Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:44:31.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Epistemic arithmetic is a conservative extension of intuitionistic arithmetic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Nicolas D. Goodman*
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14214

Extract

Questions about the constructive or effective character of particular arguments arise in several areas of classical mathematics, such as in the theory of recursive functions and in numerical analysis. Some philosophers have advocated Lewis's S4 as the proper logic in which to formalize such epistemic notions. (The fundamental work on this is Hintikka [4].) Recently there have been studies of mathematical theories formalized with S4 as the underlying logic so that these epistemic notions can be expressed. (See Shapiro [7], Myhill [5], and Goodman [2]. The motivation for this work is discussed in Goodman [3].) The present paper is a contribution to the study of the simplest of these theories, namely first-order arithmetic as formalized in S4. Following Shapiro, we call this theory epistemic arithmetic (EA). More specifically, we show that EA is a conservative extension of Hey ting's arithmetic HA (ordinary first-order intuitionistic arithmetic). The question of whether EA is conservative over HA was raised but left open in Shapiro [7].

The idea of our proof is as follows. We interpret EA in an infinitary propositional S4, pretty much as Tait, for example, interprets classical arithmetic in his infinitary classical propositional calculus in [8]. We then prove a cut-elimination theorem for this infinitary propositional S4. A suitable version of the cut-elimination theorem can be formalized in HA. For cut-free infinitary proofs, there is a reflection principle provable in HA. That is, we can prove in HA that if there is a cut-free proof of the interpretation of a sentence ϕ then ϕ is true. Combining these results shows that if the interpretation of ϕ is provable in EA, then ϕ is provable in HA.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1984

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

REFERENCES

[1]Gentzen, G., Beweisbarkeit und Unbeweisbarkeit von Anfangsfallen der transfiniten Induktion in der reinen Zahlentheorie, Mathematische Annalen, vol. 119 (1943), pp. 140161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Goodman, N. D., A genuinely intensional set theory (to appear).Google Scholar
[3]Goodman, N. D., The knowing mathematician (to appear).Google Scholar
[4]Hintikka, J., Knowledge and belief. An introduction to the logic of the two notions, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., 1962.Google Scholar
[5]Myhill, J., Intensional set theory (to appear).Google Scholar
[6]Schütte, K., Vollständige Systeme Modaler and Intuitionisticher Logik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Shapiro, S., Epistemic and intuitionistic arithmetic (to appear).Google Scholar
[8]Tait, W. W., Normal derivability in classical logic, The syntax and semantics of infinitary languages (Barwise, J., editor), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 72, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1968, pp. 204236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar