Proof Theory

Grundlehren der
mathematischen Wissenschaften 225

A Series of Comprehensive Studies in Mathematics
Editors
S. S. Chern J. L. Doob J. Douglas, jr.
A. Grothendieck E. Heinz F. Hirzebruch E. Hopf
S. Mac Lane W. Magnus M. M. Postnikov
W. Schmidt D. S. Scott
K. Stein J. Tits B. L. van der Waerden
Managing Editors
B. Eckmann J. K. Moser
Kurt Schutte
Proof Theory
Translation from the German

by J. N. Crossley
Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg New York 1977
Kurt Schutte
Mathematisches Institut, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat,
8000 Munchen 2/Germany
Translator:
J. N. Crossley
Department of Mathematics, Monash University, Clayton,
Victoria 3168/Australia
Translation of the revised version of "Beweistheorie",

1st edition, 1960; Grundlehren der mathematischen
Wissenschaften, Band 103
AMS Subject Classification (1970): 02B 10, 02B99, 02C 15, 02Dxx,
02E99, ION99
ISBN-13: 978-3-642-66475-5 e-ISBN-13: 978-3-642-66473-1

DOl: 10.1007/978-3-642-66473-1
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data. Schutte, KUTt. Proof theory. (Grundlehren def
mathematischen Wissenschaften; 225). Translation of Beweistheorie. Bibliography: p. Includes
index. I. Proof theory. I. Title. II. Series: Die Grundlehren dec mathematischen
Wissenschaften in Einzeldarstellungen; 225. QA9.54.S3813. 511'.3. 76-45768.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically those of translation. reprinting, re-use of illustrations,
broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machine or similar means, and storage in
data banks. Under 54 of the German Copyright Law where copies are made for other
than private use, a fee is payable to the publisher, the amount of the fee to be determined
by agreement with the publisher.
by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1977.

Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1977
2141/314()-543210
Preface
This book was originally intended to be the second edition of the book "Beweis-
theorie" (Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 103, Springer
1960), but in fact has been completely rewritten. As well as classical predicate logic
we also treat intuitionistic predicate logic. The sentential calculus properties of
classical formal and semiformal systems are treated using positive and negative
parts of formulas as in the book "Beweistheorie". In a similar way we use right
and left parts of formulas for intuitionistic predicate logic.
We introduce the theory of functionals of finite types in order to present the
Gi:idel interpretation of pure number theory. Instead of ramified type theory,
type-free logic and the associated formalization of parts of analysis which we
treated in the book "Beweistheorie", we have developed simple classical type
theory and predicative analysis in a systematic way. Finally we have given
consistency proofs for systems of lI~-analysis following the work of G. Takeuti.
In order to do this we have introduced a constni'ctive system of notation for ordinals
which goes far beyond the notation system in "Beweistheorie".
My hearty thanks are due to Professor J. N. Crossley for his translation of my
German manuscript and for his careful checking of the proof sheets. I also wish
to thank Dr. W. Pohlers and Dr. W. Buchholz for the help which they have given
me technically and also in reading the proofs. I would especially like to thank
Frau Ernst (Munich) and Ms. Vandenberg (Monash University) for their very
careful typing of the text. I wish to thank Springer-Verlag for their kindness and
help in the production of the book.
Munich, March 1977

Kurt Schutte
Table of Contents
Introduction . 1
Part A. Pure Logic 5
Chapter 1. Fundamentals 7
1. Classical Sentential Calculus . 7
1. Truth Functions 7
2. Sentential Forms . 8
3. Complete Systems of Connectives 8
4. A Formal Language for the Sentential Calculus 9
5. Positive and Negative Parts of Formulas 10
6. Syntactic Characterization of Valid Formulas 12
2. Formal Systems 13
1. Fundamentals . 13
2. Deducible Formulas 14
3. Permissible Inferences . 15
4. Sentential Properties of Formal Systems. 16
5. The Formal System CS of the Classical Sentential Calculus 17
Chapter II. Classical Predicate Calculus 19

3. The Formal System CP . 19
1. Primitive Symbols . 19
2. Inductive Definition of the Formulas 20 .
3. P-Forms and N-Forms 20
4. Positive and Negative Parts of a Formula 20
5. Axioms. 20
6. Basic Inferences 20
4. Deducible Formulas and Permissible Inferences 21
1. Generalizations of the Axioms 21
2. Weak Inferences 22
3. Further Permissible Inferences 24
4. Defined Logical Connectives. 25
VIn Table of Contents
5. Semantics of Classical Predicate Calculus 26

1. Classical Models 27
2. The Consistency Theorem. 28
3. The Completeness Theorem 28
4. The Satisfiability Theorem 32
5. Syntactic and Semantic Consequences 35
Chapter III. Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus . 36

6. Formalization of Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus. 36
1. The Formal System IPI 36
2. The Formal System IP2 38
3. Left and Right Parts of Formulas 39
4. The Formal System IP3 40
7. Deducible Formulas and Permissible Inferences in the System IP3 42
1. Generalizations of the Axioms 42
3. More Permissible Inferences . 44
4. Special Features of Intuitionistic Logic 46
5. Properties of Negation. '. 47
6. Syntactic Equivalence . 47
8. Relations between Classical and Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus 48
1. Embedding IP3 in CP . 48
2. Interpretation of CP in IP3 49
9. The Interpolation Theorem . 51
1. Interpolation Theorem for the System IP3 51
2. Interpolation Theorem for the System CP 54
3. Finitely Axiomatisable Theories 54
4. Beth's Definability Theorem . 55
Chapter IV. Classical Simple Type Theory. 56

10. The Formal System CT 56
1. The Formal Language. 56
2. Chains of Subterms 57
3. Axioms and Basic Inferences 60
5. The Cut Rule 62
11. Deduction Chains and Partial Valuations 62
1. Definition of Deduction Chains 62
2. Partial Valuations . 63
3. Principal Lemmata. 64
12. Semantics . 65
1. Total Valuations over a System of Sets 65
2. Soundness Theorem 66
Table of Contents IX
3. Extending a Partial Valuation 67

4. Completeness Theorem and Cut Rule 69
Part B. Systems of Arithmetic 71
Chapter V. Ordinal Numbers and Ordinal Terms. 73

13. Theory of Ordinals of the 1st and 2nd Number Classes 73
1. Order Types of Well-Ordered Sets 73
2. Axiomatic Characterization of the 1st and 2nd Number Classes 74
3. Zero, Successor and Limit Numbers and Supremum 75
4. Ordering Functions 76
5. Addition of Ordinals . 79
6. a-Critical Ordinals . 81
7. Maximal a-Critical Ordinals 84
14. A Notation System for the Ordinals <To 86
1. Definition of Ordinal Terms . 86
2. The Ordering of the Ordinal Terms 88
3. Addition of Ordinal Terms 89
4. Ordinal Terms cPaf3. 90
5. Ordinal Terms wa, wan and wa.f3 . 92
6. Ordinal Terms nf3, 2a and 2a .f3 94
7. Ordinal Terms Ca' wn(a) and (n 95
8. A Mapping onto the Natural Numbers 96
Chapter VI. Functionals of Finite Type 98

15. The System of Terms of Finite Type. 98
1. Types 98
2. Terms 98
3. Interpretation 99
4. Reduction Procedure for Terms 100
5. Characterization of Numerals 101
6. Substitution Properties 101
7. The Normal Form of a Term . 104
16. Orders of Terms 105
1. Natural Sum and Natural Product of Ordinal Terms 105
2. Assigning Ordinal Terms to Terms 106
3. Estimates of the Order of Terms . 108
4. Equality of Terms . 112
17. The Formal System FT of Functionals of Finite Type. 113
2. Deduction Procedures . 114
3. The Consistency of the System FT 115
4. Fundamental Deduction Rules 117
x Table of Contents
5. Addition and Multiplication . 120

6. The Indentity Functional I, and A-Abstraction . 121
7. The Predecessor Functional and the Arithmetic Difference 122
8. The Recursor . 124
9. Simultaneous Recursion . 126
10. The Characteristic Term of a Basic Formula 129
Chapter VII. Pure Number Theory. 134

18. The Formal System PN for Pure Number Theory. 134
2. The Deduction Procedure. 135
3. Basic Properties of Deducibility 136
4. Properties of Negation. 138
5. Positive and Negative Parts of Formulas 142
6. The Consistency of the System PN . 147
19. Interpretation of PN in FT . 148
1. Sequences of Terms of the System FT 148
2. The Formal System QFT . 149
3. Interpreting Formulas. 155
4. Interpretations of the Axioms of the System PN 157
5. Interpretations of the Basic Inferences in the System PN 158
Part C. Subsystems of Analysis . 165
Chapter VIII. Predicative Analysis. 167

20. Systems of Ll~-Analysis 167
1. The Formal Language of Second Order Arithmetic 167
2. The Formal System DA . 170
3. Deducible Formulas and Permissible Inference of the System DA 171
4. The Semi-Formal System DA* 174
5. Embedding DA in DA* 175
6. General Properties of Deduction in the System DA* 176
7. Subsystems ofDA and DA* . 176
21. Deductions of Transfinite Induction. 177
1. Formalisation of Transfinite Induction 177
2. Deductions in EN . 179
3. Deductions in EN*. 181
4. Deductions in EA and EA* 182
5. The Formula ~ [P, Q, t] 184
6. Deductions in DA . 188
7. Deductions in DA* 192
22. The Semi-Formal System RA* for Ramified Analysis. 197
Table of Contents Xl
2. The Deduction Procedures 200

4. Elimination of Cuts 201
5. Further Properties of Deductions 204
6. Interpretations of EA * and DA * in RA * 207
23. The Limits of the Deducibility of Transfinite Induction 209
1. Orders of Deductions of Induction in RA * . 209
2. The Limiting Numbers of the Systems EN, EA and DA 211
3. The Autonomous Ordinal Terms of the Systems EN*, EA* and
DA* . 213
4. The Autonomous Ordinal Terms of the System RA * 217
5. The Limits of Predicativity 220
Chapter IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of 1I~-Analysis 221

24. Normal Functions on a Segment 0* of the Ordinals 221
1. Axiomatic Characterization of the Segment 0* of the Ordinals 221
2. Basic Properties of 0* . 222
3. Definition of the Functions (Jrx 224
4. Properties of the (J Functions . 225
5. The Sets In(a) and Functions {}rx 230
25. A Notation System for Ordinals Based on the (Jrx Functions 234
1. The Set {}(Q) of Ordinals . 234
2. Sets of Coefficients . 234
3. The Systems T* and OT* of Terms 236
4. Subsystems {}(r) of {}(Q) 238
5. The Ordinal Ao . 239
6. Relations between Cr (a) and In (a) 240
26. Level-Lowering Functions of the Ordinals. 241
1. Basic Concepts . 242
2. Properties of the Sets of Coefficients . 242
3. The Ordinal Term dia 245
4. The Natural Sum . 248
5. Deduction Functions 248
27. The Formal System GPA for a Generalized 1I~-Analysis . 252
2. Axioms, Basic Inference and Substitution Inferences 253
3. Deductions. 255
4. Orders of Normal Deductions 257
5. Transformations of Normal Deductions. 258
6. Reducible Normal Deductions 259
7. Singular Normal Deductions. 261
8. Reduction of a Suitable Cut . 262
9. The Consistency of the System GPA. 268
10. The Subsystem PA of GPA . 268
xu Table of Contents
28. The Semi-Formal System PA* 269

I. Axioms and Basic Inferences of the System PA * 269
2. The Strength of a Formula 270
3. Basic Deductions in the System PA*. 271
4. Embedding ofPA in PA* . 272
5. Elimination of Strong Cuts in PA * . 273
6. Normal Deductions in the System PA* 275
7. Reducible Normal Deductions 277
8. Elimination of Cuts in PA* 278
29. Proof of Well-Ordering . 281

I. A Constructive Proof of Well-Ordering for Subsystems of B(Q) 281
2. The Formal System IDn of n-Fold Iterated Inductive Definitions. 285
3. Formalization of the Proof of Well-Ordering of B(N) in IDN 287
4. Embedding IDn in a Subsystem of PA .. 289
Bibliography . 293
Subject Index . 297

Introduction
In mathematics, dealing with infinite number systems and other infinite sets brings
a fundamental problem with it. For example consider the two statements:
I. Every even number greater than 2 can be represented as the sum of two
primes.
II. There is an even number which is greater than 2 but cannot be represented
as the sum of two primes.
According to classical logic the second statement is the contradictory of state-
ment I. So far neither of these two statements can be proved. We cannot prove
statement I by testing its validity for all even numbers since there are infinitely many
such numbers. In order to prove statement I we must rather solve the following
problem:
(I) To give a general procedure which assigns to each even number g > 2 two
primes peg) and q(g) such that the equation
g = peg) + q(q)
is satisfied for all g > 2.

If one does not succeed in solving this problem then one must attempt to prove
the opposite statement, II. Then one is dealing with an existential statement. If one
takes the existential question seriously then in order to prove statement II one must
solve the following problem:
(II) To give an even number go> 2 which one can recognize as not being repre-
sentable as the sum of two prime numbers.
We now ask whether either of the two statements I and II is fundamentally
correct. Now the correctness of a mathematical statement can only be determined
by a proof. There is no sense in accepting a mathematical truth which is not possibly
provable. So we can only ask whether one of statements I and II is provable in
principle. If one says this question is solvable in the affirmative then one must be
certain that one of problems (I) or (II) really is solvable. But such certainty is not
attainable. In fact one cannot even deduce from the assumption that problem (I)
is unsolvable that a number go, which satisfies problem II, can actually be shown to
exist. Neither can one deduce, from the assumption that problem (II) is unsolvable,
that there is a general procedure for solving problem (I).
2 Introduction
We therefore have no grounds for assuming that one of the two statements I
and II is correct. The assumption would only be justified if a proof of I or II were
given. But then the general situation regarding the provability of mathematical
propositions would not be altered since there are always other cases where the
question Of provability of a statement or its contradictory remains open. Therefore
there is no immediate sense in saying that the principle of Tertium non datur, which
says that either a proposition or its logical contradictory is correct, be accepted as
satisfactory for mathematical propositions.
This brief critique of Tertium non datur leads us to the basic problem of proof
theory. We start from the premise that in mathematics Tertium non datur is not
meaningful as a general basic principle. But if one gives up this principle as a
method of proof then one loses the right to indirect proof procedures such as one
cannot do without in classical mathematics. In order to guarantee the correctness
of classical mathematics in a logically unobjectionable way there only remains the
possibility of basing mathematical statements not on provability as such hut on
formal deducibility. This deducibility which may be regarded as a notional
provability must be given axiomatically so that it is sufficient for the basic theorems
of classical mathematics. In this way one does not need to interpret the concept of
deducibility in a meaningful way, but only to establish its formal admissibility by
means of a consistency proof. This is in fact Hilbert's programme: to establish the
consistency of mathematics in its classical form.
Hilbert called the theory which solves this problem proof theory (Beweis-
theorie). The object of a proof-theoretic investigation is a mathematical theory
which is precisely determined not only by its mathematical notions and axioms but
also by the basic logical concepts and modes of inference which it allows. Now one
must distinguish clearly between the laws of the theory which are to be investigated
and those of the theory in which the investigation is to be carried out. The notions
and theorems of the theory under investigation are represented in a formal system
and treated purely formally without reference to their meaning, while the proof-
theoretic investigation is concerned with the logical meaning of the notions and
inference modes. Thus the formal theory is complemented by a meaningful meta-
theory (proof theory). This metatheory is also called "metalogic" or "meta-
mathematicl'. This does not mean that one is extending the usual logic or mathe-
matics, as/ts the case with metaphysics and physics. Here it only delineates the
distinction between formalized mathematics and the logic in which the investigation
is carried out.
If proof theory is to provide a foundation for a problematic area of mathe-
matics then its own methods and notions and modes of inference must be restricted
to those which lie outside this problematic area. The methods which Hilbert called
"finitist" (fin it) do lie outside. These consist of just elementary logical and
mathematical relations of a combinatorial nature which are used as bases for all
theoretical investigations and are generally acknowledged as admissible. In a
finitist proof Tertium non datur may not be used for propositions concerning in-
finite totalities and existential propositions are only to be treated as valid if the
object whose existence is asserted can in fact be constructed.
But GOOel's investigations [1] have shown that the strictest finitist methods are
Introduction 3
basically inadequate for carrying out the consistency proof required by Hilbert's
programme. So proof theory needs not only the very strict finitist methods of a
combinatorial nature but also higher level proof procedures. Thus we arrive at
methods, first used by Gentzen [2], using induction which in fact goes beyond the
usual complete (mathematical) induction but still has a constructive character.
In this book we give a systematic presentation of the most important results
which have so far been achieved in the pursuit of Hilbert's programme. The main
emphasis is on consistency proofs but other investigations, which are closely re-
lated in terms of methodology, are also carried out. We use inductive methods for
the consistency proofs but do not admit Tertium non datur as a proof procedure.
We need to forgo the constructive standpoint and use classical mathematics as a
foundation despite its problems only for the semantic treatment of classical predi-
cate calculus (5) and classical simple type theory (12). Likewise we first con-
sider the necessary systems of ordinals (in 13 and 24) from the standpoint of
classical mathematics but then (in 14, 25 and 26) we define these and treat them
constructively.
As in the first edition of this book we use the notions of "positive and negative
parts" as a basis for formalization in the realm of classical logic. These are a sort of
generalization of the notions of "succedent and antecedent formulas" of Gentzen's
sequence calculus (Sequenzenkalkul). In intuitionistic logic we use instead the
weaker notions of "left and right parts of a formula".
In Chapter I we collect together the general basic syntactic notions which are
n<teded in the book and used for the formalization of classical propositional
calculus.
Chapter II treats the constructive syntax (3, 4) and the non-constructive
semantics (5) of classical predicate calculus. Intuitionistic predicate calculus is
developed in Chapter III but only syntactically (constructively) and related to
classical predicate calculus. The Interpolation Theorem proved here (9) also
yields the corresponding theorem for classical predicate calculus.
In Chapter IV we first assemble the basic syntactic properties for classical
simple type theory in IO and then introduce partial valuations in 11 which
are used to carry out the non-constructive proof, following M. Takahashi [I]
and D. Prawitz [1], of Takeuti's Fundamental Conjecture (Eliminability of
Cuts).
In Chapter V we introduce a notation system for a segment of the ordinals
which is used later for the treatment of pure number theory (Chapter VI) and
predicative analysis (Chapter VIII). This system of notations is defined in 13 in
terms of an ordinary non-constructive approach in the classical theory of ordinal
numbers and then defined as a constructive system of ordinal terms in 14. In this
section too we constructively prove the necessary properties of functions on
ordinal terms of this system (which are needed later) in an elementary way.
In Chapters VI and VII we develop the Godel interpretation of pure number
theory in a system offunctionals of finite type. Following W. Howard we prove (in
16) by transfinite induction up to 60 that the functionals introduced in 15 are
calculable. In 17 we introduce a formal system FT for these functionals in the
context of the positive implicational calculus. To this end Chapter VII treats, in
4 Introduction
18, an obvious formal system of pure number theory, and in 19 we carry out the
interpretation of this system in the .system FT.
In Chapter VIII we are concerned with the predicative limits of analysis and
first we develop a formal and a semi-formal system of Ll~-analysis whose
languages are that of classical second order arithmetic and which have restricted
comprehension axioms as opposed to classical mathematics. In 21 we give de-
ductions of formalized transfinite induction in the spirit of S. Feferman in these
systems and in subsystems of Ll ~-analysis. In 22 we introduce a semi-formal system
for ramified analysis in which the system of Ll~-analysis can be interpreted. This
yields the limits for the deducibility of transfinite induction for the formal and semi-
formal systems considered and demonstrates the predicativity of these systems.
In Chapter IX we prove the consistency of a formal system of lIt-analysis
following a proof ofG. Takeuti [4]. For this we need a transfinite induction which
goes far beyond those previously introduced. Here we do not use the ordinal dia-
grams of Takeuti but a system of notations for ordinal terms based on normal
functions ()~ defined and studied by S. Feferman, P. Aczel and J. Bridge and con-
structively characterized by W. Buchholz. Using these functions ()~ which are
introduced in 24 in the context of the classical theory of ordinals, we build a con-
structive system of notations in 25. The necessary properties of this system of
notations which are needed for the consistency proof are developed in 25 and 26.
27 gives the consistency proof for the formal system of lIt-analysis and essentially
this corresponds to the proof of Take uti but in a somewhat different way. Similarly
we give a consistency prooffor a semi-formal system of lIt-analysis in 28, but this
is done using a weaker transfinite induction than in 27. Finally we give construc-
tive proofs of well-ordering for the systems of ordinals which we have used and their
subsystems in 29.
Part A
Pure Logic
Chapter I
Fundamentals
In mathematical logic sentences are represented by formulas. Those investigations

which only depend on the formal structure of logical formulas and fixed formal
rules of deduction are said to be syntactic. On the other hand those which depend
on model-theoretic interpretations are said to be semantic. Syntactic investigations,
which feature predominantly in proof theory, are usually carried out construc-
tively whilst the semantic ones can only be carried out with constructive concepts
and proof procedures in the simplest part of logic, that is, in the sentential (or
propositional) calculus.
In I we start with a semantic characterization of classical sentential calculus
and then develop an adequate syntax for it. In 2 we present the basic syntactic
concepts which will be used in the subsequent chapters.
1. CJassical Sentential Calculus
1. Truth Functions
Truth values are denoted by t (true) andf(false). An n-place truth function is an

assignment of one truth value (t or f) to each n-tuple of truth values. Classical
sentential calculus can be presented semantically as the theory of these truth
functions.
As there are exactly 2" distinct n-tuples of truth values and each n-place truth
function assigns just one of two possible values to each n-tuple there are exactly
2(2") distinct n-place truth functions.
We use the following connectives as symbols for truth functions. T (verum) and
.l. (falsum) denote the O-place truth functions with values T = t and .l. = f
The connective. (negation) denotes the one-place truth function with values
.(t)=fand '(f)=t.
The connectives v (disjunction), 1\ (conjunction) and - (implication) denote
the 2-place truth functions with values as follows:
vet, t)= v (t,f)= v (I, t)=t, v(f,f)=f,

I\(t, t)=t, I\(t,f)= 1\(1, t)= I\(f,f) =1,
-(t, t) =-(1, t) =-(f,f) = t, -(t,f) =f
8 I. Fundamentals
In the same way we could define arbitrarily many other connectives. But they
will not be used in the sequel.
2. Sentential Forms
Using connectives and sentential variables, which we denote by v, VI' V 2 , , we

construct sententialforms according to the following inductive definition:
SF!. Every sentential variable is a sentential form.
SF2. Every O-place connective is a sentential form.
SF3. If is an n-place connective (n ~ I) and A I, ... , An are sentential forms
then (A 1> , An) is also a sentential form.
Such an inductive definition, like the ones we use constantly in the sequel, is to
be interpreted as follows: a string of symbols has the inductively defined property
if, and only if, it can be obtained by a finite number of applications of the defining
rules.
Example. -( /\ (VI' v 2), v (1.., ,(VI) is a sentential form since the defining rules
SFI-SF3 yield the following sentential forms:
I. VI and V 2 by SFI,
2. 1.. by SF2,
3. ,(vd by SF3 from I,
4. /\ (VI' v2 ) by SF3 from I,
5. v(1.., ,(VI by SF3 from 2 and 3,
6. -( /\ (VI' v2 ), v (1.., ,(VI) by SF3 from 4 and 5.
The semantics of the sentential calculus are determined by sentential valua-
tions. Such a valuation is an assignment V of a truth value Vv to each sentential
variable v.
For a given valuation Vevery sentential form A gets a truth value VA according
to the following inductive definition.
V I. A sentential form which is a sentential variable valone gets the truth value
Vv given by the valuation V.
V2. VT=t, V1..=!
V3. If is an n-place connective (n~ I) and AI' ... , An are sentential forms,
then V(A I, ... , An) is the truth value which the truth function represented by
assigns to the n-tuple of truth values (VA I, ... , VAn).
Example. For a valuation V where VV I =f and VV2 =t we have V - (/\ (VI' v 2),
v (1.., ,(VI))) =-( /\ (f, t), v (f, ,(f)) =-(f, v (f, t =-(f, t) = t.
:Two sentential forms A and B are said to be semantically equivalent if VA = VB
for every sentential valuation V.
3. Complete Systems of Connectives
A set M of connectives is said to be a complete system of connectives if to every

1. Classical Sentential Calculus 9
sentential form A there is a semantically equivalent sentential form Ball of whose

connectives are in M.
Theorem 1.1. The connectives --', /\ and v form a complete system of connectives.
Proof Let A be an arbitrary sentential form. We prove by induction on the number

of sentential variables in A that there is a sentential form B, semantically equivalent
to A, in which the only connectives are --', /\ and v .
I. A contains no sentential variables. Then A has the same truth value VA for
every valuation V. If VA = t, then A is semantically equivalent to the sentential
form v (v, --, (v. If VA =f, then A is semantically equivalent to the sentential form
/\ (v, --, (v.
2. A contains the sentential variables VI' , Vn (n~I). Let Al (respectively,
. A 2 ) be the sentential form obtained from A by replacing Vn by T (respectively, 1-).
By the induction hypothesis there are sentential forms B 1 , B2 semanticallyequi-
valent to AI' A2 in which the only connectives are --', /\ and v. But then A is
semantically equivalent to the sentential form v (/\ (BI' vn ), /\ (B2' --, (v n ))).
Corollary 1.2. The connectives --, and v form a complete system of connectives.
Proof Immediate from Theorem 1.1 since every sentential form /\ (A, B) is
semantically equivalent to the sentential form --, (v (--, (A), --, (B).
Corollary 1.3. The connectives --, and -4 form a complete system of connectives.
Proof Immediate from corollary 1.2 since every sentential form v (A, B) is
semantically equivalent to the sentential form -4(--' (A), B).
Corollary 1.4. The connectives 1- and -4 form a complete system of connectives.
Proof Immediate from Corollary 1.3 since every sentential form --, (A) is seman-
tically equivalent to the sentential form -4(A, 1-).
There are many other complete systems of connectives but we shall not go into
them as we shall not use them in the sequel.
4. A Formal Language for the Sentential Calculus
In formalizing classical sentential calculus we need only consider connectives from

a complete system of connectives since semantically equivalent sentential forms
have the same logical interpretation. We now define a formal language with con-
nectives 1-, --', /\, v and -4. These connectives certainly form a complete system
but of course they do not form a minimal complete system of connectives.
We assume we are given a countably infinite set of symbols which we call
sentential variables. In fact we shall never need to consider these symbols them-
selves. We shall only use syntactic symbols v, VI' V2,'" for the given symbols for
10 I. Fundamentals
sentential variables. Theformulas of our formal language are given by the following
inductive definition.
Fl. Every sentential variable is aformula.
F2. 1.. is aformula.
F3. If A is a formula then IA is aformula.
F4. If A and B are formulas then (A 1\ B), (A v B) and (A - B) are also
formulas.
Formulas may be identified with particular sentential forms where IA stands
for I (A) and the 2-place connectives are placed between rather than in front of
their arguments following ordinary usage. The formulas 1.., lA, (A 1\ B), (A v B)
and (A _ B) are to be read "falsum", "not A", "A and B", "A or B" and "A
implies B".
For any valuation V every formula gets a truth value as defined for sentential
forms. Accordingly we have here the following particular defining rules for V2 and
V3 (from page 8):
V2. V 1..=f,
V3.1. If VA = t (respectively, VA = f), then V,A =f(respectively, V,A = t).
V3.2. If VA = t and VB= t, then V(A 1\ B) = t. Otherwise V(A 1\ B) = f
V3.3. If VA = tor VB= t, then V(A v B) = t. Otherwise V(A v B) = f
V3.4. If VA=for VB=t, then V(A- B)=t. Otherwise V(A-B)=f
A formula A is said to be valid if VA = t for every sentential valuation V.
Given a formula A we can decide, in an elementary way, whether it is valid or
whether there is a valuation under which it gets the value f Indeed there are only
finitely many possible combinations of truth values for the sentential variables
occurring in A and in order to decide whether A is valid we only have to compute
VA for these.
Our aim now is to characterize the valid formulas just by their structure and
without considering valuations and then to employ such a syntactic charac-
terization again for stronger logical systems where the semantics cannot be ex-
pressed in as elementary and constructive a way as they can for classical sentential
calculus.
5. Positive and Negative Parts of Formulas
A formula A which is part of a formula Fmay have the property that the truth value
VFis already determined by the truth value VA. We shall call A apositive(negative)
part of Fif VA =t (VA =f) implies VF=t.
Examples. A is a positive part of the formulas I lA, (A v B) and (B - A) and a

negative part of the formulas lA, I(B I\A), (A - B).
We establish a connection between the semantics and syntax of classical sen-
tential calculus by using the notions of "positive" and "negative parts". We define
these notions purely syntactically and without reference to valuations and then
prove they have the intended semantic properties.
We use certain nominal forms in order to give the syntactic definition of
1. Classical Sentential Calculus 11
positive and negative parts. By an n-place simple nominalform (n~ 1) we mean a

finite string of symbols in which besides the primitive symbols of our formal
language (sentential variables, connectives and round brackets) the nominal
symbols *1' ... , *n occur just once. If $ is an n-place simple nominal form (n~ 1)
and r 1 , , rn are non-empty finite strings of symbols then $[rl' ... , rn] denotes the
result of replacing the nominal symbols *1' ... , *n in $ by r 1 , . , r n , respectively.
P-forms (positive forms) and N-forms (negative forms) are inductively defined
as I-place simple nominal forms as follows:
PNFI. *1 is a P-form.
PNF2. If 9 is a P-form and B is a formula, then 9[( *1 vB)], 9[(B v *1)] and
9[(B --4 * 1)] are P-forms and 9[, * 1] and 9[( * 1 --4 B)] are N-forms.
PNF3. If % is an N-form and B is a formula, then %['*1] and %[(*1 --4..L)]
are P-forms and %[(*1 A B)] and %[(B A *1)] are N-forms.
We have the following consequences of this inductive definition:
PNF4. No P-form is an N-form.
PNF5. If 9 is a P-form and $ is a P-form (N-form), then 9[$] is a P-form
(N-form).
PNF6. If $ is a P-form or an N-form and A is a formula, then $[A] is also a
formula.
Definition. A formula A is said to be a positive (negative) part of a formula F, if

there is a P-form (N-form) $ such that $[A] is the formula F.
The rules PNFI-PNF3 yield the following inductive characterization of the
positive and negative parts of a formula F.
PNI. Fis a positive part of F.
PN2. If, A is a positive (negative) part of Fthen A is a negative (positive) part
of F.
PN3. If(A v B) is a positive part of F, then A and Bare both positive parts of F.
PN4. If(A A B) is a negative part of F, then A and Bare both negative parts of F.
PN5. If (A --4 B) is a positive part of F, then A is a negative part and B is a
positive part of F.
PN 6. If (A --4 ..L) is a negative part of F, then A is a positive part of F.
Example. If Fis the formula ,(,(Vi --4 V2) A (V2 v ..L)) then we getthepositive and
negative parts of F as follows:
1. By PNI Fis a positive part of F.
2. By 1 and PN2 (, (Vi --4 V2) A (V2 v .1.)) is a negative part of F.
3. By 2 and PN4 ,(Vi --4 V2) and (V2 v.1.) are negative parts of F.
4. By 3 and PN2 (Vi --4 V2) is a positive part of F.
5. By 4 and PN5 Vi is a negative and V2 a positive part of F.
These are all the positive and negative parts of F.
By an NP-form we mean a 2-place simple nominal form f2 such that for every
formula B f2[ *1' B] is an N-form and f2[B, *1] is a P-form.
Examples. (*1--4*2), ('(*lAV)V(VV*2)) and *2--4..L)--4(*l--4V are NP-

forms.
12 I. Fundamentals
Convention. From now on &, &i will always denote P-forms, %; %i N-forms and
!2, !2i NP-forms.
In the next few theorems we establish the semantic properties of positive and
negative parts.
Theorem 1.5. If tff is a P-form (N-form) and Va sentential valuation with VA = t

(VA=f), then Vtff[A]=t.
Proofby induction on the length of tff.

1. tffis the P-form *1' Then tff[A] is the formula A so by hypothesis Vtff[A]=t.
2. tff is a P-form &[( *1 V B)], &[(B v * 1)] or &[(B - *1)]. Now VA = t implies
V(A v B) = V(B v A) = V(B - A) = t. By I.H. (induction hypothesis) we have
Vtff[A] = t.
3. tff is an N-form &[-'*1] or &[(*1 - B)]. Now VA=fimplies V-,A=
V(A - B) = t. By I.H. we have Vtff[A] = t.
4. tff is a P-form %[-'*1] or %[(*1-1.)]. Now VA=t implies V-,A=
V(A - 1.) =! By I.H. we have V tff[A] = t.
5. tff is an N-form % [(*1 /\ B)] or % [(B /\ *dJ. Now VA = f implies
V(A /\ B) = V(B /\ A) =! By I.H. we have Vtff[A] = t.
By the definition of P-form and N-form all the cases have been treated.
Definition. A positive part is said to be minimal if it is not of the form -, A, (A v B)

or (A - B). A negative part is said to be minimal if it is not oftheform -,A, (A /\ B)
or (A- 1.).
Theorem 1.6. If, under a sentential valuation V, every minimal positive part of a
formula F takes the value f and every minimal ne.gative part of F takes the value t,
then every positive part of F takes the value f and every negative part of F takes the
value t. (In particular, VF= f, since F is a positive part of F.)
Proofby induction on the length of the positive (or negative) part C of the formula
F. By hypothesis we need only treat the following cases which are those where Cis
not a minimal positive or negative part.
1. C is a positive (negative) part -, A. Then A is a negative (positive) part of F.
By I.H. VA=t (VA=f) hence VC=f(VC=t).
2. C is a positive part (A v B) (negative part (A /\ B. Then A and B are posi-
tive (negative) parts of F. By I.H. VA=B=f(VA= VB=t), hence VC=f(VC=t).
3. C is a positive part (A - B). Then A is a negative and B a positive part of F.
By I.H. VA=t and VB=f, hence VC=!
4. C is a negative part (A - 1.). Then A is a positive part of F. By I.H. VA = f,
hence VC=t.
6. Syntactic Characterization of Valid Formulas
A formula is said to be reducible if it is of the form &[(A /\ B)], %[(A v B)] or

%[(A ~ B)] where, in the last case, B is not the formula ..1. Otherwise it is said to
be irreducible.
Theorem 1.7. An irreducible formula is valid if, and only if, it is oftheform oP[v, v]
or %[1..] (that is, if it contains a sentential variable v both as a positive and as a
negative part or has 1.. as a ne.qative part).
Proof 1. Let V be an arbitrary sentential valuation. If Vv = t, then by Theorem

1.5 VoP[v,v]=t, since v occurs as a positive part in oP[v,v]. If Vv=J, then by
Theorem 1.5 VoP[v, v] = t, since v occurs as a negative part in oP[v, v]. In either case,
therefore, VoP[v, v]=t. By Theorem 1.5 V%[1..]=t, since V1..=! Hence oP[v, v]
and %[ 1..] are valid formulas.
2. Let Fbe an irreducible formula which is not of the form oP[v, v] or %[1..].
We have to prove that Fis not valid. Since Fis irreducible every minimal positive
part and every minimal negative part of F is either a sentential variable or the
formula 1... Since F is not of the form %[ 1..] every minimal negative part of F is a
sentential variable. Since Fis not ofthe form oP[v, v] no sentential variable occurs
both as a positive and as a negative part of F. Let V be the valuation such that
Vv = t if, and only if, the sentential variable v occurs as a negative part of F. Under
this valuation Vevery minimal positive part of Ftakes the valuef and every minimal
negative parttakes the value t. By Theorem 1.6 we have VF=! Hence Fis not valid.
Theorem 1.8. The following hold for reducible formulas:

(1) &I[A 1\ B)] is valid if, and only if, &I[A] and &I[B] are valid.
(2) %[(A v B)] is valid if, and only if, %[A] and %[B] are valid.
(3) JV[(A ~ B)] is valid if, and only if, %[(A ~ 1..)] and %[B] are valid.
Proof of (I). I. Under a valuation Veither V(A 1\ B) = V A or V(A 1\ B) = VB, so

V&I[(A 1\ B)] = V&I[A] or V&I[(A 1\ B)] = V&I[B]. Consequently, if &I[A] and
&I[B] are valid, then &I[(A 1\ B)] is also valid.
2. Suppose &I[A] is not valid. Then there is a valuation V such that V&I[A] =!
By Theorem 1.5 we have VA=! But then V(AI\B)=! Hence V&I[(AI\B)]=
V&I[A] =! Therefore &I[(A 1\ B)] is not valid. Similarly, if &I[B] is not valid then
&I[(A 1\ B)] is not valid.
The proof of (2) proceeds as for (1).
(3) follows from (2) since %[(A ~ B)] is semantically equivalent to
%[( --, A v B)] and %[ ~ A] is semantically equivalent to %[(A ~ 1..)].
2. Formal Systems
1. Fundamentals
The formal systems we are going to deal with are defined syntactically in four steps.
1: 1. Certain symbols (in general denumerably infinitely many) are introduced
as primitive symbols.
14 I. Fundamentals
~2. Certain finite strings of primitive symbols are selected as formulas by an

inductive definition.
~3. Formulas of a particular sort (in general determined by formula schemata)
are defined to be axioms.
~4. Certain configurations of the form
A 1 ,,A n I-B
where A 1 , .. , An' B are formulas and in general n= I or n=2, are defined to be
basic inferences. A formula on the left of the symbol I- is said to be a premise of the
given basic inference. The formula on the right of the symbol I- is said to be the
conclusion of the given basic inference.
Re ~l. We shall not in fact specify explicitly what all the primitive symbols are
to be. We shall merely assume that the several primitive symbols are identifiable as
such and that primitive symbols of different kinds are different from one another.
(For example, a primitive symbol introduced as a connective shall not ~imul
taneously be used as a propositional variable which is a primitive symbol.) In
talking about primitive symbols we shall sometimes use the primitive symbols
themselves (for example, connectives or round brackets) and sometimes use
syntactic symbols (for example, v, V 1 , V 2 , ... for the propositional variables which
are primitive symbols).
Re ~2. Often, as well as formulas some further kinds of finite strings of
primitive symbols are inductively defined. These are the terms and expressions. In
order to define and characterise formulas we frequently use nominal forms.
By an n-place nominal form (n ~ 1) in a formal system ~ we mean a non-empty
finite string of symbols which contains, in addition to the primitive symbols of the
formal system~, at most the nominal symbols *1' ... , *n. These nominal symbols
are to be distinct from the primitive symbols of the formal system. In an n-place
nominal form the nominal symbols *1' ... , *n may occur in one or more places but
need not occur at all. We shall always denote nominal forms by script letters.
If d is an n-place nominal form (n ~ 1) and r 1, ... , rn are non-empty finite
strings of symbols, then d[r1' ... , rn] denotes the string of symbols which results
from the nominal form d when the nominal symbols *1' ... , *n are replaced at all
occurrences in d by r1> ... , r n , respectively.
We have already defined some nominal forms, in 1 as P-forms, N-forms and
NP-forms.
2. Deducible Formulas
Deducibility of formulas in a formal system is determined by the axioms and basic

inferences according to the following inductive definition.
Dl. Every axiom is deducible.
D2. If every premise of a basic inference is deducible, then the conclusion of
the inference is deducible.
A proof (demonstration) of the deducibility of a formula F (according to D I
and D2) is said to be a deduction of F.
Sometimes we need to specify the deducibility of a formula more closely so to

the formula we assign a natural number, which serves as the order, by the following
inductive definition:
DO 1. Every axiom is deducible with order O.
DO 2. If the premises A 1 , , An (n~ 1) ofa basic inference are deducible with
orders m l , .. , m n , respectively, then the conclusion of the inference is deducible
with order max (m 1 , , m n ) + 1.
A formula may be deducible with many different orders. However, given that a
formula is deducible we may always assume that it is deducible with some fixed
order.
We write I-F to indicate that the formula F is deducible.
We prove theorems about deducible formulas by induction on the deduction.
This induction goes as follows.
First we prove that the theorem to be proved holds for every axiom. The second
step is to prove the theorem holds for every conclusion of a basic inference under
the induction hypothesis that the theorem holds for every premise ofthe given basic
inference. When both these steps have been completed then it follows from the
above inductive definition of deducibility that the theorem has been completely
proved.
A formal system is said to be consistent if not every formula of the system is
deducible. Consistency is the least condition one can place on a formal system if
deducibility is to be meaningful since otherwise being deducible adds nothing to
tqe notion of formula.
3. Permissible Inferences
A configuration
A 1 , . ,An I-B
where A 1, . , An and B are formulas (n ~ 1) is said to be a permissible inference if the

following holds: if A l, ... , An are deducible then B is also deducible.
In particular every basic inference is a permissible inference. In the formal
systems we treat in the sequel we consider many more inferences which, though not
defined to be basic inferences, will be shown to be permissible. These ,will be used to
establish completeness of the notion of deducibility.
A weak inference is a permissible inference A I- B such that: if the formula A is
deducible with order m, then the formula B is deducible with order ~m.
An inference
may be permissible for several different reasons.

