[atJfor every term at of type 'to
Proofby induction on n.
1. Suppose ~[xtJ is an axiom. Then ~[atJ is also an axiom.
2. Suppose j!!~[xtJ was obtained by a basic inference (Str) or (Cut). Then by
17. The Formal System FT of Functionals of Finite Type 115
the induction hypothesis the formulas obtained from the premisses by substituting
at for xt are deducible with the same orders as the premisses. Using the appropriate
basic inference (Str) or (Cut) we obtain f!!ff[a t ].
3. Suppose f!!ff[xt] was obtained by a basic inference (CI). Then the formula
ff[xt] is a formula ~[bO] and we have
where n=max(n 1 , n 2 )+ 1 and where yO does not occur in~. We choose a variable
z" different from xt which occurs in neither ~ nor in at. By I.H. (induction hypo
thesis) it follows that
Let ~* be the nominal form obtained from ~ by substituting at for xt. By I.H. it
follows that
Lemma 1. If two funetionals at and bt have the same normal form then a closed
formula ff[a t ] is true if, and only if, the formula ff[b t ] is true.
at = bt . .F[at ] . .F[bt ].
5. Suppose f!!C was obtained by a basic inference (Cut). Then Cis a formula
r B and we have
r  A* and A*  B are closed formulas and therefore are true by I.H. It follows
that r  B is true.
6. Suppose f!!C was obtained by a basic inference (CI). Then C is a formula
ff[a O ] and we have
where n = max (n l ' n 2 ) + 1. By Theorem 17.1 it follows that for all mEN
By I.H. the closed formulas ff[O] and ff[Nm]  ff[Nm+ 1] are true. It follows by
induction on m that ff[N m] is true for every numeral N m. Now the normal form of
a,o is a numeral by Theorem 15.1. So by Lemma 1 it follows that ff[a O ] is true.
Remark. The converse ofTheorem 17.2 does not hold in general. Thus, for example,
is a true closed formula which is not deducible in FT. However, every true closed
equation is deducible in FT. This follows from the fact that every equation a< = b<
such that a< r> l b< holds is deducible in FT.
Proof The false closed equation 9'0=0 is not deducible in FT by Theorem 17.2.
Remark. Besides elementary methods our consistency proof for the system FT
uses only Theorem 16.1 which we proved by transfinite induction up to eo. (Theorem
16.1 was used to prove Theorem 16.3 and hence also Lemma I which we used to
prove Theorem 17.2.)
Proof KooOO=O
and
are (Ax. K) and (Ax. = ) axioms (where in the (Ax. = ) axiom!F is a Iplace nominal
form A in which the nominal sign *1 does not occur). Using a cut we have f A > A.
The next theorem shows that equality is an equivalence relation which is com
patible with the mapping of terms and formulas.
we obtain
KoptO=a t
we obtain
bt = ct > at = bt > at = ct
we obtain (=4).
17. The Formal System FT of Functionals of Finite Type 119
5. By (=2) we have
Theorem 17.5. lflF[O) and IF[9' x O) where the variable XO does not occur in the
nominal form F then IF[aO) for every term aO of type o.
fsPao=O + b<=c<.
fsPao=O+ C.
Definitions.
aO + bO : =Jobo sPaO
aO. bO : =JobO(Joao SP)O.
(+0) aO+O=ao
(+sp) aO+sPbo=sP(ao+bO)
(0) aOO=O
(.sp) aO sPbO =aO bo +ao.
aO + 0 = Jo0sP aO = aO
aO + sP bO = Jo(sP bO)sPaO = sP( Jobo sP aO) = sP(aO + bO)
aOO=JoO(JoasP)O=O
aO. sPbo = Jo(sPbO)(JoasP)O = Joao sP(Job(JoasP)O) =aO. bO + if
Remark. All the equations for the basic properties of addition and multiplication
follow from the recursion equations (+ 0), (+ sP), (0) and (. sP) by means of
(CI)inferences:
Definition.
Corollary. AXP(Ct ) is a term of type po in which the variable x Pdoes not occur.
for
xr',... ,x:" must always be distinct variables. If these variables do not. occur in
ar',... ,a:" then by Theorem 17.7 we have
(1) IUaooO=aOO(Y'O)
(2) I UaOO(Y'O) = Y'(aOO(Y'O.
(3) IPO=KooOO=O
I P(Y'CO) = U(JoocOU(KooOO.
(PO) IPO=O
(P9') IP(9'aO) =aO.
Hence
Proof By ( = 5) we have
(..:...0) a..:...O=aO
(..:...9') a..:...9'bo = P(a..:...bO).
a..:...O=JoOPao=ao
a..:...9'bo =Jo(9'bO)PaO = P(Jobo PaO) = P(a..:...bO).
124 VI. Functionals of Finite Type
(1) O..:..bo=O
(2) Y'if..:..Y'bo=a..:..bo
(3) Y'a":"ao=Y'O
(4) a":"ao=O.
Proof. 1. We have
(1.1) fO..:..O=O
(3.1) fY'O..:..O=Y'O
8. The Recursor
(RO) I RtatbOttO = at
(R9') I Rtatbott(9' CO) = bottcO(RtatbottcO).
fOtO=a t
fot(9' CO) = bottcO(fOtcO)
9. Simultaneous Recursion
hOf'O=aI;
hOf;([/eO) = brf, .. . fnf;eO(ft'eO) ... (J..0fneO)
Now suppose n> 1. For brevity we write bi' e, dfor brf' ... fnf;,~, dO. Let
where the variables xf', ... , x:':i' do not occur in a!n and the variables xO, y",
Z~f', , z::i' do not occur in bn. Then 9 is a term of type o(o't 1 ) (O't n_ 1 )'tn such
that the following hold by Theorem 17.11:
IgO=s"
Ig([/ e) = to"" e(ge).
Vi is a term oftype o(o't 1) .. (o't n 1 )ot i By the induction hypothesis there are terms
hi of type Oot i (i = 1, ... , n  1) such that the equations
hiO=ur f ;
hi ([/ e) = vi e(h 1 e) ... (h n 1 e)
17. The Formal SystemFT of Functionals of Finite Type 127
are deducible for all i= I, ... , nl and all terms c of type o. From the definitions of
uf t " Vi and Theorem 17.7 we have
(3) IhiOd=af'.
(4) Ih;(!7c)d= Dt,[d~c, hiCd, bic(h 1cc) ... (h n  1cC)(gC(hl c) ... (h n 1c].
Now we define
By (4.1) we have
With (6), (7) and (9) the proof of the theorem is complete.
hold. Then Iff[aO, aI', ... , a~"] holdsforall terms aD, aI', ... , a~" of types 0, 't l , .. , 'tn.
Proof By Theorem 17.12 for the terms if and aI', ... , a~" there are terms.!; of type
O't i such that for all i= 1, ... , n and all terms CO of type 0 the equations
(1) f;O=aIi
(2) .!;(9"cO) = bi(a...!...9" CO)(fl CO) ... (fncO)
Therefore, substituting.!;zo for yIi, hypothesis (II) and the equations (2) yield
Using fa"":""aO=O (by Theorem 17.10) and hypothesis (I) the assertion
fff[aO,a~I, ... ,a~"] follows.
Theorem 17.14. Let ff[aO, bO] be aformula. Let xO, yO be distinct variables of type 0
which do not occur in the nominal form ff. Suppose
(I) fff[xO,O]
(II) fff[O, yO]
(III) fff[xO, yO] + ff[Sf'xO, Sf'yO]
The assertion now follows from (3) and hypothesis (11) by Theorem 17.13.
Definition. Formulas which only contain equations between terms of type 0 are
said to be basic formulas.
130 VI. Functionals of Finite Type
(1) O+bo=bo
(2) Obo=O
(3) f/Obo=bo
(4) aO+bo=O+ bO=O
(5) aO+bo=O+ aO=O.
Proof. 1. We have
(1.1) fO+O=O
(2.1) fOO=O
(3.1) ff/OO=O
therefore
Similarly we obtain
Hence we obtain
we obtain
The induction hypotheses fX[A] =0 A and fB X[B] =0 together with the
deducible formula
A  (A + B)+ 1J
yield
(1.1), (1.2), (2.2) and (2.5) complete the proof of Theorem 17.15.
17. The Formal System FT of Functionals of Finite Type l33
Theorem 17.16.
Proof By Theorem 17.15 we have IA . X[A] =0. Hence Ix[A]=9"a' A.
9"ao =O.
The assertion follows by Theorem 17.6.
Chapter VII
Syntactic symbols:
u, U i ' v, Vi for free number variables
x, Xi' y, Yi' Z, Zi for bound number variables
s, Si' t, ti for number terms.
3. If F[u] is a formula in which the bound variable x does not occur then
IIxF[x] is also aformula.
We use A, B, C, D, E, F, G, IIxF[x], 1I~[x] (possibly with indices) as syn
tactic symbols for formulas.
For brevity we write
for
We choose the axioms and basic inferences of the system PN so that every formula
of our language which is deducible in classical predicate calculus is also deducible
in PN. In doing this we do not work from positive and negative parts of formulas as
we did in the system CP for classical predicate calculus, but we choose the axioms
and basic rules of inference in another way to facilitate the interpretation of PN
in FT (19).
(AI) AA
(A2) IIxF[x]  F[t]
(A3) u'=O A
(A4) u'=v'  u=v
(A5) u+O=u
(A6) u+v'=(u+v)'
(A7) uO=O
(AS) uv'=uv+u.
(BI) B I A B
(B2) A  B ~ C  D I A  C  B  D
(B3) A  B  C, C  D I A  B  D
(B4) A  A  B I A  B
(B5) u=u A I A
(B6) F[s] I s=t ~[t]
(B7) A  ~[u] I A  IIxF[x] provided the free number variable u does not
occur in the conclusion.
(BS) F[O], F[u]  ~[u'] I ~[t] provided the free number variable u does not
occur in the nominal form F.
136 VII. Pure Number Theory
(AI), (BI){B4) are the rules for positive implicationallogic, (BS), (B6) the
rules for equality, (A2), (B7) the rules for Vquantification. The Peano axioms for
arithmetic are given by (A3), (A4), (BS) and the recursion equations for addition
and multiplication are given by (AS){AS). Hence from a logical point of view
arithmetic is axiomatised as a fragment of intuitionistic predicate calculus. In this
system PN we shall also obtain all the rules of classical predicate calculus for the
language of PN.
As previously we shall use
Lemma 1. A  B, B  C I AC.
Lemma 2. A, A  B I B.
Lemma 3. ,g;;[v] I Vx,g;;[x] provided the free number variable v does not occur in the
nominal form ,g;;.
Theorem 18.1 (Substitution rule). ,g;;[u] I ,g;;[t] provided the free number variable
u does not occur in Ihe nominal form ,g;;.
(I) II=t
(2) Is=l I=s
(3) IS=I ,g;;[s] ,g;;[I]
(4) Is= I  s' = I'.
18. The Formal System PN for Pure Number Theory 137
u=u+ u=u
by (B2).
IB+A+A.
Lemma 7. IA + (A + B) + B.
(A+B)+A+B
by Lemma S.
Lemma 8. A + B I (B+ C) + A + C.
Proof By Lemma 7
B+(B+ C)+ C
138 VII. Pure Number Theory
A (B C) C.
By Lemma 5 we have
(B C)A C.
Lemma 9. ~[OJ, ~[u'J I ~[tJ provided the free number variable u does not occur
in the nominalform~.
~[uJ  ~[u'].
4. Properties of Negation
10'=0 B.
By (B3) we have
I,A A B.
by (B2) we have
Hence by Lemma 3
v'=O+ 0'=0
by Lemma 1 we obtain
f,O=v'.
140 VII. Pure Number Theory
By (Bl) we obtain
I,,u'=v'+ ,,u=v
u'=v'+ u=v.
By Lemma 8 we obtain
Iu=v+ u'=v'.
By (B3) we obtain
The assertion
I A + , , (A + B) + , , B.
I,,B+ B
I A + , , (A + B) + B.
1, ,(A + B) + A + B.
1,,Vx.F[x]+ ,,.F[u]
Vx.F[x] + .F[u].
we obtain by Lemma 1
A (A'.B) C.
(A B) C.
We define positive and negative parts of formulas, Pforms, Nforms and NP
forms as in 3 (p. 20) except that the formula 0' =0 now plays the role of ..L. As
before we use the following syntactic symbols:
rJ', rJ'j for Pforms,
%, %j for Nforms,
fl, flj for NPforms.
Every Pform is a nominal form *1 or rJ'o[C *1] or %o[,*tJ and every
Nform is a nominal form rJ' o[ *1  C] by the inductive definition given above on
p. 20. Now rJ'0 and %0 are shorter nominal forms than rJ' and % respectively.
18. The Formal System PN for Pure Number Theory .143
Lemma 19.
(1) fA.&'[A]
(2) f,A. '%[A].
fA. &,[A].
,A.A.C
Lemma 20.
(1) &,[A] f '&,[B]. A
(2) '%[A] f A . '%[B].
By Lemma 16 we obtain
'&,[B] + C+ A.
,&'[B] + ,&'[B] + A.
, A + &'[ B].
By Lemma 16 we obtain
'&,[B] + A.
IC+ .IV[B].
, .IV[B] + A + C.
By (B3) we obtain
,.IV[B] + A + .IV[B].
By Lemma 16 we obtain
, ,A + .IV[B].
r,O'=O.
By Lemma 19 we have
By Lemma 2 we obtain
r%[O'=O].
By Letpma 18 we obtain
(A + B) + %[A + B].
By Lemma 19 we have
r I (A + B) + %[A + B].
By Lemma 17 we obtain
%[A+ B].
Theorem 18.6. ~[F[u]] r ~[\lxF[x]], provided the free number variable u does
not occur in the conclusion.
1~[\lxF[x]] + F[u].
146 VII. Pure Number Theory
By (B7) we obtain
,&'[Vxff[x]]  Vxff[x].
By Lemma 16 we obtain
'Vxff[x]  &,[Vxff[x]].
By Lemma 19 we have
~Vxff[x]  &,[Vxff[x]].
By Lemma 17 we obtain
&,[Vxff[x]].
Vxff[x]  %[ff[t]]
we obtain
Vxff[x]  ff[t]
by Lemma 1 we obtain
By (B4) we obtain
Vxff[x]  %[Vxff[x]].
By Lemma 19 we have
,Vxff[x]  %[Vxff[x]].
By Lemma 17 we obtain
%[Vxff[x]].
18 .. The Formal System PN for Pure Number Theory 147
, &I[B] + A.
,&I[B] + B.
By Lemma 16 we obtain
,B+ &I[B].
By Lemma 19 we have
IB+ &I[B].
By Lemma 17 we obtain
&I[B].
Theorems 18.318.8 show that the system PN has all the deduction properties
which were laid down in 3 (p. 20) for the formal system CP of classical predicate
calculus. For by Theorems 18.3 and 18.4 all the axioms of the system CP are
deducible in PN (with 0' = 0 for 1.) and by Theorems 18.518.7 the basic inferences
(S 1)(S3) of the system CP are permissible inferences in the system PN. By Theorem
18.8 cuts, which were shown to be permissible inferences in the system CP, are also
permissible in PN. By Theorems 18.1 and 18.2, axioms (A3){A8) and the inference
rule (B8) of complete induction the system PN is also sufficient for all the require
ments of arithmetic which lie in the domain of classical predicate calculus.
It was G. Gentzen who in 1936 first proved the consistency ofa formal system for
pure number theory which is equivalent to the system PN. We shall give two dif
ferent kinds of consistency prooffor PN. The first is in 19 by an interpretation in
the system FT of functionals of finite type following K. GOdel in 1958 and the
second in 23.2 by an embedding in a formal system EN which will be proved
consistent by cutelimination. Like the original proof of G. Gentzen, besides
elementary methods both proofs only require transfinite induction up to eo.
148 VII. Pure Number Theory
19. Interpretation of PN in FT
In this section we use w, Wi' X, Xi' y, Yi' Z, Zi to denote finite (possibly empty)
sequences of distinct variables of the system FT and we use a, ai' b, b i for finite
(possibly empty) sequences of terms of the system FT.
a Ia;. :an denotes the sequence of terms obtained by concatenating the
sequences of terms a 1 , , an'
If a is a sequence of terms ar l... Pm'l, ... , a: 1 0"",'" and b is a sequence of terms
br ' , ... , b::,m then a(b) denotes the sequence of terms
The sequence of terms a(b) is empty if, and only if, a is empty. If b is empty then a(b)
is the same as a. For brevity we write ab for a(b) provided the sequence of terms b is
denoted by a single symbol.
If a(b 1 b 2  bk ) is defined then by the definition of sequences of terms this
sequence is the same as ab 1 b k
When a:=a~\ ... ,a::,'" and b:=b~I, ... ,b~" are sequences of terms we use the
following conventions:
1. a",b ("a is of equal type with b") means that m=n and t1 i ='i for all
i= I, ... , n. (In particular this holds if a and b are empty.)
2. Ia = b means that a'" band aI; = b~; for all i = I, ... , n is deducible in FT.
IA+ a=b
A+a?=b?
is deducible in FT for all i= I, ... , n. (Ia =b and I A + a=b are also to hold if
a and b are empty.)
Given sequences of terms a : = all, ... , a;" and b : = b II , ... , b;" let
D[cO, a, b]
Lemma 1. Given two sequences of terms a and b, then up to equality of type, there is a
uniquely determined sequence of variables x such that
xa~b.
ar
Proof If a is a sequence of terms l , , a::'~ and b is a sequence of terms b~', ... , b~n,
then xa ~ b holds if, and only if, x is a sequence of variables
Lemma 2. Given sequences Xl' ... , X k of distinct variables and a sequence of terms a
there is a sequence of terms b containing no variable occurring in the sequence
Xl' ... , X k , such that
yr
Proof If x;: .:Xk is the sequence of variables l , , y~~ and a is the sequence of
terms a~', ... , a~n then the assertion holds for the sequence of terms
We use the usual arrangements for omitting brackets and the notation r ~ B,
where r denotes a sequence offormulas, for the formulas ofQFT as we did for FT.
A sequence of terms a is said to be free for a formula F of QFT if no variable y'
occurring in a occurs in a quantifier 'iy' or 3y' in the formula F.
We abbreviate the formulas
ofQFT to
where x denotes the sequence of variables x~., ... , x~", a the sequence of terms
a~.,... , a~" and ~ an nplace nominal form. We allow the case n=O when x and a
are empty. The notation ~[a] already assumes that the sequence of terms a is free
for the formula ~[x].
and 3axioms
2. The Vinferences
r ~ ff[x] f r ~ Vxff[x]
provided that the variables in the sequence x do not occur in ff and do not occur
free in r.
3. The 3inferences
ff[x] ~ B f 3xff[x] ~ B
provided that the variables in the sequence x do not occur in ff and do not occur
free in B.
A~A
is deducible in QFT.
Remark. The formal system QFT corresponds to a fragment of the formal system
obtained by adding the axioms IP~, M' and AC to Heyting arithmetic HAW.
(See A.S. Troelstra: Metamathematical Investigation of Intuitionistic Arithmetic
and Analysis. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 344. SpringerVerlag 1973, p. 46 and
238.) QFT lacks the connectives A and v of HAw.
(2) A+BI,B+,A
(3) B + C I (A + B) + A + C.
9'0=0+ ff[x]
A+B, ,A+BIB
we obtain
Hence we obtain B.
19. Interpretation ofPN in FT 153
is deducible in Q Ff.
Theorem 19.i. Let Xl' Yl' Zl' X 2 , Y2' Z2 be sequences of distinct variables which do
not occur in the nominal forms d and f!4 and which are such that Y 1 ~ Z 1 X 1 Y 2 and
X 2 ~ Z 2X 1. Let d[x 1, Y 1] and .?l[x 2' Y 2] be quantifierfree formulas, then the formulas
and
and
we obtain
3. Interpreting Formulas
We use formulas
3xVyd[x,y]
of the system QFT as interpreting formulas (for formulas of the system PN) where
x, yare sequences of distinct variables which do not occur in the nominal form d
and d[x, y] is a quantifierfree formula. x and Y may be empty. The choice of
bound variables in the interpreting formulas is not significant. That is to say: two
interpreting formulas
where Xl'" x 2 and Y 1 '" Y2 are identified with each other. We regard every free
number variable as a variable of type 0 and every number term t' as an abbreviation
for9't. The number terms of the system PN are then to be understood as terms of
156 VII. Pure Number Theory
where the variables in the sequences Xl' Y l' xz, Yz are chosen to be distinct from one
another and not to occur in the nominal forms .91, f!l then F* is the interpreting
formula
wherez l , Zz are chosen by Lemma I so thatYl"" ZlX1YZ andx z '" ZZx l . The variables
in the sequences Zl' Zz are to be distinct from each other and from the variables
in the sequences Xl' Yz and are not to occur in the nominal forms .91, f!l. (This
choice of F* is motivated by Theorem 19.1.)
