Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:55:28.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A NOTE ON THEORIES FOR QUASI-INDUCTIVE DEFINITIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2009

RICCARDO BRUNI
RICCARDO BRUNI*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Florence
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE, VIA BOLOGNESE 52, FIRENZE 50139, ITALY E-mail:[email protected]URL:http://www.philos.unifi.it/CMpro-v-p-88.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper introduces theories for arithmetical quasi-inductive definitions (Burgess, 1986) as it has been done for first-order monotone and nonmonotone inductive ones. After displaying the basic axiomatic framework, we provide some initial result in the proof theoretic bounds line of research (the upper one being given in terms of a theory of sets extending Kripke–Platek set theory).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 684 - 699
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2009

Access options

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

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aczel, P., & Richter, W. (1974). Inductive definitions and reflecting properties of admissible ordinals. In Fenstad, J. E., and Hinman, P. G., editors. Generalized Recursion Theory: Proceedings of the 1972 Oslo Symposium, 1974, Amsterdam. North-Holland, pp. 301–381.Google Scholar
Buchholz, W., Feferman, S., Pohlers, W., & Sieg, W. (1981). Iterated Inductive Definitions and Subsystems of Analysis: Recent Proof-Theoretical Studies. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 897. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Burgess, J. (1986). The truth is never simple. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 51, 663–681.Google Scholar
Cantini, A. (1996). Logical Frameworks for Truth and Abstraction. An Axiomatic Study. Studies in Logic and the Foundation of Mathematics 135. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Devlin, K. (1974). An introduction to the fine structure of the constructible hierarchy (results by Ronald Jensen). In Fenstad, J. E., and Hinman, P. G., editors. Generalized Recursion Theory: Proceedings of the 1972 Oslo Symposium, 1974, Amsterdam. North-Holland, pp. 123–163.Google Scholar
Devlin, K. (1984). Constructibility. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Gupta, A., & Belnap, N. (1993). The Revision Theory of Truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hamkins, J. D., & Lewis, A. (2000). Infinite time turing machines. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 65, 567–604.Google Scholar
Jäger, G. (2001). First-order theories for non-monotone inductive definitions: Recursively inaccessible and Mahlo. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 66, 1073–1089.Google Scholar
Jäger, G., & Studer, T. (2002). Extending the system T 0 of explicit mathematics: The limit and Mahlo axioms. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 114, 79–101.Google Scholar
Löwe, B. (2001). Revision sequences and computers with an infinite amount of time. Journal of Logic and Computation, 11, 25–40.Google Scholar
Moschovakis, Y. (1974). Elementary Induction on Abstract Structures. Studies in Logic and the Foundation of Mathematics 77. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Richter, W. (1971). Recursively Mahlo ordinals and inductive definitions. In Gandy, R. O., and Yates, C. M. E., editors. Logic Colloquium’69. Amsterdam: North-Holland. pp. 273–288.Google Scholar
Welch, P. (2001). On Gupta–Belnap revision theories of truth, Kripkean fixed points and the next stable set. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 7, 345–360.Google Scholar
Welch, P. (2003). On revision operators. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 68, 689–711.Google Scholar
Welch, P. (2007). Weak Systems of Determinacy and Arithmetical Quasi–Inductive Definitions. Preprint.Google Scholar