It may happen that B is deducible from the formulas A l , ... , An by using the
axioms and further basic inferences. In this case we say that the given inference is
16 I. Fundamentals
directly derivable. Clearly a directly derivable inference remains permissible if we

extend the notion of deducibility by adding axioms or basic inferences to the formal
system.
But it may also happen that the inference can only be proved permissible by
referring to the assumed deductions of the formulae A 1 , , An. Such an inference,
which is not directly derivable, may cease to be permissible if deducibility in the
formal system is extended. In what follows we shall principally be concerned with
permissible inferences of this second kind.
Example. Let the formulas of a formal system L be those of the sentential calculus
defined in 1.4. Let the only axioms of the system L be those formulas of the form
(A viA).
Let the only basic inferences of the system L be those inferences of the forms
A ~ (A v B) and B~ (A v B).
Obviously
B~((AvB)vC)
is a directly derivable inference of the system L since one can deduce (A v B) from
B by a basic inference and then deduce ((A v B) v C) from (A v B).
Every inference of the form
(A v A)~A
is permissible in L since a formula (A v A) can only be deduced from the basic

inference A ~ (A v A). So the formula (A v A) is only deducible if the formula A is
deducible. Now if we extend the system L by adding all axioms of the form (A v A),
then it is no longer the case that every inference (A v A) ~ A is permissible since
then, for example, the formula (..1 v ..i) is deducible while the formula ..1 is not
deducible in the extended system. Thus the inference (A v A) ~ A is permissible in
L but not directly derivable.
4. Sentential Properties of Formal Systems
A formal system is said to be sententially closed (s-closed for short) if among its
primitive symbols it contains the connectives from a complete set of connectives
which are used for joining formulae as in the sentential calculus. All sentential
connectives can be defined in such a formal system because of the completeness of
the underlying system of connectives.
A formula in a formal system is said to be s-valid if it is obtained by substituting
formulas of the formal system for the sentential variables in a valid formula A of the
classical sentential calculus where every senteniial variable which occurs in more
than one place in A is always replaced by the same formula of the formal system.
Example. If~ is a formal systemcontaining~ as a primitive symbol and (A ~ A)

is a formula of the system ~, then this formula is s-valid.
A formal system is said to be s-complete if it is s-closed and every s-valid
formula of the system is deducible in the system.
Note that the notions of s-closure, s-validity and s-completeness defined above
refer to the classical sentential calculus and not to the intuitionistic sentential
calculus which forms a part of the intuitionistic predicate calculus we treat in
chapter III.
A formal system in which every formula A has a negation -, A defined is said
to be s-consistent if there is no formula A such that A and -, A are both deducible in
the system. Every s-consistent system is obviously consistent. In many formal
systems the converse is easily established, that consistency implies s-consistency.
We shall only deal with formal systems which are s-consistent.
5. The Formal System CS of the Classical Sentential Calculus
Primitive symbols of the system CS: Denumerably infinitely many sentential

variables, the conneCtives 1.., -', A, v, ~ and round brackets.
Theformulas of the system CS are defined as in 1.4 and P-forms, N-forms and
NP-forms as in l.5.
As in 1 we use the following syntactic symbols: v for sentential variables,
A, B, F for formulas, fJJ for P-forms, % for N-forms and .?l for NP-forms.
The axioms of the system CS are all formulas of the forms:
(Ax. I) .?l[v, v]
(Ax. II) %[1..]
The basic inferences of the system CS are all inferences of forms:
(fA) fJJ[A],fJJ[B]~fJJ[(AAB)]
(I v) %[A], %[B] ~ %[(A v B)]
(I ~) %[(A ~ 1..)], %[B] ~ %[(A ~ B).
The next two theorems show that (syntactic) deducibility given by the above
coincides with the semantic notion of validity.
Consistency Theorem. Every deducible formula is valid.
Proof by induction on the deduction. It follows from Theorem 1.5, that every
axiom is valid. By Theorem 1.8, if both premises of a basic inference are valid then
so is the conclusion. Hence every deducible formula is valid.
18 I. Fundamentals
Completeness Theorem. Every validformula is deducible.
Proof Let Fbe a valid formula. Define the reducibility degree of Fto be the number
of connectives A, v and --4 occurring in the minimal positive and minimal
negative parts of F. We prove by induction on the reducibility degree of Fthat the
formula F is deducible.
1. F is an irreducible formula. Then by Theorem 1. 7 F is an axiom and hence
is deducible.
2. F is a reducible formula. Then F is of the form of the conclusion of a basic
inference both of whose premises have smaller reducibility degree than F and
hence by Theorem 1.8 are valid. By the induction hypothesis these premises are
therefore deducible. But then F is deducible by means of the basic inference involved.
It follows from the consistency theorem and the completeness theorem that the
system CS is s-consistent and s-complete.
Remark. For every formula of the system CS we can decide in an elementary way
whether and how the formula is deducible in the system CS. For we can easily see
whether a formula has the form of an axiom or of a conclusion of a basic inference
and because every premise of a basic inference has a lower reducibility degree than
the conclusion of the inference.
Chapter II
Classical Predicate Calculus
Predicate calculus forms an extension of the sentential calculus in two different

regards.
1. As well as variables for arbitrary sentences we use variables ranging over an
arbitrary (non-empty) object domain and arbitrary one- and many-place predi-
cates over the object domain. So in addition to sentential variables we have as basic
formulas, formulas of the form p(al' ... , an) with the interpretation: "The objects
ai' ... , an satisfy the n-place predicate p".
2. As well as the connectives 1\ ("and"), v ("or") ... of sentential calculus we
use the quantifiers 'i and 3 which can be employed to form formulas ofthe following
kinds:
. 'ix$'[x] interpreted "For all objects x, $'[x] holds".
3x$'[x] interpreted "There is an object x, such that $'[x] holds".
We shall make the interpretation of these formulas more precise in 5 by an
appropriate semantics but first we develop a pure syntax for classical predicate
calculus. For this we shall use only the connectives .1 and ~ and only the universal
quantifier 'i as primitive symbols since the remaining connectives and the existen-
tial quantifier 3 can be defined from these in classical predicate calculus. We could
in fact use instead the connectives of any other complete system and 3 as primitive
symbols. The choice of .1, ~ and 'i as primitive symbols turns out to be especially
suitable for other parts oflogic as well, in particular for intuitionistic type theory.
3. The Formal System CP
1. Primitive Symbols of the system CP:

1.1. Countably infinitely many free and bound object variables, sentential
variables and predicate symbols of each number of arguments ~ 1.
1.2. The logical symbols .1, ~ and'i.
1.3. Round brackets and the comma.
As syntactic variables we use
a, ai for free object variables,
x, Xi for bound object variables,
v, Vi for sentential variables.
20 II. Classical Predicate Calculus
2. Inductive Definition of the formulas of the system CP.

2.1. Every sentential variable is a formula.
2.2. The symbol ..1 is aformula.
2.3. If P is an n-place predicate symbol (n~ 1) and al' ... , an are free object
variables then p(a 1, ... , an) is aformula.
2.4. If A and B are formulas, then (A - B) is also aformula.
2.5. If ff[a] is aformula and x a bound object variable which does not occur
in the I-place nominal form ff, then \ixff[x] is also aformula.
The formulas defined by 2.1-2.3 are said to be atomic (or prime) formulas.
As syntactic symbols we use A, Ai' B, B i , C, C i , F, Fi , G, G i for formulas, P, Pi
for atomic formulas, ff, ffi for I-place nominal forms such that ff[a] , ff;[a] are
formulas.
3. P-forms and N-forms are defined as in 1.5. In the system CS since the only
connectives which occur as primitive symbols are ..1 and - we have just the fol-
lowing rules for the inductive definition:
3.1. *1 is a P-form.
3.2 If ?J> is a P-form and B a formula; then .9[(B - * d] is a P-form and
?J>[(*1- B)] is an N-form.
3.3. If % is an N-form, then %[(*1 - ..i)] is a P-form.
4. For positive and negative parts of a formula F, which are determined by
P-forms and N -forms as in 1.5, we have the following inductive characterization:
4.1. F is a positive part of F.
4.2. If (A - B) is a positive part of F, then A is a negative and B a positive part
ofF.
4.3. If (A - ..i) is a negative part of F, then A is a positive part of F.
As in l we use syntactic symbols as follows: ?J>, .9i for P-forms, %, %i for
N-forms and fl, fli for NP-forms.
A positive part ofa formula is said to be minimal if it is not of the form (A - B).
A negative part is said to be minimal if it is not of the form (A - ..i).
F ~ G ("G follows structurally from F") denotes that every minimal positive
part of F also occurs as a positive part of G and every minimal negative part of F
also occurs as a negative part of G.
5. The axioms of the system CP are all formulas of the form
(Ax. I) fl[P, P]
(Ax. II) %[..1].
6. The basic inferences of the system CP are all inferences of the forms
(Sl) %[(A - ..i)], %[B] f- %[(A - B)]

(S2) .9[ff[a]] f- ?J>[\ixff[x]] with a condition on the variable a
(S3) (\ixff[x] - %[ff[a]]) f- %[\ixff[x]].
The free object variable denoted by a in the premise ofa basic inference (S2) is
said to be the eigenvariable of the inference. The condition on the variable of an (S2)
inference is: The eigenvariable must not occur in the conclusion.
The indicated positive or negative part in the conclusion of a basic inference is

said to be the principal part of the given basic infe;ence. In an (S I)-inference we may
assume that its principal part is not of the form (A --> ..i) since otherwise the con-
clusion would be the same as the first premise. Hence every principal part of a basic
inference is a minimal positive or negative part of the conclusion.
No atomic formula is deducible in CP since an atomic formula cannot occur as
an axiom nor as the conclusion of a basic inference. Hence the system CP is con-
sistent. We shall see in 4 that it is also s-complete and s-consistent.
Remark. The notions of "negative part'" and "positive part" may be regarded as
generalizations of G. Gentzen's "antecedent formula" and "succedent formula".
The generalizations turn out so that there is no need to have any structural in-
ferences as basic inferences. In 4 we shall prove that the inferences corresponding
to Gentzen's structural inferences are permissible. Then Theorem 4.6 corresponds
to Gentzen's Hauptsatz on the elimination of the cut rule.
4. Deducible Formulas and Permissible Inferences
.
1. Generalizations of the Axioms
Theorem 4.1. Every formula of the form ~[C, C] is deducible.
Proofby induction on the number of --> and V symbols occurring in C.

1. C is an atomic formula. Then ~[C, C] is an axiom.
2. C is a formula (A --> B). Since ~ is an NP-form so are ~[( *2 --> ..i), (* 1 --> B)]
and ~[*1' (A --> *2)]. By I.H. (induction hypothesis) both of the formulas
~[(A --> ..i), (A --> B)] and ~[B, (A --> B)] are deducible. Hence ~[(A --> B),
(A --> B)] is deducible by an SI-inference.
3. C is a formula Vxff[x]. We choose a free variable a which does not occur
in ~[C, C]. Since ~ is an NP-form so is (C --> ~). By I.H. the formula (Vxff[x]-->
~[ff[a], ff[a]]) is therefore deducible. By an (S3)-inference we have ~[Vxff[x],
ff[a]] and then by an (S2)-inference we have ~[Vxff[x], Vxff[x]].
Corollary to Theorem 4.1. The system CP is s-complete.
Proof By Corollary 1.4 ..1 and --> form a complete set of connectives. By 2.5 it
follows that every s-valid formula which contains no connectives other than ..1 and
--> is deducible from formulas only of the forms ~[C, C] and fi[..1] using (S 1)-
inferences. By Theorem 4.1 it follows that CP is s-complete.
2. Weak Inferences
Theorem 4.2 (Substitution rule). If a 1 does not occur in the nominalform ff, then
ff[a 1] f- ff[a z ]
is a weak inference.
Proofby induction on the deduction. Suppose the formula ff[a 1] is deduced with
order m.
1. Suppose ff[a 1] is an axiom. Then ff[a z ] is also an axiom.
2. Suppose ff[a 1] has been inferred by an (Sl) or (S3) basic inference from
Fi (i= 1, 2 or i= 1). Fi is a formula ~[a1] where a 1 does not occur in ffi . By the
induction hypothesis ffi[a Z ] is deducible with order <m.
~[az] (i= 1, 2 or i= 1) f- ff[az] is then an (SI) or (S3) basic inference. Hence
ff[a z ] is deducible with order ~ m.
3. Suppose ff[a 1] has been inferred from F1 by an (S2)-inference. We choose
a free object variable ao, different from a 1 and a z which does not occur in ff. Let
Fo be the formula obtained from F1 by replacing the eigenvariable of the (S2)-
inference, wherever it occurs in F 1, by ao. By I.H. Fo is deducible with order <m.
Fo is a formula ff 0[a 1] where at does not occur in ff o. By I.H. ff o[az] is also
deducible with order <m.
Now
is an (S2)-inference with eigenvariable ao. Hence ff[az] is deducible with order

~m.
Theorem 4.3 (Inversion rules). The following are weak inferences
(1) .H[(A --> B)] f- .H[(A --> 1.)]

(2) .H[(A --> B)] f- .H[B]
(3) 9'[\fxff[x]] f- &>[ff[a]].
1. Proofof(1) and (2) by induction on the deduction. Suppose .H[(A --> B)] is
deduced with order m. If B is the formula 1. thyn the assertions are trivial since then
the conclusion of(1) is the same as the premise and the conclusion of(2) is an axiom.
Now let B be a formula different from 1..
1.1. Suppose .H[(A --> B)] is an axiom. Then .H[(A --> 1.)] and .H[B] are
axioms.
1.2. Suppose .H[(A --> B)] has been inferred by an (SI)-inference whose
principal negative part is the part A --> B) shown. Then the premises .H[(A --> 1-)]
and .H[B] are deducible with order <m.
1.3. Suppose .H[(A --> B)] has been deduced in some other way by a basic
inference from Fi (i= 1, 2 or i= 1). Then Fi is a formula JV;[(A --> B)] such that
JV;[(A --> 1-)] (i= 1,2 or i= 1) f- .H(A --> 1-)

and
%;[BJ (i= 1,'2 or i= 1) f- %[BJ
are basic inferences. Hence the assertion holds by the induction hypothesis.
2. Proof of (3) by induction on the deduction. Suppose &>['v'xff[xJJ is de-

duced with order m.
2.1. Suppose &>[\fxff[xJJ is an axiom. Then 2Ji[F[aJJ is also an axiom.
2.2. Suppose &>[\fxff[xJJ has been inferred by an (S2)-inference whose
principal part is the given positive part \fxff[x]. The premise &>[ff[aoJJ of this
basic inference is deducible with order m - 1 where a ois the eigenvariable of the (S2)-
inference which does not occur in the nominal form 2Ji[ff]. It follows from
Theorem 4.2 that &>[ff[aJ] is deducible with order <m.
2.3. Suppose 2Ji[\fxff[xJJ has been deduced in some other way by a basic
inference. We choose a free object variable a l which is not the eigenvariable of the
basic inference and which does not occur in the nominal form &>[ ff]. As in case 1.3
it then follows from I.H. that the formula 2Ji[ff[a l JJ is deducible with order ~m.
By Theorem 4.2 &>[ff[aJJ is also deducible with order ~m.
Theorem 4.4 (Structural rule). ifF fi G, then F f- G is a weak inference.
P.roof by induction on the deduction. Suppose the formula F is deducible with

order m.
1. Suppose F is an axiom. Then it follows from F fi G that G is also an axiom.
2. Suppose F is a formula % l[(A ---+ B)J which has been inferred from
% 1 [( A ---+ 1-) J and % 1 [BJ by an (S 1)-inference. We replace every negative part
(A ---+ B) in % l[(A ---+ 1-)J by (A ---+ 1-) and every negative part (A ---+ B) in % l[BJ
by B. Then we obtain formulas Fl and F2 which by Theorem 4.3 are deducible with
orders <m. It follows from Ffi G that G is a formula.%2[(A ---+ B)J and that
Fl fi % 2[(A ---+ 1-)] and F2 fi % 2[B]. By I.H. the formulas % 2[(A ---+ 1-)] and
%2[BJ are therefore deducible with orders <m. It follows by an (SI)-inference
that % 2[(A ---+ B)J is deducible with order ~m.
3. Suppose Fis a formula 2Ji l [\fxff[xJJ inferred from 2Ji l [ff[aJJ by an (S2)-
inference. We choose a free object variable ao which occurs neither in Fnor in G.
In the formula 2Ji l [ff[aJJ we replace a by a o and every positive part \fxff[xJ by
ff[ao]. This gives a formula Fo which, by Theorems 4.2 and 4.3, is deducible with
order <m. It follows from Ffi G that G is a formula &>2[\fxff[xJJ and
Fo fi 2Ji 2[ff[a oJJ holds. By I.H. the formula &>2[ff[a oJJ is deducible with order
<m. It follows by an (S2)-inference that 2Ji 2[\fxff[xJJ is deducible with order ~ m.
4. Suppose F is a formula % 1 [\fxff[xJJ inferred from
(\fxff[xJ ---+ % 1 [ff[aJJ) by an (S3)-inference. It follows from Ffi G that G is a
formula % 2[\fxff[xJJ and (\fxff[xJ ---+ % 1 [ff[aJJ) fi (\fxff[xJ ---+ % 2[ff[aJJ)
holds. By I.H. the formula (\fxff[xJ ---+ % 2[ff[aJJ) is therefore deducible with
order <m. It follows by an (S3)-inference that %2[\fxff[xJJ is deducible with
order ~m.
3. Further Permissible Inferences
Theorem 4.5. JV[ff[a]] ~ JV[\fxff[x]] is a permissible inference (provided x does

not occur in ff).
Proof We have JV[ff[a]] f! (\fxff[x] -> JV[ff[a]]). From ~ JV[ff[a]] by

Theorem 4.4 we therefore have ~ (\fxff[x] -> JV[ff[a]]). By an (S3)-inference
~ JV[\fxff[x]] follows.
Theorem 4.6 (Cut rule).
&[A], (A -> B) ~ &[B]
is a permissible inference.
Proofby induction on the number of -> and \f symbols occurring in the formula A.
1. Suppose A is an atomic formula. For this case we have to do a subsidiary
induction on the order of a deduction of the formula .9'[A].
1.1. Suppose .9'[A] is an axiom. Then either &[B] is also an axiom or.9' is a
P-form 2[A, *1]. In the latter case (A -> B) f! &[B]. Then by Theorem 4.4 from
~ (A -> B) we have ~ .9'[B].
1.2. Suppose &[A] was obtained by a basic inference from Fi (i = 1,2 or i = I).
Then by Theorem 4.2 we may assume that the basic inference has no free object
variable which occurs in B as its eigenvariable. Then Fi is a formula of the form
&;[A] so
.9'i[B] (i= I, 2 or i= 1) ~.9'[B]
is also a basic inference. Then ~~[B] follows from ~~[A] and ~(A -> B) by the
S.I.H. (subsidiary induction hypothesis). Using the given basic inference ~.9'[B]
follows.
2. Suppose A is a formula Al -> A 2. By Theorem 4.3 from H(A l -> A 2) -> B)
we have H(A l -> 1..) -> B) and ~(A2 -> B). Since.9' is a P-form so is .9'[(Al -> *dJ.
Hence by the I.H. from ~&[(Al -> A 2)] and ~(A2 -> B) we have ~.9'[Al -> B)]. By
Theorem 4.4 there follows ~(Al -> .9'[B]). Since *1 -> 1..) -> B) is a P-form, from
~Al -> 1..) -> B) and ~(Al -> &[B]) by I.H. we have ~.9'[B] -> 1..) -> B). We
have .9'[B] -> 1..) -> B) f! .9'[B]. Therefore by Theorem 4.4 we have ~&[BJ.
3. Suppose A is a formula \fxff[x]. In this case we use a subsidiary induction
on the order m of a deduction of the formula (\fxff[x] -> B).
3.1. Suppose (\fxff[x] -> B) is an axiom. Then .9'[B] is also an axiom.
3.2. Suppose (\fxff[x] -> B) was inferred by an (SI) or (S2) basic inference
from Fi (i= I, 2 or i= I). Then by Theorem 4.2 we may assume that the basic in-
ference has no free object variable which occurs in .9' as its eigenvariable. Then Fi
is a formula of the form (\fxff[x] -> B i ) so
.9'[BJ (i= I, 2 or i= I) ~.9'[B]

is also an (Sl) or (S2) basic inference. By the S.I.H. from f-~[Vxff[x]] and
f-(Vxff[x] --> B i ) we have f-~[BJ. Then by the given basic inference we have
f-g>[B].
3.3. Suppose (Vxff[x] --> B) was inferred by an (S3)-inference from
(Vxff[x] --> (ff[a] --> B). By the S.I.H. we then have f- g>[(ff[a] --> B)]. f-(ff[a]-->
g>[B]) then follows by Theorem 4.4. By Theorem 4.3 from f- ~[Vxff[x]] we have
f-g>[ff[a]]. Then using f-(ff[a] --> ~[B]) we have by the I.H. f-&[~[B]]. Now
g>[2P[B]] ~ &fB]. Therefore by Theorem 4.4 we have f- g>[B].
3.4. Suppose Bis a formula JV[Vxoffo[xo]] and (Vxff[x] --> JV[Vxoffo[xo]])
was inferred from (Vxoff o[x o] --> (Vxff[x] --> JV[ff ora]])) by an (S3)-inference.
By Theorem 4.4 (Vxff[x] --> (Vxoffo[xo] --> JV[ffo[a]])) is also deducible with
order <m. Hence by the S.I.H. we have f-g>[(Vxoffo[xo] --> JV[ffo[a]])]. By
Theorem 4.4 we therefore have f-(V-xoffo[xo] --> g>[JV[ffo[a]]]). Since g>[JV] is
also an N-form, using an (S3)-inference we have f- g>[[JV[Vxoff o[x o]]].
4. Defined Logical Connectives
The connectives -', /\, v and the existential quantifier 3 are defined as follows in
the system CP :
-,A:=(A--> 1-)
(A /\ B): =A --> (B--> 1-)) --> 1-)
(A v B) : = A --> 1-) --> B)
3xff[x] :=(Vx(ff[x]--> 1-)--> 1-).
These connectives we have just defined satisfy the defining rules given in 1. 5
for positive and negative parts as we now show.
If -, A (that is (A --> 1-)) is a positive (or negative) part of a formula F, then A is a
negative (or positive) part of F.
IfA --> (B --> 1-)) --> 1-) is a negative part ofF, then (A --> (B--> 1-)) is a positive
part, A is a negative part, (B --> 1-) a positive part and B a negative part of F. So we
have: If (A /\ B) is a negative part of F, then A and B are also negative parts of F.
If A --> 1-) --> B) is a positive part of F, then (A -+ 1-) is a negative part, A a
positive part and B a positive part of F.
So we have: If (A v B) is a positive part of F, then A and B are also positive parts
of F.
As we have defined negation, we therefore have:
Theorem 4.7. The formal system CP is s-consistent.
Proof By Theorem 4.6 and the definition of -,
A, -,A f- 1-
is a permissible inference. Since the formula 1- is not deducible in CP it therefore

follows that there is no formula A such that A and -,A are both deducible in CPo
The proof-theoretic properties of A, v and 3 are given by the following

theorem.
Theorem 4.8. The following inferences are permissible:
(1) &P[A], &P[B] f- &![(A A B)]

(2) ..;V[AJ f- ..;V[(A 1 AA z)] (i= 1, 2)
(3) &P[AJ f- &P[(A1 v A z)] (i= 1, 2)
(4) ";v[A], ..;V[B] f- ..;V[(A v B)]
(5) &P[~[a]] f- &P[3x~[x]]
(6) ..;V[~[a]] f- ";v[3x~[x]],
if a does not occur in the conclusion (condition on variables).
Proof (1) For every formula Cwe have &P[C] ~ &P[C - ..l) - ..l)]. TherefQre by
Theorem 4.4 from f- &P[A] and f- &P[B] we have f- &P[A - ..l) - ..l)] and
f-&P[B- ..l)- ..l)]. Since &P[(*1 - ..l)] is an N-form, we obtain by an (SI)-
inference f- &P[A - (B - ..l - ..l)], that is f- &P[(A A B)].
(2) Follows from Theorem 4.4 since ..;V[AJ ~ ..;V [(A 1 AA z)] (i= 1, 2) by the
definition of A .
(3) Follows from Theorem 4.4 since &P[AJ ~ &P[(A1 v A z)] (i= 1, 2) by the
definition of v .
(4) We have ";v[A] ~ ";v[A - ..l) - ..l)]. By Theorem 4.4 from f- ..;V [A] we
therefore have f- ..;V [A - ..l) - ..l)]. Using f- ..;V[B] by an (SI)-inference we have
f-..;V[A - ..l) - B)], that is ..;V[(A v B)].
(5) By Theorem 4.4 from f-&P[~[a]] we have f-&P[~[a] - ..l) - ..l)]. Since
&P[(*1 - ..l)] is an N-form Theorem 4.5 yields f-&P[(\fx(~[x] - ..l) - ..l)], that is
&P[3x~[x]].
(6) From f- ..;V[~[a]] by Theorem 4.4 we have f- ..;V[~[a] - ..l) - ..l)].
..;V[( *1 -..l)] is a P-form. If a does not occur in ..;V[~], then by an (S2)-inference
we have f- ";v[(\fx(~[x] - ..l) - ..l)], that is f- ";v[3x~[x]].
Remark. All the proofs we have given in this section which show that certain in-
ferences are permissible are constructive. That is to say: In each case, if deductions
of the formulas A l' ... , An are given, then one can obtain a deduction of the formula
B from the proof of the permissibility of the inference
5. Semantics of Classical Predicate Calculus
Although all the notions we have used so far and all the proofs we have given were
strictly constructive (jinitist in the sense of D. Hilbert), when it comes to classical
predicate calculus we have to deal with non-constructive notions.
1. Classical Models
A model J( = <~, V) consists of a non-empty set ~ (the domain ofindividuals of the

model) and a function V (the valuation of the model) defined on the free object
variables, predicate letters and propositional variables as follows:
VI. For each free object variable a, Va is an element ofthe set~.
V2. For each n-place predicate letter p (n~ 1), Vp is a set ofn-tuples (Xl, . , (Xn)
of elements (Xl' . , (Xn from the set ~.
V3. For each sentential variable v, Vv is one of the truth-values t,f
By a ~-formula we mean a string of symbols which is the result of replacing
some free object variables in a formula of the system CP by names of elements from
the set~.
We use the following as syntactic symbols:
(X, (Xi for names of elements of the set ~,
e, ei for free object variables and names of elements of the set~,
A', B', F', \fx~'[x] for ~-formulas.
For a model J(=<~, V) the valuation V has properties VI-V3. We now
extend Vby definition so that every ~-formula F' also gets a truth-value VF'.
V4. If (X E~, then V(X: =(X.
VS. v.l.:=/
V6. If p is an n-place predicate letter (n~l) then Vp(el, ... ,en):=t if
(Vel, ... , Ve n) E Vp. Otherwise, Vp(e l , ... , en )=/
V7. If VA'=for VB'=t, then V(A' - 4 B') :=t. Otherwise V(A' - 4 B') :=/
V8. If V~'[(X] = t for all (X E ~ then V\fx~'[x]: = t. Otherwise V\fx~'[x]: = /
We note in particular that every formula F gets a truth-value VF, since formulas
are just particular ~-formulas.
VF' is defined by induction on the number of - 4 and \f symbols which occur in
the ~-formula F'. But this is non-constructive since we cannot always calculate the
value VF' as the following example shows.
Example. Let ~ be the set of positive integers. Let p be a 4-place predicate letter and
set Vp to be the set of quadruples (Xl> . , (X4) of positive integers such that
~4+2 +~4+2 #(X~4+2. Let Fbe the formula \fx l \fX2 \fX3 \fX4P(x l , x 2 , x 3, x 4 ). Then
in the model <~, V) we have VF=t if, and only if, Fermat's last theorem is true,
that is iffor every n ~ 3 there are no positive integers (Xl' (X2' (X3 such that (X~ + (Xi = (X3
But Fermat's conjecture has not yet been fully established.
In the definition of VF' for a ~-formula F' the connectives..l and - 4 are treated
as they were in I in the definition of VA for a formula A ofthe sentential calculus.
Consequently, corresponding to Theorem 1.5 we have:
PN-Lemma. If cff is a P-form (or an N-form) and VA =t (or VA= f) for a valuation
V in a model, then Vcff[A] = t.
A formula F is said to be true in a model J( = <~, V) if VF= t. We also say in
this case that J( is a model of the formula F.
A formula is said to be valid if it is true in every model. It is said to be satisfiable
if there is some model in which it is true.
2. The Consistency Theorem
Theorem 5.1 (Consistency Theorem). Every deducible formula is valid.
Proofby induction on the deduction. Let Fbe a deducible formula and .It = <!!J, V)
an arbitrary model. We have to prove that VF=t.
1. SupposeFis an axiom ~[P, P] or ';v[1-]. By the PN-Iemma we have VF=t.
2. Suppose Fis a formula .;V[(A - B)] inferred from .;V[(A - 1-)] and .;V[B]
by an (S1)-inference. By I.H. we have V';v[(A - 1-)] = t and V.;V[B] = t. If VB= t,
then V(A - B)= VB and V';v[(A - B)] = V';v[B]=t. If VB=j, then V(A - B)=
V(A - 1-) and V';v[(A - B)] = V';v[(A - 1-)] = t. So in either case
V';v[(A - B)] = t.
3. Suppose F is a formula &I[\fxff[x]] inferred from ,o//[ff[aJ] by an (S2)-
inference. If V\fxff[x] = t, then V&I[\fxff[x]] = t by the PN-Iemma. Now suppose
there exists IX E!!J with Vff[lX] =f We define a new model .It' = <!!J, V') )Vhere
V' a = IX and otherwise V' agrees with Von free object variables, predicate letters
and sentential variables. Then, since the eigenvariable a does not occur in &I[ff] we
obtain
V'ff[a] = Vff[IX]=f
V'\fxff[x] = V\fxff[x] =f
and
V&I[\fxff[x]] = V' &I[\fxff[x]] = V' &I[ff[a]].
Since the premise &I[ff[a]] of the (S2)-inference is valid by I.H., we have

V'&I[ff[a]]=t. Hence V&I[\fxff[x]]=t.
4. Suppose Fis a formula ';v[\fxff[x]] inferred from (\fxff[x] - .;V(ff[a]])
by an (S3)-inference. If VV'xff[x] = j, then V';v[\fxff[x]] = t by the PN-Iemma.
Now suppose V\fxff[x] = t. Then Vff[a] = t too and it follows that
V';v[\fxff[x]] = V.;V[ff[a]] = V(\fxff[x] - ';v[ff[a]]). By I.H. V(\fxff[x]-
.;V [ff[a]]) = t. Hence we also have V.;V[\fxff[x]] = t.
3. The Completeness Theorem
In order to prove that, conversely, every valid formula is deducible we need several
auxiliary notions.
First we let
be an enumeration of all the free object variables.

A part of a formula F is said to be reducible if it is a positive part of the form
\fxff[x] or a negative part of the form \fxff[x] or (A - B) provided B is not the
formula ..l. A formula is said to be reducible if it has at least one reducible part,
otherwise it is said to be irreducible. According to this definition a formula F is
irreducible if, and only if, every minimal positive part and every minimal negative
part of F is an atomic formula. The reducibility degree of a formula F is the number
of -> and V symbols occurring in the reducible parts of F.
By the distinguished part of a reducible formula Fwe mean that reducible part
of F which occurs furthest to the right.
AD-chain (deduction chain) for a formula F is a sequence of formulas
constructed as follows:
01. The initial formula F o of the O-chain is the formula F.
02. If the formula Fn of the O-chain is an axiom or an irreducible formula,
then it is the last formula of the O-chain. We then say that the O-chain has length n.
03. If the formula Fn of the O-chain is a reducible formula which is not an
axiom then Fn has an immediate successor Fn + 1 in the O-chain determined as
follows by Fo, ... , Fn.
03.1. If Fn is a formula %[(A -> B)] with distinguished negative part (A -> B),
then Fn+ 1 is either the formula %[(A -> ..l)] or the formula %[B].
03.2. If Fn is a formula &>[Vx$'[x]] with distinguished positive part Vx$'[x],
then Fn+ 1 is the formula &>[$'[IJ(J] where i is the least number such that lJ(i does not
occur in Fn.
03.3. If Fn isa formula %[Vx$'[x]] with distinguished negative part
Vx$'[x], then Fn+ 1 is the formula (Vx$'[x] -> %[$'[IJ(J]), where i is the least
number such that $'[IJ(J does not occur as a negative part in any of the formulas
among Fo, ... , Fn if the nominal symbol *1 occurs in $'.
O-chains are therefore formed inversely to the basic inferences.
We shall shortly prove:
Principal Syntactic Lemma. If every D-chain of a formula F contains an axiom then

the formula F is deducible.
Principal Semantic Lemma. If there is a D-chain of a formula F which contains no

axiom, then there is a model <N, V) with domain the natural numbers N such that
VF=f
From these two lemmata we obtain:
Theorem 5.2 (Completeness Theorem). Every valid formula is deducible.
Proof Let F be a valid formula. By the principal semantic lemma every O-chain
of F contains an axiom. From the principal syntactic lemma it follows that F is
deducible.
Theorem 5.3 (LOwenheim-Skolem). Every satisfiable formula has a model whose

domain is the natural numbers.
Proof Let Fbe a satisfiable formula. Then the formula (F -> 1..) is not valid, so by
Theorem 5.1, not deducible. From the principal syntactic lemma it follows that
there is a D-chain for (F -> 1..) which contains no axiom. By the principal semantic
lemma it follows that there is a model.A =(N, V) such that V(F -> 1..) =f Then
VF= t so F is true in the model.A.
In order to prove the principal syntactic lemma we need the following version
of Konig's Lemma:
If a formula F has infinitely many D-chains then there is an infinite D-chain
for F.
Proof of the lemma. An infinite D-chain
is obtained from F as follows. Let Fa be the formula F. By hypothesis ther.e are

infinitely many D-chains beginning with Fa. Now assume Fa, ... , Fn have been
determined in such a way that infinitely many D-chains begin with Fa, ... , Fn. Then
Fn is a reducible formula which is not an axiom.
1. Suppose Fn is a formula %[(A -> B)] with distinguished negative part
(A -> B). Then only one of the two formulas %[(A -> 1..)] and %[B] can occur in
D-chain after Fn. Let Fn+ 1 be the formula %[(A -> 1..)] if infinitely many D-chains
begin with Fa, ... , Fn, %[(A -> 1..)]. Otherwise let Fn+l be the formula %[B].
2. Suppose Fn has a distinguished part of the form 'v'xff[x]. Then the formula
Fn+ 1 following Fn is uniquely determined by Fa, .. , Fn.
It follows from our assumption in each case that there are infinitely many
D-chains which begin with Fa, ... , Fn+1 Since this process of going from Fn to
Fn+ 1 never stops, it determines an infinite D-chain of F. (The proof is non-
constructive since the choice of Fn+ 1 depends on infinitely many successors.)
Proof of the principal syntactic lemma. Let F be a formula such that every D-
chain of F contains an axiom. Then such an axiom is the last formula of such a
D-chain. Hence every D-chain of F is finite. From Konig's lemma it follows that
there are only finitely many D-chains. So these have a maximal length m. We prove
by induction on m-n that every formula Fn which occurs as the n-th formula in a
D-chain of F is deducible. If Fn is the last formula of a D-chain of F then Fn is an
axiom. Otherwise Fn is of the form of a conclusion of a basic inference whose
premises come after Fn in D-chains of F. By I.H. these premises are deducible.
Consequently Fn is also deducible. In particular the formula Fa, that is, F, is
deducible, as was to be shown.
Proof of the principal semantic lemma. Let
be a D-chain which contains no axiom where Fa is the formula F. We prove

some lemmata about this D-chain.
Lemma 1. If an atomic formula occurs as a positive (or as a negative) part in a

formula Fn of the D-chain, then it also occurs in every formula Fm (m~n) of the D-
chain as a positive (or as a negative) part.
Proof This follows immediately from the definition of the D-chain.
Lemma 2. If a formula Fn of the D-chain has a reducible positive (or reducible

negative) part C, then the D-chain contains a reducible formula Fm (m ~n) with
distinguished positive (negative) part C.
Proofby induction on the number k of ---+ and Vsymbols occurring in the reducible
parts of Fn to the right of C. If C is the distinguished part of Fn then the assertion is
satisfied with m = n. Otherwise Fn is followed by a formula Fn + I with positive (or
negative) part C which contains less than k ---+ and V symbols in reducible parts to
the right of C. But then the assertion follows from the induction hypothesis.
Lemma 3. If a formula Fn of the D-chain has a negative part Vx"[x], then the
D-chain contains infinitely many reducible formulas with distinguished negative part
Vx"[x].
Proof It follows from the definition of D-chain that the formula Vx"[x] occurs
as a negative part in every formula Fm (m ~n) in the D-chain. Therefore every
f9rmula in the D-chain is reducible. Since the D-chain contains no axiom it follows
that the D-chain is infinite. The assertion now follows from Lemma 2.
We say that a formula is a positive (or negative) part of (DC) if it occurs as a
positive (or negative) part in some formula of the D-chain (DC). We now define a
model.lt=<N, V) as follows:
1. VlX i : =i
2. Ifp is an n-placepredicate letter (n ~ 1) then Vp is the set ofn-tuples (iI' ... , in)
of natural numbers such thatp(lX i1 , , lX i ) is a negative part of (DC).
3. If v is a negative part of (DC) then set Vv: = t. Otherwise set Vv: = f
The following lemmata hold for this model.
Lemma 4. If P is an atomic formula then VP= t if, and only if, P is a negative part
of (DC).
Proof Since the D-chain (DC) contains no axiom, 1. is not a negative part of
(DC). For the remaining atomic formulas the assertion follows immediately from
the definition of the model.
Lemma 5. IfC is a positive (or a negative) part of (DC) then VC=f(or VC= t).
Proofby induction on the length of C.

1. Suppose C is an atomic formula. Since the D-chain (DC) contains no
axiom ~[C, C] it follows from Lemma 1 that C is not both a positive and a
negative part of (DC). The assertion then follows from Lemma 4.
2. Suppose C is a formula (A ---> B). If (A ---> B) is a positive part of (DC), then

A is a negative and B a positive part of (DC). Then by I.H. VA = t and VB=1 It
follows that V(A ---> B)=1 If(A ---> 1..) is a negative part of (DC), then A is a positive
part of (DC). Therefore by I.H. VA =1 It follows that V(A ---> 1..) = t. If (A ---> B)
is a negative part of (DC) but B is not the formula 1.., then it follows from Lemma 2
and the definition ofD-chain that (A ---> 1..) or B is a negative part of (DC). Then by
I.H., VA = for VB= t. Hence V(A ---> B) = t.
3. Suppose C is a formula Vxff[x]. If Vxff[x] is a positive part of (DC), then
it follows from Lemma 2 and the definition of the D-chain that some formula
ff[a,] is a positive part of (DC). Then by I.H. Vff[a,] =1 Hence VVxff[x] =1
IfVxff[x] is a negative part of (DC), then it follows from Lemma 3 and the defini-
tion of the D-chain that every formula ff[a,] is a negative part of (DC). Then by
I.H., Vff[a,] = t for all i EN. Hence VVxff[x] = t.
In particular from Lemma 5 we have VF=J, since Fis a positive part of (DC).
This completes the proof of the principal semantic lemma.
Remark. The proof ofthe completeness theorem is non-constructive since it draws

on the non-constructive notion of validity and Konig's lemma which has a non-
constructive proof. On the other hand the D-chains were constructively defined and
it follows from the proof that for every deducible formula one has a standard
deduction which is given, constructively, by the D-chains.
4. The Satisfiability Theorem
F or brevity we write
for
In the case n = 0 this means the formula B.

A set S of formulas is said to be inconsistent if there is a finite subset {A I, ... , An}
of S such that the formula
is deducible. Otherwise the set S is said to be consistent.

A set S of formulas is said to be satisfiable if there is a model At in which every
formula in the set S is true. Then we also say that S is satisfiable in At or that At
is a model of the set S.
Consistency is a syntactic notion, satisfiability a semantic one.
An inconsistent set of formulas is not satisfiable since if a formula
AI, ... , An ---> 1.. is deducible then by the consistency theorem it follows that for
every modelult = (!!},V): V(A 1 , , An ~ ..l) = t and hence VAi=ffor at least one
formula Ai from the set S.
Now, in order to prove that every consistent set of formulas is satisfiable, we
proceed as for the proof of the completeness theorem. We again start with an
enumeration
of all free object variables.

Let S be a non-empty set of formulas. We assume that no formula in S contains
a free object variable rx i with odd index i. (In order to ensure this, one can replace
each free object variable rxi which occurs in a formula of a set S 1 by rx 2i . One then
obtains a set of formulas S2 of the desired sort which is satisfiable if, and only if,
S 1 is satisfiable.)
The set S is at most denumerably infinite since we are only considering
countably infinitely many primitive symbols. Now we assume we are given an
infinite sequence of formulas
which contains all and only formulas from the set S. (This sequence must contain
some formula infinitely many times if the set S of formulas is finite.)
From this sequence of formulas we define a D-chain for S as a sequence of
formulas
formed as follows:
DSI. The initial formula Fo of the D-chain is the formula (Ao ~ ..l).
DS2. If a formula Fn of the D-chain is an axiom, then it is the last formula of
the D-chain. We then say that the D-chain has length n.
DS3. If a formula Fn of the D-chain is not an axiom then the D-chain has as
the immediate successor Fn+ 1 of Fn a formula (An+ 1 ~ Gn), where Gn is determined
as follows by F o, ... , Fn.
DS3.1. If Fn is an irreducible formula, then Gn is the formula Fn.
DS3.2. If Fn is a reducible formula JV[(A ~ B)] with distinguished negative
part (A ~ B), then Gn is either the formula JV[(A ~ ..l)] or the formula JV[B].
DS3.3. If Fn is a reducible formula &'[V'xff[x]] with distinguished positive
part V'xff[x] , then Gn is the formula &,[ff[rx2i+ 1]] where i is the least number such
that rx 2i + 1 does not occur in Fn.
DS3.4. If Fn is a reducible formula JV[V'xff[x]] with distinguished negative
part V'xff[x], then Gn is the formula (V'xff[x] ~ JV[ff[rxJ]) where i is the least
number such that ff[rxJ does not occur as a negative part in any of the formulas
Fo, ... , Fn if the nominal symbol * 1 occurs in ff.
Principal syntactic lemma for sets offormulas. If every D-chainfor S isjinite, then
the set S is inconsistent.
Proof It follows from Konig's lemma that there are only finitely many D-chains
for S. Let m be the maximal length of such a D-chain. We prove by induction on
m-n:
If a formula Fn occurs in the n-th place of a D-chain for S, then the formula
is deducible. (Ifm=n, then (I) is the formula Fm .)

If Fn is the last formula of a D-chain for S, then Fn is an axiom. Then the
formula (1) is also an axiom. Otherwise following Fn in the D-chains for S there are
the formulas (An+ 1 --+ G~ (i= 1,2 or i= 1).
By I.H. the formula
is deducible. It follows by a basic inference (possibly using structural inferences and

Theorem 4.4), that the formula (1) is also deducible. (The condition on variables
for (S2)-inferences is not violated since only free object variables with even index
occur in formulas of the set S.)
It now follows by taking n=O that the formula
Am' ... , Ao --+ -.L
is deducible. Hence the set S is inconsistent.
Principal semantic lemma for sets of formulas. If there is an infinite D-chain for S,
then the set S offormulas is satisfiable in a model (N, V) with domain the natural
numbers N.
The proof proceeds just as for the D-chain of a formula. One defines the model
(N, V) as before and has the same Lemmata 1-5. Since every formula Ai of the set
S occurs as a negative part in the D-chain, it follows that VAi= t for all Ai E S.
Theorem 5.4 (Satisfiability Theorem). Every consistent set offormulas is satisfiable

in a model whose domain is the natural numbers N.
Proof If S is a consistent set of formulas, then by the principal syntactic lemma

there is an infinite D-chain for S. The assertion now follows by the principal
semantic lemma.
Theorem 5.5 (Compactness Theorem). Ifevery finite subset ofa set S offormulas is
satisfiable, then S is satisfiable.
Proof If a finite set {A l' ... , An} is satisfiable, then the formula
is not valid and hence by the consistency theorem not deducible. It therefore follows
from the hypothesis of our theorem, that the set S is consistent. Then by Theorem
5.4 it is satisfiable.
Remark. Theorem 5.5 establishes the compactness of a set of models in a suitable

topology.
5. Syntactic and Semantic Consequences
We define the notions of syntactic consequence S ~ F and semantic consequence

SF F for a (possibly empty) set S of formulas as follows:
S ~ F ("F follows syntactically from S") means: There is a finite (possibly
empty) subset {Al' ... , An} of S, such that the formula
Al, ... ,An~F (n~O)
is deducible. (If S is empty, then this says that F is deducible.)

SF F("Ffoliows semantically from S") means: Every model of the set S is also
a model of the formula F. (If S is empty, then this says that F is valid.)
We now prove that these two notions of consequence coincide.
Theorem 5.6 (Strong Consistency Theorem). S ~ F implies SF F.
P~oof By hypothesis there is a finite subset {A 1, ... , An} of S such that the formula
is deducible, therefore by the consistency theorem it is valid. So for every model

.A =(qfi, V) of Swe have VeAl> ... , An~ F)= t and VAi= t(i= 1, ... , n). Therefore
VF=t. Hence we have SF F.
Theorem 5.7 (Strong Completeness Theorem). SF F impiies S ~ F.
Proof From SF F it follows that the set Su{(F ~ ..i)} of formulas is not satis-
fiable. By the satisfiability theorem it follows this set is inconsistent. Hence there is a
finite subset {Al' ... , An} of S such that the formula
A 1 , , An~ F ~ ..i) ~ ..i)
is deducible. From this formula and the deducible formula
F~ ..1)~ ..1)~ F
by Theorem 4.6 it follows that the formula
is also deducible. Hence S ~ F.