3. If Fis a formula Vxff[x] where the bound number variable Xdoes not occur
in the nominal form ff, u is a free number variable which also does not occur in ff
and ff[u]* is the interpreting formula
where u is distinct from the variables in the sequences Xl' Yl and does not occur in
the nominal form .91, then F* is the interpreting formula
where Z is chosen by Lemma 1 so that Xl '" ZU. The variables in the sequence Z are
to be distinct and also distinct from u and the variables in the sequence Y 1 and not
to occur in the nominal form.9l. UJl denotes the sequence of variables obtained
by concatenating the variable u (of type 0) with the sequence Y l' (This choice of F*
is motivated by an ACaxiom.)
3xVy.9I[x,y]
Proof ....,A is defined to be the formula A > 0' =0. If A and A > 0' =0 were
deducible in PN then by 18 (Lemma 2) the formula 0' = 0 would also be deducible
in PN. But by Theorem 17.2 its interpreting formula YO = 0 is not deducible in FT
and therefore is not valid. It follows by Theorem 19.2 that 0' = 0 is not deducible
inPN.
We prove Theorem 19.2 by induction on the deduction, viz. by induction on
the length of an assumed deduction of F in PN. We write I A to indicate that A is
deducible in the system FT.
We first prove that the interpreting formula F* of each axiom F of the system PN
is valid.
1. Suppose F is an axiom
(AI) A > A.
By Lemma 2 there are sequences of terms aI' a 2 in which no variable from the
sequences x I ' Y2 occurs such that
Hence we have
Thus F* is valid.
2. Suppose F is an axiom
By Lemma 2 there are sequences of terms a o' a l , a 2 in which no variable from the
sequences Xl' Y2 occurs such that
Thus F* is valid.
3. Suppose F is an axiom
3xVy(9"u=0~ d[x,yJ).
f9"u=O~ d[x,y].
Thus F* is valid.
4. Suppose F is an axiom
(A4) u'=v'~u=v.
We now prove that assuming the interpreting formulas of all premises of a basic
inference of the system PN are valid, then the interpreting formula of the con
clusion is valid.
19. Interpretation ofPN in FT 159
(BI) B~A+B.
It follows that
Thus G* is valid.
2. Suppose F is the premise and G the conclusion of a basic inference
and
Thus G* is valid.
3. Suppose F I , F2 are the premises and G the conclusion of a basic inference
and
and
19. Interpretation ofPN in FT 161
By a cut we obtain
Ib l Xl X 2 Y 4 =a l Xl x 2 (a 5 (a 3 x I X 2 )Y4)'
Ib 2 x l X 2Y 4 = a 2 x I x 2 (a 5 (a 3 x I X 2 )Y4)'
Ib 4 x I X 2 =a4 (a 3 x l x 2 )
Hence we have
Thus G* is valid.
4. Suppose F is the premise and G the conclusion of a basic inference
(B4) A 4 A 4 B I A 4 B.
By hypothesis there are sequences of terms ao, aI' a 2 in which no variable from the
sequences X O' Xl' Y2 occurs such that
(2) Ib 2x I =a 2 x l x l
Ib l x I Y2 =D[X [d[XI' a ox l x I Y2]]' a l x l x l Y2' a ox l x l Y2].
Thus G* is valid.
5. and 6. Suppose F is the premise and G the conclusion of a basic inference
(B5) u=u A I A
or
By hypothesis there are sequences of terms aI' a 2 in which no variable from the
sequences XI' Y 2 occurs such that
Hence
Thus G* is valid.
S. Suppose F l , F2 are the premises and G the conclusion of a basic inference
where u does not occur in the nominal form d and G* is an interpreting formula
:3xVyd[x, y, t].
By hypothesis there are sequences of terms aD, aI' a 2 in which no variable from the
sequences x, y occurs such that
(1) Id[a o, y, 0]
I d[x, a 1 xy,u]  4 d[a 2x, y, 9'u].
We may assume that u does not occur in aD. By Lemma 2 there are sequences of
terms b 1 , b 2 in which neither u nor any variable from the sequences x, y occurs
such that
Hence
By Theorem 17.12 there is a sequence oftermsJin which neither u nor any variable
from the sequences x, y occurs such that
164 VII. Pure Number Theory
(3) IfO=a o
(4) 1j{!7u)=b2 u(ju).
I dEft, y, t].
Thus G * is valid.
This completes the proof of Theorem 19.2.
Part C
Subsystems of Analysis
Chapter VIII
Predicative Analysis
In this chapter we consider formal and semiformal systems in which the Peano
axioms hold for number variables and there is quantification over predicate
variables. In these systems the real numbers are definable by predicators as certain
sets of rational numbers and universal and existential statements about real
numbers are formalizable. Here certain subsystems of classical analysis will be
delimited. We restrict ourselves in this chapter to predicative subsystems of analysis,
that is, to systems which are interpreted in such a way that a concept which is
defined under the assumption of a collection of concepts does not itself belong to
this collection.
The systems in this section have the same language as for classical analysis but are
restricted in the definition of predicators (sets) by Ll ~comprehensioo for which a
predicative interpretation will be made possible (in 22).
Syntactic symbols:
a, b, c, d for free number variables,
x, y, z for bound number variables,
U, V, W for free predicate variables,
X, Y, Z for bound predicate variables,
s, t for terms,
P, Q for predicators,
A, B, C, D, E, F, G for formulas,
i,j, k, m, n for natural numbers and their corresponding numerals.
(A natural number n corresponds to the numeral in which the symbol occurs
precisely n times.)
We shall also use these syntactic symbols with indices.
For brevity we omit the outer round brackets in formulas. We also write
Al ~ ... ~ An~ B for (AI ~ ( ... ~ (An~ B) .. . .
2. The Formal System DA
Axioms:
(Axl) gl/[A], if A is a true constant prime formula,
(Ax2) JV[A], if A is a false constant prime formula.
(Ax3) .E![A, B) if A, B are equivalent formulas of length O.
(Ax4) ff[a I , ... , an] (n~ 1), if for every n numerals m I , ... , mn ff[mI' " ., mn]
is one of the axioms (Axl)(Ax3).
The minimal parts indicated in axioms (Axl)(Ax3) are called the principal
parts of these axioms.
Basic inferences:
(SI) JV[,A], JV[B] I JV[(A ~ B)], if B is not the formula ..1.
(S2.0) gl/[ff[a]] I gl/['v'xff[x]], if a does not occur in the conclusion.
(S2.1) gl/[ff[U]] I gl/['v'Xff[X]], if U does not occur in the conclusion.
(S3.0) ff[t] ~ JV['v'xff[x]] I JV['v'xff[x]]
(S3.E) ff[P] ~ JV['v'Xff[X]] I JV['v'Xff[X]], if P is an elementary predicator.
(S3 M {'v'X('v'Yd[X, YJ ~. . dY8l[x, Y]),
. ff[h'v'Yd[x, YJ] ~ JV['v'Xff[X]] I JV['v'Xff[X]],
if no bound predicate variables occur in d and 81.
(S4) 8[ff[t]] I 8[2xff[x](t)]
(cut) gl/[A] , A ~ B I C, if gl/[B] f!. C holds.
(ind) ff[O], ff[a] ~ ff[a'] I ff[t], if a does not occur in ff.
(Complete induction inference)
Let = be the symbol for the 2place decidable arithmetic predicate such that
=(ml' m 2 ) is true if, and only if, the numerals m 1 , 11.12 are identical. We use = as a
primitive symbol of our formal language and write s = t for = (s, t).
Theorem 20.2. I t = t.
2. Let F[s] have length >0. Then the assertion follows from the I.H. using
basic inferences (SI), (S2.0), (S3.0), (S2.1), (S3.E) and (S4) as in the proof of
Theorem 4.1.
By Theorems 20.2 and 20.3 aU the laws of an identity relation hold for s=t.
Proof By Theorems 20.2 and 20.3 we have I t=t and I t=t. .2[C, C). Bya cut
we obtain I .2[C, C).
Corollary to Theorem 20.4. The formal system DA is scomplete, that is, every
svalid formula of our formal language is deducible in DA. (This follows just like
the Corollary to Theorem 4.1.)
By virtue of this corollary it follows in particular that all the inferences given
in Theorem 4.8 for A and v are also permissible in the system DA and also
Theorem 20.S (Structural inference rule). If FI!. G holds, then F I Gis apermissible
inference.
F.F,FIG
Proof This follows from Theorem 20.6 using basic inferences (S2.0) and (S2.1).
Proof Bya structural rule we obtain %[, ,ff[a]] from %[ff[a]] and then
by a basic inference (S2.0) %[,Vx,ff[x]]. b) follows similarly using a basic
inferenc;e (S2.1).
Proofby induction on the length of the formula ff[U]. If U does not occur in ff
then the assertion holds by Theorem 20.4. If ff[U] is a formula U(t), then the
assertion follows by basic inferences (S4) from
In. all the remaining cases the assertIon follows from the IH.
Let < be the symbol for the 2place decidable arithmetic predicate such that
m l , m 2 ) is true if, and only if, the numeral m l is shorter than the numeral m 2
We use < as a primitive symbol of our formal language and write s < t for < (s, t).
Proof Let
Then we have
fF ~[O]
f (F  ~[a])  (F  ~[a']).
Hence
f F~ $'[t]
In DA * we use the same formal language of second order arithmetic as before but
now exclude free number variables. Thus in DA * every term is numerical and every
prime formula constant.
Basic inferences of the system DA *: As in DA, but replacing (S2.0) and (ind) by
All axioms and basic inferences of the system DA * are to be restricted to formulas
in which no free number variable occurs. We call the system DA* semiformal
since, as opposed to formal systems, it has basic inferences (S2.0*) with infinitely
many premises.
In what follows small Greek letters (possibly with iI1dices) always denote ordinal
terms of the system OT (of 14).
Theorem 20.12 (Structural rule). q DA * I!. F (or DA * 17 F) and F j!. G hold for
formulas F, G of the system DA*, then DA* I!. G (or DA* 17 G) holds.
5. Embedding DA in DA*
'*
1. m=O and n=O. Then Fis an axiom of the system DA and F* is an axiom
of the system DA*. Therefore DA * F* holds.
2. m#O or n#O. Then F is the conclusion of a basic inference BI of the
system DA.
. 2.1. If BI is not a basic inference (S2.0) (S3.~) or (ind) then the assertion
follows immediately from the I.H.
2.2 Suppose BI is a basic inference (S2.0). Then Fis a formula &'[V'xF[x]] and
we have DA p!!.no &,[F[a]] where a does not occur in F and n=no+ 1. F* is a
formula&'*['v'xF*[x]]. ByI.H. DA* ji!'m+no &'*[F*[k]] holds for every numeral
k. Using a basic inference (S2.0*) we obtain DA* l7' m + n F*.
2.3 Suppose BI is a basic inference (S3.~). Then we have DA p!!,.n, F; for the
premises Fi (i=I,2) of this inference where m=max(m 1 ,m2 )+1 and n=O.
F* is the conclusion of a basic inference (S3.~) of the system DA * with premises
Fi* such that by I.H. DA* l7' mt + nt Fi* (i= 1,2) holds. Since romi+ni+ro~rom,
DA* l7' m F* follows.
2.4. Suppose BI is a basic inference (ind). Then we have DA p!!,.n, F[O] and
DA P!!2. n 2F[a] + F[a'] where m=max (m 1 , m 2 )+ 1 and n=O, a does not occur
in F, F is a formula F[t] and F* is a formula F*[t*]. Let mo: = max (m 1 , m 2 )
and no: = max (n 1 , n 2 ). By I.H. DA* ~'mo+no F*[O] and DA* l7' mo + no F*[k]+
F*[k'] for every numeral k hold. Using cuts we obtain DA* l7' mo +(no +k) F*[k]
and hence also DA * 17' m F*[k] for every numeral k. Since t* is a numerical term
DA* 17' m F* follows by Theorem 20.11.
Corollaries. 1. For each formula F deducible in DA there exists IX < ro 2 such that
DA* 17 F*.
2. q F is deducible in DA without use of basic inferences (S3.~) and (ind) then
there exists IX < ro such that D A* 17 F *.
176 VIII. Predicative Analysis
Below we consider only formulas ofthe system DA* and we write ~ Ffor DA * ~ F.
e
~ .. F denotes that there exists < ex such that DA * ~ F holds.
A formula Fis said to befinitely deducible if~'" Fholds.
Proof This follows from the second corollary to Theorem 20.13 since the formulas
concerned are deducible in DA without use of a basic inference (ind).
Proof Trivial.
Theorem 20.16. lf~ .!V[.F[U]] holds where U occurs in neither .!V nor .F then
JL '!v[3X.F[X] for ex<p.
Proof By Theorem 20.12 from ~ .!V[.F[U]] we obtain ~ .!V[...., ....,.F[U]] and
then using a basic inference (S2.1), JL .!V[....,VX....,.F[X]]. That is JL '!v[3X.F[X]].
Using the first hypothesis a basic inference (S3.~) yields fL VX....,.F[X] + 1... That
is fL 3X.F[X].
EN f F = EA f F and EA f F = DA f F,
EN* f!. F= EA* f!. F and EA* f!. F= DA* f!. F.
By Theorem 20.13
We use < and "' as primitive symbols of our formal language and write
The relation < is easily shown in EN to be a linear ordering relation, that is,
the following formulas are deducible in EN for arbitrary terms t l' t 2' t 3 :
, t1 <t1
t1 <t2~ 12 </3~ t1 </3
, I I </2 ~ , I I =t2 ~ 12 <11'
_ ._{wm(r(n, if r(n)#r o,
w(m,n). r 'f ( )r
0' 1 r n  o.
w(m,n):= wmn.
We use +, 4>, w, cO, was primitive symbols of our formal language and write
S+I for +(s, I),
wSI for w(s, I),
cOs(t) for cO(s, I),
wSI for w(s, I),
wS for w(s,1),
wS for w(s, 1),
~t for 4>(1, t).
The following equations are true constant prime formulas for ordinal terms
ex, p from OT and numerals m, n
4>(ii, P) = cpexp,
(l/n = w rz n, cOm(f3) = wm(P),
(l/i.=wa., w"=w",
21. Deductions of Transfinite Induction 179
From this it follows that the following equations are axioms of the system EN
for arbitrary terms sand t:
&'0=0, &'t'=&"t+&',
w'O=O, w"t'=w't+w',
wo(t) = t, w.,(t) = w~(t),
wt = tP(O, t), ~t = tP(I, t).
Also for all the properties of the ordinal terms 0( + p, lj>O(P, of', n, wm(P) and
wm'n developed in 14 the corresponding formulas are all deducible in EN, for
example
2. Deductions in EN
We set
Proof We obtain
from the definition of o[P] and the properties of wSt. Applying a basic inference
(ind) we obtain
for every term t. For ordinal terms IX, /3 and y;i=O such that 1X</3+WYan ordinal
term Yo < y and a numeral n can be determined such that IX < /3 + wYo. n. Hence one
can define 3place calculable arithmetic functions f and 9 for which the following
hold:
Further
Pr60jby induction on n. If n~O the assertion is trivial for Wo(O) =0. We now go
from n to n'~ Like P o[P] is also an elementary predicator. Hence by hypothesis
EN f &>i[o[P]] 4 Vx <wn(O)o[P](x) hoids. Using Lemma 1 and (&'d) we obtain
The assertion EN f &>i[P] 4 Vx <wn,(O)P(x) for n' follows from (1) and (2).
Theorem 21.1. For every elementary predicator P and every ordinal term 0: < Go
EN f &'i[P] 4 Vx <~P(x) holds.
Proof By Theorem 14.14 if O:<Go there exists a numeral n such that 0: < wn(O) and
therefore a< wn(O). Hence the assertion follows from Lemma 2.
This yields the assertion b) for n=O since WO(8a. +1) =8a. +1.
b2) From n to n'. Like P, o[P] is also an elementary predicator. Therefore by
hypothesis
EN* f!!!2+ ro ' a + 3 'n+2 &'t[o[P]] ~ '<Ix <.wi8a.+ 1)o[p] (x) holds.
By Lemma 1, (&'tl), the definition of o[P] and Lemma 3 the following hold
+
EN* f!!!2+ro'a+3n+5 &'t[P] ~ '<Ix <,Wn,(8a. I)P(x) holds for n'.
4. Deductions in EA and EA *
Lemma 7.
Proof a) The following hold by Lemma 1, (Jl) and the definition of o[U]
EA f &.z[U]4 &.z[o[U]]
EA f J[t] 4 g>.z[o[U]]  4 o[U](t)
EA f o[U](t)4l::/x<sU(x)4l::/x<s+o/U(x).
Using cuts
Further
Hence we have
EA f J[t] 4 J[ws(t)].
From EA r J[O] and c) we have EA I J[wf(U)(O)]. Using (1) and (.F4) we have
(4) EA I ,IT~D].
Proo/. Letting ~[t] : = t < r 0 + J[~t] we obtain from Lemma 7d)
By I.H. EA ~w2+2'" J[~nJ holds for every numeral n <iX. By Lemma 5 we obtain
using' basic inferences (S3.A) we can deduce the existence of sufficiently strong
predicators.
In 14 (p. 96) a bijective mapping re of N x N onto N was defined with in
verses re l and re 2 These definitions give calculable arithmetic functions such
Then let
lIere the restriction of the universal quantifier \;fz to t < x is sufficient to obtain the
desired deduction in DA *. The additional restrictioh of "It to hex) < z allows lis,
following H. Schwichtenberg, to also obtain the desired dedu~tion in DA.
Proof. o?l[ U, V, t] implies that for s < I Vs is uniquely determined by U and the
Vx(x <s). Hence the assertion follows by the Extensionality Theorem 20.9.
186 VIII. Predicative Analysis
Then let
Proof We first prove that 9'[V<, d] is implied by the following formulas (1)(7).
(l) .c1l[ U, V, t]
(2) a < t
(3) Vx <ag>,z[VxJ
(4) Vy <bVaCy)
(5) Vy(l(y) < led)  y < (e(a), b)  Vz(h(a),,;;, z <a  9'[Vz , y]
(6) d < (e(a), b)
(7) h(a),,;;, c <a.
Now using calculable arithmetic functions we can distinguish for d the three
cases 0, d1+d2 and (d1, d2) where in the last two cases l(di)<l(d). The case
d=r o is excluded by (6).
l. d=O. Then trivially 9'[Vc,d] holds.
2. d=d1+d2 where l(d) <l(d) (i= 1, 2). Then di <(e(a), b) follows from (6).
Using (7) and (5) we obtain 9'[V<, dJ. Hence we obtain
and
hence 9'[ Vc , dl
3. d=(d1, d2) where l(dJ<I(d) (i= 1, 2).
3.l. d1 <e(a). If c1:=c+al ' then h(a),,;;,c 1 <a follows from (7). From (6)
we obtain d2<(e(a),b). Using (7) and (5) we obtain 9'[Vc"d2l Hence
Vx<d2VC, (X). From (3) we obtain g>,z[Vc1l By (g>,zI) we have Vc,(d2). Since
0< c1 < a using (2) and (l) by the definition of.c1l we obtain
Since h(c 1 ).r;; c < c 1 and e(c 1 ) =d1 the assertion 9"[Vc, ~(dl' d2 )] follows.
3.2. e(a)=d1 Then from (6) we have d2 <.b. Using (4) we obtain Vid2 ). By
(1), (2) and (7) from the definition of 9l we obtain 9"[ Vc ' ~(e(a), d2 )].
3.3. e(a) <d1 Then from (6) we haved <b. Asin3.2weobtain9"[V" ~(e(a), d)].
Using d.r;;~(e(a), d) we obtain 9"[Vc' d]. Hence we have shown
follows by the Induction Theorem 20.10. With the aid of ([11Itl) we get
Trivially
Obviously h(ol) =0 and e(wS)=s. Therefor\! from the definition of9f we have
Further
DA ~ 9f[U, V, t] > WS< t > YEwS] +, g>z[ V] +, Vx < $(s, O)U(x).
DA ~ VX3 Y9f[X, Y, t] > WS < t > cf[wS ] > g>z[ U] > '<:Ix < (s, O)U(.~).
