Goal Directed Proof Theory presents a uniform and coherent methodology for automated deduction in non-classical logics, the relevance of which to computer science is now widely acknowledged. The methodology is based on goal-directed provability. It is a generalization of the logic programming style of deduction, and it is particularly favourable for proof search. The methodology is applied for the first time in a uniform way to a wide range of non-classical systems, covering intuitionistic, intermediate, modal and substructural logics. The book (...) can also be used as an introduction to these logical systems form a procedural perspective. Readership: Computer scientists, mathematicians and philosophers, and anyone interested in the automation of reasoning based on non-classical logics. The book is suitable for self study, its only prerequisite being some elementary knowledge of logic and proof theory. (shrink)

Schwichtenberg showed that the System T definable functionals are closed under a rule-like version Spector’s bar recursion of lowest type levels 0 and 1. More precisely, if the functional Y which controls the stopping condition of Spector’s bar recursor is T-definable, then the corresponding bar recursion of type levels 0 and 1 is already T-definable. Schwichtenberg’s original proof, however, relies on a detour through Tait’s infinitary terms and the correspondence between ordinal recursion for α < ε₀ and primitive recursion over (...) finite types. This detour makes it hard to calculate on given concrete system T input, what the corresponding system T output would look like. In this paper we present an alternative (more direct) proof based on an explicit construction which we prove correct via a suitably defined logical relation. We show through an example how this gives a straightforward mechanism for converting bar recursive definitions into T-definitions under the conditions of Schwichtenberg’s theorem. Finally, with the explicit construction we can also easily state a sharper result: if Y is in the fragment Tᵢ then terms built from BR^ℕ,σ for this particular Y are definable in the fragment T_i+max{1,level(σ)}+2. (shrink)

We present a direct proof of the consistency of the existence of a five element basis for the uncountable linear orders. Our argument is based on the approach of König, Larson, Moore and Veličković and simplifies the original proof of Moore.

In [2], Bar-Hillel, Gaifman, and Shamir prove that the simple phrase structure grammars (SPGs) defined by Chomsky are equivalent in a certain sense to Bar-Hillel's bidirectional categorial grammars (BCGs). On the other hand, Cohen [3] proves the equivalence of the latter ones to what the calls free categorial grammars (FCGs). They are closely related to Lambek's syntactic calculus which, in turn, is based on the idea due to Ajdukiewicz [1]. For the reasons which will be discussed in the last section, (...) Cohen's proof seems to be at least incomplete. This paper yields a direct proof of the equivalence ofFCGs andSPGs. (shrink)

Shelah has shown that the number d, the smallest cardinality of a dominating family, is less than or equal to the number i, the smallest cardinality of a maximal independent family on ω. This was done using a downward Löwenheim-Skolem argument. Thus it is interesting to find a direct “elementary” proof. Here we show that this can be done.

We discuss the problem raised by Miller to re-prove the well-known equivalences of some Lindenbaum theorems for deductive systems without an application of the Axiom of Choice. We present five special constructions of deductive systems, each of them providing some partial solutions to the mathematical problem. We conclude with a short discussion of the underlying philosophical problem of deciding, whether a given proof satisfies our demand that the Axiom of Choice is not applied.

In this paper, we present the outline for a goal-directed proof procedure for abductive reasoning and compare this procedure with Aliseda’s approach.

We give a simplified proof of the main lemma in “Ramsey filters and the reaping number—Con” by Goldstern and Shelah.

Classically, weak König's lemma and Brouwer's fan theorem for detachable bars are equivalent. We give a direct constructive proof that the former implies the latter.

In [BAT 00b], the flat Rescher–Manor consequence relations — the Free, Strong, Argued, C-Based, andWeak consequence relation—were shown to be characterized by inconsistency-adaptive logics defined from the paraconsistent logic CLuN. This provided these consequence relations with a dynamic proof theory. In the present paper we show that the detour via an inconsistency-adaptive logic is not necessary. We present a direct dynamic proof theory, formulated in the language of Classical Logic, and prove its adequacy. The present paper contains the first (...) direct dynamic proof theory for consequence relations that are characterized by an adaptive logic. (shrink)

We shall give a direct proof of the independence result of a Buchholz style-Hydra Game on labeled finite trees. We shall show that Takeuti-Arai's cut-elimination procedure of $(\Pi^{1}_{1}-CA) + BI$ and of the iterated inductive definition systems can be directly expressed by the reduction rules of Buchholz's Hydra Game. As a direct corollary the independence result of the Hydra Game follows.

Peter van Inwagen's influential Direct Argument (DA) for the incompatibility of moral responsibility and causal determinism makes use of an inference rule he calls "Rule B." Michael McKenna has argued that van Inwagen's defense of this rule is dialectically inappropriate because it is based entirely on alleged “confirming” cases that are not of the right kind to justify the use of Rule B in DA. Here I argue that McKenna’s objection is on the right track but more must be (...) said if we are to see why. To fill in the gaps I consider a recent attempt by Ira M. Schnall and David Widerker to defend DA against McKenna’s objection. I argue that neither prong of their attack is successful against a variation on McKenna’s basic argument. In the course of responding to Schnall and Widerker’s objections to McKenna, I identify what is, as I argue, the real reason DA fails in its purpose to shift the burden of proof. (shrink)

We give a proof of Hechler's theorem that any \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $\aleph_1$\end{document}-directed partial order can be embedded via a ccc forcing notion cofinally into \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $\omega^\omega$\end{document} ordered by eventual dominance. The proof relies on the standard forcing relation rather than the variant introduced by Hechler.

Peter van Inwagen's Direct Argument (DA) for incompatibilism purports to establish incompatibilism with respect to moral responsibility and determinism without appealing to assumptions that compatibilists usually consider controversial. Recently, Michael McKenna has presented a novel critique of DA. McKenna's critique raises important issues about philosophical dialectics. In this article, we address those issues and contend that his argument does not succeed.

We develop a combinatorial model to study the evolution of graphs underlying proofs during the process of cut elimination. Proofs are two-dimensional objects and differences in the behavior of their cut elimination can often be accounted for by differences in their two-dimensional structure. Our purpose is to determine geometrical conditions on the graphs of proofs to explain the expansion of the size of proofs after cut elimination. We will be concerned with exponential expansion and we give (...) upper and lower bounds which depend on the geometry of the graphs. The lower bound is computed passing through the notion of universal covering for directed graphs. In this paper we present ground material for the study of cut elimination and structure of proofs in purely combinatorial terms. We develop a theory of duplication for directed graphs and derive results on graphs of proofs as corollaries. (shrink)

First-order logic is formalized by means of tools taken from the logic of questions. A calculus of questions which is a counterpart of the Pure Calculus of Quantifiers is presented. A direct proof of completeness of the calculus is given.

By rephrasing quantifier-free axioms as rules of derivation in sequent calculus, we show that the generalized Steiner–Lehmus theorem admits a direct proof in classical logic. This provides a partial answer to a question raised by Sylvester in 1852. We also present some comments on possible intuitionistic approaches.

While direct proof is widely considered the paradigm of the acquisition of knowledge by deductive means, indirect proof has traditionally been criticized as showing merely ‘that’ its conclusion is true and not ‘why’ it is true. This paper accounts for the traditional objection by emphasizing the argumentative role in indirect proof of logical principles such as excluded middle and non-contradiction.

Proofs and countermodels are the two sides of completeness proofs, but, in general, failure to find one does not automatically give the other. The limitation is encountered also for decidable non-classical logics in traditional completeness proofs based on Henkin’s method of maximal consistent sets of formulas. A method is presented that makes it possible to establish completeness in a direct way: For any given sequent either a proof in the given logical system or a countermodel in (...) the corresponding frame class is found. The method is a synthesis of a generation of calculi with internalized relational semantics, a Tait–Schütte–Takeuti style completeness proof, and procedures to finitize the countermodel construction. Finitizations for intuitionistic propositional logic are obtained through the search for a minimal derivation, through pruning of infinite branches in search trees by means of a suitable syntactic counterpart of semantic filtration, or through a proof-theoretic embedding into an appropriate provability logic. A number of examples illustrates the method, its subtleties, challenges, and present scope. (shrink)

"Proof" has been and remains one of the concepts which characterises mathematics. Covering basic propositional and predicate logic as well as discussing axiom systems and formal proofs, the book seeks to explain what mathematicians understand by proofs and how they are communicated. The authors explore the principle techniques of direct and indirect proof including induction, existence and uniqueness proofs, proof by contradiction, constructive and non-constructive proofs, etc. Many examples from analysis and modern algebra are included. (...) The exceptionally clear style and presentation ensures that the book will be useful and enjoyable to those studying and interested in the notion of mathematical "proof.". (shrink)

This mathematics textbook covers the fundamental ideas used in writing proofs. Proof techniques covered include direct proofs, proofs by contrapositive, proofs by contradiction, proofs in set theory, proofs of existentially or universally quantified predicates, proofs by cases, and mathematical induction. Inductive and deductive reasoning are explored. A straightforward approach is taken throughout. Plenty of examples are included and lots of exercises are provided after each brief exposition on the topics at hand. The (...) text begins with a study of symbolic logic, deductive reasoning, and quantifiers. Inductive reasoning and making conjectures are examined next, and once there are some statements to prove, techniques for proving conditional statements, disjunctions, biconditional statements, and quantified predicates are investigated. Terminology and proof techniques in set theory follow with discussions of the pick-a-point method and the algebra of sets. Cartesian products, equivalence relations, orders, and functions are all incorporated. Particular attention is given to injectivity, surjectivity, and cardinality. The text includes an introduction to topology and abstract algebra, with a comparison of topological properties to algebraic properties. This book can be used by itself for an introduction to proofs course or as a supplemental text for students in proof-based mathematics classes. The contents have been rigorously reviewed and tested by instructors and students in classroom settings. (shrink)

Different natural deduction proof systems for intuitionistic and classical logic —and related logical systems—differ in fundamental properties while sharing significant family resemblances. These differences become quite stark when it comes to the structural rules of contraction and weakening. In this paper, I show how Gentzen and Jaśkowski’s natural deduction systems differ in fine structure. I also motivate directed proof nets as another natural deduction system which shares some of the design features of Genzen and Jaśkowski’s systems, but which differs again (...) in its treatment of the structural rules, and has a range of virtues absent from traditional natural deduction systems. (shrink)

A sequent calculus methodology for systems of agency based on branching-time frames with agents and choices is proposed, starting with a complete and cut-free system for multi-agent deliberative STIT; the methodology allows a transparent justification of the rules, good structural properties, analyticity, direct completeness and decidability proofs.

