Next: A Set-Theoretic Version of
Up: Predicativity: The Outer Limits
Previous: Rules Versus Axioms
Metamathematical Properties of
and
and
are similar in the following respects:
- 1.
- They have the same proof-theoretic ordinal:
.
- 2.
-
and
prove the same
sentences.
- 3.
-
and
have the same proof-theoretic strength.
These results are due to Friedman [10, §4]. The main point
that we would like to make here is that
and
differ
greatly in some other, very significant respects. In particular:
- 1.
-
explicates predicative provability, while
explicates predicative reducibility.
- 2.
-
is much stronger than
,
model-theoretically and,
above all, mathematically.
The following properties of the two systems indicate how different
they are from the metamathematical point of view.
- 1.
- The minimum
-model of
is
,
i.e.,
.
- 2.
- The minimum
-model of the
comprehension
axiom is
HYP, i.e.,
.
- 3.
-
HYP is the intersection of all
-models of
.
- 4.
-
has no minimal
-model.
- 5.
-
automatically holds in any
-model.
- 6.
-
HYP is the intersection of all
-models.
- 7.
- There is no minimal
-model.
We can also compare
and
with the perhaps more familiar
system
-
consisting of the transfinite induction
axiom. The latter system is sometimes known as bar induction.
Some metamathematical properties:
- 1.
-
-
includes both
and
.
The
precise relationship to
is that
-
-
(Simpson [20]).
- 2.
-
-
is proof-theoretically stronger than
and
.
- 3.
-
-
the
Howard ordinal.
- 4.
-
-
has no minimal
-model.
- 5.
-
-
automatically holds in any
-model.
- 6.
-
HYP is the intersection of all
-models.
- 7.
- There is no minimal
-model.
For proofs of the model-theoretic results mentioned above, see
chapters VII and VIII of Simpson [24].
Next: A Set-Theoretic Version of
Up: Predicativity: The Outer Limits
Previous: Rules Versus Axioms
Stephen G Simpson
2000-01-21