6. Deductions in QA
Proof Let ~[U, V, W, s, t] be the formula given in Lemma 8. Since run < eo it
follows from Lemmata 6 and 8 that
That is
flere W does not occur in Q. Using the Extensionality TQeoreIl1 20.9 one obtains
the fpllowing properties of P and Q from the definition of 9l: From (2.1) we have
(3.3) PA f {9l[Q, w, w.n] ~ Vxo(.O < ~O, < w nt V'y"(P(d/'a +xo, y)
. . V'zQ(h(x o) ~ zQ < xQ  5f[PcO"<!+ZQ' <p(e(x o), y)])).
If w"a >: x < w"a' tlten (} < Xo < w" where x = cIlia +xo, h(x);= wna +h(~o) apd e(x) =
e(x o). Therefore from (3.3) we have .
By ThepreIl120,6 we obtain
With the aid of (5) we now prove that there is a iqpredicator fi[ U] such that
DA ~ 9f[U, fi[U], w n']. We set
Then
Since 1C 1 (a) <wn' we also have 1C 1 (a)+ 1 iJ n'. Therefore by (5) we obtain
21. Deductions of Transfinite Induction 191
Since n l (a) < wn' occurs as a premise of an implication in !?J [U, Y, a, (ll] we obtain
By Lemma 11 we obtain
Thus
j1[UJ: =).xVYd[U, Y, x, (b n]
is a L1 ~predicator.
By Theorem 20.6 using (6.2) we get
Further
theorem 21.5. DA r .Jf[a] holds for every ordinal term rt. < cjJwO.
Proof Suppose rt. < cjJOJO. Then there is a numeral n such that a < $(n, 0). By
Lemma 10 we have
By Lemma 12 DA r \IX3 Y9l[ X, Y, (b",] holds. Further ron = (b" < (b n' and by
Theorem 21.3 DA r .Jf[(b"] also holds. Using cuts DA r .Jf[$(n, 0)] holds. Since
a < <p(n, 0), DA r .Jfta] follows by (.Jf3).
7. Deductions in DA '"
As previously, we put
by induction on {3. For {3o < {3, 2 {3o + 1 < 2 {3. Therefore by I.H.
DA*~W2+2'P<[U, V, W,n,t]
follows, that is
(2) DA* f!2+ Z 'P+l P <t 9l[U, V, t] + 9l[U, W, t]  lfy(Vp(Y)  Wp(y.
   
{3 < {3 + 1 and lfy(Vp( y) ++ Wp( y  V({3, 1t z(n  W({3,1t 2 (n

 W({3,1t 2 (n.
for 1tl (n) ( W a as a logical consequence of (3). (4) also holds for w a ~ 1tl (n),
since the formula concerned is in this case an (Ax2). By Theorem 20.16 and a
basic inference (S2.1) we obtain
Lemma 14. For every ordinal term wa+n o/OT where n<w
Proo/by induction on wa+n. For a=O the assertion follows from Lemmata 12
and 13. We may therefore assume a;i:O.
Case 1. n=no+ 1. An elementary predicator j't[V] may be defined such that the
following hold:
~ 9'[Vz' (e(wa+no),y)]
By I.H.
~ 3Y~[U, Y, n, wo:].
For n 1(n)={3 <wo: we have n1(n)t 1=13+ 1 and P+9<w0:. Hence by the I.H.
we have
for n 1 (n) < wo:. This also holds for W 0: ... n 1 (n), since the formula
is in this case an (Ax2). Hence (1) holds for every numeral n. Using Lemma 13
we obtain
DA* ~w2 m <wo:~ 9f[U, V, mtl] ~ VYd[U, Y, n(m, n), wo:] ~ V(m, n)
DA* ~w2+W"a m <wo: ~ 9f[U, V, mt 1] ~ V(m, n)
~ VYd[U, Y, n(m, n), wo:].
196 VIII. Predicative Analysis
are deducible in DA and therefore in DA * with orders < w 2 . Therefore using two
cuts with (3) we obtain
DA* r 2
+roa+2 ~[U, V, k] 4 m <k4 Vy(V(m, y) ++ fi[U](m, y))
(4) DA * r 2
+ w "+ 3 .~[ U. V. k] . IIx < klly( Vex. y) <> A U](x. y))
for k < W CI.. With the aid of the Extensionality Theorem 20.9 the formula
~[U, V. k] 4 IIx < klly( Vex. y) <> A U](x . .1'))  ~jf[ u. AU]' k]
DA* r 2
+rod4 ~[U, v. k] 4 .~[U. AU]. k] for k <wcx.
DA* r 2
+w 'd5 3Y~[U, Y, k] 4 ~[U, fi[U], k].
By I.H. we l;lave
The formula
DA* f!2 +W"a+ 9 3Y~[U, Y, wa] follows from (2) and (5).
Ifn= 1, then (n=eo<<pwO. Then by Theorem 21.5 and Lemma 3 DA* ~ro2 f[~n].
By the I.H. in every case we have DA * ~Sn f[~n]. Using a cut with (2) we obtain
DA* fb+13 f[(n+l].
Corollaries. 1. Two formulas :F[s] and :F[t] have the same rank.
2. Two formulas :F[ U~] and :F[ V1 have the same rank.
Proof by induction on the length of the formula :F[UO]. We may assume that
:F[P~] and :F[UO] are different formulas since otherwise the assertion is trivial.
It then follows since y # 0 that :F[ UO] has length > O.
1. Suppose :F[UO] is a formula :FI[UO]~:F2[UO] or 'v'~[UO,x] or
A~[UO, x](t). Then the assertion follows from Theorem 22.1 and the I.H.
2. Suppose:F[UO] is a formula 'v'Xp~[UO, XP]. Then ~[UO, V 9 ] is a formula
oflevel yo~y. Ifyo=y then by I.H. ~[UO, VO] and ~[P~, VO] have the same rank
Po. In this case both formulas :F[UO] and :F[P~] have rank Po+ 1. If Yo<y then
~[P"', VO] is also a formula of level <yo In this case both formulas :F[UO] and
:F[P"'] have rank wy.
Proof a) and b) follow immediately from the definition of the rank of a formula.
c) is obtained as follows: Ify is the level of the formula 'v'XP:F[XP] then :F[UO]
is a formula of a level Yo'" y. If yo=y, then by Theorem 22.2 :F[UO] and ~[P"']
have the same rank Po while the formula 'v'XP:F[XP] has rank Po+ 1. If Yo<y
then :F[P"'] is also a formula ofa level <yo By Theorem 22.1 it has a rank <wy
while the formula 'v'XP:F[XP] has rank wy in this case.
200 VIII. Predicative Analysis
In the same way as before we define positive and negative parts of formulas,
FP G and the equivalence offormulas. We also use the same syntactic symbols as
before for Pforms, Nforms and NPforms.
Inductive definition of RA * f} F
1. If F is an axiom of the system RA * then RA * f} F holds for all ordinal terms
IX and p of the system OT.
2. If RA * WFi and !Xi <!X for every premise Fi of a principal inference or a cut
of rank < p then RA * f} F holds for the conclusion F of that inference.
3. Weak Inferences
Theorem 22.6 (Structural rule). If Ff1 G holds then Ff1 G is a weak inference.
4. Elimination of Cuts
Lemma 1. If A is a true prime formula and Itr A > B holds, then Itr g>[ B] for every
Pform g>.
is also a true prime formula. Then &,[B] is the (AxI) &'[&'1[A 1]]. In each case
10 &,[B] follows.
2. Suppose A ) B is the conclusion of a principal inference. Then the asser
tion follows from the I.H. using the structural rule.
Lemma 2. If A is a false prime formula and 10 &,[A] holds, then 10 &,[B] for every
formulaB.
where, in the second case, IX < p. By the structural rule and the I.H. we obtain
It &,[ff[t]] or It &'[ff[P1]'
Then ff[t] or ff[Prt], respectively, has a rank <p by Theorem 22.3. Therefore
ItH &,[B] follows by a cut with cutformula ff[t] or ff[Pa:J.
3. Suppose A ) B is the conclusion of a principal inference whose principal
part is in B. Then the assertion follows from the I.H. by the structural rule.
4. Suppose A ) B is the conclusion of a cut &'1 [C], C ) D I A ) B such
that &'1 [D] p.. A ) B, whose cutformula C has a rank < p. From the formulas
&'l[C] and D we obtain formulas &'o[C] and Do such that
22. The SemiFormal System RA* for Ramified Analysis 203
by either removing or introducing negative parts A in such a way that f!J' o[Do] f! B
holds. Now there exist 15;<15 (i= 1,2) such that
Bya cut with cutformula C of rank <p we obtain ~H g}'[B], since g}'[f!J'o[g}'[Do]]]
f! g}'[B] holds.
Lemma 4. 1;+ 1 F implies ft0a F.
Proofby induction on IX. If F is an axiom then the assertion is trivial. Suppose now
that F is the conclusion of a basic inference BI. Then there exist IX; < IX such that
It'+ 1 F; for every premise F; of BI. Hence by I.H. ft 0a , F;.
1. Suppose BI is a principal inference or a cut of rank <po By BI we obtain
I:*0a since 4JOIX; < 4JOIX for all IX; < IX. "
2. Suppose BI is a cut g}'[A], A  B f F such that ,?l'[B] f! F where the cut
formula A hasrankp. Then Wa l g}'[A] and ft0a2 A  Bhold where lXi <1X(i= 1,2).11
suffices to prove ft0a g}'[B] since then ft0a F follows by the structural rule.
2.1. Suppose A is a prime formula. Then p = and A is either true or false. In
either case ft0a g}'[B] follows by Lemmata 1 and 2.
2.2. Suppose A is a formula Uao(t) or 'v'xff[x] or 'v'XPff[XP]. In these cases
wa g}'[B] follows by Lemma 3 since 4J01X 1 + 4J01X 2 < 4JOIX.
2.3. Suppose A is a formula Axff[x](t). Then by the inversion rule we have
Wal g}'[ff[t]] and ft0a2 ff[t] _ B. By Theorem 22.3 ff[t] has a rank <po There
fore by a cut with cutformula ff[t] we have wa g}'[B].
2.4. Suppose A is a formula Al  A 2. Then by Theorem 22.3 Al and A2 have
ranks <po From ft 0a2 (Al  A 2)  Bbythe inversion rule we have ft 0a2 ,A 1  B
and ft 0a2 A2 _ B. Using ft0al g}'[(Al  A 2)] we obtain ft0ao + 1 Al  g}'[B] by a cut
with cutformula A2 and by the structural rule where 1X0: =max (IX 1 , 1( 2 ). Using
ft 0a2 ,A 1  Bweobtain ft0a g}'[B] by acutwithcutformulaA 1 , where4JOlX 2 < 4JOIX,
4JOlX o + 1 < 4JOIX and ,g}'[B]  B f! g}'[B].
W"'F.
Theorem 22.9. /fC l and Cl are equivalent formulas of rank p, then ~.p 22[C l , Cll
for every ff permissible predicator pa of level rx. < p. Hence the assertion follows
by a basic inference (S2.1 *).
Theorem 22.11 (Extensionality Theorem) . .if ff[A.xd 1 [x]] and ff[A.xd z[x]] are
formulas of maximal rank p then
l. Suppose ff[P;] has length O. Then Pi does not occur in ff[P;] so ff[P 1 ]
and ff[P z ] are the same. In this case the assertion holds by Theorem 22.9.
2. Suppose ff[P;] is a formula Pi(t). Then by Theorem 22.3 the formulas
d1(t) and .912(/) have a maximal rank Po<p. We set
Let the maximal rank of the formulas dJn], {!BJn](i= 1, 2) be Po. By Theorem
22.1 po<waz+w. Then 2po<wa 2+w also and therefore 2po<1t. and Po<p.
From the hypotheses I} \fx(dJx]  {!BJx])(i= 1, 2} by the inversion rule we
obtain
that is,
~ , ((dJn] > {!B In]) > , (,i3l In] > dJn])).
Using the axioms 1> {!Bl[n] and 1> d 2[n] we obtain by cuts with cutformula
1 and rank O<p
The formula \fyu2,~[n, Y U2] has a rank <Po. Since 2po<rt.. it follows by
Theorem 22.10 that
that is
The formulas &l1[n] and ~ 2[n] have ranks <po Therefore by two cuts from (1)
and (2) we obtain
for every numeral n. The assertion f%+ 5 \fx(d I [x] ~ d 2[X]) follows by a basic
inference (S2.0*).
6. Interpretations of EA * and DA * in RA *
EA * ~o ,o/I[g;[ U]],
where U does not occur in F, Fl is a formula ,0/11 [\f Xl g;l [Xl]]. By I.H.
RA * H;;: ~!:+6' a F' for any a= w a , f3 (or a = 2~ f3) such that f3 #0.
holds for appropriate formulas F;". The assertion follows as in the proof of
Theorem 22. B.
3. Suppose F is the conclusion of a basic inference (S3 ..1) of the system DA *.
Then F" is a formula fi[\fX"g;[X"]] and by I.H. there exist lXi<1X (or lXi+W~IX)
(i = 1, 2) such that
where den, VO] and fJ6 [u, VO] are formulas of a maximal level 0"0<0". Since
a l <cx and O"=w",p (or a l +w~a and 0"=2~P), by Theorem 14.12 (or 14.13)
there is an ordinal term 0"1 = w~, . Pl (or 0"1 "'" 2'" . Pl) such that 0"0 < 0" 1 < 0". By
Theorem 22.11
and we have 6cx l +S<6a and 6cx 2 +2<6a. Therefore by a cut from (4) and
(6) we obtain the assertion
As in 21 we define in RA"':
Lemma 1. Assume:
I. M + and M _ are diSjoint finite sets of numerals, M + is nonempty and
}' : = min {t(n) In E M + }.
210 VIII. Predicative Analysis
II. F is aformula with the following properties: The minimal negative parts of
Fare .?h[U"'J, all U"'(n) such that n E M _ and otherwise only true prime formulas
(if any). The minimal positive parts ofF are only the U"'(n) such that n E M +.
III. RA* ~F.
Then: y<wc5.
Proofby induction on c5. By hypotheses I and II F can only have been obtained by a
basic inference (S3.0). Therefore it follows from hypothesis III that there exist
c5 0 < c5 and a numerical term t such that
Suppose the numerical term t has value m. Then by Theorems 22.4 and 22.5a)
and b) from (1) we obtain
Assume that r(k)<y. Then k<m is a true prime formula and the formula
,(k <m + U"'(k)) + F satisfies hypotheses I and II of our lemma with {k}uM +
instead of M + and r(k) = min {r(n) In E {k}uM +}. By I.H. from (4) it follows that
r(k) < w c5 0 contradicting the choice of k. Thus the assumption r(k) < y is refuted.
Hence y ~ r(k) whence y < w c5.
By the limiting number of the system EN we mean the least ordinal term y such that
the formula
.?h[U]~ Vx<.YU(x)
Proof Suppose
By Lemma 3 of 21 we obtain
EN* can be regarded as a subsystem of RA* in which every free predicate variable
belongs to level 0 and every formula has a rank <w. It follows from (1) that the
formula
has a deduction in this subsystem with cutrank restricted to < w. Therefore there
exists a numeral n such that
Now cpOW 2 <Bo and cpOa<Bo for a<Bo. Therefore it follows from (3) by nfold
application of Theorem 22.8 that there exists b < Bo such that
Proof Suppose
By Lemma 3 of 21 we obtain
By Theorem 22.13 EA* can be interpreted in RA* where every formula has a
rank < w + w. It follows from (l) that the formula Jl"l [yJ has a deduction in RA *
with cut ranks restricted to < w + w. Therefore there is a numeral n such that, by
Theorem 22.13,
It follows from (3) by nfold application of Theorem 22.8 that there exists <5 < So
such that
By Theorem 23.2 we have y ~ </J 1<5 < </J Iso. Consequently EA has a limiting number
~</Jlso. It follows from Theorem 2l.3 that </Jls o is the limiting number ofEA.
Proof Suppose
DA f Jl"[yJ
holds. By Theorem 20.13 there exists an ordinal term wm+n<w 2 such that
3. The Autonomous Ordinal Terms of the Systems EN*, EA* and DA*
Inductive definition of the autonomous ordinal terms of the semiformal system EN*:
1. If y is less than the limiting number of EN then y is autonomous in EN*.
2. If () is autonomous in EN* and
Lemma 3. The autonomous ordinal terms of EN* form a segment. That is: If y
is autonomous in EN* and Yo <y then Yo is also autonomous in EN*.
Vx <yU(x)  4 Vx <yoU(x)
holds, where 15 < 20. We have to prove that y is also less than 20. We regard
EN* as a subsystem of RA* in which every free predicate variable belongs to
level 0 and every formula has a rank <w. Then it follows from (1) that
Inductive definition of the autonomous ordinal terms of the semiformal system L*.
1. If y is less than the limiting number of L then y is autonomous in L*.
2. If <5 is autonomous in L* and L* f2 J[y] holds where <5 < y, then y is also
autonomous in L*.
We may assume that ro 2 ~<5 and I ~n. By Lemma 7b) of 21 the formula
L* f2+1 J[y+n].
Proof This result follows in the same way as Lemma 3 since the formula
2. Proof of Aut(EA *)::::; </120. By Theorem 23.4 </120 is greater than the limiting
number of EA. Suppose
EA* ~f[y]
where (j < </120. We have to prove that y is then also less than </120.
By Theorem 22.13 we have
'0
By Theorem 23.5 + 13 is autonomous in DA *. It follows by induction on n
using Lemma 4 that every ordinal term 'n
is autonomous in DA*. By Theorem
14.16 to each ordinal term y<ro there is a natural number n such that y<'n.
Therefore by Lemma 5 every ordinal term < r 0 is autonomous in DA * and
therefore r 0::::; Aut(DA *).
DA*~f[YJ
holds where (j < r o. We have to prove that y is then also less than r o. By Theorem
22.14 for 0": =wo we have
23. The Limits of the Deducibility of Transfinite Induction 217
RA*lTIf"U]'
IfL is a formal system with the basic inference rule (ind) and L* is the semiformal
system obtained from L by replacing (ind) by (S2.0*) then by Theorem 20.13
infinite deductions in L* with orders < w 2 correspond to the finite deductions of
the system L. It is therefore fitting to allow the following inductive definition of the
autonomous terms of the system RA* to begin with the ordinal terms < w 2
EA f fey]  4 f[y+ I]
EA f fey] 4 f[w Y].
By Lemma 3 of 21 and Theorem 22.13 it follows that there exist 5 1 <W2 and
5 2 < w 2 such that
We may assume that w+5 1 ~IX, w+5 2 ~(X and w+w~p. The formula fl[y] has
a rank <w+w. Therefore by cuts from (1)(3) we obtain
(4) RA*I%+lfl[y+l]
(5) RA*I%+l fl[W Y]'
218 VIII. Predicative Analysis
By Lemma 3 of 21 and Theorem 22.13 it follows that there exists ~<W2 such
that
We may assume that W+~~IX and w+w~p. By a cut from (1) and (2) we obtain
Definition. As before we denote by Aut(RA *) the least ordinal term which is not
autonomous in RA *.
holds for every permissible predicator po of level o. The assertion follows using
a basic inference (S2.1 *).
EA f ..F[(1]
where (I =4>10=8 0 .
It follows by Lemma 3 of 21 and Theorem 22.13 that there exists <5 < w 2 such
that
In this section we consider ordinals in the sense of the classical theory of ordinals
based on the axioms of ZermeloFraenkel or BemaysGOdel set theory. These
ordinals, as defined in 13, characterize the order types of the wellordered sets.
However, we do not deal here with the class of all ordinals but only with a proper
segment 0* which nevertheless is larger than the segment 0 dealt with in 13.
We characterize 0* itself by an axiom system without tying this to a general axiom
system for set theory. Thus we use the notions map (function) and set in a naive
way. But these may also be regarded as being determined axiomatically (in the
context of a general axiom system for set theory).
From 11.3 (for ~=~(IX we have: If IX </3, then ~(IX)<~(/3). It follows by 11.1
and 11.2 that ~ is an order preserving map of I(])* onto the set of transfinite cardinals
in 0*. In the classical theory of ordinals there is a map ~ with properties 11.1
11.3 from the class of all ordinals onto the class of all transfinite cardinals. This
map has fixed points IX=~(IX). By 11.4 0* is restricted to the segment of those
ordinals which are less than the least fixed point of~. .
By 11.4, for each ordinal IX there is an ordinal> IX in 0*. Using Ax. I it follows
that for each IX there is a smallest ordinal >IX in I(])*. We call this the successor IX'
of IX. An ordinal /3 is said to be a limit number if /3 '" 0 and there is no IX such that
IX' =/3.
A set Me I(])* is said to be bounded if there exists /3 such that IX ~ fJ for all
IX E M. By Ax. I for every bounded set Me I(]) * there is a unique least ordinal /3
such that IX ~ /3 for all IX E M. As previously we call this ordinal fJ the supremum
sup M of the set M.
We say that a set M ~ 0* has cardinality IX if IX is a cardinal such that M", I(])*(IX).
In this case IX is uniquely determined by M.
The closure of a set M 0 ~ 0* under finitely many niplaced functions of
ordinals I; (i = 1, ... , m) is the smallest set M ~ I(]) * such that M 0 ~ M and
1;(1X1' ... , IXn,) E M for alllX 1 , ... , IXn, E M (i= 1, ... , m).
Ax. III. If M is the closure of the set {O} u 0*(13) under finitely many functions of
ordinals then every subset of M has cardinality ~max(/3, ~(O.
This property of 0* is provable in the classical theory of ordinals.
Ax. IV. If M is a subset of O*(~(IX' which has cardinality < ~(IX') then sup M <
~(IX').
This property of 0* which we call the regularity of the cardinal ~(IX') is
provable in the classical theory of ordinals using the axiom of choice.
Ax. IAx. IV comprise all the properties of the segment 0* of the ordinals
which will be used in the sequel without reference to a general system of axioms
for set theory.
2. Basic Properties of 0*
By Ax. I the induction theorem formulated in 13 (p. 75) also holds for 0*.
As in 13 we denote by N the set {O, 0', 0", ... } of finite ordinals. Then putting
w : = ~(O), w = sup N holds.
24. Normal Functions on a Segment 0* of the Ordinals 223
*O. Let
*
We set w : = ~(O), Q o : = 0 and Q a : = ~(IX) for IX K be the set of trans
finite cardinals > w, then K: = {Q a IIX O}.
Proof Letfbe the ordering function of M. It follows from K~M that for every
ordinal IX E 0* there is an ordinal ~ E D(f) such that f(~) = Qa" where IX ~ ~. Thus
IX E D(f) too. Hence D(f) = 0*.
Proof a) If IX is transfinite, then the function f given by fen) : = n' for n < w,
f(~) :=~ for W~~<IX andf(lX) :=0 is a bijective map ofO*(IX') onto O*(IX).
b) follows from a).
Proof There exists Y E DUJ such that 0 < Y ~ IX + Y = {3. There are the following
two cases to consider for {3 E K.
1. {3=~(c5'). If M:={IX+~ I ~<y} then M~O*(~(c5')) and M~O*(y). By
Lemma 3b) ~(c5') is a limit number. Therefore sup M = ~(c5'). By Ax. IV it follows
that M has cardinality ~ ~(c5'). Thus {3 = ~(c5') ~y. It follows that {3= y and there
fore {3 E D(Ja) and IX + {3 = {3.
2. {3=~(c5) where c5 is a limit ordinal. Assume that y<{3. Then there exists
~ < c5 such that y < ~(n < {3 and IX < ~(~'). It follows from I. that ~(n E D(fa) and
IX + Y< IX + ~(~') = ~(n < {3 contradicting IX + y = {3. Hence {3 = y and therefore
{3 E D(fa) and IX + {3 = {3.
224 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of lI~Analysis
Definition of the level Srx of an ordinal rx. Given rx there is a unique smallest
ordinal P such that O*(P),.... O*(rx). This ordinal is a cardinal. If P < w let Srx: = O.
Otherwise there exists y # 0 such that P = Qy. Then let Srx : = y.
rx<~(y+ 1)=QSa.+l'
Inductive definition of sets of ordinals CnCrx, p), C(rx, p), In (rx) and ordering func
tions ()a:
(DI) Co(rx,p):=O*(P)
e
(D2) p(e)~ CnCrx, P) = E Cn+l(rx, P)
(D3) e<rx, e
E C(e, ()e'1), '1<()e'1 and e, '1 E CnCrx, p) = ()e'1 E Cn+ (rx, P)
1
24. Normal Functions on a Segment I()I* of the Ordinals 225
This definition is inductive since it only assumes knowing the functions 8~ and
sets C( (, 8(1]) for a. Since K s; In (a) it follows by Lemma 2 that the ordering
function 8a ofIn (a) has domain 0*. Hence 8af3 is defined for all a, f3 E 0*.
S. Feferman's definition refers to the closure Clif3) of the set {O} u 0*(f3)
under addition and the functions 8~(<a) and (f+Q~ instead of C(a,f3). By
W. Buchholz [l], C(a, f3)=Cl a (f3). Thus the functions 8a defined here agree with
the functions defined by S. Feferman. The condition ( E C((, 8(1]) in (D3) which
is the essential difference from the definition of Clif3) is included since it makes
the most important properties of the functions 8a easier to prove than on the
basis of Clif3). The stratification of C(a, f3) into Cia, f3) (n E N) introduced by
W. Buchholz helps in carrying out the proofs of induction.
The property f3 C(a, f3) occurring in (D6) says that f3 is inaccessible from
ordinals <f3 by certain functions such that the only 8~ which occur among these
functions are ones for which a. We therefore denote by In (a) the set of a
inaccessible ordinals. If a < r 0 then the set Cr (a) of acritical numbers defined in
13 is a subset of In (a) as we shall show in 25.
Lemma 5. a) f3~8af3,
b) f31 <f32 => 8af31 < 8af32'
c) f3=> (EC(a,f3),
d) 0 E C(a, f3),
e) 8af3 E P,
f) yE Cn(a, f3) => P(y)s;Cia, f3),
g) Cn(a, f3)s;C n+ l (a, f3).
g) By f) from I' E Cn(a, fJ) we have P(y) S; Cn(a, fJ) and by (02) I' E Cn+ 1(a, fJ).
Hence Cn(a, fJ) S; Cn+ 1 (a, fJ)
Proofs. a) By (05) and Lemma 5 f) we obtain P(y) S; C(a, fJ) from I' E C(a, fJ). If
P(y) S; C(a, fJ) holds then by (05) and Lemma 5 g) there exists n such that P(y) S;
Cn(a, fJ). Hence by (02) and (05) I' E C(a, fJ)
b) If ~, 11 E C(a, fJ) then by (05) and Lemma 5 g) there exists n such that
~, YJ E Cn ( a, fJ). If 11 < 8~11 then from ~ < a and ~ E C( ~, 8~11) by (03) and (05) we
obtain 8~11 E C(a, fJ) Otherwise 8~11 = 11 E C(a, fJ).
Lemma 6. a) a l ~a2' fJl ~fJ2 => C.(a l , fJI)S;Cn(a 2 , fJ2)' C(a l , fJI)s;C(a 2, fJ;J
b) If a is a limit number, then C(a, fJ) = U C(~, fJ).
that there exists 11 < fJ such that I' E C n( a, 11). If n = 0, then this holds for 11 = I' + 1
since then I' + 1 < fJ. If n # then I' E C.(a, fJ) holds on the basis of finitely many
hypothesis YiECnl(a,fJ) (i=I, ... ,m). By I.H. there exist l1i<fJ such that YiE
Cnl(a, YJJ Let 11 : = max (YJI' ... , 11m) then by a) Yi E Cn l (a, 11) (i = 1, ... , m). Hence
I' E Cia, 11) Thus Cn(a, fJ)c U Cn(a,l1) By (05) we obtain C(ex, fJ)s; U C(a,l1)
~<P ~<P
By a) we also have U C(a, YJ)s;C(a, fJ).
~<P
24. Normal Functions on a Segment O of the Ordinals 227
Lemma 7. For each ex, f3 there exists a least ordinal y C(ex, f3). This ordinal y has
the properties: f3 ~ y, Sf3 = Sy, C(ex, f3) = C(ex, y) and y E In (ex).
Proof. Let M be the closure of the set {O} u O*(f3) under addition and the
e
functions (e, 1]) f+ ()e1] and f+ Q~. By (Dl)(D6) C(ex, f3)sM and therefore we
also have Mo:=C(ex, f3) n O*(QSP+l) sM. By Ax. III Mo has cardinality~max
(f3, ~(O<QSP+l Hence Mo is a proper subset of O*(QSP+l). Therefore there
exists a least ordinal y<QSP+l such that y C(ex, f3). By Lemma 5 c) f3~y.
e
Since y < QSfJ + l' Sf3 = Sy. By the minimality of y C(ex, f3) we have E C(ex, f3) for
aU e<y. Consequently C o(ex,y)sC(ex,f3). It follows by induction on n that
Cn(ex, y)s C(ex, f3) for all n E ~. Therefore by (D5) C(ex, y)s C(ex, f3). By Lemma 6 a)
we also have C(ex, f3) S C(ex, y). Thus y C(ex, f3) = C(ex, y) and by (D6) y E In (ex).
Proofs. a) By Lemma 7 there exists y E In (ex) such that C(ex, 0) = C(ex, y). It follows
that ()exO ~ y and by Lemma 6 a)
Proofs., a) The assertion is trivial if y=O. Now suppose y#O. If Qy E C(rx, 13) then
there is a least number n such that Qy E CnCrx, 13). If n = 0 then y < Qy< 13, and
therefore, also, y E Co(rx, 13). If n #0, then by Theorems 24.2 and 24.5 b) we have
that Qy E C(rx, 13) can only hold because of (D4). Therefore y E Cn l (rx, 13). There
fore from Q y E C(rx, 13) we have, in every case, y E C(rx, 13). By (D4) and (DS) from
y E C(rx, 13) we obtain Qy E C(rx, 13).
b) Suppose y E C(rx, 13) holds then there exists n such that y E CnCrx, 13). By
Theorem 24.5 a) we obtain QSy E C(rx, f3) by induction on n.
Theorem 24.7. a) rx l < rx 2, \f~(rxl ~ ~ < rx 2 ~ ~ C(rx l , Orx 2f3 = Orx l f3 = Orx 2f3.
b) 3~(rxl ~ ~ < rx 2 J\ ~ E C( rx l , Orx 2f3 = Orx l (Orx 2f3) = Orx2f3.
from the hypothesis. By Lemma 6 a) and by Lemma 9 C(rx l , '1)=C(rx 2, '1). By (D7)
we obtain Orx l f3 = Orx2f3.
24. Normal Functions on a Segment iIJI* of the Ordinals 229
b) If erJ,2{3 E K, then erJ,l (erJ, 2{3) = erJ,2{3 holds by Theorem 24.5 b). Now suppose
erJ,2{3 rj K. By Theorem 24.4 b) rJ,1 :( ~ < rJ,2 implies erJ,2{3 E In m. Therefore there
exists '1:(e~'1=erJ,2{3. Using ~ E qrJ,1,@rJ,2{3), by Lemma 6 a) we obtain
If we had '1 < erJ,2{3, then by Lemma 5 c) we should have '1 E qrJ,2' erJ. 2{3) and by
Theorem 24.3 b) e~'1 E q rJ,2' erJ,2{3) which contradicts (D6) since e~1J = erJ,2{3 rj K.
Thus '1=erJ,2{3. By Theorem 24.4 b) we have
Lemma 10. a) IferJ,l{3l =erJ,2{32 where rJ,1 :(1X 2 , then PI ={32 or {3l =erJ,2{32'
=
b) rJ,1 <rJ,2, rJ,1 E qrJ,2' erJ,2P) erJ,1(erJ,2{3) = eIX 2{3
Proofs. a) If 1X1 :(rJ,2 then by Theorem 24.7 erJ,1{32 =erJ,2~ or erJ,1(ea 2{32)=erJ,2{32'
IferJ,l{3l =erJ,2{32' then {3l ={32 or {3l =erJ,2{32'
b) Suppose rJ,1 < rJ,2 and a l E qrJ,2' erJ,2{3). IflXl rj qrJ,l' ea 2/3) then qrJ,l' erJ,2{3) #
qrJ,2, erJ,2{3) Then, by Lemma 9, there exists ~ E qrJ,l' erJ,z/3) such that rJ,1 ~~<rJ,2'
By Theorem 24.7 b) it also follows in the case that a l E qa l , erJ,2{3) that erJ,l (ert. 2/3) =
ed. 2 /3
Lemma 11. erJ,{3 rj K, erJ,{3:( l' E q rJ" erJ,{3) = S{3 < Sy.
Proof By hypothesis there exists m such that l' E Cm(rJ" erJ,{3). We prove S{3 < Sy by
induction on m. Since erJ,/3:(y, m#O therefore m=n+ 1.
1. Suppose l' E Cn+1(rJ" erJ,/3) holds by CD2). Since erJ,/3 E P, it follows from
erJ,{3:(y that there exists Yo E P(y) where ea/3:(yo' Hence Yo E Cn(cx, erJ,/3). By I.H.
we obtain S{3 < SYo' Therefore we also have S{3 < Sy.
2. Suppose l' E Cn+ 1(a, erJ,{3) holds by (D3). Then l' = e~'1 where ~ < rJ, and
~, '1 E CnCrJ" erJ,/3). By Lemma 10 b) we have ()~(ea{3) = erJ,{3. Using erJ,{3:( l' = e~'1 we
obtain erJ,{3:('1. By I.H. we obtain S{3<S'1. Then by Theorem 24.5 a) we also
have S{3 < Sy.
3. Suppose l' E Cn+1(rJ" erJ,{3) holds by (D4). Then l' E K. Since erJ,{3 rj K and
erJ,{3:(y, we have ecx/3<y and S{3<Sy.
Proof Since ()" has domain 0*, by Lemma 1 it remains only to prove that In (a.)
is closed. Let M be a nonempty bounded subset of In (a.). We have to prove that
sup M is then a member of In (a.). If sup ME K or sup ME M then trivially
sup ME In (a.). Now suppose sup M K and sup M M. Then sup M is a limit
number. Assume that sup ME C(a., sup M). Then by Lemma 6 c) there exists
", < sup M such that sup ME C(a., ",). Since M S In (a.) and sup M K there is then
()a.e K such that ",:::; ()a.e :::; sup M and S()a.e = Se = S sup M. By Lemma 6 a)
sup ME C(a.,,,,) implies sup ME C(a., ()a.e). By Lemma 11 we have Se < S sup M
contradicting the choice of e. Consequently sup M C(a., sup M) and by (D6)
sup ME In (a.).

5. The Sets In(a.) and Functions ()"
We introduce sets In (a.) of ordinals and functions ()" on the ordinals following
W. Buchholz [2] and use these to develop a notation system for a segment of the
ordinals.
Definition. In (a.) : = In (a.)\In (a. + 1). That is to say y E In (a.) is to hold if, and only
if, y E In (a.) and y In (a. + 1).
In this case by Theorem 24.4 b) YEIn(e) for all e:::;a. and yIn(",) for all
", > a.. In (a.) is therefore the set of those ordinals which are maximally a.inaccess
ible.
Corollaries. 1. In (a.) S P.
2. In (a.) and K are disjoint sets.
 
3. If a. l #a. 2 then In (a. l ) and In (a. 2 ) are diSjoint sets.
Theorem 24.10. In (a.) is the set of those ordinals ()a.f3 such that a. E C(a., ()a.f3) and
{3 < ()a.f3.
24. Normal Functions on a Segment (]I* of the Ordinals 231
Proof l. Suppose Y E In (a), then Y E In (a) and y In (a + 1). Then there exists
f3 such that y = ()af3 K, ()af3 C( a, ()af3) and ()af3 E C(a + 1, ()af3). It follows that
C(a, ()af3)"# C(a+ 1, ()af3) and by Lemma 9 a E C(a, ()af3). Since ()af3 E C(a + 1, ()af3)
there exists a least number n such that ()af3 E Cn<a+ 1, ()af3). Because ()af3 E P and
()af3 K this can only hold by (D3). Then we have 1] < ()~1] = ()af3 where ~::( a. By
Theorem 24.4 b) we have ()af3::( ()a1]. Then f3::( 1], and therefore f3 < ()af3.
2. Suppose a E C(a, ()af3) and f3 < ()af3. By Theorem 24.5 b) we then have
()af3K. By Lemmata 6 a) and 5 c) it follows that aEC(a+1,()af3) and f3E
C(a+l,()af3). By Theorem 24.3 b) we obtain ()af3E C(a+l, ()af3). By (D6) using
()af3 K we have ()af3 In (a + 1). Hence we have ()af3 E In (a).
Lemma 12. ~ E C(~, ()~1]), 1] < ()~1] and f3::( ()~1] E C(a, f3) imply ~ < aand~, 1] E C(a, f3).
Proof By Theorem 24.5 b) 1] < ()~1] implies ()~1] K. Since ()~1] E C( a, f3) there is a
least number n such that ()~1] E Cn< a, f3). Since f3::( ()~1] E P and ()~1] K this can
only hold by (D3). Then we have ()~1]=()~01]0 wherel.o<a, ~oEC(~o,()~o1]o),
1]0 < ()~01]0 and ~o, 1]0 E C(a, f3). By Theorem 24.10 ()~1] E In m
and ()~01]0 E In (~o)
If ~"#~o, In (0 and In(~o) are disjoint. Therefore from ()~1]=()~01]0 we have
~ = ~o. So we also have 1] =1]0 and therefore ~ <a and ~, 1] E C(a, f3).
Definition. We set f1(a) to be the least ordinal 1] such that a E C(a, ()a1]). (Such an
ordinal f1(a)::( a + 1 exists since a E C(a, ()a(a + 1)).
since by Theorem 24.9 ()a is continuous. Then, by Lemma 6 from a E C(a, ()a(f1(a)))
we should have 1] <f1(a) such that a E C(a, ()a1]). This contradicts the minimality
of f1(a).
Lemma 14. (E Cn(a, f3), ( C(y, ()yc5), (E C(y, ()yc5 + 1) => c5 E C(a, f3).
3.2. Suppose ()yb. Then ()yb+ 1 ';;;;()~11 E C(y, ()yJ+ 1). By Lemma 12 we
obtain ~<y and~, 11 E C(y, ()yJ+ 1). Then by Theorem 24.3 b) from ()~11 C(y, ()yJ)
we obtain ~ C(y, ()yJ) or 11 C(y, ()yJ). By LH. (for ~ or 11 replacing 0 we obtain
J E C(a, [3).
4. Suppose (E Cn(a, [3) holds by (D4). Then we have (= Q~ where
~ECnl(a,[3). By Theorem 24.6 a) ~C(y,()yJ) and ~EC(y,()yJ+l) also hold.
By LH. we obtain J E C(a, [3).
Proof If J1(Y) = 0, then J1(Y) E C(a, [3) holds by Lemma 5 d). Otherwise by Lemma
13 J1(y)=J+ 1 where y C(y, ()yb) and YE C(y, ()y(J+ 1)). By Lemma 8 we obtain
y E C(y, ()yJ + I). Using y E C(a, f3) by Lemma 14 we obtain J E C(a, [3). By Lemma
6 a) from y E C(a, [3) and y C(y, ()yJ) we obtain y<a or ()yJ<[3 and therefore
a #0 or 1 < [3. If a #0 then, since 0 E C(a, [3) by Theorem 24.3 b) 1 = ()OO E C,(a, [3).
If 1 < [3 then 1 E C(a, [3) by Lemma 5 c). Therefore in every case J E C(a, [3) and
1 E C(a, [3). By Theorem 24.3 a) we obtain J1(Y) = J + 1 E C(a, [3).
Theorem 24.11. Ba is an order preserving map of the set of ~ ~ QSI'(a) onto the set
In (a).
(1) aEC(a,()ap).
Assume that ()ap = p. Then 1 < PEP, consequently la[3 = 0 and by Lemma 13
ra([3) # O. Hence
2. Suppose Y E In (ex). We have to prove that there exists f3 such that Stt(ex) ~Sf3
and Y = {}o:f3. By Theorem 24.10 there exists 11 such that y = ()ex/3, ex E C( ex, ()ex/3) and
11<()ex/3. By the definition of tt(ex) and Lemma 6 a) we obtain ()ex(tt(ex))~()ex11 and
therefore tt(ex)~/3. Therefore there exists f3* such that
11 = tt(ex) + f3*.
If f3*=f3o+n where tt(ex)<f3o=()exf3 o and n<w then it follows from /3<()ex/3 that
n>O. In this case let f3:= Qsl1(IZ)+f3o+(nl). Otherwise let f3:= Qsl1(IZ)+f3*. In
any case we then have Stt(ex)~Sf3 and
also holds.
b) Suppose ~ <ex and~, Yf E C(ex, f3). Hence by Lemma 15 we have tt(~) E C(ex, f3)
and by Theorem 24.3 a) r~(Yf) E C(ex, f3). Since ex#O, 1 E C(ex, f3). By Theorem
24.3 a) we obtain
Theorem 24.13. If Stt(ex) ~ Sf3 then ex E C(ex, (}exf3), f3 < {}exf3 and S{}exf3 = Sf3.
234 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of illAnalysis
Proof We have 8ap = 8a/3 where /3 = f1.(a) + riP) + lap. By Theorems 24.10 and
24.11, a E C(a, 8a/3) and /3 < 8a/3. It follows that a E C(a, 8ap) and
Inductive Definition of the set 8(Q) c (D* and the degree Ga E N of an ordinal
a E 8(Q):
1. 0 E 8(Q), GO: =0.
2. O<y P, P(y)c8(Q) => Y E 8(Q), Gy: = max {GYi IYi E P(y)} + 1.
3. a, P E 8(Q), Sf1.(a)~Sp => 8ap E 8(Q), G8ap: = max (Ga, GP)+ 1.
4. O<a E 8(Q) => QIZ E8(Q), GQIZ : =Ga+ 1.
Obviously, for every ordinal a such that a E 8(Q) at most one of the above
four defining rules can hold. It follows by Theorem 24.14 a) that every ordinal
a E 8(Q) has a uniquely determined degree Ga EN.
2. Sets of Coefficients
We introduce finite sets of coefficients for ordinals Y E 8(Q) in such a way that
Y E C(a, 8ap) can be characterised in a useful recursive way.
Inductive Definition of the coefficient sets Kv*Y and KvY for v E (D* and Y E 8(Q):
1. Kv*0=KvO:=0(emptyset).
2. O<y P => Kv*Y: = U KV*Yi' KvY: = U KvYi
YiEP(y) YiEP(y)
25. A Notation System of Ordinals Based on the 6. Functions 235
Corollary to Theorem 25.1. /f S JL(a) ~ S13 and y E 8(Q) then y E C(a, 8af3) if, and
only if, Ktpy<rx and Kspy < 8af3.
Proof There exists /1 K such that {}af3 = (}a/1 and Sf3 = S/1. Therefore the assertion
holds by Theorem 25.1.
Theorem 25.2. If (}af3 E {}(Q) then Ktprx < rx and Kspa u {f3} < 8rxf3.
Proof By Theorem 24.13 we have a E C(a, (}af3) and 13 < (}af3. Hence the assertion
follows by the corollary to Theorem 25.1.
Theorem 25.3. /fa, 13 E 8(Q) then SJL(a)~ Sf3 if, and only if, Ktpa<a.
Proof 1. Suppose SJL(a) ~ Sf3. Then {}af3 E {}(Q). By Theorem 25.2 we obtain
Ktpa<a.
2. Suppose Ktprx < a. Let y be the maximum element of the finite set {Qsp } u
Ksprx, then Kspa<y+ 1 ~(}a(y+ 1), Sf3= S(y + 1) and y+ 1 K. By Theorem 25.1
we obtain a E C(rx, (}a(y + 1. By the definition of JL(a) it follows that JL(a) ~ y + 1.
Therefore SJL(rx) ~ Sf3.
236 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of InAnalysis
Theorem 25.4. If eIXJ3 i E e( Q) (i = 1, 2) where S131 = S13 2 = v then erx 1131 < eIX 2f3 2 if,
and only if, one of the following three conditions holds:
a) 1X1 < !Xl' KvlXl U {f3d < e1X 2f32'
b) 1X1 = 1X 2 , 131 < 132'
c) 1X2 <lXI' (j('J.lf31 ~Kv1X2 U {f32}'
Proof Suppose condition a) holds. By Theorem 25.2 Kv*lXl < 1X1 < 1X 2 . Using
KvlXl < fJIY. 2f32' by the corollary to Theorem 25.1, we obtain 1X1 E C(1X 2 , fJIX 2f32)'
Using 1X1 <!X2 and 131 <fJrx 2f32' by Theorem 24.14 b) we obtain ea l f31 <fJrx 2 f3 2.
2. Suppose condition b) holds. Then tJrx l f31 < (}rx 2f32 holds by Theorem 24.11.
3. Suppose condition c) holds. Then, by Theorem 25.2, {}1X 1f3 1 ~Kv1X2 U
{f32} < {}rx 2 f32 and therefore erx l f31 < {}1Y. 2 f3 2
4. Suppose none of the conditions holds. Then either tJrx 1f31 = (}rx.2f32 or by
a)c) (with SUbscripts interchanged) eIX 2f32 < {}a l f31'
Let OT* be the subsystem of T* which contains only ordinal terms YE T* which
denote ordinals Y E e(Q). This system OT* of terms is a system of unique notations
for the set of ordinals fJ(Q). That is to say: Each term YE OT* denotes one and
only one, ordinal Y E e(Q) and each ordinal y E tJ(Q) is denoted by one, and only
one term YE e(Q). The remaining terms in T* which do not belong to OT* are
formal strings of symbols which do not denote ordinals.
25. A Notation System of Ordinals Based on the 9. Functions 237
We set OT* = lJ(Q) whereby we identify each ordinal Y E lJ(Q) with its nota
tion YE OT*. Also we now call the ordinals of lJ(Q) ordinal terms (because of the
uniqueness of the notations).
We say that two ordinal terms Yl, Y2 E lJ(Q) are recursively comparable if it
can be decided whether Yl <Y2, Yl =Y2 or Y2 <Yl'
It is obviously decidable whether any string of symbols is a term ofT*. Below
we prove that it is also decidable for every term c E T* whether c is an ordinal
term of the system lJ(Q) and that two ordinal terms from lJ(Q) are recursively
comparable.
If MclJ(Q) then GM <n (GM~n) means that G~<n (G~~n) for all ~ E M.
b 3.1) OC 1 <OC 2 It follows from the I.H. that K.oc 1 is calculable and it is decid
able whether K.oc 1 u {Pd <Y2 holds. By Theorem 25.4, Yl <Y2 if K.oc 1 u {Pd <Y2
and Y2<Yl ifY2~K.ocl U {PI}
b 3.2) oc 1 =oc 2 By I.H. PI an<;l P2 are recursively comparable. Yl <Y2, Yl =Y2
or Y2 <Yl holds according as PI <P2' PI =P2 or P2 <Pl
b 3.3) oc 2 <oc 1 . Then it follows in the same way as in b 3.1) that Yl and Y2 are
recursively comparable.
Proof This follows from Theorem 25.5 since (j(t) is a subsystem of (j(D).
Lemma 2.
a) rxEB(t)=P(rx)cB(t)
b) rx E (j(t) => Ds" E B(t)
2.2 Suppose Y E Cn+ 1(Q" 0) holds by (D3). Then y=()a!3 where a<Q"
a E C(a, ()ap), p<()ap and a, P E Cn(Q, , 0). By I.H. we obtain a, P E eeL). By
Theorems 24.10 and 24.11 there exists {3 such that Sfl(a),:;;S{3=SP and y=ea{3.
Here
It follows from PE eeL) by Lemma 2 that QspE eeL) and ri{3)E e('c:). If Sfl(a) = S{3,
then by Lemma 2 a) we have
If Sfl(a)<S{3 then
In any case we have a, {3E eeL) where Sfl(a)':;;S{3. It follows that y=ea{3E eeL).
2.3 Suppose YECn+ 1(Q,,0) holds by (D4). Then y=Q" where O<a<r. By
I.H. we have a E eeL). Hence it follows that y E eeL).
Theorem 25.8. 8(,) n O*(Q1)=O*(()Q,0). That is to say: The 0 level ofe(,) con
sists of the segment of all ordinals < ()Q,O.
. 5. The Ordinal Ao
By definition e(Q) is the closure of the set {O} under finitely many functions of
ordinals. Therefore by Ax. III the set 8(Q) n O*(Q1) has cardinality < Q1' It
follows by Ax. IV that there is a least ordinal rt 8(Q) which is < Q1' We denote
this least ordinal by Ao. Therefore we have
Theorem 25.9. e(Q) n O*(Q1) = O*(Ao). That is to say: The 0 level of 8(Q) con
sists of the segment of all ordinals < Ao.
Proof Suppose YEe(Q) n O*(Q1)' By Lemma 3 there exists ,#0 such that
y E eeL) n O*(Q1)' By Theorem 25.8 we obtain
240 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of nlAnalysis
The set 0 of ordinals considered in 13 can be identified with 0*(Q1)' Then, for
the set Cr (oc) of occritical numbers defined in 13, we have
Proof There exists /3 such that y = Ooc/3. By Lemma 4 e E C(e, Ooc/3). By Theorem
24.7 b) we obtain Oe(Ooc/3)=Ooc/3, and therefore Oey=y.
Now suppose y E Cr (oc). Then for all e < oc, by the definition of Cr (oc) we have
f/Jey = y and consequently by I.H. Oey = y. It follows that yEn In (e). If oc is a
~<'"
26. LevelLowering Functions of the Ordinals 241
(2) Cr(et)cIn(et).
Proof By definition r 0 is the least ordinal Yf such that </JYfO = Yf. By Theorem
25.10 b) and Lemma 6 we have rO=(}Q10.
l. Basic Concepts
Inductive Definition of h~ :
1. hO=hQa :=0.
2. 0 < i < 0" = hQ i : = i.
3. h(~l' ~2):=max{h~1,h~2}'
4. 0< ~ ~ P =h~ : = max {h~i I ~i E P(~)},
that is to say: h~ is the least number such that no Q k occurs in ~ with h~ < k < 0".
We say that 17 is a sub term of ~ if either ~ 1=17 E P(~) or ~ =(17, ~2) or ~ = (~1' 17)
or ~=Qq.
~EM ~EM
Proof of a). If S1]=(J then by Theorem 25.2 K,,, 1]). Here K,,=P() since
S<(J. Therefore P() ,1]) holds. Hence we have ,1]) since (,1]) is a
principal term.
Lemma 4. a) Ki*k'n<k'n.
b) K/< ~ K i*Si+2<Si+2'
c) Ki*Si+2k'n<Si+2k'n.
Proof by induction on G1]. If Qi+2 <1], then the assertion is trivial. If 1] P then
it follows from the I.H. If 1] < Qi+ l' then K;*1] = 0 < + 1]. There remains the case
1] = (1]1,1]2) where S1]2 = i+ l. Then by Lemma 2 c)
244 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of IIiAnalysis
If ~ E Ki+ 1'11 U{l72}, then G~ <G'1, K{cK{'1 <~ +Qi+2 and therefore by I.H. and
Theorem 25.2 K;*~ < ~ + ~ < ~ + '1.
By Theorem 25.2 we also have K;*+1'11 <'11' It therefore remains only to prove
'11 <~+'1. If '11 <~, then '11 <~+'1. Now suppose ~<I1t. Then from
it follows that there exists '10<Qi+2 such that '11 =~+'10. Hence we obtain
Ki + 1'10 C K i + 1'11 < '1, where K i + 1'10 = P('1o) since '10 < Qi+ 2' Therefore P('1o) < '1
holds. Since '1 is a principal term, we obtain IJo < IJ. Then IJ 1 = ~ + IJo < ~ + '1 as was
to be proved.
If IJ<~l' then the assertion IJ<Ki*~ holds. If ~1 <IJ, then from ('1, Qi+1)<~=
(~1' ~2)' by Theorem 25.4 we obtain
by Theorem 25.4, we obtain (~1' Qi+l) < K i + 1'1. Then there exists '10 E Ki+ 1'1 such
that '10 < Qi+ 2 and (~1' Qi+ 1) < IJo By a)(with '10' ~ 1 instead of~, IJ), using Ki*+ 1~ 1 <
~1 we obtain ~1 <K;*IJo~K;*'1<IJ Hence ~1 <IJ
26. Level"Lowering Functions of the Ordinals 245
Now, for each number i < (J, we define a map di which assigns a principal term d/1.
of level i to each principal term IY. of level (J. We shall use these in 27.
According to this definition dilY. is always a term of the system T*. We prove:
Theorem 26.1. dilY. is a principal term of level i in the system i1( (J + 1).
It suffices to prove that dilY. E i1( (J + 1). If hlY. ~ i < (J, then by Lemma 3 b) K"(IY. < IY.
and consequently dilY.=(IY., Q;) E i1((J+ 1). We prove the assertion by induction on
hlY.  i for i < hlY.. In this case dilY. = (~, Q;) where
From (1) and (2) we obtain Ki*~ < ~ and therefore dilY. = (~, Q;) E i1((J+ 1).
Proof 1. If hlY.~i, then dilY. = (IY., Q;) and Qi+l ~IY.. It follows that (Q i + l , Q;)~dilY.
2. We prove the assertion by induction on hlY.i for i<hlY.. By the definition
there are the following two cases to be considered.
2.1 dilY.=(~, Q;) where di+llY.=(~, Qi+l)' Then by I.H. (Q i + 2 , Qi+1)~di+l!X=
(~,Qi+l)' dilY.=(~,Q;)Ei1((J+I) implies Kn<~ By Lemma 6 from (~,Qi+l)<
Qi+2' K;*Qi+2<Q i+2 and (Q i + 2 , Qi+l)~(~' Qi+l) we therefore have Qi+2~
K;*(~, Qi+l)' Hence Qi+2~~ and (Q i + 1 , Q;)~, Q;)=dilY.
2.2 dilY.=(~, Q;) where ~=Si+2kidi+llY.+di+llY.. Then Qi+l ~di+llY.~~. Hence
(Q i + l , Qi)~dilY.
246 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of n!AnaJysis
It follows that Ki~=Kidj+lrx and by I.H. Ki~=Kirx u {I}. Then we also have
Kidp.=Kirx u {I}.
Proof 1. If hrx ~ i then dirx = (rx, QJ and, by Theorem 25.2, Kirx < dirx.
2. If i < hrx we have dirx = (~, Qi) where, by Theorem 25.2 Ki~ < dirx.
2.1. di+lrx=(~, Qi+l). Then, by Lemma 8,
It follows from Lemma 7 that 1 <dirx. Using Ki~<dirx we obtain Kirx < dirx.
2.2. ~=Si+2kidi+lrx+di+lrx. Then, by Lemma 2 b) and 8)
Proof If hrx<i+ 1 <(J', then dirx = (rx, Qi)' di+1 rx=(rx, Qi+l)' K i*di+1 rx={rx} u Ki*rx
and by Lemma 3 b) Ki*rx < rx. It follows that kidi +1 rx=rx and, since rx is a principal
term of level (J' ~ i + 2, we also have Si + 2kidi +1 rx = rx. This yields the assertions.
By Lemmata 2 b) and 8
26. LevelLowering Functions of the Ordinals 247
It follows from Lemma 7 that 1 <d;/3. Using the hypothesis KilX< d;/3 we obtain
Ki~<diP, We have diP=(Yf, [1i)' We prove ~<Yf. Then usingKi~<diP and [1i < diP,
by Theorem 25.4, the assertion dilX < diP follows. By the definition of diP and
Lemma 9 it follows that there are two cases for Yf.
1. di+1P=(Yf, [1i+l) and Yf=Si+2Yf. Then Ki*Yf<Yf. Therefore from di+11X<
di+1P=(Yf, [1i+l) we obtain by Lemma 6 b) K i*di+11X<Yf and therefore
Si+2kfdi+11X<Yf also. Since di+11X<[1i+2 and Yf=Si+2Yf we obtain 
2. Yf=Si+2kfdi+1P+di+1P.
By Lemma 4c)
Ki*Si+ 2kfdi + llX <Si+2 k fdi+l lX
Were di+11XSi+2kfdi+11X, [1i+l) then by Lemma 6 b) we should obtain
Ki*di+1IX<Si+2ktdi+11X which is false. Hence (Si+2ktdi+11X, [1i+1)~di+11X. Using
the hypothesis di+1lX<di+1P we obtain (Si+2ktdi+11X, [1i+1)<di+1P. Now di+1P<
[1i+2' Therefore by Lemma 6 a) we obtain
Then
Lemma 11. IfIX<P and KilX < diP for all i~j, then dilX < diP holdsfor all i~j.
Proof 1. max U, hlX, hP) ~ i. Then dilX = (IX, [1i) and diP = (P, [1i)' In this case by
Theorem 25.4 from the hypotheses IX < P and KilX < diP we obtain dilX < diP by using
[1i < diP
2. j ~ i < max (hlX, hP). Then we obtain dilX < diP by Lemma 10 by induction
on max (hlX, hp)  i.
Definition. IXP (IX is essentially less than P) denotes that IX<P and KilX < diP for
alli<u.
Proof PY implies P<y and by Theorem 26.3 diP<diy for all i<u. Using IXP
we obtain IXY.
248 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of lI:Analysis
where n is a permutation of the numbers 1, ... , m+n such that (1t(1)~'" ~(1t(m+n)'
Corollaries. 1. ~ * *
rJ = rJ ~.
2. (~*rJ)*(=~*(rJ*().
3. ~<rJ ~ ~ *( <rJ*'
4. Ki*(~*rJ)=K;*~ u Ki*rJ, Ki(~*rJ)=Ki~ u KirJ
Proofs. a) a~a*~v, a*~) and Kia <;; Ki(v, a*~) hold. By Theorem 26.2 we
obtain Kia < di(v, a*~). Hence we have a(v, a*~).
b) a<f3 implies (v, a*~)v, f3*~). By a) f3(v, f3*~). By Theorem 26.4:
using af3, we obtain a(v, (3*~) and therefore Kia < di(v, (3*~). By Theorem
26.2 Kiv u Ki~<;;KJv, f3*~) implies Kiv U Ki~<dlv, (3*~). Hence
5. Deduction Functions
We define some functions which map the set of principal terms of level a into
itself. We shall use these in 27.
Lemma 12. If 9 is a deduction function of rank p ~ u, a < 13 and Kia < dif3 for all
i E [p, u), then g(a) <g(f3) and Kig(a) < d ig(f3) for all i E [p, u).
3. g(a)=(O, Qa+dd(a)) where p~k<u and where, by I.H., f(a) <f(f3) and
K;!(a) < d;!(f3) holds for all i E [p, u). By Lemma 11 we obtain d;!(a) < d;!(f3) for
all iE [p, u) and therefore, in particular, dd(a)<dd(f3). Hence we obtain g(a) <
g(f3). We now prove Kig( a) < dig(f3) for i E [p, u).
3.1. k ~ i < u. Then Kig(f3) = Kiu U {dd(f3)}. By Theorem 26.2 we obtain
Kiu U {dd(f3)} < dig(f3). Using dd( a) < dd(f3) we obtain
By 3.1. dd(f3) <d,g(f3). Using KJ(f3) < dig(f3) , by Lemma 10 using induction on
k  i we obtain dJ(f3) < dig(f3), Hence
Theorem 26.6. af3 implies g(a) g(f3) for every deduction function g.
We now prove that g(ex) <g(P) and Kig(ex) <dig(f3) for all ka.
1. Suppose k+ 1 =a. By Lemma 12 ex<fl implies g(ex) <g(fl).
2. Suppose k<i<a. By Theorem 26.2 from Kiv U Kib<;;Kifl we obtain
Ki v U Kib < difl. Using
we obtain
Since this holds for all i E [k + 1, a) using ex < fl we obtain g(ex) <g(fl) and Kig(ex) <
dig(fl) by Lemma 12.
3. Suppose i~k. Then Kiex = Kiv u Kia u Kidky u Kib and consequently by
Lemma 13
too. From yg(f3) we obtain K iy<dig(f3) and by Theorem 26.3 we also obtain
dky < dkg(fl). If i = k we obtain
In every case
By Theorem 26.2
Inductive definition of the set Pr (F) of free predicate variables which are' in the
scope of a predicate quantifier:
1. If F is a prime formula or a formula U(t), then Pr (F) is empty.
2. Pr (A ~ B): =Pr (A) u Pr (B).
3. If F is a formula Vx%'[xJ or AX%'[XJ(t), then Pr (F) : = Pr (%'[OJ).
4. If F is a formula VX%,[XJ, then Pr(F) is the set offree predicate variables
occurring in F.
Remark. The axioms of the system GPA are formulated somewhat more generally
than the axioms of the system DA in so far as the principal parts of (Ax3) in DA
have degree 0 while those in GPA are only required to be simple. This has no
fundamental significance but it proves to be useful for the investigations below.
254 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of lIiAnalysis
Lemma 3. If the premise of an inference (str) or (sub) is an axiom, then the con
clusion of the inference is also an axiom.
Proof The axioms were chosen here to be so general that Lemma 3 would hold.
Lemma 4. If both premises of a cut are axioms which contain no free number
variables and the cutformula is simple, then the conclusion of the cut is also an
axiom.
Proof Let &,[A], %[A] I B where &'[%[ ]] f!. B be a cut satisfying the hypo
27. The Formal System GPA for a Generalized 111Analysis 255
theses of the Lemma. It suffices to prove that .?Ji[%[ ]] is an axiom since then
by Lemma 3 B is also an axiom. If the minimal part A of .?Ji[A] or of %[A] is not
a principal part of the axiom involved then obviously .?Ji[%[ ]] is also an axiom.
Otherwise one of the following three cases holds.
1. A is a true constant prime formula and % is an Nform 2[*1' A 2 ] where
A and A2 are equivalent. Then A2 is also a true constant prime formula and
.?Ji[%[ ]] is the (Axl) .?Ji[2[ ,A 2]].
2. A is a false constant prime formula and.?Ji is a Pform 2[A1' *1] where Al
and A are equivalent. Then A 1 is also a false constant prime formula and .?Ji[%[ ]]
is the (Ax2) 2[A 1 , .[ ]].
3. .?Ji is a Pform 2 1[A 1 , *1] and % an Nform 2 2[ *1' A 2] where AI' A and
A, A2 are equivalent. Then (by Theorem 20.1) Al and A2 are also equivalent and
.?Ji[%[ ]] is the (Ax3) 2 1 [A 1 , 2 2 [ ,A 2 ]].
3. Deductions
For the system GPA deductions are defined in the following way as finite treelike
configurations of formulas.
H
F
We assign ordinal terms of the notation system fJ(Q) to the formulas of a normal
deduction like the ordering functions which W. Pohlers [1] carried out using
ordinal terms of the notation system L. For this we first assign weights m < wand
ranks (J ~ w to normal deductions in such a way that a normal deduction of weight
m and rank (J has the following properties:
1. Every formula of the normal deduction has a weight ~ m and a rank ~ (J.
2. Every inference (sub) which occurs in the normal deduction has a rank
<(J.
Obviously for each normal deduction H there is a number m < w such that H
c~m be regarded as a normal deduction of weight m and rank w. If only weak
formulas occur in H then H can also be regarded as a normal deduction of a
rank <w.
We use principal terms of level (J of the subsystem fJ((J+ 1) of fJ(Q) as orders
of the formulas of a normal deduction of rank (J~ w. As in 26 we write (~, 1]) for
fJ~1]. For k < (J we also use the function dk introduced in 26 which assigns to every
principal term of level (J a principal term of level k. In case (J = 0 set dorx : = rx. If
rx, P are principal terms of level (J then, as in 26, rx P denotes that rx < P and
Kirx < diP for all i < (J. The degrees of formulas will be represented by ordinal terms
<w 2 =(0, (0,0)+(0, 0)). We use v, vo, vl , V2 as syntactical symbols for such
degrees.
5. If the premise of a basic inference (S3.1) of degree v has order a then the
conclusion has order (v+ 1, a).
6. If the premises of a basic inference (cut) of degree v have orders a l and a 2
then the conclusion has order (v, a l =IF ( 2 ).
7. If the premises of a basic inference (CI) of degree v have orders a l and
a2 then the conclusion has order (v+ 1, a l =IF( 2 ).
8. The conclusion of a basic inference (str) has the same order as its premise.
9. If the premise of an inference (sub) of rank k < (J has order a then the
conclusion has order (0, Q,,+dka).
By the order of a normal deduction we mean the order of its end formula.
Theorem 27.1. ifF and G are equivalent formulas then every normal deduction H
with end formula F may be transformed into a normal deduction H' of the same
weight, rank and order with the end formula G. If H is a basic deduction, so too
isH'.
Theorem 27.2. Every normal deduction H with endformula ff[a] where a does not
occur in ff may be transformed into a normal deduction H' of the same weight, rank
and order with end formula ff[t] for each term t. If H is a basic deduction, then
so too is H'.
Theorem 27.3. If H is a basic deduction of weight m, rank OJ and order a with end
formula ff[U] where U does not occur in ff then H may be transformed into a basic
deduction of the same weight, rank and with an order (OJ(m+ 1), a) with end
formula ff[P] for each weak predicator P.
Proofby induction on the length of the basic deduction H. We may assume that
the eigenvariables of basic inferences (S2.0), (S2.1) and (CI) which occur in Hare
chosen so that they are different from U and do not occur in P. From H we then
form H' in which the free predicate variable U is replaced by the weak predicator
P wherever it occurs in H. It follows from Lemmas 1 and 3 that H' is also a
basic deduction of weight m. H' has end formula ff[P]. We still have to prove
that H', as a basic deduction of weight m and rank OJ, has an order (OJ (m + 1), a).
1. Suppose ff[U] is an initial formula of H. Then Hand H' have the same
order Qro(OJ(m+ 1), Qro)'
2. Suppose ff[U] occurs in H as the conclusion of a basic inference (str).
Then the assertion follows immediately from the I.H.
3. Suppose ff[ U] occurs in H as the conclusion of a basic inference (S2.1)
whose principal part is a strong formula. Then a=(OJ(m+ 1), ao) where a o is the
order of the premise of the (S2.1)inference. In this case ff[P] is, in H', the con
clusion ofa corresponding (S2.1)inference whose premise has, by I.H., an order
poa. Then H' has order (OJ(m+ I), Po)(OJ' (m+ 1), a).
27. The Formal System GPA for a Generalized nlAnalysis 259
or
In specifying parts of a normal deduction we shall write f!. F below to mean that
the formula F has order (X in the given place in the normal deduction.
Theorem 27.4. If a normal deduction contains a cut with cut formula (A ~ ..L), then
the normal deduction is reducible.
Hl H2
f!. &,[(A ~ ..L)] f1! %[(A ~ ..L)]
fL B where &'[%[ ]] f! B
Here Hi and H2 denote the subdeductions of H with end formulas &,[(A ~ ..L)]
and %[(A ~ ..L)]. We replace this cut by two cuts with cut formulas ..L and A as
follows:
~ %[..L]
H2
f1! %[(A ~ ..L)] A ~ &'[%[ ]]
~ B where %[(&'[%[ ]] .. ..L)]f! B
By this replacement we obtain a normal deduction H' which has the same weight,
rank and end formula as H. H' has the axiom %[..1] as an initial formula with
order (Xo=(O, 0) (if (1=0) or (Xo = Q.,. (if (1#0). Suppose the formula A has degree v.
260 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of l1:Analysis
Theorem 27.5. If a normal deduction contains a basic inference (el) whose con
clusion contains no free number variable then the normal deduction is reducible.
fL ~[t],
where a does not occur in ~ and t is a numerical term. Here HI and H2 are basic
deductions with orders rx and p and end formulas ~[O] and ~[a] > ~[a']. By
Theorem 27.2 for every numeral n, H2 can be transformed into a basic deduction
H 2 n of order p with end formula ~[n] > ~[n'] which has the same weight and
rank as the normal deduction H 2 Suppose the formula ~[O] has degree v. Then
y=(v+ 1, rx#fJ).
We prove then
Lemma. For every numeral n there is a basic deduction H~ of order bny with end
formula ~[n] which has the same weight and rank as the normal deduction H.
f.n~[n]
Here
replace the subdeduction with end formula ~[t] in H by the basic deduction H'
and we obtain a reduction of H.
Definitions. I. A minimal part ofa formula of the end piece ofa normal deduction
is said to be distinguished if the principal part of a principal inference whose con
clusion is an initial formula of the end piece belongs to its bundle of formulas.
II. A normal deduction is said to be singular if its end formula is not an axiom
and has no distinguished minimal part.
III. A cut .?P[A], JV[A] f B such that .?P[JV[ ]] ~ B in the end piece of a
normal deduction is said to be a suitable cut if the following hold:
1. The negative part A of the premise JV[A] is a distinguished minimal part.
2. If A is a simple formula then the positive part A of the premise '?p[A] is a
distinguished minimal part.
Proof Suppose H is a singular normal deduction with no cut occurring in its end
piece. Then the end piece of H has precisely one initial formula A from which the
end formula of H is obtained using only (str) and (sub) inferences. If A were an
axiom then by Lemma 3 the end formula of H would also be an axiom. If A were
the conclusion of a principal inference then the end formula of H would have a
distinguished minimal part. Therefore by the singularity of H it follows that A is
the conclusion of a basic inference (el).
Theorem 27.6. Every singular normal deduction whose end piece contains no free
number variable is reducible or contains a suitable cut in its end piece.
Proof by induction on the length of the singular normal deduction H. Since the
end piece of H contains no free number variable every axiom which occurs in the
end piece of H is one of the axioms (Ax1)(Ax3). If the end piece contains the
conclusion of a basic inference (el) then the normal deduction H is reducible by
Theorem 27.5. Otherwise by Lemma 6 the end piece of H contains a cut. Then
suppose
is the last cut in the end piece of H. Here HI and H2 are normal deductions of
262 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of lIlAnalysis
orders IX and P with end formulas 9[A] and %[A] which occur as subdeduc
tions in H. If HI or H2 is singular then the assertion of our theorem follows
from the I.H. Now assume that neither HI nor H2 is singular. The end formula
of H follows from the formula B by using only (str) and (sub) inferences. Were
9[%[ ]] an axiom then by Lemma 3 the end formula of H would also be an
axiom. Therefore by the singularity of H it follows that 9[%[ ]] is not an
axiom. Otherwise by the singularity of H it follows that a distinguished minimal
part of 9[A] or %[A] can only occur in the cut formula A.
1. Suppose A is a formula'(A l  A2)'
1.1. Suppose A2 is the formula ..l. Then by Theorem 27.4 H is reducible.
1.2. Suppose A2 is not the formula ..l. Then A is a minimal negative part of
%[A] which cannot occur as the principal part of an axiom. Since 9[%[ ]] is
not an axiom it follows that %[A] is not an axiom. Since H2 is not singular it
follows that the negative part A of %[A] is a distinguished minimal part. Then
the cut considered is a suitable cut.
2. Suppose A is a simple formula.
2.1. Suppose neither 9[A] not %[A] is an axiom. Since neither HI nor H2
is singular it follows that A is a distinguished minimal part in both 9[A] and
%[A]. Then the cut considered is a suitable cut.
2.2. Suppose 9[A] is an axiom. Since 9[%[ ]] is not an axiom it follows
by Lemma 4 that %[A] is not an axiom. Since H2 is not singuhir it follows that
the negative part A in %[A] is a distinguished minimal part. It follows by Lemma
5 that A is not a prime formula. Since 9[A] is an axiom and 9[%[ ]] is not an
axiom4 is a principal part of the axiom 9[A]. Then, since A is not a prime formula,
9[A] is an (Ax3) ~[Al' A] where Al and A are equivalent formulas and
~[AI' %[ ]] P B holds. It follows that %[Al] P B. By Theorem 27.1 the
normal deduction H2 can be transformed into a normal deduction with end
formula %[Al] while retaining the same weight, rank and order. By introducing
an inference (str) we obtain a normal deduction H~ of order py with end formula
B where H~ has the same weight and rank as H. This shows that H is reducible.
2.3. Suppose %[A] is an axiom. Then as under 2.2 it follows that %[A] is
an (Ax3) ~[A, A 2] where A and A2 are equivalent formulas and 9[~[ ,A 2]] P B
holds. It follows that 9[A 2 ] P B. Then from HI by Theorem 27.1 using an
inference (str) we obtain a normal deduction H~ of order IXP with end formula B
where H~ has the same weight and rank as H. This again shows that H is reducible.
3. A deduction part
of H consists of a deduction thread FG of the end piece of H and the normal
deduction H1 =H(F). Ifsuch a deduction part is replaced by
then this means that Hi is a normal deduction with end formula A .F and every
formula Fi of the deduction thread FG is replaced by the formula Ai  Fi where
Ai is determined as follows: A1 is the formula A. If Fi is a premise of an inference
(cut) or (str) then A i + 1 is the formula Ai. If Fi f Fi+ 1 is an inference (sub) ff[U] f
ff[P] then Ai+ 1 results from Ai by replacing the free predicate variable U in Ai
by the predicator P throughout. If Fn is the last formula G of the deduction thread
FG then B denotes the formula An.
Lemma 7. Suppose FG is a deduction thread in the end piece of a normal deduction
H, H1 =H(F) and H~ is a normal deduction with endformula A  F.lfthe deduc
tion part
H1 Hi
F in H is replaced by A F
I I
G BG,
then the subdeduction H(G) is transformed into a normal deduction with endformula
B  G by this replacement.
Proof This is apparent from the form of the inferences (cut), (str) and (sub)
which occur as the only inferences in the end piece of H.
We make use of Lemma 7 repeatedly for the following reductions of deduc
tions without particular mention.
Theorem 27.7. If the end piece of a normal deduction contains a suitable cut, then
the normal deduction is reducible.
Proof Let H be a normal deduction of weight m and rank (f whose end piece
contains a suitable cut.
264 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of l1:Analysis
Case 1. Suppose A + B is the cut formula of a suitable cut. Then H has a deduction
part
HI H2
~1 .AI' [, A ] ~ .AI' o[ Bo]
(Sl) ~.AI' or(A o + Bo)]
Ho I
fLl &[(A + B)] fL2 .AI'[(A + B)]
(cut) f!. C where &[.AI'[ ]] ~C
Here the principal part Ao + Bo of the (SI)inference belongs to the bundle of
formulas of the minimal negative part A + B of the second premise .AI'[(A + B)]
of the suitable cut. We replace this deduction part as follows:
(str) (str)       
Ho
f1' &' [A  t BJ f!' B  t JV[A  t BJ
Ho Ho (cut)
f1' &' [A  t BJ f!' ,A  t JV[A  t BJ f1'&'[AtBJ BtC
(cut) (cut)
,At C
(cut)               
f.C
There is a deduction function g (see 26, p. 248) with Y2 =g({3) and bi=g(r:t.J
(i= I, 2). Since r:t. i {3 it follows by Theorem 26.6 that bi Y2 (i= I, 2). Suppose the
degrees of the formulas A and B are VI and V 2 Then A + B has degree v: =
max (VI' V 2 ) + 1. It follows that
HI
f!' 9'O["I[t]]
(str) (S4)
f!!', .j"I[t] > 9'O[.l.x"I[X](t)] f!' 9'O[.l.x"I[X](t)]
H2
f!> % 0["2[t]]
(S4) (str)
fh %0[..1.X"2[X](t)] f!> "2[t] > %0[..1.X"2[X](t)]
I I
f!'
,"[t] > 9'[..1.x"[x](t)] tv %[..1.x"[x](t)] IV 9'[.l.x"[x](t)) fb "[t] > %[.l.x"[x](t))
(cut)               (cut)
,"[t] > B "[t]> B
(cut)                   
fiB
There are deduction functions gi such that gi(Pi)=Yi and gi(X;)=~i Since (XiPi
it follows by Theorem 26.6. that ~i<<Yi (i= 1, 2). Suppose the formula ff[t] has
degree v. Then hff[x](t) has degree v+ 1. It follows that
Case 3. Suppose Vxff[x] is the cut formula of a suitable cut. Then H has a
.
deduction part
By Theorem 27.2 the basic deduction HI can be transformed into a basic deduction
Hi of the same weight, rank and order with end formula &o[ff I [t]]. We replace
the given deduction part as follows:
H'1
,(str)         (S2, 0)     
f!' '"I[t] ..... 9'o['v'x"IEx]] fl.' 9'0 ['v'X"1 [x]]
H2
f!> "2[t] ..... %0['v'X"2[X]]
(S3, 0)        H2
f!> "2[t] ..... %0['v'X"2[X]]
Case 4. Suppose '1Xg;[X] is the cut formula of a suitable cut. Then H has a
deduction part
HI H2
~1
f
&' o[g;[ U]]
(S2.t) 1" 9'0 [V ff[ XJ]
1 ~2 g;[P] 4
(S3. ) 1" A'o [T""[
JV 0['1 Xg;[X]]
X]]
fb &,['1Xg;[X]] fD JV['1Xg;[X]]
(cut) ~~~~_=~
B where &>[ JV[ ]] \!. B
Here the principal parts of the basic inferences (S2.1) and (S3.1) belong to the
bundle of formulas ofthe cut formula '1Xg;[X]. The formulas in this bundle of
formulas are not altered by substitution inferences since the eigenvariable of an
inference (sub) does not occur governed by a predicate quantifier. Therefore this
bundle of formulas consists solely of identical minimal parts 'v'Xg;[ X].
Case 4a. Suppose '1Xg;[X] is a strong formula. Then /31 =(w(m+ 1), 1X 1 ) and P
is a weak predicator. In this case H has rank w. By Theorem 27.3 the basic deduc
tion HI can be transformed into a basic deduction H~ of weight m, rank wand
ordeuo(w (m+ 1), 1X 1 ) = /31 with end formula &' o[g;[P]]. We replace the given
deduction part as follows:
H'1
(str)                 (S2.1)         
f!o ,3i'[P] > &'o[\iX3i'[X]] ~1 &'o[\iX3i'[X]]
H2
~ 3i'[P] > %o[\iX3i'[X]]
(S3.l)              H2
~ 3i'[P] > %o[\iX3i'[X]]
I
fb ,3i'[P] > &'[\iX3i'[XJ] fl.2 %[\iX3i'[X]] fL' &'[V'X3i'[X]] fh 3i'[P] > %[V'X3i'[X]]
(cut) (cut)                       
,3i'[P] > B 3i'[P] > B
(cut)                                      
Here biYi (i= 1, 2). Suppose the formula '1Xg;[X] has degree v. By Lemma
lc) g;[P] has a degree Vo < v. It follows that
Case 4b. Suppose VXff[X] is a weak formula. It has a rank k+ 1 ~O' where k is
the rank of ff[U]. Suppose C is the highest formula below the premises of the
suitable cut which has no implicit minimal part of rank > k. Such a formula C
exists since the end formula H has no implicit minimal parts. Suppose C has order
Yo. We replace the given deduction part as follows:
HI H2
f!' 9"0[JOE U]] jO[P] + "o[\lXjO[X]]
~
(str)         (83.1)        
f!' ,jO[U] + 9"o[lIXjO[X]]
~ ,jO[U] + c
(sub) H2
,jO[P] + c ~ jO[P] + "o[\lXjO[X]]
(82.1) (cut)
f!' 9"0[\1XjO[X]]
I
f2' 9"[\1XjO[X]] ,C+ "[\lXjO[X]]
(~D
,C+ B
fL,c+c
(str)
fLc
There is a deduction functionfsuch that f(Pl)=YO and f(Xl) =15 0 , Since (Xl Pi'
it follows by Theorem 26.6 that
The newly introduced inference (sub) has rank k<O'. Suppose the formula ff[P]
has rank v. Then
Proof By Theorem 27.8 the formula 1.. is not deducible in GPA since it is a
primitive formula and not an axiom.
The consistency proof we have given above depended on transfinite induction
up to ai, Q",), 0) = (}(}W2(Q", + 10.
Let PA be the subsystem of GPA where the inferences (S3.1) and (sub) are only
allowed in the following restricted forms:
(S3.1) ~[PJ ~ %[VX~[XJJ ~ %[VX~[XJJ, if P is a weak predicator,
(sub) ~[UJ ~ ~[PJ, if U does not occur in~,U=Pr(~[UJ) and P is a weak
predicator.
28. The SemiFormal System PA* 269
All the Lemmata proved above for GPA also hold for PA. That is to say if
(S3.1) is only allowed in the restricted form then the reduction of deductions
given in the proof of Theorem 27.7 only requires (sub) inferences in the restricted
form.
Substitution inferences can be eliminated in PA since we have:
Theorem 27.9. Every normal deduction in the system PA can be transformed into
a basic deduction in the system PA of the same endformula.
Proof If A and A + 1.. were deducible in PA then, by Theorem 27.9, there would
be basic deductions with end formulas A and A + 1... Thence by a cut we would
obtain a basic deduction with end formula 1... But by Theorem 27.8 the formula
1.. is not deducible in PA.
The terms, formulas and predicators of the system PA * are the terms, formulas
and predicators of the system PA which contain no free number variable. Hence
270 27. The Formal System GPA for a Generalized l1~Analysis
every term of the system PA* is numerical and every prime formula is either true
orfalse. We define weak and strong formulas and predicators and also the degree
and rank of a formula in PA * just as in P A.
All axioms and basic inferences of the system PA * are restricted to formulas
in which no free number variables occur. Just as in PA the basic inferences (S3.1)
are restricted in PA* to ff[P] + %[\fXff[X]] I %[\fXff[X]] for weak pre
dicators P as opposed to the corresponding basic infere~ces ofGPA.
All the principal parts of axioms of the system PA * are formulas of degree 0
while the principal parts of (Ax3) in PA are only required to be simple. Because of
this stronger restriction on the axioms of PA * we gain the permissibility of the
structural inferences which we do not take as basic inferences here. Also the basic
inferences (CI) occurring in PA do not occur as basic inferences in PA *. Here they
arise as permissible inferences.
