DOCSLIB.ORG

Philosophical Aspects of Proof Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Philosophical Aspects of Proof Theory Philosophical aspects of proof theory DAG PRAWITZ University of Stockholm I. INTRODUCTION. DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS OF THE SUBJECT 1. The subject and its name The term proof theory, in Gennan Beweistheorie, was introduced by Hilbert [1] in 1922 as the name of a subject which he had already described in a lecture [2] in 1917 as 'an important, new field of research' where 'we must make the concept of specific mathematical proof itself object of investigation, just as also the astronomer pays attention to his place of observation, the physicist must care about the theory of his instrument, and the philo sopher criticizes reason itsdf'. Hilbert had great expectations of this new discipline. In [2] he mentions a number of questions that belong to it: 'the problem of the solvability of every mathematical question, the problem of checking the result of a mathematical investigation, further the question of a criterion for the simplicity of a mathematical proof, the question about the relation between matter and form (lnhalt­ lichkeit und Formalismus) in mathematics and logic, and finally, the problem of the decidability of a mathematical question by a finite number of operations.' He even thought he had found a solution of the continuum hypothesis by the help of his proof theory [3 J. But first of all, proof theory was meant to be the essential ingredient in Hilbert's program. The aim of this program was to obtain a finitary foundation of mathematics, and the way in which this was to be done has been variously formulated as showing that the use of transfinite principles leads to correct finitary results or that all transfinite elements can be eliminated in Contemporary philosophy. A new survey. Vol. 1, pp. 235-277. ©1981. Martinus NiihoffPublishers. Tile Hague/Boston/London. 236 D. Prawitz principle from proofs of finitary results or, more simply, as demonstrating the consistency of mathematics, which problems are all eq uivalent under certain conditions. In spite of Hilbert's greater ambitions, to which also Bernays [4] has recently called attention, proof theory has to a large extent been dominated by Hilbert's program and has even come to be identified with work on it. Therefore, with growing interest in other problems concerning proofs, there has seemed to be a need to distinguish between a narrower and a broader use of the term proof theory. Prawitz [5, 6] suggests the name reductive proof theory for a study of proofs aimed at a reduction of trans­ finite or in general abstract principles to more elementary ones along the lines suggested by Hilbert and the name general proof Theory for a broader investigation when proofs are taken as objects of study for their own intrinsic interest and not for reductive aims. This terminology is also followed e.g. in the recent monograph on proof theory by Cellucci [7]. Proof theory taken in a very broad sense is certainly not a creation of Hilbert. The subject can fairly be said to have started with Aristotle's works in logic. Indeed, logic as it was cultivated until quite recently was to a great extent identical with proof theory: it studied arguments, distinguished between valid and invalid forms of arguments, and tried to give a systematic presen­ tation of the valid ones. In short, its general aim was to give a sys­ tematic account of correct, strict reasoning or, in other words, of what constitutes a proof. In Hilbert's vision of the subject, however, proof theory was to be distinguished from the older tradition of logic in especially two ways: firstly, instead of proofs in a more absolute sense, he wanted to study formal proofs, i.e. derivations in given formal sys­ tems, and, secondly, he thought of the subject as a strictly mathe­ matical one. The first feature was made possible by Frege's sharpening of the axiomatic ideal by the creation of logistic or formal systems. The second feature was essentially Hilbert's own idea. Frege and his immediate successors such as Russell and Whitehead may be said to have studied proofs in the sense of having isolated different rules of inference and having investigated by what principles various mathematical proofs can be carried out, but the proofs themselves did not then occur as objects of a mathematical theory. , Philosophical aspects o/proof theory 237 Proof theory in Hilbert's sense thus makes its appearance at about the same time as model theory begins in the shape of Skolem's investigations and Tarski's semantics where also formal languages are objects of mathematical study. But in contrast to proof theory, model theory tries to study a notion of truth and logical consequence independently of the question of how we come to know that a sentence is true or a logical consequence of given premisses - it is true that most presentations of model theory contain proof-theoretical elements, but pure model theory may be presented without mentioning a deductive apparatus for the language studied (as most consistently done by Kreisel and Krivine [8]). If proof theory is to pay attention to the epistemological nature of proofs, i.e. to their raison d'etre as the means of getting to know truths and logical consequences, then, however, it is highly doubtful whether the two special features which charac­ terize proof theory in Hilbert's sense are appropriate. Firstly, we know from G6del's first incompleteness proof that the notion of proof cannot in general be characterized in terms of formal systems: given any formal notion of proof, there is e.g. a universal numerical proposition which has no proof of the given kind but which nevertheless is not only true but can also be proved to be true:'by Godel's method. Secondly, one would expect that a study of proofs in their capacity as means of getting to know truths must take into account also the meanings of the sentences involved, and that it thus has to merge with a meaning theory as argued by e.g. Prawitz [9, 10]. It may be only a terminological question whether such a theory is called mathematical or not, but in any case, it has to attend to concepts quite different from the ones Hilbert had in mind. It is also to be noted (as in Prawitz [10]) that the meaning theory in question must be quite different from Tarskian seman­ tics, and that there is no direct route from the notion of logical consequence to the notion of proof: a proof may correctly be said to consist of a number of valid inferences, but the condition that the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premisses is clearly only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for the appearance of an inference in a proof; nobody counts just some axioms immediately followed by a non-trivial theorem as a proof 238 D. Prawitz even if the theorem happens to follow logically from the axioms. Obviously, some kind of evidence is also required of the inferences in the proof; one must in some way take seriously that the con­ clusion is seen to be true. In conclusion, three kinds of proof theory emerge: (1) reductive proof theory directed towards questions of consistency or, more generally, towards reductions of abstract principles to more elementary ones, (2) a more embracing, mathematical proof theory as envisaged by Hilbert (to be distinguished from his program), and (3) a more general proof theory not restricted by the features Hilbert had in mind but attending to the general epistemological nature of proofs and questions of validity of argu­ ments. Kreisel has in some papers, e.g. [11, 12J , suggested the name theory of proofs for a study that concentrates on such things as the structural complexity of proofs but disregards questions about what makes a proof a proof, or in other words, what makes an argument valid, which has been the focus of papers such as Prawitz [10, 13J. What Kreisel has in mind here seems to be proof theory in the sense of (2) except that it is to be explicitly separated from the aims in (1) and (3). Kreisel [14] argues that there are reasonably adequate data for a 'natural history' of proofs (comparable to early mineralogy or biology) but that there is no hope at present for a rewarding, systematic science of proofs (by which he means a theoretical science that is rewarding in the same way as "success­ ful" natural sciences like crystallography or genetics, to continue his examples above). We may here see a fourth suggested direction of proof theory if we want, viz. in the form of case studies of striking phenomena of proofs, exemplified by Kreisel [14 J (but in the terminology of that paper, also proof theory in the sense of (2) and (3) is to be classified as 'natural history'). There is thus no complete agreement in the literature about what direction the subject should or could take nor about the question what it should be called. As to the last question, the idea to use 'proof theory' and 'theory of proofs' as two non-synony­ mous terms denoting different aims in the study of proofs does not strike one as very suggestive (and Kreisel need not be under­ stood as proposing that but only as wanting to change the name of the subject to avoid associations with directions that according Philosophical aspects of proof theory 239 to him are better disregarded). One may ask whether it is proper to widen the term proof theory to cover also studies of kind (3), whose aims more or less coincide with that of traditional logic as noted above.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Corcoran-Smiley Interpretation of Aristotle's Syllogistic As
    November 11, 2013 15:31 History and Philosophy of Logic Aristotelian_syllogisms_HPL_house_style_color HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC, 00 (Month 200x), 1{27 Aristotle's Syllogistic and Core Logic by Neil Tennant Department of Philosophy The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 43210 email [email protected] Received 00 Month 200x; final version received 00 Month 200x I use the Corcoran-Smiley interpretation of Aristotle's syllogistic as my starting point for an examination of the syllogistic from the vantage point of modern proof theory. I aim to show that fresh logical insights are afforded by a proof-theoretically more systematic account of all four figures. First I regiment the syllogisms in the Gentzen{Prawitz system of natural deduction, using the universal and existential quantifiers of standard first- order logic, and the usual formalizations of Aristotle's sentence-forms. I explain how the syllogistic is a fragment of my (constructive and relevant) system of Core Logic. Then I introduce my main innovation: the use of binary quantifiers, governed by introduction and elimination rules. The syllogisms in all four figures are re-proved in the binary system, and are thereby revealed as all on a par with each other. I conclude with some comments and results about grammatical generativity, ecthesis, perfect validity, skeletal validity and Aristotle's chain principle. 1. Introduction: the Corcoran-Smiley interpretation of Aristotle's syllogistic as concerned with deductions Two influential articles, Corcoran 1972 and Smiley 1973, convincingly argued that Aristotle's syllogistic logic anticipated the twentieth century's systematizations of logic in terms of natural deductions. They also showed how Aristotle in effect advanced a completeness proof for his deductive system.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Reductive Proof Theory Have a Viable Rationale?
    DOES REDUCTIVE PROOF THEORY HAVE A VIABLE RATIONALE? Solomon Feferman Abstract The goals of reduction and reductionism in the natural sciences are mainly explanatory in character, while those in mathematics are primarily foundational. In contrast to global reductionist programs which aim to reduce all of mathematics to one supposedly “univer- sal” system or foundational scheme, reductive proof theory pursues local reductions of one formal system to another which is more jus- tified in some sense. In this direction, two specific rationales have been proposed as aims for reductive proof theory, the constructive consistency-proof rationale and the foundational reduction rationale. However, recent advances in proof theory force one to consider the viability of these rationales. Despite the genuine problems of foun- dational significance raised by that work, the paper concludes with a defense of reductive proof theory at a minimum as one of the principal means to lay out what rests on what in mathematics. In an extensive appendix to the paper, various reduction relations between systems are explained and compared, and arguments against proof-theoretic reduction as a “good” reducibility relation are taken up and rebutted. 1 1 Reduction and reductionism in the natural sciencesandinmathematics. The purposes of reduction in the natural sciences and in mathematics are quite different. In the natural sciences, one main purpose is to explain cer- tain phenomena in terms of more basic phenomena, such as the nature of the chemical bond in terms of quantum mechanics, and of macroscopic ge- netics in terms of molecular biology. In mathematics, the main purpose is foundational. This is not to be understood univocally; as I have argued in (Feferman 1984), there are a number of foundational ways that are pursued in practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Proof Theory
    Notes on Proof Theory Master 1 “Informatique”, Univ. Paris 13 Master 2 “Logique Mathématique et Fondements de l’Informatique”, Univ. Paris 7 Damiano Mazza November 2016 1Last edit: March 29, 2021 Contents 1 Propositional Classical Logic 5 1.1 Formulas and truth semantics . 5 1.2 Atomic negation . 8 2 Sequent Calculus 10 2.1 Two-sided formulation . 10 2.2 One-sided formulation . 13 3 First-order Quantification 16 3.1 Formulas and truth semantics . 16 3.2 Sequent calculus . 19 3.3 Ultrafilters . 21 4 Completeness 24 4.1 Exhaustive search . 25 4.2 The completeness proof . 30 5 Undecidability and Incompleteness 33 5.1 Informal computability . 33 5.2 Incompleteness: a road map . 35 5.3 Logical theories . 38 5.4 Arithmetical theories . 40 5.5 The incompleteness theorems . 44 6 Cut Elimination 47 7 Intuitionistic Logic 53 7.1 Sequent calculus . 55 7.2 The relationship between intuitionistic and classical logic . 60 7.3 Minimal logic . 65 8 Natural Deduction 67 8.1 Sequent presentation . 68 8.2 Natural deduction and sequent calculus . 70 8.3 Proof tree presentation . 73 8.3.1 Minimal natural deduction . 73 8.3.2 Intuitionistic natural deduction . 75 1 8.3.3 Classical natural deduction . 75 8.4 Normalization (cut-elimination in natural deduction) . 76 9 The Curry-Howard Correspondence 80 9.1 The simply typed l-calculus . 80 9.2 Product and sum types . 81 10 System F 83 10.1 Intuitionistic second-order propositional logic . 83 10.2 Polymorphic types . 84 10.3 Programming in system F ...................... 85 10.3.1 Free structures .
    [Show full text]
  • Proof Theory of Constructive Systems: Inductive Types and Univalence
    Proof Theory of Constructive Systems: Inductive Types and Univalence Michael Rathjen Department of Pure Mathematics University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT, England [email protected] Abstract In Feferman’s work, explicit mathematics and theories of generalized inductive definitions play a cen- tral role. One objective of this article is to describe the connections with Martin-L¨of type theory and constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. Proof theory has contributed to a deeper grasp of the rela- tionship between different frameworks for constructive mathematics. Some of the reductions are known only through ordinal-theoretic characterizations. The paper also addresses the strength of Voevodsky’s univalence axiom. A further goal is to investigate the strength of intuitionistic theories of generalized inductive definitions in the framework of intuitionistic explicit mathematics that lie beyond the reach of Martin-L¨of type theory. Key words: Explicit mathematics, constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, Martin-L¨of type theory, univalence axiom, proof-theoretic strength MSC 03F30 03F50 03C62 1 Introduction Intuitionistic systems of inductive definitions have figured prominently in Solomon Feferman’s program of reducing classical subsystems of analysis and theories of iterated inductive definitions to constructive theories of various kinds. In the special case of classical theories of finitely as well as transfinitely iterated inductive definitions, where the iteration occurs along a computable well-ordering, the program was mainly completed by Buchholz, Pohlers, and Sieg more than 30 years ago (see [13, 19]). For stronger theories of inductive 1 i definitions such as those based on Feferman’s intutitionic Explicit Mathematics (T0) some answers have been provided in the last 10 years while some questions are still open.
    [Show full text]
  • Proof Theory for Modal Logic
    Proof theory for modal logic Sara Negri Department of Philosophy 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland e-mail: sara.negri@helsinki.fi Abstract The axiomatic presentation of modal systems and the standard formula- tions of natural deduction and sequent calculus for modal logic are reviewed, together with the difficulties that emerge with these approaches. Generaliza- tions of standard proof systems are then presented. These include, among others, display calculi, hypersequents, and labelled systems, with the latter surveyed from a closer perspective. 1 Introduction In the literature on modal logic, an overall skepticism on the possibility of developing a satisfactory proof theory was widespread until recently. This attitude was often accompanied by a belief in the superiority of model-theoretic methods over proof- theoretic ones. Standard proof systems have been shown insufficient for modal logic: Natural deduction presentations of even the most basic modal logics present difficulties that have been resolved only partially, and the same has happened with sequent calculus. These traditional proof system have failed to meet in a satisfactory way such basic requirements as analyticity and normalizability of formal derivations. Therefore alternative proof systems have been developed in recent years, with a lot of emphasis on their relative merits and on applications. We review first the axiomatic presentations of modal systems and the standard formulations of natural deduction and sequent calculus for modal logic, and the difficulties that emerge with
    [Show full text]
  • Nonclassical First Order Logics: Semantics and Proof Theory
    Nonclassical first order logics: Semantics and proof theory Apostolos Tzimoulis joint work with G. Greco, P. Jipsen, A. Kurz, M. A. Moshier, A. Palmigiano TACL Nice, 20 June 2019 Starting point Question How can we define general relational semantics for arbitrary non-classical first-order logics? I What are the models? I What do quantifiers mean in those models? I What does completeness mean? 2 / 29 Methodology: dual characterizations q Non − classical algebraic Non − classical proof th: semantics first order models Classical algebraic Classical proof th: semantics first order models i 3 / 29 A brief recap on classical first-order logic: Language I Set of relation symbols (Ri)i2I each of finite arity ni. I Set of function symbols ( f j) j2J each of finite arity n j. I Set of constant symbols (ck)k2K (0-ary functions). I Set of variables Var = fv1;:::; vn;:::g. The first-order language L = ((Ri)i2I; ( f j) j2J; (ck)k2K) over Var is built up from terms defined recursively as follows: Trm 3 t ::= vm j ck j f j(t;:::; t): The formulas of first-order logic are defined recursively as follows: L 3 A ::= Ri(t) j t1 = t2 j > j ? j A ^ A j A _ A j :A j 8vmA j 9vmA 4 / 29 A brief recap on classical first-order logic: Meaning The models of a first-order logic L are tuples D D D M = (D; (Ri )i2I; ( f j ) j2J; (ck )k2K) D D D where D is a non-empty set and Ri ; f j ; ck are concrete ni-ary relations over D, n j-ary functions on D and elements of D resp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relative Consistency of the Axiom of Choice — Mechanized Using Isabelle/ZF (Extended Abstract)
    The Relative Consistency of the Axiom of Choice | Mechanized Using Isabelle/ZF (Extended Abstract) Lawrence C. Paulson Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, England [email protected] G¨odel[3] published a monograph in 1940 proving a highly significant the- orem, namely that the axiom of choice (AC) and the generalized continuum hypothesis (GCH) are consistent with respect to the other axioms of set theory. This theorem addresses the first of Hilbert's famous list of unsolved problems in mathematics. I have mechanized this work [8] using Isabelle/ZF [5, 6]. Obvi- ously, the theorem's significance makes it a tempting challenge; the proof also has numerous interesting features. It is not a single formal assertion, as most theorems are. G¨odel[3, p. 33] states it as follows, using Σ to denote the axioms for set theory: What we shall prove is that, if a contradiction from the axiom of choice and the generalized continuum hypothesis were derived in Σ, it could be transformed into a contradiction obtained from the axioms of Σ alone. G¨odelpresents no other statement of this theorem. Neither does he introduce a theory of syntax suitable for reasoning about transformations on proofs, surely because he considers it to be unnecessary. G¨odel'swork consists of several different results which, taken collectively, express the relative consistency of the axiom the choice. The concluding inference takes place at the meta-level and is not formalized. Standard proofs use meta- level reasoning extensively. G¨odelwrites [3, p. 34], However, the only purpose of these general metamathematical consid- erations is to show how the proofs for theorems of a certain kind can be accomplished by a general method.
    [Show full text]
  • Combinatorial Proofs and Decomposition Theorems for First
    Combinatorial Proofs and Decomposition Theorems for First-order Logic Dominic J. D. Hughes Lutz Straßburger Jui-Hsuan Wu Logic Group Inria, Equipe Partout Ecole Normale Sup´erieure U.C. Berkeley Ecole Polytechnique, LIX France USA France Abstract—We uncover a close relationship between combinato- rial and syntactic proofs for first-order logic (without equality). ax ⊢ pz, pz Whereas syntactic proofs are formalized in a deductive proof wk system based on inference rules, a combinatorial proof is a ax ⊢ pw, pz, pz ⊢ p,p wk syntax-free presentation of a proof that is independent from any wk ⊢ pw, pz, pz, ∀y.py set of inference rules. We show that the two proof representations ⊢ p,q,p ∨ ∨ ax ⊢ pw, pz, pz ∨ (∀y.py) are related via a deep inference decomposition theorem that ⊢ p ∨ q,p ⊢ p,p ∃ ∧ ⊢ pw, pz, ∃x.(px ∨ (∀y.py)) establishes a new kind of normal form for syntactic proofs. This ⊢ (p ∨ q) ∧ p,p,p ∀ yields (a) a simple proof of soundness and completeness for first- ctr ⊢ pw, ∀y.py, ∃x.(px ∨ (∀y.py)) ⊢ (p ∨ q) ∧ p,p ∨ order combinatorial proofs, and (b) a full completeness theorem: ∨ ⊢ pw ∨ (∀y.py), ∃x.(px ∨ (∀y.py)) ⊢ ((p ∨ q) ∧ p) ∨ p ∃ every combinatorial proof is the image of a syntactic proof. ⊢ ∃x.(px ∨ (∀y.py)), ∃x.(px ∨ (∀y.py)) ctr ⊢ ∃x.(px ∨ (∀y.py)) I. INTRODUCTION First-order predicate logic is a cornerstone of modern logic. ↓ ↓ Since its formalisation by Frege [1] it has seen a growing usage in many fields of mathematics and computer science. Upon the development of proof theory by Hilbert [2], proofs became first-class citizens as mathematical objects that could be studied on their own.
