The paper provides a proof theoretic characterization of the Russellian theory of definite descriptions (RDD) as characterized by Kalish, Montague and Mar (KMM). To this effect three sequent calculi are introduced: LKID0, LKID1 and LKID2. LKID0 is an auxiliary system which is easily shown to be equivalent to KMM. The main research is devoted to LKID1 and LKID2. The former is simpler in the sense of having smaller number of rules and, after small change, satisfies cut elimination but fails to satisfy the subformula property. In LKID2 an additional analysis of different kinds of identities leads to proliferation of rules but yields the subformula property. This refined proof theoretic analysis leading to fully analytic calculus with constructive proof of cut elimination is the main contribution of the paper.

Inferentialism is a theory in the philosophy of language which claims that the meanings of expressions are constituted by inferential roles or relations. Instead of a traditional model-theoretic semantics, it naturally lends itself to a proof-theoretic semantics, where meaning is understood in terms of inference rules with a proof system. Most work in proof-theoretic semantics has focused on logical constants, with comparatively little work on the semantics of non-logical vocabulary. Drawing on Robert Brandom’s notion of material inference and Greg Restall’s bilateralist interpretation of the multiple conclusion sequent calculus, I present a proof-theoretic semantics for atomic sentences and their constituent names and predicates. The resulting system has several interesting features: (1) the rules are harmonious and stable; (2) the rules create a structure analogous to familiar model-theoretic semantics; and (3) the semantics is compositional, in that the rules for atomic sentences are determined by those for their constituent names and predicates.

Akama et al. [1] systematically studied an arithmetical hierarchy of the law of excluded middle and related principles in the context of first-order arithmetic. In that paper, they first provide a prenex normal form theorem as a justification of their semi-classical principles restricted to prenex formulas. However, there are some errors in their proof. In this paper, we provide a simple counterexample of their prenex normal form theorem [1, Theorem 2.7], then modify it in an appropriate way which still serves to largely justify the arithmetical hierarchy. In addition, we characterize a variety of prenex normal form theorems by logical principles in the arithmetical hierarchy. The characterization results reveal that our prenex normal form theorems are optimal. For the characterization results, we establish a new conservation theorem on semi-classical arithmetic. The theorem generalizes a well-known fact that classical arithmetic is $\Pi _2$-conservative over intuitionistic arithmetic.

By Solovay’s celebrated completeness result [31] on formal provability we know that the provability logic ${\textbf {GL}}$ describes exactly all provable structural properties for any sound and strong enough arithmetical theory with a decidable axiomatisation. Japaridze generalised this result in [22] by considering a polymodal version ${\mathsf {GLP}}$ of ${\textbf {GL}}$ with modalities $[n]$ for each natural number n referring to ever increasing notions of provability. Modern treatments of ${\mathsf {GLP}}$ tend to interpret the $[n]$ provability notion as “provable in a base theory T together with all true $\Pi ^0_n$ formulas as oracles.” In this paper we generalise this interpretation into the transfinite. In order to do so, a main difficulty to overcome is to generalise the syntactical characterisations of the oracle formulas of complexity $\Pi ^0_n$ to the hyper-arithmetical hierarchy. The paper exploits the fact that provability is $\Sigma ^0_1$ complete and that similar results hold for stronger provability notions. As such, the oracle sentences to define provability at level $\alpha $ will recursively be taken to be consistency statements at lower levels: provability through provability whence the name of the paper. The paper proves soundness and completeness for the proposed interpretation for a wide class of theories, namely for any theory that can formalise the recursion described above and that has some further very natural properties. Some remarks are provided on how the recursion can be formalised into second order arithmetic and on lowering the proof-theoretical strength of these systems of second order arithmetic.

Following our [6], though with somewhat different methods here, further variants of Goodstein sequences are introduced in terms of parameterized Ackermann–Péter functions. Each of the sequences is shown to terminate, and the proof-theoretic strengths of these facts are calibrated by means of ordinal assignments, yielding independence results for a range of theories: PRA, PA, $\Sigma ^1_1$-DC$_0$, ATR$_0$, up to ID$_1$. The key is the so-called “Hardy hierarchy” of proof-theoretic bounding finctions, providing a uniform method for associating Goodstein-type sequences with parameterized normal form representations of positive integers.

A sequent calculus with the subformula property has long been recognised as a highly favourable starting point for the proof theoretic investigation of a logic. However, most logics of interest cannot be presented using a sequent calculus with the subformula property. In response, many formalisms more intricate than the sequent calculus have been formulated. In this work we identify an alternative: retain the sequent calculus but generalise the subformula property to permit specific axiom substitutions and their subformulas. Our investigation leads to a classification of generalised subformula properties and is applied to infinitely many substructural, intermediate, and modal logics (specifically: those with a cut-free hypersequent calculus). We also develop a complementary perspective on the generalised subformula properties in terms of logical embeddings. This yields new complexity upper bounds for contractive-mingle substructural logics and situates isolated results on the so-called simple substitution property within a general theory.

A notion of strictly primitive recursive realizability is introduced by Damnjanovic in 1994. It is a kind of constructive semantics of the arithmetical sentences using primitive recursive functions. It is of interest to study the corresponding predicate logic. It was argued by Park in 2003 that the predicate logic of strictly primitive recursive realizability is not arithmetical. Park’s argument is essentially based on a claim of Damnjanovic that intuitionistic logic is sound with respect to strictly primitive recursive realizability, but that claim was disproved by the author of this article in 2006. The aim of this paper is to present a correct proof of the result of Park.

Anderson and Belnap presented indexed Fitch-style natural deduction systems for the relevant logics R, E, and T. This work was extended by Brady to cover a range of relevant logics. In this paper I present indexed tree natural deduction systems for the Anderson–Belnap–Brady systems and show how to translate proofs in one format into proofs in the other, which establishes the adequacy of the tree systems.

Questions concerning the proof-theoretic strength of classical versus nonclassical theories of truth have received some attention recently. A particularly convenient case study concerns classical and nonclassical axiomatizations of fixed-point semantics. It is known that nonclassical axiomatizations in four- or three-valued logics are substantially weaker than their classical counterparts. In this paper we consider the addition of a suitable conditional to First-Degree Entailment—a logic recently studied by Hannes Leitgeb under the label HYPE. We show in particular that, by formulating the theory PKF over HYPE, one obtains a theory that is sound with respect to fixed-point models, while being proof-theoretically on a par with its classical counterpart KF. Moreover, we establish that also its schematic extension—in the sense of Feferman—is as strong as the schematic extension of KF, thus matching the strength of predicative analysis.

The Quantified argument calculus (Quarc) has received a lot of attention recently as an interesting system of quantified logic which eschews the use of variables and unrestricted quantification, but nonetheless achieves results similar to the Predicate calculus (PC) by employing quantifiers applied directly to predicates instead. Despite this noted similarity, the issue of the relationship between Quarc and PC has so far not been definitively resolved. We address this question in the present paper, and then expand upon that result.

Utilizing recent developments in structural proof theory, we develop a G3-style sequent calculus for Quarc and briefly demonstrate its structural properties. We put these properties to use immediately to construct direct proofs of the meta-theoretical properties of the system. We then incorporate an abstract (and, as we shall see, logical) predicate into the system in a way that preserves all the structural properties. This allows us to identify a system of Quarc which is deductively equivalent to PC, and also yields a constructive method of demonstrating the Craig interpolation theorem (which speaks in favor of the aforementioned predicate being logical). We further generalize this extension to develop a bivalent system of Quarc with defining clauses that still maintains all the desirable properties of a good proof system.

Frege’s definition of the real numbers, as envisaged in the second volume of Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, is fatally flawed by the inconsistency of Frege’s ill-fated Basic Law V. We restate Frege’s definition in a consistent logical framework and investigate whether it can provide a logical foundation of real analysis. Our conclusion will deem it doubtful that such a foundation along the lines of Frege’s own indications is possible at all.

In previous work, the author has shown that $\Pi ^1_1$-induction along $\mathbb N$ is equivalent to a suitable formalization of the statement that every normal function on the ordinals has a fixed point. More precisely, this was proved for a representation of normal functions in terms of Girard’s dilators, which are particularly uniform transformations of well orders. The present paper works on the next type level and considers uniform transformations of dilators, which are called 2-ptykes. We show that $\Pi ^1_2$-induction along $\mathbb N$ is equivalent to the existence of fixed points for all 2-ptykes that satisfy a certain normality condition. Beyond this specific result, the paper paves the way for the analysis of further $\Pi ^1_4$-statements in terms of well ordering principles.

We investigate which part of Brouwer’s Intuitionistic Mathematics is finitistically justifiable or guaranteed in Hilbert’s Finitism, in the same way as similar investigations on Classical Mathematics (i.e., which part is equiconsistent with $\textbf {PRA}$ or consistent provably in $\textbf {PRA}$) already done quite extensively in proof theory and reverse mathematics. While we already knew a contrast from the classical situation concerning the continuity principle, more contrasts turn out: we show that several principles are finitistically justifiable or guaranteed which are classically not. Among them are: (i) fan theorem for decidable fans but arbitrary bars; (ii) continuity principle and the axiom of choice both for arbitrary formulae; and (iii) $\Sigma _2$ induction and dependent choice. We also show that Markov’s principle MP does not change this situation; that neither does lesser limited principle of omniscience LLPO (except the choice along functions); but that limited principle of omniscience LPO makes the situation completely classical.