We count the basic inferences (S2.0*) as principal inferences. The principal
part of such an inference is the positive part \fxff[x] indicated in the conclusion.
As before the degree of a cut is defined to be the degree of its cut formula. A
cut is said to be weak (or strong) if its cut formula is a weak (or strong) formula.
For eliminating strong cuts we use a notion which we call the strength of a formula.
For PA * and also for PA this is defined as follows:
Lemma 1. If P is a weak predicator then any two formulas $'[U] and $'[P] have
the same strength.
Proof This follows by induction on the length of the nominal form $'.
Below ~, ", , (possibly with subscripts) denote ordinal terms of level 0 in the
notation system lJ(w+ 1). By the strength of a cut we mean the strength of its cut
formula.
H
F
forms a basic deduction of strength ~ m and depth ~" with end formula F.
3. If HI and H2 are basic deductions of strengths ~m and depths ~~i
(i= 1, 2) whose end formulas are the premises ofa basic inference (Sl) or (cut) of
strength < m of the system PA* with conclusion F and ~i <" (i = 1, 2) then
forms a basic deduction of strength ~ m and depth ~" with end formula F.
4. If, for every natural number n, Hn is a basic deduction of strength ~ m and
depth ~ ~n with end formula &I[$'[n]] and ~n <" for all n EN then
{Hn}neN
&I[V'x$'[x]]
forms a basic deduction of strength ~ m and depth ~" with end formula
&I[V'x$' [x]].
According to this definition, in a basic deduction of strength ~ m no cut
occurs of strength ~ m. Thus in a basic deduction of strength ~ 1 no strong cuts
occur and in a basic deduction of strength ~ 0 no cuts occur at all .
. By the initial formulas of a basic deduction H we mean, as before, those
formulas in the deduction H which do not occur as conclusions of basic inferences.
272 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of l1:Analysis
Ie, l F'
PA* rrii
Theorem 28.1. PA* K .El[A, B] holds for every formula .El[A, B] of the system PA*
with equivalent formulas A, B.
Theorem 28.2. IfF and G are equivalent formulas and PA * ~ F holds, then so too
does PA* ~ G.
Theorem 28.3. The following inverses of (S 1), (S2.0*), (S2.1) and (S4) hold:
(Inv2.l) PA* ~ 8i'['r:jX~[X]] ==> PA* ~ q)'[~[U]] for every free predicate vari
able U.
Proof These follow by induction on ~ since all principal parts of axioms of the
system PA* have degree O.
Theorem 28.4. IfPA * ~ F and F ~ G hold for formulas F, G of the system PA * then
PA* ~ G also holds.
Proof This follows by induction on ~ using Theorem 28.3 (as in the proof of
Theorem 4.4).
4. Embedding of PAin P A*
We define the strength of a cut in the system PA as for PA *. The strength of a basic
inference (el) of the system PA is the strength of its first premise ~[O].
(S3.1), (S4) or (str) of the system PA, then PAJ~+l Fholds for the conclusion F
of this basic inference.
3. If PA ~ F (i= 1, 2) holds for the premises F l , F2 of a basic inference (Sl)
or (cut) of strength <m or (CI) of strength <m in the system PA, then PA fii F
holds for the conclusion F of this inference where n : = max (n l , n 2 ) + 1.
Lemma 2. Aformula F is deducible in PA if, and only if, there are natural numbers
n > 0 and m such that PA ~ F.
Lemma 3. If F is an axiom of the system PA, then PA * ffJ F* holds for every
specialization F* of F.
Theorem 28.5 (Embedding Theorem). PA fii F implies PA * f*' nF* for every
specialization F* of F.
P~oofby induction on n.
1. Suppose n = 1, then F is an axiom of the system PA. Then the assertion
holds by Lemma 3.
2. Suppose PA fii F by a principal inference, cut or structural inference. Then
the assertion follows by the I.H. and Theorem 28.4.
3. Suppose PA ~ F is obtained by a (CI)inference. Then F* is a formula
ff*[t*] where t* is a numerical term and we have no<n so .that by I.H.
PA* f*.n o ff*[O] and PA* f*.n o (ff*[k] . ff*[k']) for every numeral k. Now
ff*[k] has strength <m. Using cuts we obtain PA* f*.nO+k ff*[k] for every
numeral k. The assertion PA* f*.n ff*[t*] follows by Theorem 28.2 since t* is a
numerical term and OJ no + k < OJ n.
Corollary to Theorem 28.5. For each formula F deducible in PA there exist ~<OJ2
and mEN such that PA * ~ F* for every specialization F* of F.
Lemma 4. IfPA * ~ ff[ U], where U does not occur in ff and P is a weak predicator
of the system PA*, then PA* f*H ff[P].
274 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of n:Analysis
The assertion PA* Iii!i+q B follows from (1) and (2) using a cut with cut formula
Ao
3. Suppose PA* ~+I JV[A] by a basic inference other than those under 2.
Then the assertion follows from the I.H. (as in the proof of Lemma 3 in 22).
Proofby induction on ,.
1. Suppose F is an axiom of the system P A *. Then the assertion is trivial.
2. Suppose PA*~+zF was obtained by a.principal inference or a cut of
strength ~ m. Then the assertion follows from the I.H.
m+ 1 from PA* ~+z .?JJ[A] and PA* I~'+z JV[A] where 'i<'
3. Suppose PA* ~+z Fwas obtained by a cut with cut formula A of strength
(i= 1,2) and
.?JJ[JV[ ]] f!.F, By I.H. we then have PA* ~~I .?JJ[A] and PA* ~~I JV[A].
3.1. Suppose A is a formula (AI ...... A z). Then Al and A z have strengths ~m.
By Theorem 28.3 from PA* ~~I JV[(AI ...... A z )] we obtain
Suppose '0 := max ('.J.' 'z) From PA * ~~\ .?JJ[(AI ...... A z )] and (2) we obtain
by a cut with cut formula A 2 The assertion PA* Hii~1 Ffollows from (1) and (3)
by a cut with cut formula Al since W~2<W~O+ 1 <w~.
3.2. Suppose A is a formula Ax~[X](t). Then it follows by Theorem 28.3 that
PA * Hii~lI .9l[~[t]] and PA * Hii~ I .;V[~[t]J. Here ~[t] has strength m. Therefore
the assertion PA * Hii~ I F follows by a cut with cut formula ~[tJ.
3.3. Suppose A is a formula \fx~[x] or \fX~[XJ. If ~2 =0, then .;V[A] is an
axiom of the system PA * in which A does not occur as principal part. Then .;V[ ]
is also an axiom and since .9l[.;V[ ]] f! F, F is an axiom of the system P A *. In
this case the assertion is trivial. Now suppose ~2#0. Then W+W~1+W~2<W~. In
this case the assertion PA * Hii~ I F follows from Lemma 5.
Theorem 28.7. ifF is a formula deducible in PA then there exists ~ <eo such that
PA * ft F* holds for every specialization F* of F.
Proof By the Corollary to Theorem 28.5 there exist ~o < w 2 and mEN such that
PA * ~ F* holds for every specialization F* of F. The assertion follows by induc
tion on m.
By a basic deduction in the wider sense we mean a basic deduction in which arbitrary
specializations of the axioms of the system PA may occur as initial formulas
besides axioms of the system P A *.
As in PA we employ the following inferences in PA*:
(sub) ~[U] f ~[P] if U does not occur in~, UPr(~[U]) and P is a weak
predicator.
H
F
forms a normal deduction with end formula F, if in the case of an inference (sub)
the eigenvariable does not occur in the principal part of an (S2.l )inference of H.
276 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of InAnalysis
3. If H1 and H2 are normal deductions whose end formulas are premises ofa
weak cut of the system PA * with end formula F, then
Theorem 28.S. If PA * ft F holds, then there exists 0( ~< (co, DOl + e) such that
GHf.!.F.
Proofby induction on e.
I. Suppose F is an axiom of the system PA*. Then the assertion is trivial
since Dw (co, DOl + e) holds.
2. Suppose PA* ftFwas obtained from PA* fii Fi where ei<e (i= I, 2). Then
by I.H. there are O(i~CO, Dw+e i) such that GHj!i Fi . Using a corresponding
basic inference we obtain G H f.!. F where 0( = (n, 0(1) or 0( = (n, 0(1 =11= 0(2) with n < co.
Since O(i~< (co, DOl + ei) and ei < e we have O(<co, DOl + e).
3. Suppose F is a formula &,['v'x~[x]] and PA* W&'[~[n]] where en<e
for every numeral n. Then by I.H. there exist O(n~co, DOl + en) such that GHj!t'
&'[~[n]] for every numeral n. Putting 0( : = (co, DOl + e) we have 0(" 0( and GH f.!. F.
Theorem 28.9. Every singular normal deduction of the system PA* is reducible.
8. Elimination of Cuts in P A *
Proofby induction on dort.. Suppose H is a normal deduction of order rt. with end
formula F.
1. Suppose H is singular. Then by Theorem 28.9 there is an rt.o rt. where
NH ~ F. It follows that dort.o < dort. and by I.H. PA * I%oa oF and therefore
PA* I%0a F.
2. Suppose F is a specialization of an axiom of the system PA. Then the
assertion holds by Lemma 3 since wQw' O)=doQw~dort..
3. Suppose H is not singular and F is not a specialization of an axiom of the
system PA. Then F has a distinguished minimal part.
3.1. Suppose F is a formula %[(A  B)] with distinguished minimal negative
part (A  B). Then H has a deduction part
Here the principal part (Ao  Bo) of the (Sl) inference belongs to the bundle of
formulas of the minimal negative part (A  B) of the formula %[(A  Bn
From H we form two new normal deductions in which the given deduction parts
are replaced by deduction parts of the following two sorts:
Then rt.irt. (i= 1, 2). It follows by I.H. that PA* l%oa 1(,A  %[(A  B)]) and
PA * l%0a2(B _ %[(A _ Bn Using an (Sl) inference it follows that
Hn
(S2.0*) fln &> o[$' o[n]] for every numeral n
fl &> o[Vx$' o[x]]
I
~ &>[Vx$'[x]]
From H, for every numeral n, we form a new normal deduction in which the given
deduction part is replaced by
Then IXn1X for every numeral n and therefore by I.H. PA* I%0a nC,$'[n]+
&>[Vx$'[x]]). Using a basic inference (S2.0*) we obtain PA* I%0a (,Vx$'[x]+
&>[Vx$'[x]]). The assertion PA* ~oa &>[Vx$'[x]] follows by Theorem 28.4.
3.3. Suppose F is a formula %[Vx$'[x]] or %[VX$'[X]] where the indi
cated part is distinguished. Then H has a deduction part
Ho Ho
flo $' oCt] + % o[Vx$' o[x]] (S3.1) flo $'[Po] + %o[VX$'[X]]
(S3.0) fl % o[Vx$' o[x]] fl %o[VX$'[X]]
I or
I
~ %[Vx$'[x]] ~ %[VX$'[X]]
We form a new normal deduction from H in which the given deduction part is
replaced by
Ho Ho
flo $' o[t] + % o [Vx$' o[x]] flo $'[P o] + % o[VX$'[X]]
~ $'[t] +
I
%[Vx$'[x]]
or
~ $'[P] +
I
%[VX$'[X]]
Here, in the second case, P as well as Po is a weak predicator. In any case lXolX.
By I.H. we obtain
PA* ~<zo (...,ff[UJ + &,[V'Xff[XJJ, PA* ~<zo (,ff[tJ + &'[hff[xJ(t)]) or
PA * fW'<zo (ff[tJ + %[hff[xJ(t)], where, in the first case, U does not occur in ff.
Using a basic inference (S2.1) or (S4) and Theorem 28.4 we obtain the assertion
PA* ~o<Z F.
Theorem 28.11. ifF is a formula deducible in PA, then there exists 11 < cu, Q",+
eo), 0) such that PA * 16 F* holds for every specialization F* ofF.
e
Proof By Theorem 28.7 there exists < eo such that PA * If F* holds for every
specialization F* of F. Then by Theorem 28.8 there exists (X~cu, Q",+~) such
that NH'r F*. Here (X may depend on the choice of the specialization F*. It
follows from Theorem 28.10 that PA* ~o<z F*. Then if 11 : = do(cu, Q", + e) we have
At the same time we have also proved the sentential consistency of the system
PA since
A, ,A 1..1
Remark. The normal deductions of the system PA * we have defined here corre
spond to normal deductions of rank cu in the system PA. In a similar way to that
for PA we may define normal deductions of rank < cu in PA * and the corresponding
Theorems hold for them.
From Theorems 28.6, 28.8 and 28.10 we have that ifPA* ~Fthen there is an
ordinal term 11 such that PA* 16 F. If we restrict F to deducible formulas in the
e
system PA then, by Theorem 28.5, may be restricted to ordinal terms <cu 2 while
we can only restrict the corresponding ordinal term 11 so that 11 < cu, Q w + eo), 0).
But it is possible to estimate a certain ordinal term bound , such that to every
29. Proofs of WellOrdering 281
ordinal term ~ <, such that PA * ~ F there is an ordinal term '1 <, such that
PA*ij F. The smallest bound of this kind which we obtain by our theorems is
ro,Q",+Q1),0)=suP~n where ~o:=O and ~n+1:=ro,Q"'+~n)'0). Using the
neN
next theorem we prove that the ordinal term ro, Q", + Q1)' 0) is an ordinal term
bound of the type described.
Proof of (1) => (2). Obviously the ordinal term ro, Q",+Q1)' 0) denotes an 6
number. Therefore it follows from (1) by Theorem 28.6 using induction on m that
there exists '1< ro, Q",+Q1)' 0) such that PA* ptF. Then by Theorem 28.8 there
exists a,ro,Q",+'1) such that NH~F. It follows from '1(ro,Q",+Q1)'0)
that (ro, Q",+'1)(ro, Q",+Q1) and therefore a(ro, Q",+Q1) too.
Proof of (2) => (3). By Theorem 28.10 it follows from (2) that PA* Iff F. Then it
follows from a(ro, Q",+Q1) that doa(ro, Q", +Q1)' 0).
This completes the proof of Theorem 28.12 since (3) => (1) holds trivially.
In the following we let r be an ordinal term > 0 of level 0 in the notation system
8(Q).
However the wellordering of the full system lJ(Q) is not deducible using the
weak methods of proof which we employ in this section. W. Buchholz [2] has
produced a proof of the wellordering of lJ(Q) and certain stronger systems of
ordinal terms using stronger methods of proof in a certain constructive way. The
proof of wellorder given below uses special techniques from W. Buchholz' proof.
Now suppose ~ E Ma(rx + (3). IH E Mirx), then ~ E W(Ma) follows from rx E W(Ma)
by Lemma 1 a). Otherwise ~=rx+'1EMa where '1<f3. Then we obtain '1EMa(f3)
by c) and ~ = rx + '1 E W(Ma) by the I.H. Hence Mirx + (3) ;; W(Ma) rx, f3 E W(Ma)
imply rx, f3 E Ma and by b) rx + f3 E Ma. By Lemma 1 b) we obtain rx + f3 E W(Ma).
e) rx E W(Ma) implies rx E Ma and by a) P(rx) ;; Ma. By Lemma 1 a) we obtain
P(rx) ~ W(Ma). Obviously 0 E W(Ma). Therefore from P(rx) ~ W(Ma) we obtain
rx E W(Ma) by d).
29. Proofs of WellOrdering 283
Lemma 3. If p:::;O"<c:
a) M,i Qp+1) r;;;.Mp.
b) W(Mp)r;;;. W(Mo.).
Proof Suppose (X E Q.(Qa+1). Then S(X:::; 0" and there exists v < c such that
(XE W(Mv). It follows that (xE Mv and S(X:::;v. If S(X<v then P(X) = KSa(Xr;;;. W(MSa)
and by Lemma 2 e) (X E W(Msa). Hence in every case (X E W(Msa). Using S(X:::; 0" it
follows by Lemma 3 b) that (XE W(Ma). Therefore Q.(Qa+1)r;;;. W(Ma) holds. By
definition we also have W(Ma)r;;;.Q.(Qa+1).
Proof IhE Qt then S(X<c and by Lemma 4 (xE W(MSa) = Q.(QSa +1) By Lemma
1 c) we have (X E W(Qt). Hence Qtr;;;. W(Qt) and therefore Qtis wellordered.
Proof By the assumption on c, 0" E W(Ma). It follows from Lemmata 2 e) and 3 b)
that for all v < 0"
Hence Qa E Ma. S(x<O" for all (X E MiQa) and P(X) = KSa(X r;;;. W(MSa consequently
by Lemmata 2 e) and 3 b) (X E W(Ma). Hence Ma(Qa) r;;;. W(Ma). Using Qa E Ma it
follows by Lemma 1 b) that QaE W(Ma)r;;;.Qt.
Proof If v < S/3 then K.(KsplX) = K.IX and consequently K}JIX/3 = K.IX U K./3 =
K.(KsplX U {/3}). Therefore it follows from lJlX/3 E Msp that K.(KsplX U {/3}) : W(M.)
for all v< S/3. Hence we obtain KsplX U {/3} : Msp.
for all v < S/3. Hence we have lJlX/3 E Msp. By Lemma 4 MsP(lJlX/3) : Qt implies
MSP(lJlX/3) : W(Msp ) Using lJlX/3 E Msp we obtain lJlX/3 E W(Msp) : Q, by Lemma
1 b).
Proof We have
(1) IX, /3 E Q,
(2) lJlX/3 E lJ( Q)
as hypotheses and lJlX/3 E Q, as assertion. By Theorem 29.1 it follows from (1) that
we can use induction over Qt on IX. Then we have the induction hypothesis
If S'1 = S/3 it follows from (2) by Theorem 25.3 that lJlX'1 E lJ(Q) too. Therefore we
have, in particular, as induction hypothesis
In order to prove the assertion lJlX/3 E Qt it suffices, by (1), (2) and Lemma 7, to
prove that MsP(lJlX/3): Qt. Now suppose
(5) Y E M sP(lJlX/3).
Now in order to prove our theorem it suffices to prove Y E Qt under the hypotheses
(l){5).
29. Proofs ofWeJlOrdering 285
(7) Y2 E Qt
4.1. Y1 =rx. Now y=BY1Y2 <BrxP and SP=SY2 imply QSP~Y2 <po Using (7) we
therefore have, by (4), y={JrxY2 E Qt.
4.2. Y1 =lrx. By Theorem 25.4 Ksprx u {P}<y=BY1Y2<(JrxP implies Y1 <rx. We
prove K".y 1 Qt for all CT <. by induction on CT.
a) CT~ Sp. Then K"'Y1 = K".(KsPY1). Using (6) we obtain K"'Y1 Qt by Lemma 6.
b) SP<CT< . By I.H. for all V<CT, we have Kv(K".Y1)=KvY1Qt and conse
quently by Lemma 4 Kv(K"'Y1)W(Mv). Hence we obtain K"'Y1M".. By 24
(p. 232) Brxp E B(Q) implies SJl(rx) ~ Sp < CT and Orx(Q". + 1) = BrxQ". E B(Q). Similarly
BY1Y2 E B(Q) and SP=SY2 imply OY1(Q".+ 1)=BY1 Q".E B(Q). By Theorem 25.2 we
obtain K"'Y1 <By 1Q". By Theorem 24.4 b) Y1 <rx implies OY1(Q".+ 1)~Orx(Q".+ 1)
and therefore BY1Q".~BrxQ".. Hence we have K"'Y1 M".({JrxQ".). Q". E Qt by Theorem
29.3. Thus the hypotheses (1)(5) are satisfied with rx, Q"., () E K"'Y1 replacing rx,
p, y. If () E K"'Y1 then G{) ~GY1 < Gy. Therefore by induction on Gy it follows that
() E Qt for all () E K".y 1 and therefore K".y 1 Qt
Since K"'Y1 Qt for all CT<. and since Y1 < rx E Qt too we have in particular
P(Y1)=Ksy ,Y1Qt. By Theorem 29.2 we have Y1EQt. Using (7), Y1<rx and
BY1 Y2 E (J(Q) by (3) we obtain Y = (JY1 Y2 E Qt
where U, V are distinct free predicate variables and no free number variable and
no free predicate variable occurs in d, is a formula deducible in ID"_l then
f1Jd is a predicator.
No bound predicate variables occur in IDn. We use the same syntactic symbols
for IDn as for GPA.
Axioms of the system ID n:
(Axl)(Ax4) as for GPA
(AxS) d[PI'd' t] ~ PI'.,(t)
(Ax6) Vx(d[P, x] ~ P(x ~ (PI'd{t) ~ pet~
Basic inferences in the system IDn:
(Sl), (S2.0), (S3.0), (S4), (cut), (el) and (str) as for GPA, (sub) ff[U] I ff[P] if
U does not occur in ff.
