Skip to main content
Log in

What can be done with PRA?

  • Published:
Journal of Soviet Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Let S+ denote system JRΠ 2° + AC 1° in a classical second-order arithmetic, in which the induction rule is permitted to apply only to quantifier-free formulas and to Π 2° -formulas not containing functional variables, while the convolution axiom is permitted to apply only to Π 1° -formulas without functional variables. Also postulated is the closedness of the function class being examined, relative to primitive recursive operations. System, S+ turns out to be sufficiently rich: in it a theory of recursions and an elementary recursive analysis can be developed, a theorem on the continuity of effective operators and a theorem on cuteliminability from ω -deductions can be proved, and the usual analytic proofs of many number-theoretic theorems, including the prime distribution law, can be derived (with insignificant changes). (A formalization in S+ of the proof of Konig's lemma on paths in binary trees and of Godel's completeness theorem is described in the note.) On the other hand, the system admits of an interpretation in primitive recursive arithmetic (PRA). In particular, quantifier-free theorems in S+ are deducible in PRA, while theorems of form ∀x∃yR(x,y) with a quantifier-free formula R have calculi R (x,ϕ(x)) with primitive recursive function ϕ, deducible in PRA. Thus, the suppressing part of operating constructive analysis can be developed already at the finite stages of the Shanin majorant hierarchy. In addition, a purely mechanical method exists for obtaining elementary number-theoretic proofs from many analytic proofs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature cited

  1. G. Kreisel, “Mathematical significance of consistency proofs,” J. Symbol. Logic,23, No. 2, 155–182 (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  2. G. E. Mints, “Finitary investigation of transfinitary derivations,” Zap. Nauchn. Sem. Leningr. Otd. Mat. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR,49, 67–122 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  3. G. Kreisel, “On the interpretation on non-finitist proofs,” J. Symbol. Logic,16, 241–267 (1951).

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. R. Shoenfield, Mathematical Logic, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  5. C. Parsons, “On a number-theoretic choice schema and its relation to induction,” in: Intuitionism and Proof Theory, A. Kino, J. Myhill, and R. E. Vesley (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  6. G. Kreisel, G. Mints, and S. Simpson, “The use of abstract language in elementary metamathematics,” in: Logic Colloquium, R. Parikh (ed.), Lect. Notes in Math., Vol. 453, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg-Berlin (1975), pp. 38–131.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Additional information

Translated from Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov Leningradskogo Otdeleniya Matematicheskogo Instituta im. V. A. Steklova Akad. Nauk SSSR, Vol. 60, pp. 93–102, 1976. Results announced September 4, 1975.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mints, G.E. What can be done with PRA?. J Math Sci 14, 1487–1492 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01693981

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01693981

Keywords

Navigation