We introduce a tool for analysing models of $\text {CT}^-$, the compositional truth theory over Peano Arithmetic. We present a new proof of Lachlan’s theorem that the arithmetical part of models of $\text {CT}^-$ are recursively saturated. We also use this tool to provide a new proof of theorem from [8] that all models of $\text {CT}^-$ carry a partial inductive truth predicate. Finally, we construct a partial truth predicate defined for a set of formulae whose syntactic depth forms a nonstandard cut which cannot be extended to a full truth predicate satisfying $\text {CT}^-$.

We give a survey of current research on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems from the following three aspects: classifications of different proofs of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, the limit of the applicability of Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem, and the limit of the applicability of Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem.

We explore the problems that confront any attempt to explain or explicate exactly what a primitive logical rule of inference is, or consists in. We arrive at a proposed solution that places a surprisingly heavy load on the prospect of being able to understand and deal with specifications of rules that are essentially self-referring. That is, any rule $\rho $ is to be understood via a specification that involves, embedded within it, reference to rule $\rho $ itself. Just how we arrive at this position is explained by reference to familiar rules as well as less familiar ones with unusual features. An inquiry of this kind is surprisingly absent from the foundations of inferentialism—the view that meanings of expressions (especially logical ones) are to be characterized by the rules of inference that govern them.

It is well-known that an element of a commutative ring with identity is nilpotent if, and only if , it lies in every prime ideal of the ring. A modification of this fact is amenable to a very simple proof mining analysis. We formulate a quantitative version of this modification and obtain an explicit bound. We present an application. This proof mining analysis is the leitmotif for some comments and observations on the methodology of computational extraction. In particular, we emphasize that the formulation of quantitative versions of ordinary mathematical theorems is of independent interest from proof mining metatheorems.

We develop a number of variants of Lifschitz realizability for $\mathbf {CZF}$ by building topological models internally in certain realizability models. We use this to show some interesting metamathematical results about constructive set theory with variants of the lesser limited principle of omniscience including consistency with unique Church’s thesis, consistency with some Brouwerian principles and variants of the numerical existence property.

In this paper, we examine the limit of applicability of Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem ($\textsf {G1}$ for short). We first define the notion “$\textsf {G1}$ holds for the theory $T$”. This paper is motivated by the following question: can we find a theory with a minimal degree of interpretation for which $\textsf {G1}$ holds. To approach this question, we first examine the following question: is there a theory T such that Robinson’s $\mathbf {R}$ interprets T but T does not interpret $\mathbf {R}$ (i.e., T is weaker than $\mathbf {R}$ w.r.t. interpretation) and $\textsf {G1}$ holds for T? In this paper, we show that there are many such theories based on Jeřábek’s work using some model theory. We prove that for each recursively inseparable pair $\langle A,B\rangle $, we can construct a r.e. theory $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$ such that $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$ is weaker than $\mathbf {R}$ w.r.t. interpretation and $\textsf {G1}$ holds for $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$. As a corollary, we answer a question from Albert Visser. Moreover, we prove that for any Turing degree $\mathbf {0}< \mathbf {d}<\mathbf {0}^{\prime }$, there is a theory T with Turing degree $\mathbf {d}$ such that $\textsf {G1}$ holds for T and T is weaker than $\mathbf {R}$ w.r.t. Turing reducibility. As a corollary, based on Shoenfield’s work using some recursion theory, we show that there is no theory with a minimal degree of Turing reducibility for which $\textsf {G1}$ holds.

We prove that the Weihrauch lattice can be transformed into a Brouwer algebra by the consecutive application of two closure operators in the appropriate order: first completion and then parallelization. The closure operator of completion is a new closure operator that we introduce. It transforms any problem into a total problem on the completion of the respective types, where we allow any value outside of the original domain of the problem. This closure operator is of interest by itself, as it generates a total version of Weihrauch reducibility that is defined like the usual version of Weihrauch reducibility, but in terms of total realizers. From a logical perspective completion can be seen as a way to make problems independent of their premises. Alongside with the completion operator and total Weihrauch reducibility we need to study precomplete representations that are required to describe these concepts. In order to show that the parallelized total Weihrauch lattice forms a Brouwer algebra, we introduce a new multiplicative version of an implication. While the parallelized total Weihrauch lattice forms a Brouwer algebra with this implication, the total Weihrauch lattice fails to be a model of intuitionistic linear logic in two different ways. In order to pinpoint the algebraic reasons for this failure, we introduce the concept of a Weihrauch algebra that allows us to formulate the failure in precise and neat terms. Finally, we show that the Medvedev Brouwer algebra can be embedded into our Brouwer algebra, which also implies that the theory of our Brouwer algebra is Jankov logic.