All the axioms and basic inferences of the system ID" shall consist of the
formulas of ID" defined above. P denotes an arbitrary predicator of the system
ID n and Pl'd a predicator given by rule 6 of the definition above. By (AxS) and
(Ax6) such a predicator must represent the predicate f1J d such that Pl'd(n) holds
if, and only if, n is an element of the smallest set {x IP(x)} such that Vx(d[P, x] ~
P(x where the existence of such a smallest set is guaranteed by the monotonicity
condition imposed on d. In this way a generalized inductive defifiition is formal
ized by Pl'd.
ID" I F denotes that F is a deducible formula in ID".
Corollary. If rx E B( Q) then 0 <, rx' EN. Hence it follows that rx f? ' rx' is injective.
n
Definition of a surjective mapping /1 f? of N onto B(Q)u {Ao}. (Ao denotes the
least ordinal which is not denoted by an ordinal term in the system 8(Q).)
Prog [:F, P] : = V'x(:F[x] /\ V' y(y <x /\ :F[y] > P(y > P(x.
If
holds for every predicator P then this means that the wellordering of the set
{x I:F[x]} by < up to t is provable in IDn'
From now on we let N denote a fixed natural number> O. We define decidable
arithmetic predicates as follows:
1. TN(m) holds if, and only if, mE B(N).
2. Si(m) holds if, and only if, mE B(Q) and Sm~ i.
3. K;(m, /1) holds if, and only if, n E B(Q) and mE Kin.
n
i=O
By induction on n one simultaneously proves:
a) Jt nEt] is a formula of the system IDn.
b) IDn f ('v'x(U(x) ~ Vex~ ~ 'v'x(dn[U, x] ~ dn[V, x]).
c) f!J sin is a predicator of the system IDn + 1 .
d) 1I'"n[t] is a formula of the system IDn + 1 .
It follows that Jtn[t], f!J sln(t) and 1I'"n[t] are formulas ofIDN if n <N. There
fore, as (Ax5) and (Ax6) hold for n<N
From here and the definition of Jto[t] and Jtn+1[t] we therefore see that the
sets Mn and W(Mn) defined on p. 282 are expressed in IDN for n < N by
Now set
Nl
,qN[t] : = V 1I'";[IJ.
i=O
Then ,q N[t] is a formula of the system IDN such that the set QN defined on p. 283
is represented by
The proof of wellordering of (}(N) can now be translated into IDN in the following
way:
In the same way as in the proof of Theorem 29.5 we proved B(N) ~ QN we now
prove
If 0 < v ~ ill let PA v be the subsystem of PA which contains only formulas of rank
< v and let PA? be the subsystem of PAv in which no free predicate variable occurs
inside a predicate quantifier. That is to say: The set Pr (F) defined on p. 252 is
to be empty for every formula Fin the system PA? Then PAw is the subsystem of
PA which contains only weak formulas.
If 0 < n < v ~ ill then PAn is a subsystem of PA v and PA~ a subsystem of PA?
:!F[ U] I :!F[P]
Proof In this case Pr (:!F[U]) is empty and P is a weak predicator. Therefore the
rank of :!F[P] is equal to the maximum of the ranks of :!F[U] and P(O). The
assertion follows.
s. If ff[a] is the formula ff[a] where a does not occur in the nominal forms
ff and ff then set
6. If f?JJ..t is a predicator in the system IDn and d[U, a] is the formula d[U, a]
where U and a do not occur in the nominal forms d and d then n > 0 and, because
of the inductive definition, dEl!, a] is a formula of the system PA~. Then set
of the system PA~+ 1. For each predicator P of the system IDn we have
That is to say:
PA~+ 1 I 'Vx(&'d(X) + U(~ + (d[&' d' t] + d[U, t])
That is to say:
Remark. By W. Pohlers [2] the consistency of the formal systems IDN and
PA~+1 is provable even by transfinite induction up to (1, UN)' 0) = OSU N + 10 and
formalized transfinite induction is deducible in these systems up to each ordinal
term lkI, UN)' 0).
Definition. Let TW+l be the deducible arithmetic predicate which holds if, and
only if, fl E lJ(w+ 1).
Theorem 29.10. The ordinalOUwO is characteristic for the formal system PAw in
the following sense:
a) Formalized transfinite induction up to n is provable in PA~for every ordinal
term fl<OUwO that is to say, the formula
292 29. Proofs of WellOrdering
is deducible in PA~.
b) The consistency of the formal system PA", is provable by transfinite induction
up to OQ",O.
Proof a) If ti < OQ",O there is a natural number N> 0 such that mE /}(N) for all
m~ti. Then it follows from Theorem 29.9 a) that the formula
Remarks. 1. By W. Buchholz [1] and [6] OQ",O is the order type of level 0 of
the notation system I: of H. Pfeiffer [2]. This is at the same time the order type
of the union of all invariant segments of the systems I:(N) (N E N) of K. Schiitte
[10]. By H. Levitz [1], [2] and [3] this is simultaneously the order type of all
the ordinal diagrams offinite order of G. Takeuti [2].
2. The proof of wellordering given in the first part of this section for /}(r)
can be formalized in a system with transfinitely iterated inductive definitions in
the case where r = w + 1. But it cannot be formalized in any system IDn where
n<w nor in GPA. This also holds for every proof of wellordering up to the
ordinal term w 2 , Q",), 0) of the system /}( w + 1). Transfinite induction up to this
ordinal was used in 27 to prove the consistency of GPA.
3. It follows from work of W. Buchholz and W. Pohlers [5] that formalized
transfinite induction is deducible in GPA up to each ordinal term
Ackermann, W.:
[1] Zur Widerspruchsfreiheit der Zahlentheorie. Math. Ann. 117 (1940), 162194.
[2] Widerspruchsfreier Aufbau einer typenfreien Logik. (Erweitertes System). Math. Zeitschr. 55
(1952), 364384.
[3] Widerspruchsfreier Aufbau einer typenfreien Logik. II. Math. Zeitschr. 57 (1953), 155166.
Aczel, P.:
[I] A new approach to the Bachmann method for describing countable ordinals. Mimeographed.
Bridge, J.:
[1] Some problems in mathematical logic. Systems of ordinal functions and ordinal notations. Thesis
Oxford 1972.
[2] A simplification of the Bachmann method for generating large countable ordinals. Journal of
. Symbolic Logic 40 (1975),171185.
Buchholz, w.:
[1] Rekursive Bezeichnungssysteme fUr Ordinalzahlen auf der Grundlage der FefermanAczelschen
Normalfunktionen 6. Dissertation Miinchen 1974.
[2] Normalfunktionen und konstruktive Systeme von Ordinalzahlen. Proof Theory Symposion Kiel
1974. Springer Lecture Notes in Math. 500 (1975), 425.
[3] Uber Teilsysteme von 9({g}). Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 18 (1976),8598.
[4] Zur Beweisbarkeit der transfiniten Induktion in l1~CA. Erscheint im Archiv f. math. Logik u.
Grundlagenf.
Fe/erman, S.:
[I] Systems of predicative analysis. Journal of Symbolic Logic 29 (1964), 130.
[2] Systems of predicative analysis, II: Representations of ordinals. Journal of Symbolic Logic 33
(1968), 193200.
[3] Autonomous transfinite progressions and the extent of predicative mathematics. Logic,
Methodology and Philosophy of Science III. Amsterdam 1968, 121135.
294 Bibliography
[4] Hereditarely replete functionals over the ordinals. Intuitionism and Proof Theory. Amsterdam
1970,289301. .
[5] Formal theories for transfinite iterations of generalized inductive definitions and some subsystems
of analysis. Intuitionism and Proof Theory. Amsterdam 1970, 303326.
[6] Ordinals and functionals in proof theory. Proc. of the International Congress of Math. Nice 1970.
Paris 1971, Vol. 1,229233.
Gentzen. G.:
[I] Untersuchungen iiber das logische SchlieBen. Math. Zeitschr. 39 (1934),176210,405431.
[2] Die Widerspruchsfreiheit der reinen Zahlentheorie. Math. Ann. 11Z (1936), 493565.
[3] Neue Fassung des Widerspruchsfreiheitsbeweises fiir die reine Zahlentheorie. Forschungen zur
Logik und zur Grundlegung det exakten Wissenschaften. Neue Folge 4 (1938),1944.
[4] Beweisbarkeit und Unbeweisbarkeit von Anfangsfallen der transfiniten Induktion in der reinen
Zahlentheorie. Math. Ann. 119 (1943), 149161.
GOdel. K.:
[I] tiber formal unentscheidbare Siitze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatsh.
Math. Phys. 38 (1931), 173198.
[2] tiber eine bisher noch nicht beniitzte Erweiterung des finiten Standpunktes. Dialectica 1~ (1958),
28(}287.
Henkin. L.:
[1] Completeness in the theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic 14 (1949), 159166.
Howard. W.:
[I] Assignment of ordinals to terms for primitive recursive functionals offinite type. Intuitionism and
Proof Theory. Amsterdam 1970,443458.
[2] A system of abstract constructive ordinals. Journal of Symbolic Logic 37 (1972), 355374.
Kreisel. G.:
[I] La predicativite. Bull. de Ia Soc. Math. de France 88 (1960), 371391.
[2] A survey of proof theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 33 (1968), 321388.
[3] A survey of proof theory II. Proc. of the 2nd Scandinavian Logic Symposium. Amsterdam 1971,
109170.
Levitz. H.:
[I] On a simplification of Takeuti's ordinal diagrams of finite order. Zeitschr. f. math. Logik u. Grundl.
d. Math. 15 (1969), 141154.
[2] On the relationship between Takeuti's ordinal diagrams O(n) and Schiitte's system of ordinal
notations 1:(n). Intuitionism and Proof Theory. Amsterdam 1970,377405.
Lorenzen. P.:
[I] Aigebraische und logistische Untersuchungen iiber freie Verbiinde. Journal of Symbolic Logic 16
(1951), 81106.
Pfeiffer. H.:
[I] Ausgezeichnete Foigen fUr gewisse Abschnitte der zweiten und weiterer Zahlenklassen. Dis
sertation Hannover 1964.
Bibliography 295
[2] Ein Bezeichnungssystem fUr Ordinalzahlen. Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 12 (1969), 1217.
[3] Ein Bezeichnungssystem fUr OrdinaIzahlen. Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 13 (1970),7490.
[4] Vergleich zweier Bezeichnungssysteme fUr Ordinalzahlen. Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf.
15 (1972), 4156.
[5] Ober zwei Bezeichnungssysteme fUr Ordinalzahlen. Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 16
(1974),2336.
Pohlers, W.:
[I] Eine Grenze fUr die Herleitbarkeit der transfiniten Induktion in einem schwachen n:Fragment der
Analysis. Dissertation Miinchen 1973.
[2] An upper bound for the provability of transfinite induction in systems with Ntimes iterated inductive
definitions. Proof Theory Symposion Kiel 1974. Springer Lecture Notes in Math. SOO (1975),
271289.
[3] Ordinals connected with formal theories for transfinitely iterated inductive definitions. To appear
in Journal of Symbolic Logic.
Prawitz, D.:
[1] Hauptsatz for higher order logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 33 (1968), 452457.
[2] Ideas and results in proof theory. Proc. of the 2nd Scandinavian Logic Symposium. Amsterdam
1971,235307.
Schiitte, K.:
[1] Beweistheoretische Erfassung der unendlichen Induktion in der reinen Zahlentheorie. Math. Ann.
122 (1951),369389.
[2] Beweistheoretische Untersuchung der verzweigten Analysis. Math. Ann. 124 (1952), 123147.
[3] Ein System des verkniipfenden SchlieBens. Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 2 (1956),5567.
[4] Syntactical and semantical properties of simple type theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 25 (1960),
305326.
[5] Beweistheorie. Die Grundlehren der math. Wissensch. 103. Springer 1960.
[6} Logische Abgrenzungen des Transfiniten. Logik und Logikkalkiil. Freiburg, Miinster 1962,
105114. .
[7] Der Interpolationssatz der intuitionistischen Pradikatenlogik. Math. Ann. 148 (1962), 192200.
[8] Eine Grenze fiir die Beweisbarkeit der transfiniten Induktion in der verzweigten Typenlogik.
Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 7 (1964), 4560.
[9] Predicative wellorderings. Formal Systems and Recursive Functions. Proc. of the 8th Logic
Colloquium Oxford 1963. Amsterdam 1965, 280303.
[10] Ein konstruktives System von Ordinalzahlen. Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 11 (1969),
126137; 12 (1969), 311.
[11] Einfiihrung der Normalfunktionen 8. ohne Auswahlaxiom und ohne Regularitiitsbedingung.
Archiv f.math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 17 (1976), 171178.
Tait, W. W.:
[1] Infinitely long terms of transfinite type. Formal Systems and Recursive Functions. Proc. of the
8th Logic Colloquium Oxford 1963. Amsterdam 1965, 176185.
[2] A non constructive proof of Gentzen's Hauptsatz for second order predicate logic. Bull. Amer.
Math. Soc. 72 (1966), 980983.
[3] Normal derivability in c1assicallogic. The Syntax and Semantics of Infinitary Languages. Springer
Lecture Notes in Math. 72 (1968),204256.
Takahashi, M.:
[1] A proof of cutelimination theorem in simple type theory. J. Math. Soc. Japan 19 (1967),399410.
[2] Simple type theory of Gentzen style with the inference of extensionality. Proc. Japan Acad. 44
(1968),4345.
[3) A system of simple type theory of Gentzen style with inference on extensionality, and the cut
elimination in it. Comment. universitatis Sancti Pauli, Tokyo 18 (1969), 129147.
Takeuti, G.:
[1] On a generalized logic calculus. Japan J. Math. 23 (1953), 3996.
[2] Ordinal diagrams. J. Math. Soc. Japan 9 (1957), 386394.
296 Bibliography
Troelstra, A. S.:
[I] Metamathematical investigations of intuitionistic arithmetic and analysis. Springer Lecture Notes
in Math. 344 (1973).
Subject Index
positive parts of formulas and Pforms 10, II, sclosed, scomplete, sconsistent, svalid 16, 17
20 simple formulas of second order arithmetic 168
possible valuations 67 simultaneous primitive recursion 126
Prawiu 3,62,64,67 singular normal deduction 261,277
predecessor functional 122 Soundness Theorem 66
predicators 168, 198 specialization of a formula 273
prime formulas of second order arithmetic 168 strength of a cut 271, 272
 terms of the system cr 58  of a formula 270
primitive formulas 63, 268 strong formulas and predicators 252
 terms of finite type 98 strongly critical ordinals 83
principal inferences 200, 254, 270 structural inferences F j! G 20,40, 169
 parts of axioms 170, 200, 253 Structural rule 23,61,172,175,201,254
  of basic inferences 21,41,60, 200, 2~4 substitution inference 254
Principal Semantic Lemma 29,34,64 Substitution rule 22,42,61,114,136,172
 Syntactic Lemma 29, 33, 64 subterm of an ordinal term 242
principal terms of T 86, T* 236  of a term of the system cr 58
progressive 75 subtermchain 58
progressiveness ~.[Pl 178, ~.[P"l 209, successor of an ordinal 75, 222
Prog [', PI 287  functional 98
 number 75
suitable cut of a normal deduction 261, 277
quantifiers 19 supremum 75, 76, 222
syntactic 4
 consequence 35
rank of a cut 200  equivalenceA~B 47, AB 51
 of a deduction function 248, 249 system of sets 65
 of a formula 199, 253
 of an inference 256, 276
 of a normal deduction 257 Tait 62,204
 of a term 58, 59 Takahashi 3, 62, 64
recursively comparable ordinal terms 237 Takeuti 4,62,221,252,257,292
recursor 125 terms of finite type 98
reducibility degree ofa formula 18,29  of second order arithmetic 167, 168
 of a term of finite type 100  of the set T 86, T* 236
reducible and irreducible formulas 12, 13, 29,  of the system CT 57
62 tertium non datur 2, 3
 normal deductions 259,277 total valuation 66
 parts of a formula 28, 62 transfinite induction 75
reduction of terms of finite type 100, 101 Troelstra 151
regular terms of the system CT 58 truth functions 7
regularity of a cardinal 222  values 7
Replacement rule 174, 201 truthvalue of a constant prime formula 169
right parts offormulas and Rforms 3.9, 40 types of functions 98
 of terms of the system cr 56
Satisfiability Theorem 34
satisfiable set of formulas 32 valid formulas 10, 11,27,66
Schwichtenberg 185 valuations 27
secondary part of an (+ L)inference 41 value ofa numerical term 169
semantic 4
semantically equivalent sentential forms 8
semantic consequence 35 weak formulas and predicators 252
Semiformal system, DA* of .1 Ianalysis 174  inferences IS, 22, 23
  EN* of elemllDtary number theory 177 weight of a formula 252
  EA of elementary analysis 177  of a normal deduction 257
  RA of ramified analysis 197 wellordered sets 73
  PA* of nlanalysis 269
sentential form 8
 valuation 8 ZermeloFraenkel set theory 74,221
Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften
in Einzeldarstellungen
mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Anwendungsgebiete
Eine Auswahl
23. Pasch: Vorlesungen iiber neuere Geometrie
41. Steinitz: Vorlesungen iiber die Theorie der Polyeder
45. Alexandroff/Hopf: Topologie. Band I
46. Nevanlinna: Eindeutige analytische Funktionen
63. Eichler: Quadratische Formen und orthogonale Gruppen
102. Nevanlinna/Nevanlinna: Absolute Analysis
114. Mac Lane: Homology
123. Yosida: Functional Analysis
127. Hermes: Enumerability, Decidability, Computability
131. Hirzebruch: Topological Methods in Algebraic Geometry
135. Handbook for Automatic Computation. Vol. I/Part a: Rutishauser: Description of ALGOL 60
136. Greub: Multilinear Algebra
137. Handbook for Automatic Computation. Vol. IjPart b: Grau/Hill/Langmaack:
Translation of ALGOL 60
138. Hahn: Stability of Motion
139. Mathematische Hilfsmittel des Ingenieurs. I. Teil
140. Mathematische Hilfsmittel des Ingenieurs. 2. Teil
141. Mathematische Hilfsmittel des Ingenieurs. 3. Teil
142. Mathematische Hilfsmittel des Ingenieurs. 4. Teil
143. Schur/Grunsky: Vorlesungen iiber Invariantentheorie
144. Weil: Basic Number Theory
145. Butzer/Berens: SemiGroups of Operators and Approximation
f46. Treves: Locally Convex Spaces and Linear Partial Differential Equations
147. Lamotke: Semisimpliziale i!lgebraische Topologie
148. Chandrasekharan: Introduction to Analytic Number Theory
149. Sario/Oikawa: Capacity Functions
150. losifescu/Theodorescu: Random Processes and Learning
lSI. Mandl: Analytical Treatment of Onedimensional Markov Processe~
152. Hewitt/Ross: Abstract Harmonic Analysis. Vol. 2: Structure and Analysis for
Compact Groups. Analysis on Locally Compact Abelian Groups
153. Federer: Geometric Measure Theory
154. Singer: Bases in Banach Spaces I
155. Miiller: Foundations of the Mathematical Theory of Electromagnetic Waves
156. van der Waerden: Mathematical Statistics
157. Prohorov/Rozanov: Probability Theory. Basic Concepts. Limit Theorems. Random Processes
158. Constantinescu/Cornea: Potential Theory on Harmonic Spaces
159. Kothe: Topological Vector Spaces I
160. Agrest/Maksimov: Theory of Incomplete Cylindrical Functions and their Applications
161. Bhatia/Szego: Stability Theory of Dynamical Systems
162. Nevanlinna: Analytic Functions
163. Stoer/Witzgall: Convexity and Optimization in Finite Dimensions I
164. Sario/Nakai: Classification Theory of Riemann Surfaces
165. Mitrinovic/Vasic: Analytic Inequalities
166. Grothendieck/Dieudonne: Elements de Geometrie Aigebrique I
167. Chandrasekharan: Arithmetical Functions
168. Palamodov: Linear Differential Operators with Constant Coefficients
169. Rademacher: Topics in Analytic Number Theory
170. Lions: Optimal Control of Systems Governed by Partial Differential Equations
171. Singer: Best Approximation in Normed Linear Spaces by Elements of Linear Subspaces
172. Biihlmann: Mathematical Methods in Risk Theory
173. Maeda/Maeda: Theory of Symmetric Lattices
174. Stiefel/Scheifele: Linear and Regular Celestial Mechanics. Perturbed Twobody
MotionNumerical MethodsCanonical Theory
302