    [Show full text]
  • Topics in the Theory of Recursive Functions
    SETS, MODELS, AND PROOFS: TOPICS IN THE THEORY OF RECURSIVE FUNCTIONS A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by David R. Belanger August 2015 This document is in the public domain. SETS, MODELS, AND PROOFS: TOPICS IN THE THEORY OF RECURSIVE FUNCTIONS David R. Belanger, Ph.D. Cornell University We prove results in various areas of recursion theory. First, in joint work with Richard Shore, we prove a new jump-inversion result for ideals of recursively enu- merable (r.e.) degrees; this defeats what had seemed to be a promising tack on the automorphism problem for the semilattice R of r.e. degrees. Second, in work spanning two chapters, we calibrate the reverse-mathematical strength of a number of theorems of basic model theory, such as the Ryll-Nardzewski atomic-model theorem, Vaught's no-two-model theorem, Ehrenfeucht's three-model theorem, and the existence theorems for homogeneous and saturated models. Whereas most of these are equivalent over RCA0 to one of RCA0, WKL0, ACA0, as usual, we also uncover model-theoretic statements with exotic complexities such as :WKL0 _ 0 ACA0 and WKL0 _ IΣ2. Third, we examine the possible weak truth table (wtt) degree spectra of count- able first-order structures. We find several points at which the wtt- and Turing- degree cases differ, notably that the most direct wtt analogue of Knight's di- chotomy theorem does not hold. Yet we find weaker analogies between the two, including a new trichotomy theorem for wtt degree spectra in the spirit of Knight's.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Mathematical Logic? a Survey
    What is mathematical logic? A survey John N. Crossley1 School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia 3800 [email protected] 1 Introduction What is mathematical logic? Mathematical logic is the application of mathemat- ical techniques to logic. What is logic? I believe I am following the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle when I say that logic is the (correct) rearranging of facts to find the information that we want. Logic has two aspects: formal and informal. In a sense logic belongs to ev- eryone although we often accuse others of being illogical. Informal logic exists whenever we have a language. In particular Indian Logic has been known for a very long time. Formal (often called, ‘mathematical’) logic has its origins in ancient Greece in the West with Aristotle. Mathematical logic has two sides: syntax and semantics. Syntax is how we say things; semantics is what we mean. By looking at the way that we behave and the way the world behaves, Aris- totle was able to elicit some basic laws. His style of categorizing logic led to the notion of the syllogism. The most famous example of a syllogism is All men are mortal Socrates is a man [Therefore] Socrates is mortal Nowadays we mathematicians would write this as ∀x(Man(x) → Mortal (x)) Man(S) (1) Mortal (S) One very general form of the above rule is A (A → B) (2) B otherwise know as modus ponens or detachment: the A is ‘detached’ from the formula (A → B) leaving B. This is just one example of a logical rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, Power Set, and the Calculus of Constructions
    This is a repository copy of Constructive zermelo-fraenkel set theory, power set, and the calculus of constructions. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/75182/ Book Section: Rathjen, M (2012) Constructive zermelo-fraenkel set theory, power set, and the calculus of constructions. In: Dybjer, P, Lindström, S, Palmgren, E and Sundholm, G, (eds.) Epistemology versus ontology: Essays on the philosophy and foundations of mathematics in honour of Per Martin-Löf. Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, 27 . Springer , Dordrecht, Netherlands , 313 - 349. ISBN 9789400744356 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4435-6 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, Power Set, and the Calculus of Constructions Michael Rathjen∗ Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom [email protected] May 4, 2012 Abstract Full intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, IZF, is obtained from constructive Zermelo- Fraenkel set theory, CZF, by adding the full separation axiom scheme and the power set axiom.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Kripke–Platek Set Theory and the Axiom of Choice
    This is a repository copy of Power Kripke–Platek set theory and the axiom of choice. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/155300/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Rathjen, M (2020) Power Kripke–Platek set theory and the axiom of choice. Journal of Logic and Computation. ISSN 0955-792X https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exaa020 © the Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. This is an author produced version of a paper published in Journal of Logic and Computation. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Power Kripke-Platek set theory and the axiom of choice Michael Rathjen Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT, England, [email protected] Abstract Whilst Power Kripke-Platek set theory, KP(P), shares many prop- erties with ordinary Kripke-Platek set theory, KP, in several ways it behaves quite differently from KP.
    [Show full text]