Chapter III
Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus
Intuitionistic logic is based on constructive inferences which are not covered as in

classical logic by truth values. This leads immediately to theories in which the truth
of a proposition is either not determined semantically or is not in general decidable.
A calculus for intuitionistic predicate calculus was first developed by A.
Heyting in order to use it to delimit the predicate logic which is adequate for the
intuitionism of L. E. J. Brouwer. Corresponding semantic characterizations of this
logic as were later given by E. W. Beth and S. Kripke, are essentially more compli-
cated than the semantics of the classical predicate calculus.
In what follows we do not start from such semantics, instead we only define
intuition is tic predicate calculus syntactically by means of axioms and basic in-
ferences which are motivated in a natural way by logical inferences. As before the
symbols ..l, /\, v and --> denote connectives, but they are no longer conceived as
symbols for truth functions.
6. Formalization of Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus
1. The Formal System IPt
In intuitionistic predicate calculus the connectives /\, v and the existential quanti-
fier 3 cannot be defined in terms of ..l, --> and If as in classical predicate calculus.
We therefore use as primitive symbols: The primitive symbols of the system CP
and the symbols /\, v and 3.
Consequently in addition to the defining rules for formulas of the system CP
we have the following defining rules for formulas:
2.4'. If A and B are formulas, then (A /\ B) and (A v B) are also formulas.
2.5'. If ff[a] is a formula and x is a bound object variable which does not occur
in the I-place nominal form ff, then 3xff[x] is also a formula.
Atomic formulas are defined as in the system CPo
We use the same syntactic symbols for free and bound object variables, prop-
ositional variables, formulas and atomic formulas as in the system CPo
6. Formalization of Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus 37
For brevity we write
for
We denote by r, r;, ,1, ,1i finite (possibly empty) sequences of formulas. If r =

At, ... , An (n?: 1), then r - B denotes the formula
If r is empty, then r - B denotes the formula B.

r e,1 means that every formula in the sequence r is also a formula in the
sequence,1. A formula which occurs several times in r however, need only occur
once in ,1. (In particular r e,1 holds for all ,1 when r is empty.)
For implication we first take as basic only the following axioms and rules of
inference:
(Ax. 1) A- A.
(Str) r - B f- ,1- B if re,1 holds.
(Cut) r-
A, A - B f- B. r-
This says that a formula r - B should only be deducible if one can get from
the formulas in the sequence r to the formula B in a trivial way. We call a (Str) in-
ference a structural inference and a (Cut) inference a cut (with cut formula A).
Restricting to formulas built up only from propositional variables by using the
connective - and using (Ax. 1), (Str) and (Cut) gives the positive implicational
calculus of P. Bernays.
Now for the connective 1.. we add the axiomschema
(Ax. 2) 1..- A (exfalso quodlibet)
and we fix the syntactic use of the symbols /\, v, V and :3 by two basic inferences
each depending on whether these symbols are.introduced in a left or right com-
ponent of a formula.
(/\ 1) A - B - C f- (A /\ B) - C
( /\ r) r - A, r - B f- r - (A /\ B)
( v 1) A - C, B - C f- (A v B) - C
(vr) r-Aif-r-(AlvA2) (i=I,2)
(VI) ff[a] - C f- Vxff[x] - C
(Vr) r- ff[a] f- r - VXff[X]} if a does not occur
(:31) ff[a] - C f- :3xff[x] - C in the conclusion
(:3r) r - ff[a] f- r - :3xff[x].
38 III. Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus
We call the system with axioms (Ax. 1), (Ax. 2) and basic inferences (Str), (Cut),
( /\ 1), ... , (3r) the formal system IP 1 of intuitionistic predicate calculus.
2. The Formal System IP2
Among the basic inferences of the system IP1 the cuts
r -4 A, A -4 B ~ r -4 B
are the only inferences where a formula A may occur in the premises which need
bear no formal relation to the conclusion. Thus the deducibility of a formula
r -4 B may, because of a cut, depend in a roundabout way on an arbitrary formula
A. However, G. Gentzen arrived at just as straightforward a pattern of inference
for intuitionistic as for classical predicate calculus in which in every premise,of an
inference only subformulas of the conclusion occur (where one regards ff[a] as a
subformula of'v'xff[x] and 3xff[x]). One obtains a straightforward pattern of
inference if one takes a suitable basic rule of inference for implication so that the
cut is no longer needed as a basic inference but nevertheless still can be proved
permissible.
One rule of inference for introducing implication, which corresponds to the
straightforward pattern of inference, is (-41) r -4 A, B -4 C ~ r -4 (A -4 B) -4 C.
Such an (-4 I)-inference is permissible in the system IPI as one sees as follows:
1) (A -4 B) -4 A -4 B is an (Ax. 1),
2) A -4 (A -4 B) -4 B follows from 1) by a structural inference,
3) r -4 A is the first premise of the (-4 I)-inference,
4) r -4 (A -4 B) -4 B follows from 3) and 2) by a cut,
5) B -4 C is the second premise of the (-4 I)-inference,
6) r -4 (A -4 B) -4 C follows from 4) and 5) by a cut.
If one adds (-4 1) as a basic rule of inference then (Ax. 1) can be restricted to
(Ax. 1A) P -4 P
where P is an atomic formula, since then every formula A -4 A is deducible

(without the use of cuts). Thus, for example, from A -4 A and B-4 B by an (-41)-
inference we get A -4 (A -4 B) -4 B and by a structural inference (A -4 B-4
(A -4 B). (Ax. 2) may also be restricted to
(Ax.2A) ..l-4 P.
We denote by IP2 the formal system with axioms (Ax. 1A), (Ax. 2A) and basic
inferences (Str), (-41), ( /\ 1), ... , (3r). This system has the desired property that only
subformulas of the conclusion occur in each premise of a basic inference. This has
certain advantages for syntactic investigations. For example it is immediately
apparent that the system IP2 is consistent since no atomic formula has the form of
an axiom or a conclusion of a basic inference of the system IP2 it follows that no
atomic formula is deducible in IP2. In order to prove this is also true for IPI one
has to show that an atomic formula cannot be shown to be deducible using a cut.
This is not immediately obvious, since the conclusion of a cut can be an atomic
formula.
In IP2 it turns out that the formulas A - A and 1.._ A are deducible and the
cut is a permissible inference whence it follows that precisely the same formulas are
deducible as in IPI. We shall not carry out the proof of the deducibility of A - A
and 1.._ A and of the permissibility of cut in IP2 since we shall pass to another
formal system IP3 and give the corresponding proof for it in 7.
3. Left and Right Parts of Formulas
The notions of "positive" and "negative part" of a formula which we used in

classical predicate calculus refer to valuations of formulas and truth values and are
therefore not available for intuitionistic predicate calculus. Instead of using these
for the basic inferences we turn to certain left and right parts offormulas which are
defined as follows. Every formula can be uniquely written in the form
r-B
where B is not of the form (B1 - B2). The left parts of such a formula are all
f.ormulas ofthe sequence rand therightpartsaretheformulaBand,ifr=A 1, ... , An
(n ~ 1), so too are An- B and all formulas Ai - ... - An- B (i= 1, ... , n-I).
Logical symbols are introduced into a left part of the conclusion by (- 1), ( "1),
( v 1), (VI) and (31) basic inferences, and into a right part of the conclusion by ( "r),
( v r), (Vr) and (3r) basic inferences.
In order to be able to do without the ( "1) inference as a basic inference we
make the notion of "left part" somewhat wider in that we also regard A and Bas
left parts of a formula F if (A "B) is a left part of F.
In order to characterize left and right parts of a formula we use L-forms (left
partforms) and R-forms (right partforms) which are inductively defined as I-place
nominal forms as follows:
LRF 1. *1 is an R-form.
LRF 2. If fYl is an R-form and B is a formula, then fYl[(*l - B)] is an L-form
and fYl[(B - *1)] is an R-form.
LRF 3. If 2is an L-form and Ba formula then 2[(*1 "B)] and 2[(B "*1)]
are L-forms.
We have the following consequences of this inductive definition:
LRF 4. No R-form is an L-form.
LRF 5. If fYl is an R-form and tilt is an L-form (or an R-form) then ~[tiIt] is an
L-form (or an R-form).
LRF 6. If tilt is an L-form or an R-form and A is a formula then tiIt[A] is also
a formula.
We now define : A formula A is said to be a left part (or a right part) ofa formula
Fifthere is an L-form (or an R-form) tilt such that tiIt[A] is the formula F. From this
definition by means of the defining rules LRF I-LRF 3 we obtain the following
inductive characterization of left and right parts of a formula F.
LR I. F is a right part of F.
LR 2. If(A --. B) is a right part of F, then A is a left part and B a right part of F.
LR 3. If (A A B) is a left part of F, then A and B are also left parts of F.
As corollaries we have:
LR 4. If F is not an implication, that is not a formula of the form (A --. B),
then F is the unique right part of F.
LR 5. If F is an implication (A --. B), then the right parts of F are the formula
F and the right parts of B.
LR 6. Every formula Fhas precisely one right part which is not an implication.
We call this the end part of the formula F.
LR 7. The end part of a formula F is also the end part of every right part of F.
By a D-form (double form) we mean a 2-place nominal form [f) such that
[f)[*1' B] is an L-form and [f)[A, *1] is an R-form.
For syntactic symbols we use
for L-forms,
for R-forms,
for D-forms.
A left part of a formula is said to be minimal if it is not of the form (A A B).

We generalize the structural inference (Str) thus: F ~ G ("G follows structurally
from F") means that F and G have the same end part and every minimal left part of
Falso occurs as a left part ofG. (Obviously r --. B ~ LI--. Bholdsif r --. B I- LI --. B
is an (Str)-inference.)
4. The Formal System IP3
We obtain a formal system for intuitionistic predicate calculus in which neither

cuts nor structural inferences are needed if the axiom schemata and basic rules of
inference of the system IP 2 are modified in such a way that they are invariant under
structural inferences in the following sense: Every formula which follows from an
axiom by a structural inference is likewise to be an axiom and every formula which
follows from the conclusion of a basic inference by a structural inference is to be
the conclusion of a corresponding basic inference whose premises are to be de-
rivable from the premises of the first basic inference.
We get such an invariance under (Str)-inferences if, for example we replace the
axiom schema (Ax. IA) by
and the basic rule of inference (--. I) by

In order to get this invariance with respect to F ~ G too we replace (Ax. lA) by
~[P, P] and (----+ I) by
~[(A ----+ B), A], ~[B, C] f- ~[(A ----+ B), C]
We correspondingly modify the remaining axioms and basic inferences of the

system IP2.
The formal system IP3 of the type we want has the same formal language as the
systems IP 1 and IP2.
The axioms of the system IP3 are all formulas of the following forms
(Ax. I) ~[P, P]
(Ax. II) 2[1-].
The basic inferences of the system IP3 are all inferences of the following sort:
L) ~[(A ----+ B), A], ~[B, C] f- ~[(A ----+ B), C]

(----+
(/\ R) 9l[A], 9l[B] f- 9l[(A /\ B)J
(v L) 2[A], 2[B] f- 2[(A v B)J
(vR) 9l[A;]f-9l[(AIVA2)] (i=1,2)
(\t'L) 2[('1xff[x] /\ ff[a])] f- 2['1xff[x]]
('1R) 9l[ff.[a]] f- 9l['1Xff[X]]} with a condition on
(3L) 2[ff[a]] f- 2[3xff[x]] variables
(3R) 9l[ff[a]] f- 9l[3xff[x]].
The free object variable denoted by a in the premises of the ('1R) and (3L)
inferences is said to be the eigenvariable of the given inference. The condition on
variables for these inferences is: The eigenvariable must not occur in the conclusion.
The left part denoted by (A ----+ B) in the conclusion of an (----+ L)-inference is
called the prinCipal part, the right part of the conclusion denoted by C is called the
secondary part of the given basic inference. For any other basic inference the
principal part is the left or right part of its conclusion shown. In every case the
principal part ofa basic inference is either a minimal left part or the end part of the
conclusion. For ----+ one only has a basic L-inference with principal left part, for /\
only a basic R-inference with principal right part and for v, '1, 3 one basic L-
inference and one basic R-inference.
By the degree of a formula we mean the number of ----+, /\, v, V' and 3 symbols
occurring in the formula.
It follows easily from the results of the next section that precisely the same
formulas are deducible in the system IP3 as in the system IPl. However, the
system IP3 has the advantage that induction on deductions is particularly simple
and transparent since here the derivation is direct and also no structural inference
occurs as a basic inference.
7. Deducible Formulas and Permissible Inferences in the System IP3
1. Generalizations of the Axioms
Theorem 7.1. Every formula ~[C, C] is deducible.
Proofby induction on the degree of the formula C.

1. Suppose C is an atomic formula. Then ~[C, C] is an axiom.
2. Suppose C is a formula (A ---4 B). Since ~[(A ---4 B), (*1 ---4 *2)] and
~[*1' (A ---4 *2)] are D-forms, by the LH. (induction hypothesis) I- ~[(A ---4 B),
(A ---4 A)] and I-~[B, (A ---4 B)]. Using an (---4 L)-inference with the D-form
~[*1' (A ---4 *2)] we get I- ~[(A ---4 B), (A ---4 B)].
3. Suppose C is a formula (A /\ B). Since ~[(*1 /\B), *2] and ~[(A /\ *1)' *2]
are D-forms, by LH. we have I-~[(A /\ B), A] and I-~[(A /\ B), B]. ,Since
~[(A /\ B), *1] is an R-form, by an ( /\ R)-inference we obtain I- ~[(A /\ B), (A /\ B)].
4. Suppose C is a formula (A v B). By LH. we have I- ~[A, A] and I- ~[B, B].
Using ( v R)-inferences we get I- ~[A, (A v B)] and I- ~[B, (A v B)]. Then by an
( v L)-inference we have I- ~[(A v B), (A v B)].
5. Suppose C is a formula V'xff[x] or 3xff[x]. We choose a free object
variableawhichdoesnotoccurin~[C, C]. ByLH. we have I-~[(V'xff[x] /\ ff[a]),
ff[a]] and I-~[ff[a], ff[a]]. Using an (V'L)-inference and an (3R)-inference we
have I-~[V'xff[x], ff[a]] and I-~[ff[a], 3xff[x]]. Using an (V'R)-inference and
an (3L)-inference we obtain I- ~[V'xff[x], V'xff[x]] and I- ~[3xff[x], 3xff[x]],
2. Weak Inferences
Theorem 7.2 (Substitution rule). If a 1 does not occur in the nominalform ff then
The proof proceeds by induction on the deduction as for Theorem 4.2.
Theorem 7.3. The following are weak inferences for the elimination oflogical symbols
(---4 E) 2'[(A 1 ---4 A 2)] I- 2'[A 2]

(/\ E) 9I![(A1/\ A 2)] I- 9I![AJ (i= 1, 2)
(vE) 2'[(A1VA2)]I-2'[AJ (i=1,2)
('IE) 9I![V'xff[x]] I- 9I![ff[a]]
(3E) 2'[3xff[x]] I- 2[ff[a]].
1. Proof for (---4 E), (/\ E) and (v E). Suppose OU[(A1 x A 2)] is a formula
2[(A1 ---4 A 2)], 9I![(A1/\ A 2)] or 2[(AJ v A 2)] which is deducible with order n.
We prove by induction on the deduction that Olt[AJ is then deducible with order
~n. For this let i=2 if Olt[(Al x A z)] is the formula 'p[(Al ~ A z)], otherwise
i= lor i=2.
1.1. Suppose Olt[(Al x A z)] is an axiom. Then Olt[AJ is also an axiom.
1.2. Suppose Olt[(Al x A z)] was obtained by a basic inference whose principal
part is the left or right part (Al x A z) shown. Then Olt[AJ is a premise of this basic
inference and therefore is deducible with order < n.
1.3. Suppose Olt[(Al x A z)] was obtained by an (~L)-inference whose
secondary part contains the part (Al x A z) shown. The premises of this (~ L)-
inference are of the form E&[(Bl ~ B z), B l ] and E&[Bz, OltO[(Al x A z)]] where
Olt[AJ is the formula E&[(Bl ~ B z), Olto[AJ]. Since E&[Bz, OltO[(Al x A z)]] is
deducible with order <n, by I.H. E&[Bz, Olto[AJ] is also deducible with order <no
Since E&[(Bl ~ B z), B l ] is also deducible with order <n it follows by an (~ L)-
inference that E&[(Bl ~ B z), Olto[AJ] is deducible with order ~n.
1.4. Suppose OU[(Al x A z)] was obtained in some other way by a basic in-
ference. Then every premise of this basic inference is of such a form Oltj[(Al x A z)]
that
Oltj[AJ U=1,2orj=1) f- Olt[AJ
is also a basic inference. By I.H. Oltj[AJ is deducible with order <no Using the given
basic inference it follows that Olt[AJ is deducible with order ~ n.
2. Prooffor (V'E) and (3E). Suppose Olt[Qx$'[x]] is a formula 9l[V'x$'(x]] or

'p[3x$'[x]], which is deducible with order n. We prove by induction on the de-
duction that Olt[$'[a]] is then deducible with order ~ n.
2.1. Suppose Olt[Qx$'[x]] is an axiom. Then Olt[$'[a]] is also an axiom.
2.2. Suppose Olt[Qx$'[x]] was obtained by a basic inference whose principal
part is the left or right part Qx$'[x] shown. The premise Olt[$'[a l ]] of this basic
inference is deducible with order <no Since the eigenvariable a l of the basic in-
ference does not occur in the nominal form Olt[$'] it follows by Theorem 7.2 that
Olt[$'[a]] is also deducible with order <no
2.3. Suppose Olt[Qx$'[x]] was obtained in some other way by a basic in-
ference. We choose a free object variable a l which does not occur in the nominal
form Olt[$'] and is not the eigenvariable of the basic inference. By I.H. it follows as
in 1.3 and 1.4 that Olt[$'[a l ]] is deducible with order ~ n. Then by Theorem 7.2
Olt[$'[a]] is also deducible with order ~ n.
Theorem 7.4 (Structural rule). If F~ G then Ff- G is a weak inference.

Proof by induction on the deduction. Suppose F is deducible with order nand
F~ G holds.
1. Suppose Fis an axiom. Then from F~ G it follows that G is also an axiom.
2. Suppose Fis a formula E&l[(A ~ B), C] which was obtained by an (~ L)-
inference from E& l[(A ~ B), A] andE& l[B, C]. Then GisaformulaE&z[(A ~ B), E]
where Eis the end part of F. Let E&o[B, E] be the formula obtained fromE& l[B, C]
by replacing every leftpart (A ~ B) of this formula by B. By Theorem 7.3 !?JJo[B, E]

is deducible with order <no From FflG we have !?JJl[(A~B),A]fl
!?JJ 2[(A ~ B), A] and !?JJo[B, E] fl !?JJ 2[B, E]. Then by I.H. !?JJ 2[(A ~ B, A] and
!?JJ 2[B, E] are deducible with orders <no Using an (~ L)-inference it follows that
!?JJ 2[(A ~ B), E] is deducible with order ~n.
3. Suppose F is a formula 9f!l[(A l /\ A 2)] which was obtained by an (/\ R)-
inference from 9l l [A l ] and 9f!1[A 2]. Then G is a formula 9l 2[(A l /\A 2)] where
9f!l[AJ fl9f!2[A;] (i= 1,2). By I.H. 9f!2[AJ is deducible with order <no Using an
(/\ R)-inference it follows that 9l 2 [(A l /\A 2 )] is deducible with order ~n.
4. Suppose F is a formula 2\ [(Al v A 2)] which was obtained by an (v L)-
inference from 2'l[A l ] and 2'1[A 2]. Then G is a formula 2'2 [(A 1 v A 2)]. For
i= 1,2 let Fi be the formula obtained by replacing every left part (Al v A 2) in
2'l[AJ by Ai' By Theorem 7.3 Fi is deducible with order <no From Ffl Gwehave
Fi fl2'2[AJ. Therefore by I.H. 2'2[AJ is deducible with order <no Using an
(v L)-inference it follows that 2'2 [(A 1 v A 2 )] is deducible with order ~iI. ,
5. Suppose F was obtained by an ( v R)-inference, (VL)-inference or (3R)-
inference. Then the assertion follows as in case 3.
6. Suppose F was obtained by a (VR)-inference or (3L)-inference with eigen-
variable a. We choose a free object variable a l which occurs in neither Fnor G. Let
Fl be the formula obtained by replacing the eigenvariable a in the premise of the
basic inference by a l . By Theorem 7.2 Fl is deducible with order <no Fl f- Fis a
basic inference with eigenvariable a l . Now the assertion follows as in case 3 or 4.
3. More Permissible Inferences
Theorem 7.5. 2'[g;[a]] f- 2'[Vxg;[x]] (provided x does not occur in g;) is a

permissible inference.
Proof We have 2'[g;[a]] fl2'[(Vxg;[x] /\ g;[a])]. Therefore by Theorem 7.4

from f- 2'[g;[a]] we have f- 2'[(Vxg;[x] /\ g;[a])]. Using a (VL)-inference we get
f- 2'[Vxg;[x]].
Theorem 7.6 (Cut rule). 9f![A], (A ~ B) f- 9f![B] is a permissible inference.
Proofby induction on the degree of the formula A.