This thesis is concerned with extending the underlying logical approach as well as the breadth of applications of the proof mining program to various (mostly previously untreated) areas of nonlinear analysis and optimization, with a particular focus being placed on topics which involve set-valued operators.For this, we extend the current logical methodology of proof mining by new systems and corresponding so-called logical metatheorems that cover these more involved areas of nonlinear analysis. Most of these systems crucially rely on the use (...) of intensional methods, treating sets with potentially high quantifier complexity in the defining matrix via characteristic functions and axioms that describe only their properties and do not completely characterize the elements of the sets.The applicability of all of these metatheorems is then substantiated by a range of case studies for the respective areas which in particular also highlight the naturalness of the use of intensional methods in the design of the corresponding systems.The first new area covered thereby is the theory of nonlinear semigroups induced by corresponding evolution equations for accretive operators. In that context, we present (besides an initial foray into the area from 2015) essentially the first applications of proof mining to the theory of partial differential equations. Concretely, we provide quantitative versions of four central results on the asymptotic behavior of solutions to such equations.The second new area unlocked in this thesis is that of the continuous dual of a Banach space and its norm (which are also approached via intensional methods). This in particular relies on a proof-theoretically tame treatment of suprema over (certain) bounded sets in this intensional context which is further exploited later on. These systems, which give access to this until now untreated fundamental notion from functional analysis, are then used to provide further substantial extensions to treat various notions from convex analysis like the Fréchet derivative of a convex function, Fenchel conjugates, Bregman distances, and monotone operators on Banach spaces in the sense of Browder.These systems are then utilized to provide applications in the context of Picard- and Halpern-style iterations of so-called Bregman strongly nonexpansive mappings where we provide both new quantitative and qualitative results.Lastly, we discuss the key notion of extensionality of a set-valued operator and its relation to set-theoretic maximality principles in more depth (which was already singled out—to some degree—in previous work). We thereby exhibit an issue arising with treating full extensionality in the context of these intensional approaches to set-valued operators and present useful fragments of the full extensionality statement where these issues are avoided.Corresponding to these fragments, we discuss a range of uniform continuity statements for set-valued operators beyond the usual notion involving the Hausdorff-metric. In particular, in that context, we utilize the previous tame treatment of suprema over bounded sets to also provide the first proof-theoretic treatment of that Hausdorff-metric in the context of systems for proof mining.The applicability of this treatment of the Hausdorff-metric is then in particular substantiated by a last case study where we provide quantitative information for a Mann-type iteration of set-valued mappings which are nonexpansive w.r.t. the Hausdorff-metric.The abstract was taken directly from the thesis.Abstract prepared by Nicholas Pischke, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, GermanyE-mail: [email protected]: https://doi.org/10.26083/tuprints-00026584. (shrink)

Equational reasoning arises in many areas of mathematics and computer science. It is a cornerstone of algebraic reasoning and results essential in tasks of specification and verification in functional programming, where a program is mainly a set of equations. The usual manipulation of identities while conducting informal proofs obviates many intermediate steps that are neccesary while developing them using a formal system, such as the equationally complete Birkhoff calculus ${\mathcal{B}}$. This deductive system does not fit in the common manner (...) of doing mathematical proofs, and it is not compatible with the mechanisms of proof assistants. The aim of this work is to provide a deductive system ${\mathcal{B}}^{\textrm{GOAL}}$ for equality, equivalent to ${\mathcal{B}}$ but suitable for constructing equational proofs in a backward fashion. This feature makes it adequate for interactive proof-search in the approach of proof assistants. This will be achieved by turning ${\mathcal{B}}^{\textrm{GOAL}}$ into a transition system of formal tactics in the style of Edinburgh LCF, such transformation allows us to give a direct formal definition of backward proof in equational logic. (shrink)

In this work we develop goal-directed deduction methods for the implicational fragment of several modal logics. We give sound and complete procedures for strict implication of K, T, K4, S4, K5, K45, KB, KTB, S5, G and for some intuitionistic variants. In order to achieve a uniform and concise presentation, we first develop our methods in the framework of Labelled Deductive Systems [Gabbay 96]. The proof systems we present are strongly analytical and satisfy a basic property of cut admissibility. We (...) then show that for most of the systems under consideration the labelling mechanism can be avoided by choosing an appropriate way of structuring theories. One peculiar feature of our proof systems is the use of restart rules which allow to re-ask the original goal of a deduction. In case of K, K4, S4 and G, we can eliminate such a rule, without loosing completeness. In all the other cases, by dropping such a rule, we get an intuitionistic variant of each system. The present results are part of a larger project of a goal directed proof theory for non-classical logics; the purpose of this project is to show that most implicational logics stem from slight variations of a unique deduction method, and from different ways of structuring theories. Moreover, the proof systems we present follow the logic programming style of deduction and seem promising for proof search [Gabbay and Reyle 84, Miller et al. 91]. (shrink)

Mathematicians judge proofs to possess, or lack, a variety of different qualities, including, for example, explanatory power, depth, purity, beauty and fit. Philosophers of mathematical practice have begun to investigate the nature of such qualities. However, mathematicians frequently draw attention to another desirable proof quality: being motivated. Intuitively, motivated proofs contain no "puzzling" steps, but they have received little further analysis. In this paper, I begin a philosophical investigation into motivated proofs. I suggest that a proof is (...) motivated if and only if mathematicians can identify (i) the tasks each step is intended to perform; and (ii) where each step could have reasonably come from. I argue that motivated proofs promote understanding, convey new mathematical resources and stimulate new discoveries. They thus have significant epistemic benefits and directly contribute to the efficient dissemination and advancement of mathematical knowledge. Given their benefits, I also discuss the more practical matter of how we can produce motivated proofs. Finally I consider the relationship between motivated proofs and proofs which are explanatory, beautiful and fitting. (shrink)

In the first chapter, we discuss Dummett’s idea that the notion of truth arises from the one of the correctness of an assertion. We argue that, in a first-order language, the need of defining truth in terms of the notion of satisfaction, which is yielded by the presence of quantifiers, is structurally analogous to the need of a notion of truth as distinct from the one of correctness of an assertion. In the light of the analogy between predicates in Frege (...) and open formulas in Tarksi, we concentrate on the semantic status of predicates. We register a dual attitude of Dummett towards Frege’s ascription of reference to predicates. On the one it is needed to endow quantifiers with their appropriate meaning. On the other hand, the introduction of concepts, as semantic correlate of predicates, smuggles a realist flavor in the overall semantic picture. In concluding the excursus (and with it the chapter), we stress Dummett’s will of developing a semantic picture free from this realist trait. In the second chapter, we present the idea of a proof-theoretic semantics. As for Frege true sentences denotes the truth-value True, so here closed' (i.e. categorical) valid argumentations denotes proofs. If a language contains implication-like operators, in order to characterize the condition of validity of a closed argumentation one has to introduce a notion of validity applying to ‘open’ (i.e. hypothetical) argumentations. We argue that this problem is analogous to the one posed by quantifiers in Frege-Tarksi’s style semantics. That is, implication forces one to introduce notion of validity for argumentations, which is more substantial than the correctness of the assertion of their conclusions. As we saw, the corresponding claim in the truth-based approach—that quantifiers require one to introduce a notion of truth, which is more substantial than the one of an assertion being correct—was the source of realism. Hence, Dummett proposes to reduce the semantic contribution of open argumentations to the one of their ‘closed instances’. In the truth-based perspective, this would correspond to the denial of the need of introducing concepts as the semantic correlates of predicates. We argue that Dummett’s fear, that an irreducible notion of function (represented by the need of ascribing validity to open argumentations) would lead to realism, turns out to be ill-founded. In the third chapter, we discuss the role played by the notion of truth in the anti-realist account. The notion of truth is what the anti-realist needs to cope with the so-called paradox of deduction. The analysis of the paradox yields to distinguishing between the truth of a sentence and the truth of a sentence being recognized. In terms of these conceptual couple, we reconsider the relationship between truth and assertion in an anti-realist perspective. Grounds are provided for a thesis (which was already advanced in chapter two), according to which the notion of the assertion of a sentence being correct is primarily connected only with the canonical means of establishing a sentence. The possibility of establishing a sentence by indirect means is conceptually dependent on the practice of establishing logical relationship of dependence among sentences. That is, the notion of a closed valid non-canonical argumentation is of any theoretical relevance only in presence of a notion of validity applying to open argumentations. In the fourth chapter, we discuss the possibility of characterizing in the proof-theoretic-semantics a notion of refutation. We develop an original characterization of refutations starting from an informal inductive specification of the condition of refutations of logically complex sentences. A sub-structural logic, called dual-intuitionistic logic, stands to this notion in the same relationship in which intuitionistic logic stands to the notion of proof so far consdered. All notions developed in chapter 2 have their corresponding (dual) ones in the framework developed. In particular, the distinctions canonical/non-canonical and closed/open argumentations. In the refutation based perspective, elimination rules have priority over introductions and the (only) assumption over the (many) conclusions. In the conclusions, we indicate the ingredients that an anti-realist approach to meaning should incorporate, in order to avoid the difficulties we registered. The core of an alternative view is a different conception of the relationship between categorical and hypothetical notions, in which the validity of open argumentations is not reduced to that of their instances, but rather it is directly defined. As a limit case, one would get a notion of validity applying to closed argumentations. (shrink)

The central debate of natural theology among medieval Muslims and Jews concerned whether or not the world was eternal. Opinions divided sharply on this issue because the outcome bore directly on God's relationship with the world: eternity implies a deity bereft of will, while a world with a beginning leads to the contrasting picture of a deity possessed of will. In this exhaustive study of medieval Islamic and Jewish arguments for eternity, creation, and the existence of God, Herbert Davidson provides (...) a systematic classification of the proofs, analyzes and explains them, and traces their sources in Greek philosophy. Throughout the study, Davidson tries to take into account every argument of a philosophical character, disregarding only those arguments that rest entirely on religious faith or which fall below a minimal level of plausibility. (shrink)

In this paper it is shown that addition of certain reductions to the standard cut removing reductions of deductions in prepositional logic makes prepositional logic non-normalizable. From this follows that some provable propositions in prepositional logic has no direct proof.

The notion of proof is central to mathematics yet it is one of the most difficult aspects of the subject to teach and master. In particular, undergraduate mathematics students often experience difficulties in understanding and constructing proofs. Understanding Mathematical Proof describes the nature of mathematical proof, explores the various techniques that mathematicians adopt to prove their results, and offers advice and strategies for constructing proofs. It will improve students’ ability to understand proofs and construct correct proofs (...) of their own. The first chapter of the text introduces the kind of reasoning that mathematicians use when writing their proofs and gives some example proofs to set the scene. The book then describes basic logic to enable an understanding of the structure of both individual mathematical statements and whole mathematical proofs. It also explains the notions of sets and functions and dissects several proofs with a view to exposing some of the underlying features common to most mathematical proofs. The remainder of the book delves further into different types of proof, including direct proof, proof using contrapositive, proof by contradiction, and mathematical induction. The authors also discuss existence and uniqueness proofs and the role of counter examples. (shrink)

A famous theorem by van der Waerden states the following: Given any finite coloring of the integers, one color contains arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions. Equivalently, for every q,k, there is an N = N(q,k) such that for every q-coloring of an interval of length N one color contains a progression of length k. An obvious question is what is the growth rate of N = N(q,k). Some proofs, like van der Waerden's combinatorial argument, answer this question directly, while the (...) topological proof by Furstenberg and Weiss does not. We present an analysis of (Girard's variant of) Furstenberg and Weiss's proof based on monotone functional interpretation, both yielding bounds and providing a general illustration of proof mining in topological dynamics. The bounds do not improve previous results by Girard, but only—as is also revealed by the analysis—because the combinatorial proof and the topological dynamics proof in principle are identical. (shrink)

The meaning of a formula built out of proof-functional connectives depends in an essential way upon the intensional aspect of the proofs of the component subformulas. We study three such connectives, strong equivalence (where the two directions of the equivalence are established by mutually inverse maps), strong conjunction (where the two components of the conjunction are established by the same proof) and relevant implication (where the implication is established by an identity map). For each of these connectives we give (...) a type assignment system, a realizability semantics, and a completeness theorem. This form of completeness implies the semantic completeness of the type assignment system. (shrink)

This book introduces students to the art and craft of writing proofs, beginning with the basics of writing proofs and logic, and continuing on with more in-depth issues and examples of creating proofs in different parts of mathematics, as well as introducing proofs-of-correctness for algorithms. The creation of proofs is covered for theorems in both discrete and continuous mathematics, and in difficulty ranging from elementary to beginning graduate level. Just beyond the standard introductory courses on (...) calculus, theorems and proofs become central to mathematics. Students often find this emphasis difficult and new. This book is a guide to understanding and creating proofs. It explains the standard "moves" in mathematical proofs: direct computation, expanding definitions, proof by contradiction, proof by induction, as well as choosing notation and strategies. (shrink)

College students struggle with the switch from thinking of mathematics as a calculation based subject to a problem solving based subject. This book describes how the introduction to proofs course can be taught in a way that gently introduces students to this new way of thinking. This introduction utilizes recent research in neuroscience regarding how the brain learns best. Rather than jumping right into proofs, students are first taught how to change their mindset about learning, how to persevere (...) through difficult problems, how to work successfully in a group, and how to reflect on their learning. With these tools in place, students then learn logic and problem solving as a further foundation. Next various proof techniques such as direct proofs, proof by contraposition, proof by contradiction, and mathematical induction are introduced. These proof techniques are introduced using the context of number theory. The last chapter uses Calculus as a way for students to apply the proof techniques they have learned. (shrink)

We give a simple and direct proof that super-consistency implies the cut-elimination property in deduction modulo. This proof can be seen as a simplification of the proof that super-consistency implies proof normalization. It also takes ideas from the semantic proofs of cut elimination that proceed by proving the completeness of the cut-free calculus. As an application, we compare our work with the cut-elimination theorems in higher-order logic that involve V-complexes.

Norma Goethe addresses my criticisms of the notion of formal proof as a representation of the practice of proving, and in the process revisits large portions of my discussion of proof. I agree with many of her comments, and direct my response to two specific issues. The first concerns the essential features of proof, and the second the distinction between actual proofs and idealized proofs.Norma Goethe tece seus comentários entorno de minhas críticas à noção de prova formal (...) como representação da prática de provar e retoma diversos aspectos da discussão de prova em meu livro. Concordo com muitas de suas considerações e dirijo minha réplica a duas questões específicas. A primeira é sobre as características essenciais das provas, e a segunda sobre a distinção entre provas atuais e provas idealizadas. (shrink)

Solovay has shown that if $\cal{O}$ is an open subset of $P(\omega)$ with code $S$ and no infinite set avoids $\cal{O}$ , then there is an infinite set hyperarithmetic in $S$ that lands in $\cal{O}$ . We provide a direct proof of this theorem that is easily formalizable in $ATR_0$.

In 1968, Orevkov presented proofs of conservativity of classical over intuitionistic and minimal predicate logic with equality for seven classes of sequents, what are known as Glivenko classes. The proofs of these results, important in the literature on the constructive content of classical theories, have remained somehow cryptic. In this paper, direct proofs for more general extensions are given for each class by exploiting the structural properties of G3 sequent calculi; for five of the seven classes (...) the results are strengthened to height-preserving statements, and it is further shown that the constructive and minimal proofs are identical in structure to the classical proof from which they are obtained. (shrink)

Proof complexity is a rich subject drawing on methods from logic, combinatorics, algebra and computer science. This self-contained book presents the basic concepts, classical results, current state of the art and possible future directions in the field. It stresses a view of proof complexity as a whole entity rather than a collection of various topics held together loosely by a few notions, and it favors more generalizable statements. Lower bounds for lengths of proofs, often regarded as the key issue (...) in proof complexity, are of course covered in detail. However, upper bounds are not neglected: this book also explores the relations between bounded arithmetic theories and proof systems and how they can be used to prove upper bounds on lengths of proofs and simulations among proof systems. It goes on to discuss topics that transcend specific proof systems, allowing for deeper understanding of the fundamental problems of the subject. (shrink)