1. Suppose A is a formula (Al /\A 2). By Theorem 7.3 from hgj?[(Al /\A 2)]
we have f-9l[A l ] and f-9f![A2l By Theorem 7.4 from f-Al /\A2)~ B) we have
f-(A2 ~ (A2 ~ B)). By the I.H. using f-9l[A l ] we have f-9f![(A2 ~ B)]. By Theorem
7.4 we have f- A2 ~ 9l[B]. By I.H. using f-9f![A 2] we get f-9l[9f![B]]. By Theorem
7.4 there follows f-9f![B].
2. Suppose A is an atomic formula or a formula (Al v A 2) or 3xg;[x]. In this
case we perform a subsidiary induction on the order of a deduction of 9f![A].
2.1. Suppose 9f![A] is an axiom.
2.1.1. If 9f![A] is an (Ax. I) then A is an atomic formula and 9l[B] is a formula
!?JJ[A, B]. By Theorem 7.4 from f-(A ~ B) we have f-!?JJ[A, B].
2.1.2. If 9f![A] is an (Ax. II) then 9l[B] is also an (Ax. II).
2.2. Suppose .?l[A] was inferred by a basic R-inference. Then A is either

(AI v A z) or 3x~[x].
2.2.1. If A is the formula (AI v A 2) then the basic R-inference has a premise
9i![A;J (i = 1 or i = 2). By Theorem 7.3 from f-A 1 v A 2) ---> B) we have f-(Ai ---> B).
By I.H. using 9i![A;J we have f-.?l[B].
2.2.2. If A is the formula 3x~[x] then the basic R-inference has a premise
9i![~[a]]. By Theorem 7.3 from f-(3x~[x] ---> B) we have f-(~[a] ---> B). By I.H.
using f-9i![F[aJJwe have f-9i![B].
2.3. Suppose .?l[A] was inferred by an (---> L)-inference. This inference has as
premises .@[(C I ---> C2), C 1 ] and .@[Cz, 9i!o[A]] where 9i! is the R-form
.@[(C I ---> C2), 9i!o]. From f-.@[C 2,.?lo[A]] and f-(A ---> B) by the S.I.H. (subsidiary
induction hypothesis) we obtain f-.@[C 2 , 9i!o[B]]. By an (---> L)-inference using
f-.@[(C I ---> C 2), C I] we have f-.@[(C I ---> C 2), .?lo[B]], i.e. f-.?l[B].
2.4. Suppose 9i![A] was inferred by an (v L)-inference, (VL)-inference or
(3L)-inference. In the case of an (3L)-inference we may assume by Theorem 7.2
that the eigenvariable of this inference does not occur in B. Then each premise of
the basic L-inference is of the form .?l;[A] so
9i!;[B] (i= 1, 2 or i= 1) f-9i![B]

is also a basic L-inference. From f-.?li[A] and HA ---> B) by the S.I.H. we therefore
have f-9i!;[B]. Using the given basic L-inference f-9i![B] follows.
3. Suppose A is a formula (AI ---> A 2) or Vx~[x]. For this case we use a sub-
sidiary induction on the order of a deduction of (A ---> B).
3.1. Suppose (A ---> B) is an axiom. Since A is a minimal left part of (A ---> B)
which is not an atomic formula then 9i![B] is also an axiom.
3.2. Suppose (A ---> B) was inferred by a basic inference with principal term A.
3.2.1. Suppose A is the formula (A I ---> A 2). Then the basic inference has
premises AI ---> A 2)---> 9i!O[AI]) and (A2 ---> 9i!o[C]) where B is the formula
9i!o[C]. By the S.I.H. from f-9i![(AI ---> A 2)] and f-AI ---> A 2)---> .?lo[Ad) we have
hJ4![9i!o[AI]]. By I.H. from f-9i![(AI ---> A 2)] and f-(A2 ---> 9i!o[C]) we have
f-9i![(AI ---> 9i!o[C])]. By Theorem 7.4 we have f-(AI ---> .?l[9i!o[C]]). Using
f-9i![.?lO[AIJJ there follows by I.H. f-.?l[.?lo[9i![.?lo[C]]]]. By Theorem 7.4 we have
f-9i![9i!o[C]], that is, f-9i![B].
3.2.2. Suppose A is the formula Vx~[x]. Then the basic inference has a
premise Vx~[x] /I. ~[a]) ---> B). By Theorem 7.4 the formula (Vx~[x]--->
(~[a] ---> B is also deducible with an order smaller than that of the formula
(Vx~[x] ---> B). Using f-.?l[Vx~[x]] therefore, f-.?l[(~[a] ---> B)] follows by the
S.I.H. By Theorem 7.4 there follows f-(~[a] ---> 9i![B]). From f-9i![Vx~[x]] by
Theorem 7.3 we have f-9i![~[a]]. Using f-(~[a] ---> .?l[B]), by I.H. we have
f-.?l[9i![B]]. By Theorem 7.4 we have f-9i![B].
3.3 Suppose (A ---> B) was inferred by a basic inference whose principal part is
contained in B. Then by Theorem 7.2 we may assume that an eigenvariable of the
basic inference is not a free object variable occurring in 9i!. Then each premise of the
basic inference is of the form (A ---> B i ) so
9i![B;J (i= 1, 2 or i= 1) f-9i![B]

is a basic inference. From 1-8l[A] and I-(A -> B;) by the S.I.H. we have I-Bl[BJ.
Using the given basic inference we have I-Bl[B].
Corollary to Theorem 7.6. Theformal system IP3 is s-consistent, that is, there is no
formula A such that A and (A -> l..) are both deducible in IP3.
Proof By Theorem 7.6
A, (A -> l..) I- l..
is a permissible inference in the system IP3. Were A and (A -> l..) deducible then l..
would also be deducible. But this is not the case since l.. is not an axiom nor does it
occur as the conclusion of a basic inference.
Remark. As will be shown in 8, every formula deducible in IP3 is also deduc;ible in

CPo Hence the s-consistency of the system IP3 also follows from the s-consistency
of the system CPo
4. Special Features of Intuitionistic Logic
Theorem 7.7. 1. A formula (A v B) is deducible only if A is deducible or B is

deducible.
2. A formula 3xff[x] is deducible only if there is a free object variable a such
that ff[a] is deducible.
Proof 1. (A v B) is not an axiom. The only basic inferences with (A v B) as con-

clusion are the ( v R)-inferences with premise A or B. Therefore I-(A v B) holds
only if I- A or I- B holds.
2. 3xff[x] is not an axiom. The only basic inferences with 3xff[x] as con-
clusion are the (3R)-inferences with a premise ff[a]. Therefore 1-3xff[x] holds
only if there is an a with I-ff[a].
Corollaries to Theorem 7.7. The formulas (v v (v -> l..

and ('Ix p(x) v
3x(P(x) -> l..,
where p is a one-place predicate letter, which are valid in classical
predicate calculus are not deducible in IP3.
Proof 1. Were (v v(v-> l.. deducible then by Theorem 7.7 v or (v-> l..) would
be deducible. But this is not the case since neither v nor (v -> l..) occurs as an axiom
or as the conclusion of a basic inference.
2. Were ('Ix p(x) v (3x(p(x) -> l.. deducible th~n by Theorem 7.7 'Ix p(x) or
3x(p(x) -> l..) would be deducible. By Theorems 7.3 and 7.7 pea) or (p(a) -> l..)
would then be deducible for some free object variable a. But this is not the case
since neither pea) nor (p(a) -> l..) occurs as an axiom or as the conclusion of a basic
inference.
5. Properties' of Negation
As in the system CP we define ,A : =(A -> .1.).
Theorem 7.S. f[A, B] f- f[,B, ,A] is a permissible inference.
Proof By Theorem 7.4 from f[A, B] we have f-f[(B-> .1.), (A -> B)l By an
(-> L)-inference using the axiom f[.1., (A -> .1.)] we have 1-f[(B -> .1.), (A -> .1.)],
hence 1-f[,B, ,Al
Theorem 7.9. The following formulas are deducible
(1) (A-> "A)

(2) (".1. -> .1.)
(3) ( " , A -> ,A)
(4) ,A -> A)-> , ,A)
Proof 1. By Theorem 7.1 we have I-A -> .1.) -> (A -> .1.. By Theorem 7.4 there
follows I-(A -> A -> .1.) -> .1.), that is, I-(A -> "A).
2. From the axioms (.1.-> .1.)-> .1.)-> (.1.-> .1. and (.1.->.1.) by an (-> L)-
inference we have f-(.1. -> .1.) -> .1.) -> .1.), that is, 1-(".1. -> .1.).
3. By (1) we have f-(A -> , ,A). By Theorem 7.8 there follows
f-{",A -> ,A).
4. By Theorem 7.1 we have f-,A -> A) -> (,A -> ,A. From (1) we have
f-(A->('A->.1.. By an (->L)-inference there follows f-,A->A)->
(,A -> .1.), that is, f-,A -> A) -> , ,A).
6. Syntactic Equivalence
Let ~F denote that the formula F is deducible in the system IP3.

Let ALB denote that (A -> B) and (B-> A) are deducible in IP3.
Let A k B denote that A ~ Band B ~ A hold in IP3.
Theorem 7.10. L is an equivalence relation which is compatible with ~, k and->,

that is, the following hold:
(1) ALA.
(2) ALB implies BLA.
(3) ALB and BL C imply ALe.
(4) ALB and ~A imply ~B.
(5) A kB implies ALB.
(6) ALB implies (A -> C) L (B-> C) and (C -> A) L (C -> B).
Proof (1) holds by Theorem 7.1. (2) holds by the definition of L. (3) and (4) follow
from Theorem 7.6.
. From I-(A -+ A) and A ~ B by Theorem 7.4 we have I-(A -+ B). This gives (5).
From I-(A -+ B) we have I-(A -+ (C -+ B. Using 1- C -+ A) -+ (C -+ C we
obtain I-C-+ A)-+ (C-+ B by an (-+ L)-inference. From I-(B-+ A) there
follows I-A-+ C)-+ (B-+ A. Using I-(C-+ (B-+ C we obtain I-A-+ C)-+
(B-+ C. This gives (6).
8. Relations between Classical and Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus
1. Embedding IP3 in CP
We now regard every formula of the system IP3 as also being a formula of the
system CP where A, v and 3 are defined as in 4.4. We need the following lerpmata
in order to show that every formula deducible in IP3 is also deducible in CPo
Lemma 1. Every R-form is a P-form, every L-form is an N-form.
Proofby induction on the length of the R-form or L-form.

1. The R-form *1 is a P-form.
2. IfBl is a P-form then: Bl[(*1 -+ B)] is an N-form, Bl[(B-+ *1)] is a P-form.
3. If 2 is an N-form then: 2'[(*1 -+ 1..)] is a P-form, 2[((*1-+ (B-+ 1..-+
1..)] is an N-form, 2[B-+ *d-+ 1..)] is a P-form and 2'[((B-+ (*1-+ 1..-+ 1..)]
is an N-form. By the definition of A, 2[(*1 A B)] and 2'[(B A *1)] are therefore
N-forms.
Lemma 2. Every D-form is an NP-form.
Proof This follows from Lemma 1.
Lemma 3. Thefollowing are permissible inferences in the system CP:
(I) ,q[(A -+ B), A], ,q[B, C) I- ,q[(A -+ B), C],

(2) %[Vxff[x] A ff[a])] I- %[Vxff[x]].
Proof 1. By Theorem 4.3, from I- ,q[(A -+ B), A] by an inversion inference we have

I-,q[(A -+ 1..), A]. By Theorem 4.4, using a structural inference we obtain
I- ,q[(A -+ 1..), C). From this and I- ,q[B, C) an (SI)-inference gives I- ,q[(A -+ B), C).
2. Since (Vxff[x] A ff[a]) is defined in PC to be the formula Vxff[x]-+
(ff[a] -+ 1.. -+ 1..), from I- %[(Vxff[x] A ff[a])] by Theorem 4.4 a structural
inference we have 1-1..-+ 1..)-+ (Vxff[x]-+ %[ff[a]]. Since (1..-+ 1..) is de-
ducible by Theorem 4.6 we have I-(Vxff[x] -+ %[ff[a]]). By an (S3)-inference we
have I- %[Vxff[x]].
Theorem 8.1. Every formula deducible in IP3 is deducible in CPo

8. Relations between Classical and Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus 49
Proof By Lemmata 1 and 2 every axiom of the system IP3 is an axiom of the
system CPo By Lemmata 2 and 3 every (-4 L)-inference is permissible in CPo By
Lemma 1 every ('v'R)-inference is an (S2)-inference. By Lemmata 1 and 3 every
('v'L)-inference is permissible in CPo By Lemma 1 and Theorem 4.8 all the remaining
basic inferences of the system IP3 are permissible in CPo
2. Interpretation of CP in IP3
Inductive definition of a formula F for each formula F of the system CPo

1. ..L:=..L
2. P: = , ,p for every other atomic formula P
3. (A -4 B) : = (A -4 B)
4. If $'[a] = $'[a] , where a does not occur in the nominal forms $' and $'
then 'v'x$'[x] : = 'v'x$'[x].
Lemma 4. ( , ' A -4 A) is deducible in IP3.
1. Suppose A is an atomic formula. Then we have ~(, ,A -4 A) by Theorem

7.9 (2) and (3) .
2. SupposeAisaformula(A l -4 A 2). ByTheorem7.1 we have fLA l -4 A2)-4
(Ai -4 A2. By two applications of Theorem 7.8 we have ~(, ,(Ai -4 A2)-4
(Ai -4 "A2' By I.H. we have ~(, ,A2-4 A2)' By Theorem 7.6 there follows
~(, ,(Ai -4 A2) -4 (Ai -4 A2 and therefore ~(, ,A -4 A).
3. Suppose A is a formula 'v'x$'[x]. Suppose $'[a] = $'[a] , where a occurs in
neither $' nor $'. By Theorem 7.1 we have ~($'[a] -4 $'[a]). Therefore by Theorem
7.5 we have ~('v'x$'[x] -4 $'[a]). Two applications of Theorem 7.8 yield
~(, ,'v'x$'[x] -4 ,,$'[a]). By I.H. we have ~(, ,$'[a] -4 $'[a]). By
Theorem 7.6 therefore ~(, ,'v'x$'[x]-4 $'[a]). From an ('v'R)-inference we have
~(, ,'v'x$'[x] -4 'v'x$'[x]) and thereforej-!(, ,A -4 A).
Proof By Theorem 7.9 (1) and Lemma 4 we have BL, ,B. Therefore
(,A-4BL(,A-4" B). Since (,A-4" B)d:(, B-4 "A) holds we
have (,A-4B)L(,B-4 "A). Using "ALA we obtain (,A-4B)L
(,B-4A).
Lemma 6. (,A -4 A) LA:.
Proof By Theorem 7.9 (4) we have ~ ,A -4 A) -4 "A), and by Lemma 4

fL(, ,A -4 A). Therefore by Theorem 7.6 we have fL, A -4 A) -4 A). By Theorem
7.1 we also havefL(A-4 (,A-4 A.
Lemma 7. For every P-form flJ there is an R-form f!Il such that gt'[AJ"!' f!Il[AJ holds
for every formula A.
Proofby induction on the length of gt'.

I. Suppose flJ is the P-form * l ' Then the assertion holds for f!Il: = *l '
2. Suppose flJ is a P-form gt'o[(B- *d]. Then by I.H. there is an R-form fJt o
such that ~~f!Ilo[CJ for every formula C. Now gt'[AJ is gt'o[(B- A)J hence
gt'[AJ ~ f!Ilo[(B - A)J, that is gt'[AJ ~ f!IloWl- A)]. The assertion is therefore
satisfied by f!Il: = f!IloWl- *d]'
3. Suppose flJ is a P-form .AT(*1 - .l)]. Then JV is an N-form flJ O[(*1 - B)J
and therefore flJ is the P-form gt'0[*1 - .l) - B)]. By I.H. there is an'R-form f!Ilo
such that gt'0[C] ~ f!Ilo[CJ for every formula C. Now gt'[AJ is gt'o[((A - .l) - B)J
hence gt'[AJ L f!Ilo[((A - .l) - B)J, that is gt'[AJ L f!Ilo[((A - .l) - B)]. Since
f!Ilo[((A - .l) - B)] k( IA - f!Ilo[B]) it follows that gt'[AJ"!' (,A - f!Ilo[BJ). By
Lemma 5 we have flJ[AJ"!' (,f!IlO[B] - A). The assertion is therefore satisfied by
f!Il:=(,f!IlO[B]- *d
Lemma 8. For every N-form JV there is an L-form f' such that JV[AJ ,.!,f'[AJfor
every formula A.
Proof JV is an N-form gt'[( *1 - B)]. By Lemma 7 there is an R-form f!Il such that
JV[AJ"!' f!Il[(A - B)]. The assertion is therefore satisfied by f': = f!Il[( * 1 - B)].
Theorem 8.2 (Interpretation Theorem). If F is deducible in CP then F is deducible

in IP3.
Proofby induction on the deduction.

1. Suppose Fis an axiom .2[P, P]. By Lemmata 7 and 8 there is an R-form f!Il
and an L-form f' such that F,.!, f!Il[PJ and F L f'[P]. Hence (P - f!Il[PJ) L
(p - f'[PJ). By Theorem 7.1 we have f-!(P - f!Il[PJ). Hence f-!(P - f'[PJ). From
Theorem 7.4 we have f-!f'[P]. Since F L f'[PJ, we have f-!F.
2. Suppose F is an axiom JV[.l]. By Lemma 8 there is an L-form f' such that
F L f'[.l]. Since f'[.l J is an axiom of the system IP3, we have f-!F.
3. Suppose F is a formula JV[(A - B)J obtained by an (SI)-inference from
JV[A -.lJ and JV[B]. By Lemma 8 there is an L-form f' such that
F ~ f'[(A _ B)], JV[(A - .l)J"!' f'[(A - .l)J and JV[BJ L f'[B]. By I.H. there-
fore f-!f'[(A - .l)J and f-!f'[B]. By Theorem 7.4 we have f-!A - B)-
(IA- f'[(A- B)J and f-!(B- (IF- f'[(A- .8)J. UsingF L f'[(A-.8)J
we have f-!A - .8) - (I A - F and f-!(B - (IF - F. By Lemma 5 we have
f-!A-.8)- (IF- A. Using an (-L)-inference we obtain ~A- B)-
(IF - F. By Lemma 6 we have f-!A - B)- F). Using F Lf'[(A - B)J we
obtain f-!A - .8) - f'[(A -.8)]. By Theorem 7.4 we have f-!f'[(A - .8)J,
hence f-!F.
4. Suppose F is a formula gt'[Yxff[xJJ obtained by an (S2)-inference from
gt'[ff[aJ]. By Lemma 7 there is an R-form f!Il such that F Lf!Il[Yxff[xJJ and
9. The Interpolation Theorem 51
&'[~[a]],.l ~[~[a]]. By I.H. we have fL~[~[a]]. Now a does notoccurin~[~].

By an (VR)-inference we have fl~[Vx~[x]], hence flF.
5. Suppose F is a formula %[Vx~[x]] obtained by an (S3)-inference from
(Vx~[x] -4 %[~[a]]). By Lemma 8 there is an L-form fI' such that
F ,.lfl'[Vx~[x]] and (Vx~[x] -4 %[~[a]]),.l(Vx~[x] -4 fI'[~[a]]). By I.H.
we have fl(Vx~[x] -4 fI'[~[a]]). By Theorem 7.4 we have flfl'[(Vx~[x] A
~[a])]. By an (VL)-inference we have flfl'[Vx~[x]], hence flF.
Let ~F denote that the formula F is deducible in the system CP.

Let A~B denote that (A -4 B) and (B-4 A) are deducible in CPo
Theorem 8.3. A ~ A.

(*1-4.1)-4.1)-4*2) and (*1-4*2-4.1)-4.1 are NP-forms. Con-
sequently ("-, --, P -4 P) and (P -4 --, --, P) are axioms of the system CP. Hence
p P for every atomic formula P. For the remaining formulas the assertion follows
from the induction hypothesis since two formulas are classically equivalent if they
only differ from each other by classically equivalent components.
9. The Interpolation Theorem
As a sort of converse of the cut rule we have an interpolation theorem which was
first formulated and proved for classical predicate calculus by W. Craig. Here we
prove the corresponding theorem for the formal system IP3 and then show that this
yields the interpolation theorem for the system CP.
1. Interpolation Theorem for the System IP3
If X is a formula or a nominal form then we write <X) for the set of free object
variables, sentential variables and predicate letters occurring in X.
Interpolation Theorem. For every formula ~[B] deducible in IP3 there is aformula
A with the following properties:
1. ~[A] and (A -4 B) are deducible in IP3.
2. A contains only free object variables, sentential variables and predicate letters
which occur in both ~ and B, that is to say, <A) <qt)n<B).
We call such a formula an interpolant between qt and B.
Proof of the interpolation theorem. Suppose the formula ~[B] was deduced with
order n. We prove, by induction on the order n of the deduction, that there is an
interpolant between ~ and B.
1. Suppose ~[B] is an axiom.

1.1. Suppose B is an axiom. Then ~[(1.~ 1.)] and 1.~ 1.)~ B) are
axioms. Then (1. ~ 1.) is an interpolant between ~ and B.
1.2. Suppose ~[B] is an (Ax. I) and B is not an axiom. Then ~ is an R-form
.@[P, *1] where P is the end part of B. In this case ~[P] and (P~ B) are axioms.
P occurs in ~ as well as in B. Hence P is an interpolant between !Yt and B.
1.3. Suppose ~[B] is an (Ax. II) and B is not an axiom. Then 1. is an inter-
polant between !Yt and B.
2. Suppose ~[B] was obtained by a basic inference whose principal part is
contained in B. Each premise of this basic inference is of the form ~[Bi] (i = 1, 2
or i= 1). ByI.H. there exist Ai such that I- ~[Aa, I-(Ai ~ Bi)and <Ai) <~)n<B;).
2.1. Suppose the basic inference was an (~ L)-inference, {t\ R)-inference or
(vL)-inference. These have two premises ~[B;] (i=1,2) with <B;)<B).
Therefore AI /\A2<~)n<B). By an (/\ R)-inference and by using Theorem
7.4, from I-~[A;] and I-(Ai~ B;) we obtain I-~[(Al /\A 2)] and I-Al /\A2)'~ B i )
(i = 1, 2). In the present case
is also a basic inference. Hence we have I-Al /\ A 2) ~ B). Therefore (AI /\ A 2) is

an interpolant between ~ and B.
2.2. Suppose the basic inference was an (v R)-inference, (VR)-inference or
(3L)-inference. This has one premise ~[Bl]' If the basic inference has an eigen-
variable then this does not occur in ~. In every case we have <~)n<Bl)
<~)n<B). Hence <AI) <~)n<B). In the present situation we also have that
is a basic inference. So from I-(Al ~ B l ) we have I-(Al ~ B). Since I-~[Al] also
holds, Al is an interpolant between !Yt and B.
2.3. Suppose the basic inference was an (VL)-inference or an (3R)-inference.
These have one premise ~[Bl]. Then
is also a basic inference. So from I-(Al ~ B l ) we have I-(Al ~ B). There is a free
object variable a such that <B l ) <B)u{a}. Ifaoccursin Bthen <AI) <~)n<B).
Since we also have I-~[Al]' Al is therefore an interpolant between ~ and B. Now
assume that a does not occur in B. Then Al is a formula ffl[a] such that a does not
occur in the I-place nominal form fFl . By an (3R)-inference and an (3L)-inference,
from 1-~[fFl[a]] and I-(ffl[a] ~ B) we have 1-~[3xfFl[X]] and 1-(3xffl[X] ~ B).
Then <3xfFl [x]) <~)n<B). Hence 3xfFl [x] is an interpolant between ~ and B.
3. Suppose ~[B] was obtained by a basic inference whose principal part is not
contained in B. Then this basic inference is an L-inference.
3.1. Suppose the basic inference was an (~ L)-inference whose secondary part
contains the formula B. This inference has two premises ~[(C1 ~ C 2), C 1] and
~[C2' 9l o[B]], where &l is the R-form ~[(C1 ~ C 2), 9l o]. By I.H. for the second
premise there is a formula A such that 1-~[C2' 9l o[A]], I-(A ~ B) and <A) S;
<~[C2' &lo])n<B). Hence <A) s;<9l)n<B) .. By an (~L)-inference from
1-~[(C1 ~ C 2), C 1] and 1-~[C2' 9l o[A]] we have 1-~[(C1 ~ C 2), &lo[A]], that is,
I- 9l[A]. Hence A is an interpolant between &l and B.
3.2. Suppose the basic inference was an (~ L)-inference whose secondary term
does not contain the formula B. This inference has two premises ~[(C1 ~ C 2 ),
9l o[ C 1]] and ~[C2, &lo[Bo]], where B is the formula &lo[Bo] and 9l is the R-form
~[(C1 ~ C 2), *1]. Since the first premise ~[(C1 ~ C 2), &lo[C 1]] is deducible with
order <n, by Theorem 7.4 9l0[~[(C1 ~ C 2), C 1]] is also deducible with order
<no By I.H. there is therefore a formula A1 such that l-&lo[A 1], I-(A1 ~
~[(C1 ~ C 2), C 1]) and <A1)S;<&lO)n<~[(C1 ~ C 2), C 1J>. Since the second
premise is also deducible with order < n, by I.H. there is also a formula A2 such that
1-~[C2' A 2], I-(A2 ~ 9l o[Bo]) and <A 2)s; <~[C2' *lJ>n<9l o[BoJ>. Since
<~[(C1 ~ C 2), C 1J>s;<9l), <~[C2' *1])S;<&l) and 9l o[Bo]=B, it follows that
A 1 ~ A 2s; <&l)n<B). By Theorem 7.4 from I-(A1 ~ ~[(C1 ~ C 2), C 1]) and
1-~[C2' A 2] we have 1-~[(C1 ~ C 2), (A1 ~ C 1)] and 1-~[C2' (A1 ~ A 2)]. Using
an (~ L)-inference we have 1-~[(C1 ~ C 2), (A1 ~ A 2)], that is, 1-9l[(A1 ~ A 2)].
By Theorem 7.4 from 1-9l 0[A1] we have 1-A1 ~ A2)~ 9l 0[A1])' This together
with I-(A2 ~ &lEBo]) by an (~ L)-inference gives I-A1 ~ A 2) ~ 9l o[Bo]), that is,
1-A1 ~ A 2) ~ B). Hence (A1 ~ A 2) is an interpolant between &l and B.
, 3.3. Suppose the basic inference was an ( v L)-inference. This inference has
two premises ~[Ci' B] (i= I, 2) where &l is the R-form ~[(C1 v C 2), *1]. By I.H.
there are formulas Ai such that I-~[Ci' A;], I-(Ai~ B) and <A;)S;
<~[Ci' *lJ>n<B). Hence <CAl v A 2)s; <&l)n<B). By an (v R)-inference from
I-~[Ci' AJ we have I-~[Ci' (A1 v A 2)] (i= 1,2) and by an (v L)-inference
1-~[(C1 v C 2), (A1 v A 2)], that is, 1-9l[(A1 v A 2)]. By an (v L)-inference from
I-(Ai~ B) (i=1,2) we have I-A1 VA2)~ B). Hence (A1 vA 2) is an interpolant
between 9l and B.
3.4. Suppose the basic inference was an (V'L)-inference. This inference has a
premise ~[(V'xff[x] 1\ ff[a]), B] where &l is the R-form ~[V'xff[x], *1]. By I.H.
there is a formula A1 such that I-~[(V'xff[x] 1\ ff[a], A 1]), I-(A1 ~ B) and
<A 1) s;<~[(V'xff[x] 1\ ff[a]), *lJ>n<B). Consequently <A 1) s;&l)u
{a})n<B). By an (V'L)-inference from 1-~[(V'xff[x]l\ff[a]),A1] we have
I-~[V'xff[x], AIl, that is, 1-9l[A 1]. If a occurs in 9l, thert <A 1) s; <&l)n<B) and
hence A1 is an interpolant between &l and B. Now assume that a does not occur in
&l. A 1 is a formula ff 1[a], where a does not occur in ff l' By an (V'R)-inference and
by Theorem 7.5 from 1-9l[ff l[a]] and I-(ff 1[a] ~ B) we have 1-&l[V'Xff1[X]] and
1-(V'Xff1[X] ~ B). Then <V'xff1[xJ> S; <&l)n<B). Hence V'xff1[x] is an interpolant
between &l and B.
3.5. Suppose the basic inference was an (3L)-inference. This inference has one
premise ~[ff[a], B] where 9l is the R-form ~[3xff[x], *1]. By I.H. there is a
formula A such that I-~[ff[a], A], I-(A ~ B) and <A) S; <~[ff[a], *lJ>n<B).
The eigenvariable a of the (3L)-inference does not occur in B. Therefore it does not
occur in A either. Consequently <A) S; <&l)n<B), and by an (3L)-inference from
I-!,}[ff[a], A] we have 1-!,}[3xff[x], A], that is, 1-91[A]. Hence A is an interpolant

between 9l and B.
Remark. The above proof is constructive. I t shows how to construct an interpolant

between 9l and B from a given deduction of 9l[B].
2. Interpolation Theorem for the System CP
We are here content with the following simple version:

Interpolation Theorem. For every formula (A -4 C) deducible in CP there is a
formula B with thefol/owing properties:
1. (A -4 B) and (B -4 C) are deducible in CPo
2. (B) (A)n(C).
We call such a formula B an interpolant between A and C.
This theorem can be proved directly in CPo But we can derive it as follows from
the interpolation theorem for the system IP3.
By Theorem 8.2 from ~(A -4 C) we have fl(A -4 C). By the interpolation
theorem for the system IP3 it follows that there is a formula B such that fl(A -4 B),
fl(B-4 C) and (B) (A)n(C). By Theorem 8.1 wehave~A-4 B)and~B-4 C).
By Theorem 8.3 we have ~A -4 A) and ~(C -4 C). By Theorem 4.6 therefore
~A-4 B)and~B-4 C). From (B) (A)n(C) we have (B) (A)n(C). Hence
B is an interpolant between A and C.
We now give two applications of the interpolation theorem.
3. Finitely Axiomatisable Theories
We consider mathematical theories which can be formulated in the language of the

predicate calculus. Such a theory is said to be finitely axiomatisable if it can be
based on finitely many formulas of predicate calculus as axioms. We can then take
the conjunction of these formulas to obtain a single formula A. The theory ff(A)
for which A is the axiom is determined in predicate calculus as follows.
The free object variables, sentential variables and predicate letters occurring in
A denote the relevant concepts of the theory ff(A), namely the underlying objects,
sentences and predicates which are axiomatically characterized by the formula A.
A formula B expresses a classically (or intuitionistically) provable theorem of
the theory ff(A) if the formula (A -4 B) is deducible in the system CP (or IP3).
The theory ff(A) is said to be classically (or intuitionistically) consistent if the
formula (A -4 -1) is not deducible in CP (or IP3).
A theory ff(B) is said to be more general than a theory ff(A) if the formula
(A -4 B) is deducible. In this case every provable theorem of the theory ff(B) is also
provable in the theory ff(A).
The interpolation theorem says: If C is provable in a theory ff(A) then C is also

provable in a more general theory ff(B) whose relevant concepts are only those
relevant concepts of ff(A) which occur in C. That is: Those relevant concepts of
ff(A) which do not occur in C are not needed for the proof of C in ff(A).
This holds not only for theories in classical predicate calculus but also for those
in intuitionistic predicate calculus.
4. Beth's Definability Theorem
The simplest version of the definability theorem runs:

If the formula
(1) d'[p] 1\ d'[q]) - Vx(p(x) - q(x)))
is deducible then there is a one-place nominal form ", in which neither p nor q occurs,
such that the formulas
(2) (d'[p] - Vx(p(x) - "[x]))

(3) (d'[p] - Vx("[x] - p(x)))
are deducible. Here p and q are to be two distinct one-place predicate letters which
do not occur in the nominal form d'.
That is to say: If the uniqueness condition (1) is deducible for d'[p] then a
ptedicate is defined which can be expressed in predicate calculus by a nominal form
". By (2) and (3) this predicate is uniquely determined by the nominal form d'.
This definability theorem holds not only for classical predicate calculus but
also for intuitionistic predicate calculus. Following G. Kreisel it can be proved
from the interpolation theorem as follows.
Since the formula (1) is deducible so too is the formula
d'[p] I\p(a)) - (d'[q] - q(a))).
Here a is a free object variable which does not occur in the nominal form d'. By the
interpolation theorem there is therefore a formula A, in which neither p nor q
occurs, such that the formulas
d'[p] I\p(a))- A),

(A - (d'[q] - q(a)))
are deducible. We may replace q in the last formula by p. A is a formula"[a] where

a does not occur in ". Therefore we have
(4) f-d'[p] I\p(a)) - "[a]),

(5) f-("[a] - (d'[p] - p(a)).
From (4) it follows that (2) is deducible and from (5) it follows that (3) is deducible.
Versions of the definability theorem for many-place predicates can also be
formulated and proved in analogous fashion.
Chapter IV
Classical Simple Type Theory
Like predicate calculus, simple type theory deals with a non-empty domain of basic
objects. But it deals not only with predicates over this domain, but also with
arbitrary predicates of predicates. Further, quantification is permitted n<;>t only
over the basic domain but also over predicates of all types.
We denote the type of the basic objects by 0, the type of statements (formulas)
by 1 and the type of predicates with arguments of types 'b ... , '. by ('1' ... , '.).
The primitive logical symbols we use are just - 4 and V from which we can define
1.., --', 1\, v and 3. We use the abstraction symbol A to form the predicate
Ax~I ... x~nd[Xl',,x~nJ of type ('1' ... ".). This predicate holds for those and
only those elements e~', ... , e~n of types '1' ... , '. for which the statement (formula)
d[e~', ... , e~nJ holds (is deducible). In addition we use symbols for particular basic
objects and for functions on the basic domain.
We first develop classical simple type theory purely syntactically using only
constructive methods and then define a corresponding semantics which can only
be adequately developed by using non-constructive methods.
1O. The Formal System CT
1. The Formal Language
1. Inductive definition of the types.

1.1. 0 and 1 are types.
1.2. If'l, ... , '. (n~ 1) are types, then ('b ... , '.) is also a type.
We use
a, ai' 'i as syntactic symbols for types and
, for sequences, 1, ... , ' . (n ~ 1) of types.
2. Primitive symbols of the system CT.
2.1. Denumerably infinitely many free and bound variables of each type.
2.2. A non-empty set of object symbols.
2.3. Certain function letters with specified numbers ~ 1 of arguments.
2.4. The symbols - 4 , V and A.
2.5. Round brackets and comma.

aa, a~ifor free variables of types (1, 't;,
for bound variables of types (1, 't;,
x a , x?
at for sequences al', ... , a~n (n ~ I) of free variables,
xt for sequences xI', "', x~n (n ~ 1) of pairwise distinct bound variables.
3. Inductive definition of terms in the system CT and their types.
3.1. Every free variable of type (1 is a term of type (1.
3.2 Every object symbol is a term of type O.
3.3. If 4> is an n-place function letter (n ~ I) and t?, ... , t~ are terms of type 0,
then 4>(t?, ... , t~) is a term of type O.
3.4. Iftl', ... , t~n(n~ I) and t~l,,tn) are terms of types 't 1 , ... ,'to and ('tl' ... , 'to),
then tg,,,t n) (ti', ... , t~n) is a term of type 1. (We sometimes denote this by tgV)
for brevity where 't ='tI' ... , 'to and tt =(ti', ... , t~n.)
3.5. If A and H are terms of type I then (A -+ H) is also a term of type 1.
3.6. If ff[aa] is a term of type I and x a is a bound variable which does not
occur in the nominal form ff then 'v'x aff[x1 is also a term of type 1.
3.7. If d[al', ... , a~n] (n~I) is a term of type 1 and xl', ... ,x~n are pairwise
distinct bound variables \\1!.ich do not occur in the n-place nominal form d then
.hi' ... x~nd[xl', ... , x~n] is a term of type ('t I, ... , 'to). (We sometimes denote this
by Axtd[xt] for brevity where xt=xl', ... , x~n.)
The terms of type I are called formulas. Free variables of type I and formulas of
the form a~ .. 'tn)(ti', ... , t~n) where a~ .. 'tn) is a free variable, are called atomic
fOrmulas.
F, tIi for terms of types (1, 't;,
tt for sequences ti', ... , t~n (n ~ 1) of terms,
A, A;, H, H;, C, C;, F, F;, G, G; for formulas,
P, P; for atomic formulas,
ff, IF; for I-place nominal forms such that 'v'~ff[xa], 'v'xalF;[xa ] are formulas,
d, d; for n-place nominal forms (n~ 1) such that Axtd[xt], Axtd;[xt] are terms
of type ('t) where 't='tl' ... , 'to'
We identify terms which only differ in the choice of the bound variables
occurring in them. When we write ff[F] or d[tt] we assume that the bound
variables which occur in F and tt are chosen so that they do not also occur in the
nominal form ff or d (respectively).
Corollaries: 1. if'v'xaff[xa ] is a formula and F a term of type (1, then ff[F] is a

formula.
2. ifAXtd[xt] isa term of type ('t)= ('t I , ... , 'to) and tt=t1', ... , t~n is a sequence
of terms of types 't I"'" 'to then d[tt] is a formula.
2. Chains of Subterms
We need to give formulas a rank for our proofs by induction. We define this rank
with the aid of chains of subterms.
58 IV. Classical Simple Type Theory
We call terms of type 0 and free variables prime terms.

We define the sub terms of a term as follows:
STl. A prime term has no subterms.
ST2. An atomic formula a~""" tn)(ti', ... , t~n) has ti', ... , t~n as subterms.
ST3. A formula Axtd[xt] (tt) has d[l'] as subterm.
ST4. A formula (A -4 B) has A and Bas subterms.
ST5. A formula Vxtr~[xtr] has as subterms every formula ~[atr] (for every
free variable if of type 0).
ST6. A term Axtd[xt] has as subterms every formula d[at] (for every
sequence at = ai', ... , a~n of free variables of types, 1, ... , 'n)'
By a sub term chain of a term ~ we mean a sequence
toO, ti', t~>' ...
of terms formed as follows:

SCI. The initial term toO of the subterm chain is the term ttr.
SC2. If a term t~i in the subterm chain is not a prime term, then the subterm
chain contains as immediate successor of t~i a subterm ti+.+I of tii.
SC3. If a term tii in a subterm chain is a prime term then it is the last term in
the subterm chain. We then say that the subterm chain has length i.
A term ttr is said to be regular if all subterm chains of ttr have a maximal finite
length m. We define this number m to be the rank Rttr of a regular term ttr.
In the following we suppose d is a I-place nominal form such that d[a tr ] is a
term.
Lemma 1. If d[ai] is a regular term, then d[a~] is a regular term with the same rank
as o[ai].
Proof The lemma follows by induction on the rank of d[ai].
Lemma 2. If every sub term of a term ttr is regular, then ttr is regular.
Proof If a term has infinitely many regular subterms (by ST5 or ST6), then by
Lemma I these have the same rank, m say. This yields the assertion since then ttr
has rank m + I.
We define the height of a type (J to be the number of round brackets which

occur in (J.
Lemma 3. The following conditions are sufficient for a term d[ttr] to be regular:
(I) d[a tr ] and ttr are regular terms.
(2) For every type 'i of height less than (J we have: If1f'[ai i ] and tii are regular
terms, then 1f'[ti i ] is a regular term.
(3) For every regular term di [atr] of smaller rank than d[a tr ], d;[ttr] is a regular
term.
Proof l. Suppose 0 is the nominal form * l' Then o[t"] is the term t" which is
regular by condition (I).
2. Suppose 0 is a nominal form *1(01' ... , 0.) (n~ I), where 01, ... , o. are
I-place nominal forms. Then O"=('b ... , '.) where 0i[t"] is of type 'i. For
i= I, ... , n, oJa"] is a regular term of smaller rank than o[a"]. It follows by
condition (3) that oJt"] is regular.
2.l. Suppose t" is a prime term. Then o[t"] has the subterms 0l[t"], ... , o.[t"].
Since these are regular, o[t"] is regular.
2.2. Suppose t" is a term .A.xtd[xt] where '='1' ... , ' .
Then t" has a subterm
d[at] where at =a~', ... , a~n. This subterm is regular since t" is regular by con-
'i
dition (l). For i= I, ... , n, has a smaller height than 0". Since oJt"] is regular it
follows by condition (2) that d[ol[t"], ... , o.[t"]] is regular. This is the only
sub term of o[t"]. Hence o[t"] is regular.
3. In every other case every subterm of o[t"] is of the form oJt"], where 0i[a"]
is a subterm of o[a"]. Since 0i[a"] is then a regular term of smaller rank than o[a"],
it follows by condition (3) that every subterm 0i [t"] of o[t"] is regular. Hence
o[t"] is also regular.
Lemma 4. If o[a"] and t" are regular terms then o[t"] is also a regular term.
Proof It follows from Lemma 3 by induction on the rank of the regular term o[a"]
that o[t"] is regular if conditions (l) and (2) of Lemma 3 hold. The assertion now
f?llowS by induction on the height of the type 0".
We define the length of a term t" to be the number of primitive symbols which
occur in t".
Theorem 10.1. Every term t" is regular.
Proofby induction on the length of the term t".

l. Suppose t" is a formula .A.xtd[xt] (tt) where tt = t'1', ... , t~n. Then the terms
d[at] and t'1', ... , t~n have smaller lengths than t". By the induction hypothesis
these are therefore regular. By Lemma 4 it follows that the term d[tt] is also
regular. This is the only subterm of t". Hence t" is regular.
2. In every other case every subterm of t" has a smaller length than t" and
therefore by the induction hypothesis is regular. Hence t" is regular by Lemma 2.
Corollary to Theorem 10.1: Every formula has a computablejinite rank.
Theorem 10.2. Thefollowing holdfor ranks offormulas:

(1) RA<R(A-4B) and RB<R(A-4B).
(2) Rff[a"] < RVx"ff[x"].
(3) Rd[t'] < Rhtd[xt](tt).
Proof Immediate from the definition of the rank of a formula and the definition
of subterm of a term.
3. Axioms and Basic Interferences
We set
and define P-forms, N-forms, NP-forms, positive parts, negative parts, minimal
positive and negative parts and
as in 3.
As before we use the following syntactic symbols:
f!J, f!Ji for P-forms,
%, %i for N-forms,
8, 8 i for P-forms and N-forms,
fl, fli for NP-forms.
The axioms of the system CT are all formulas of the form fl[P, P].
The basic inferences of the system CT are:

(Sl) %[(A - 'v'X 1X1)], %[B] I- %[(A - B)],
if B is not a formula 'v'X 1X1.
(S2) f!J[,F[aa]] I- f!J['v'x a,F[xa ]] (with a condition on the variable).
(S3) (,F[t a] _ %['v'xa,F[xa]]) I- %['v'xa,F[xa]].
(S4) 0"[d[tt]] I- S[htd[xt](t')].
The free variable denoted by aa in the premise of an (S2)-inference is called the
eigenvariable of the inference. It must not occur in the conclusion. The minimal
positive or negative part in the conclusion of a basic inference is said to be the
principal part of the given basic inference.
4. Deducible Formulas and Permissible Inferences
Theorem 10.3. Every formula of the form fl[ C, C] is deducible.
Proofby induction on the rank of the formula C in the same way as for Theorem
4.1. For the case that C is a formula Axtd[xt](tt) we start from the assumption
that, by I.H., fl[d[tt], d[tt]] is deducible. Using (S4)-inferences we have
I- fl[C, C].
Theorem 10.4. Every formula %['v'X 1X1] is deducible.
Proof % is an N-form f!J[(*1 - B)]. By Theorem 10.3 the formula (B-

f!J[('v'X 1X 1 _ B)]) is deducible. Using an (S3)-inferencewe have I- f!J[('v'X 1X1 - B)],
that is, I- %['v'X 1X1].
Coronary to Theorems 10.3 and 10.4. The formal system CT is sententially complete.
Proof The sentential completeness follows from Theorem 10.4 in the same way as
for the system CP (see 4.1) since the connective 1.. is defined by V'X 1 X 1 and hence
P-forms and N-forms are defined as in CPo
Theorem 10.5. (Particular substitution rule). If a~ does not occur in the nominal
form fF, then
Proof Like that for Theorem 4.2.
Theorem 10.6 (Inversion rules). The following are weak inferences.

(1) %[(A -> B)] f- %[(A -> V'X 1X 1 )].
(2) %[(A -> B)] f- %[B].
(3) .o/I[V'xtIfF[xtI ]] f- .o/I[fF[atI ]].
(4) fF[A.xtd[xt] (tt)] f- fF[d[tt]].
Theorem 10.7 (Structural rule of inference). If F~ G holds, then F f- G is a weak

inference.
Theorem 10.8. %[fF[ttI]] f- %[V'xtIfF[xtI]] is a permissible inference.
Theorem 10.9 (General substitution rule). If if does not occur in the nominalform
fF, then
is a permissible inference.
Proofby induction on the deduction.

1. Suppose fF[d'] is an axiom. Then fF[n is a formula of the form ,q[C, C],
which is deducible by Theorem 10.3.
2. Suppose F[d'] was obtained by a basic inference. Then by Theorem 10.5
we can assume that the basic inference does not have any free variable occurring
in r as its eigenvariable. Then the assertion follows from the induction hypothesis.
The logical connectives, 1\, v and 3 can be defined as in the system CP and
for these one obtains the permissible inferences as given in Theorem 4.8.
5. The Cut Rule
While hitherto all the proofs that certain inferences are permissible have been
constructive, the cut rule
gJ[A], (A - B) f- gJ[B]
cannot be shown to be permissible for the system CT by using constructive methods.

The permissibility of the cut rule in the system CT corresponds to the funda-
mental conjecture from which G. Takeuti [IJ has constructively proved the
consistency of a formal system of classical analysis.
But by K. Godel [1] the consistency of a formal system of classical analysis
cannot be proved by constructive methods. Hence the permissibility of the cut rule
in CT is not constructively provable.
The permissibility of the cut rule was first proved by W. Tait [lJ for s~cond
order predicate calculus (a subsystem of classical simple type theory) and then by
M. Takahashi [1 J and D. Prawitz [lJ for the full classical simple type theory. These
proofs are related to a semantic equivalent of the syntactic fundamental con-
jecture of Takeuti which was developed by K. Schutte [4J using partial valuations.
In 12 we introduce suitable semantics and prove the completeness theorem
using the methods of Takahashi and Prawitz. From this it follows that the cut rule
is permissible. Before doing this we establish in 11 the relation between deduci-
bility and the existence of partial valuations which we need for the completeness
proof.
11. Deduction Chains and Partial Valuations
1. Definition of Deduction Chains
We define deduction chains in the same way as for the system CP (see 5.3). We
first assume that for each type (J an enumeration
ag, a~, a~, ...

of all free variables of type (J and an enumeration
of all terms of type (J are given.

The reducible parts of a formula F are defined to be the positive parts of F
which are oftheform Vx" ff[x"J or Axtd[xtJ (tt) and the negative parts of Fwhich
are of the form Axtd[xtJ(t') or (A- B) where B is not a formula VX1Xl. A
formula is said to be reducible if it has at least one reducible part. By the distinguished
11. Deduction Chains and Partial Valuations 63
part of a reducible formula Fwe mean the reducible part of Fwhich occurs furthest
to the right in F.
By the critical parts of a formula Fwe mean the negative parts of Fwhich are
of the form VxtJ 3"[xtJ ]. A formula is said to be critical if it is not reducible and has
at least one critical part.
A formula is said to be primitive if it is neither reducible nor critical. This is
obviously the case if, and only if, every minimal positive part and every minimal
negative part of the formula is an atomic formula.
By a D-chain (deduction chain) of aformula Fwe mean a sequence offqrmulas
formed as follows:
DI. The initial formulaFo of the D-chain is the formula F.
D. Ifa formula Fm of the D-chain is an axiom or an atomic formula, then it is
the last formula of the D-chain. We then say that the D-chain has length m.
D3. If a formula Fm of the D-chain is a reducible or critical formula but not an
axiom, then Fm has an immediate successor Fm+l in the D-chain, where Fm+l is
determined by Fm as follows:
D3.I. If Fm is a reducible formula %[(A - B)] with distinguished negative
part (A - B), then Fm+ 1 is either the formula %[(A - VX 1 X 1 )] or the formula
%[B].
D3.2. If Fm is a reducible formula &'[VxtJ3"[xtJ]] with distinguished positive
part Vx tJ 3"[xtJ ], then Fm+ 1 is the formula &'[3"[o:iJ] where i is the least number
such that o:i does not occur in Fm.
D3.3. If Fm is a reducible formula C[htd[xt](tt)] with distinguished
positive or negative part Axtd[xt] (tt) then Fm+l is the formula C[d[tt]].
D3.4. If Fm is a critical formula with critical parts
then Fm+ 1 is the formula
where Ai+ j.k: = 3";[sj'] (i = 1, ... , k; j = 0, ... , m).
2. Partial Valuations
By a partial valuation we mean a function V which assigns a truth value VF; = t or

VF; =fto certain formulas F; (but which may not be defined for all formulas) such
that the following conditions are satisfied:
VI. If V(A - B)= t, then VA =f or VB=t. (In this case VB or VA may be
undefined.)
V2. If V(A-B)=j, then VA=tand VB=!
V3. If V'v'x" 3i'[x"] = t, then V3i'[t"] = t for every term t" of type (J.
V4. If V'v'x"3i'[x"]=f, then there is a free variable a" of type (J such that
V3i'[a"] = f (In this case V3i'[t"] need not be defined for every term t" of type (J.)
V5. If VAx"d[x"] (t") is defined then Vd[t"] = Vh"d[x"] (t").
Remark. These partial valuations correspond to the semivaluations in Schutte [4],

Takahashi [1] and Prawitz [1].
3. Principal Lemmata
As in 5.3 we have:
Principal Syntactic Lemma. If every D-chain ofa formula F contains an axiom then
the formula F is deducible.
Proof In this case every D-chain of F is finite. Hence by Konig's lemma Fhas only
finitely many D-chains. These constitute a deduction of the formula F.
Principal Semantic Lemma. If there is a D-chain of formula F which contains no

axiom then there is a partial valuation V such that VF=f
Proof Suppose
(DC) F o, F l , F2''''
is a D-chain which contains no axiom where Fo is the formula F. We now prove, in
analogy with 5.3:
Lemma 1. If an atomic formula occurs as a positive (or negative) part in aformula Fn

of the D-chain, then it also occurs as a positive (or negative) part in every formula Fm
(m ~n) of the D-chain.
Proof This follows immediately from the definition of D-chain.
Lemma 2. If a formula Fn of the D-chain has a reducible positive (or reducible

negative) part C, then the D-chain contains a reducible formula Fm (m ~n) with
distinguished positive (or negative) part C.
Proof By induction on the sum of the ranks of the reducible parts of Fn which
occur in Fn to the right of C.
Lemma 3. If a formula Fn of the D-chain has a negative part 'v'x"3i'[x"] then the
D-chain contains infinitely many critical formulas with negative part 'v'x"3i'[x"].
Proof Under the hypothesis for Lemma 3 it suffices to prove that the D-chain
contains a critical formula Fm (m > n) with negative part 'v'x"3i'[x"]. We call the
sum of the ranks of the reducible parts of a formula the reducibility rank of the
12. Semantics 65
formula. By hypothesis the formula Fn is either reducible or critical. The D-chain

therefore contains a formula Fn+ 1 which also contains the formula Vxa"[xa] as a
negative part. We prove our assertion by induction on the reducibility rank of the
formula Fn+ l ' If Fn+ 1 is a critical formula then the assertion is satisfied with
m=n+ 1. Otherwise the D-chain contains a formula F,,+2 which has a smaller
reducibility rank than Fn+ 1 and also contains the formula Vxa"[x a ] as a negative
part. In this case the assertion follows from the induction hypothesis.
Now we set VC= t (or VC=f) if C occurs in the D-chain (DC) as a negative
(or positive) part.
Lemma 4. Thefunction V satisfies conditionsVI-V5 for a partial valuation.
Proof 1. Suppose V(A --+ B) = t, then (A --+ B) is a negative part in (DC). If B is

a formula VX 1 X1 , then A is a positive part in (DC) and therefore VA =f Otherwise
it follows from Lemma 2 and the definition of D-chain that A is a positive or B is a
negative part in (DC), and therefore VA = for VB= t.
2. Suppose V(A --+ B) = j, then (A --+ B) is a positive part in (DC). But then A
is a negative and B a positive part in (DC), so VA = t and VB= f
3. Suppose V'r/x a"[xa] = t, then Vx a"[xa] is a negative part in (DC). From
Lemma 3 and the definition of D-chain it follows that, for every term t a of type (1,
"[ta] is a negative part in (DC). Hence V"[ta] = t for all ~ of type (1.
4. Suppose V'r/xa"[xa]=j, then Vxa"[xa] is a positive part in (DC). From
Lemma 2 and the definition ofD-chain it follows that there is a variable aa of type (1
such that "[aa] is a positive part in (DC), and therefore V"[aa] = f
5. Suppose VAxtd[xt] (tt) is defined. Then Axtd[xt](tt) is a positive (or
negative) part in (DC). From Lemma 2 and the definition ofD-chain it follows that
d[tt] is a positive (or negative) part in (DC). Hence Vd[tt] = VAxtd[xt] (tt).
Since the D-chain (DC) contains no axiom it follows from Lemma 1 that no
atomic formula occurs both as a positive and as a negative part in (DC). Therefore
there is no atomic formula P for which VP = t and VP = f From Lemma 4 it follows
by induction on the rank of the formula C that there is no formula C for which
VC = t and VC = f Hence V is a partial valuation. Hence VF = j, since F occurs as
a positive part in (DC).
12. Semantics
1. Total Valuations over a System of Sets
By a system M of sets we mean a collection of non -empty sets Ma for each type (1,
such that Mal and Ma 2 are disjoint if (11 #- (12'
For a given system M of sets we introduce the following terminology.
The basic M-terms of type (1 are the names ofthe elements of M a.
The M-terms of type (1 are the expressions which result from terms of type (1
when all the free variables occurring in them are replaced by basic M -terms of the
same type.
The M-formulas are the M-terms of type 1.
By an M-variant of a formula Fwe mean an M-formula which is obtained from
Fby replacing the free variables occurring in Fby M-terms of the same type where
a free variable which occurs more than once in F is replaced at all occurrences by
the same M-term.
As syntactic symbols we use
c", cii for basic M-terms of type CT, rio
c< for sequences ell, ... , c~" (n ~ 1) of basic M-terms,
utI, Uii for M-terms of type CT, rio
u< for sequences ul l , , U~" (n~ 1) of M-terms,
A', B', C', F', G', 'Ix"ffTx"] for M-formulas and
Ax<dTx<] for M-terms of type (r) = (rl' ... , tft)'
Bya total valuation over a system M of sets we mean a function Wwhich assigns
a truth value WF' = t or WF' = fto each M-formula F' such that the following hold:
WI. W(A'-B)=tif,andonlyif, WA'=for WB'=t.
W2. W'Ix"ffTx"]=t if, and only if, Wff'[u"]=t for every M-term utI of
type CT.
W3. WAx<dTx<] (u<)= WdTu<].
A formula Fis said to be true in a total valuation Wover M if WF' = t for every
M-variant F' of F.
A formula is said to be valid if it is true in every total valuation over a system
of sets.
Remark. An adequate semantics for the formal system CT is provided by total

valuations but not by set-theoretic models since there is no extensionality axiom in
CT. The semantics given here are therefore weaker than the semantics given by
general models which L. Henkin [1] showed is adequate for classical simple type
theory with extensionality.
2. Soundness Theorem
We denote by f!IJ', %' and!2' the nominal forms obtained from P-forms, N-forms
and NP-forms when the free variables in them are replaced by basic M-terms of the
same types.
For every total valuation Wover M we obviously have:
PN-Lemma. If WA'=t (or WA'=f), then Wf!lJTA']=t(or W%TA']=t).
Theorem 12.1 (Soundness Theorem). Every deducible formula is valid.
Proof Let F be a deducible formula, Wa total valuation over a system M of sets

and F' an M-variant of F. We prove that WF' = t by induction on the order of a
deduction of F.
12. Semantics 67
1. Suppose F is an axiom ~[P, P]. Then F' is an M-formula ~'[A', A']. By

the PN-Iemma we have WF'=t.
2. Suppose F is a formula %[(A -4 B)] obtained by an (SI)-inference from
%[(A -4 Vx l Xl)] and %[B]. Then F' is an M-formula %'[(A' -4 8)]. If W A' = t,
then W(A' -48)= WB'. Since, by I.H., W%'[B'] =t, we have WF'=t. If WA'=J,
then W(A'-4 B')=t= W(A'-4 VX1Xl). Since, by I.H., W%'[(A'-4 VX1Xl)]=t,
we have WF' = t.
3. Suppose F is a formula &I[Vxaff[x a]] obtained by an (S2)-inference from
&I[ff[aa]]. Then F' is an M-formula &I' [Vx aF'[xa]]. If WVx aff'[xa] = t, then
WP = t by the PN-Iemma. If WVxaff,[x a] = J, then there is an M-term ua such that
Wff'[u a ] =/ &I'[ff'[ua ]] is an M-variant of &,[ff[aa]]. Hence, by I.H.,
W&I,[ff'[ua]]=t. Therefore WF'=t.
4. Suppose Fis a formula %[Vxaff[x a]] obtained by an (S3)-inference from
(ff[t a] -4 %[Vxaff[xa]]). Then F' is an M-formula %'[Vxaff'[xa]]. By I.H., we
have W(ff'[u a] -4 %'[Vxa ff'[xa]]) = t for an M-term ua. If Wff'[u a] = t, then
WF' =t.IfWff'[ua] =J,then WVxaff'[x a] =/too. Then WF' =tbythePN-lemma.
5. Suppose F is a formula 1[A.x'd[x'](t')] obtained by an (S4)-inference
from 8[d[t']]. Then F' is an M-formula 8'[AXd'[x'](u')]. By I.H.,
W8'[d'[u']] =t. Since WAx'd'[x'](u') = Wd'[u'] it follows that WF' =t.
3. Extending a Partial Valuation
I:.et V be a partial valuation. We shall define a total valuation Wover a suitable

system M of sets such that no formula F for which VF=/ is true in the total
valuation W. We follow D. Prawitz [1].
Inductive definition of a set pta (of possible valuations) for each term t a (by induction
on the height (see p. 58) of the type 0").
PI. Pt O :={t o }.
P2. If Vt l is defined, let Pt l : = {Vt l }. Otherwise let Pt l : = {t,J}.
P3. For "t"="t"l' ... ,"t"n (n~ 1) Po E PtS) if, and only if, the following conditions
are satisfied:
P3.I. Po is a set of n-tuples
such that Pi E Ptj' (i= 1, ... , n).

P3.2. If Vt~)(tl', ... , t:") is defined and Pi EPtj' (i= 1, ... , n), then
if, and only if, Vtb')(tl', ... , t:") = t.
For every type 0" let M a be the set of ordered pairs (ta,p) with P E pta.
Obviously Ma is non-empty. So the sets M a form a syste~ M of sets. We now con-
sider this system M and use the syntactic symbols introduced in I2.1.
If utI is an M-term of type ulet utI. be the term of type u obtained from utI by
replacing each basic M-term (tj',p;) by the term t?
Inductive definition of the degree du" of an M-term utI.

dl. du": =0 if u=O or utI is a basic M-term.
d2. du~)(ul', ... , U~"): =max (du~), dull, ... , du~")+ 1.
d3. d(A' --+ B') : =max (dA', dB') + 1.
d4. dVx"~'[x"]: =dff'[e"] + 1, where e" is a basic M-term.
dS. dAX'd'[x']: =dd'[e'] + 1, where e' is a sequence of basic M-terms.
Inductive definition of Wu" for each M-term utI (by induction on the degree du").
WI. Wuo:=uo*.
W2. W(t",p):=p for PEPt". (If u=O, we have p=tO, hence W(tO,p)=
to= (to, p)* by W2, in accordance with WI.)
W3. Wu~)(ul', ... , U~") : = t, if
Otherwise let Wu~)(ul', ... ,U~"):=!

W4. W(A' --+ B') :=t, if WA'=/or WB'=t. Otherwise let W(A' --+ B'):=!
WS. WVx"~'[x"]:=t, if W~'[e"]=t holds for every basic M-term e" of
type u. Otherwise let WVx"~'[x"] :=!
W6. For t=tl' ... , til (n ~ I) let WAx'd,[x'] be the set ofn-tuples (eI', ... , e:")
satisfying the condition W d'[ei', ... , e:"] = t.
Proo/by induction on the degree du".

1. Supposeu=O. Then we have Wuo=uoand Puo={uo.}, so WUoEPUo .
2. Suppose utI is a basic M-term (t",p). Then WU"=PEPt" and u"o=I", so
WU"EPU".
Suppose u= I and u 1 is not a basic M-term. By definition Wu 1 E {t,f}. We
now only need to prove that: If Vu 1 is defined, then Wu 1= Vu 1.
3.1. Suppose u1 is an M-formula ul(ui', ... , U~"). Then by I.H. WulEPul)l"
and WuI' E pur (i= 1, ... , n). If Vu 1 is defined then, by the definition of Pu~l",
if, and only if, Vu 1 '= t. Hence in this case Wu 1= Vu 1.

3.2. Suppose u 1 is an M-formula (A' --+ B'). Then by I.H. WA' EPA' and
WB' EPB'. If Vu1=t, then VA'=/or VB' =t. Then by I.H. WA'=/or WB'=t
and therefore Wu1=t. If Vu 1 =J, then VA'=I and VB'=! Then by I.H.
WA'=t and WB'=/and therefore Wu 1=!
3.3. Suppose u1 is an M-formula Vx"o~'[x"O]. Then u h is a formula
Vx"O~[x"o]. By I.H. W~'[c"] E P~[c"] for every basic M-term of type uo. If
Vu1=t then V~[t"]=t holds for every term ["0 of type uo. Then by I.H.
12. Semantics 69
W~'[c"] = t for every basic M-term c"0 of type (Jo and therefore Wu 1 = t. If
Vu 1" =f, then there is a free variable if of type (Jo such that V~[ifO]=f Then by
I.H. W~'[c"O]=ffor some basic M-term c"o of type (Jo and therefore Wu 1=f
4. Suppose if is an M-terrn htd'[x'] where (J=(-')=(-'I,"" -'n) (n~ 1).
Then if" is a term Axtd[xt]. If Vif"(c l l ", , c~n") is defined then Vd[cl iO , , c~n"] =
Vif"(c l lO , , c~n.). Then by I.H. Wd,[cl l , , c~n] = Vd[cl l ., , c;"]. In this case
by the definition of Wif
(cl l , , c~n)E Wif
if, and only if, VifO(cII . , , c~n")=t. Hence we have Wu" E Pu"" by the definition
of Pif.
Lemma 2. If 0 is a I-place nominal form such that o[if] is an M-term, then

Wo[if] = Woe (if, Wif)].
Proof By Lemma 1 Wif E PifO and therefore (if", Wif) is a basic M-term of
type (J. If 0=*1 then the assertion holds by the definition of W(if, Wif). In the
other cases the assertion follows by induction on the length of the nominal form o.
Lemma 3. W\fx"~'[x"]=t if, and only if, W~'[if]=tfor every M-term if of

type (J .
.
Proof If W~'[u"]=t for every M-term u" of type (J then W\fx"~'[x"]=t by
definition. If W\fx"~'[x"]=t, then W~'[(u"', Wu")]=t and by Lemma 2
W~'[u"] = t for every M-term if of type (J.
Lemma 4. Whtd'[xt](ut ) = Wd'[u t ].
Proof Let c~;: = (u;;, WuD (i = 1, ... , n) and ct : = cI\"" c~n. By definition
WAx'd'[xt](ut)=t if, and only if, (cll , , c~n) E Whtd'[x']. This is the
case if, and only if, Wd'[ct]=(and then by Lemma 2 Wd'[ut]=t.
Theorem 12.2. The restriction of W to M-formulas is a total valuation over M under

which no formula F is true for which VF= f
Proof By the definition of Wand Lemmata 3 and 4 W is a total valuation over M.

Suppose VF=f Replace each free variable a occurring in F by a basic M-term
( .., p) such that p EPa" to obtain an M-formula F'. Then F' is an M-variant of F
with P'"=F. By Lemma 1, WF' E PF. Since VF=j, we have WF'=f HenceFisnot
true under the total valuation W.
4. Completeness Theorem and Cut Rule
Theorem 12.3 (Completeness Theorem). Every validformula is deducible.

Indirect proof Suppose F is not deducible. Then by the principal syntactic lemma
(11.3) there is a D-chain of F which contains no axiom and therefore by the
principal semantic lemma (11.3) there is a partial valuation V with VF=f It
follows from Theorem 12.2 that F is not valid.
Theorem 12.4 (Cut rule). &I[A], (A -+ B) I- &I[B] is a permissible inference.
Proof Suppose the formulas &I[A] and (A -+ B) are deducible, then they are valid
by Theorem 12.1. Let Wbea total valuation over a system M of sets. If&l'[A'] and
(A' -+ 8) are M-variants of the formulas &I[A] and (A -+ B) then W&I'[A'] = t
and W(A'-+B')=t. If WB'=t, thenW&I'[B']=t by the PN-lemma (p. 66). If
W8 =f, then since W(A' -+ 8) = t, we have WA' =f Then from W&I'[A'] = t we
have W&I'[B']=t. In any case, therefore, W&I'[B']=t. Hence &I[B] is valid and,
by Theorem 12.3, deducible. .
Part B
Systems of Arithmetic
Chapter V
Ordinal Numbers and Ordinal Terms
In this chapter we develop a constructive system of ordinals which we shall use in

16 and Chapter VIII for the proof-theoretic treatment of pure number theory and
predicative analysis. In 13 we start from a non-constructive presentation of the
classical theory of ordinals in which we take as basis a corresponding axiomatic
characterization of the set 0, of all finite and denumerably infinite ordinals where,
however, we do not go very far into set theory but use sets in a naive way. In this
non-constructive framework we develop a hierarchy of normal functions and
critical ordinals which determine a certain initital segment of the ordinals (in
fact up to r 0)' This initial segment of the ordinals will be constructively charac-
terized in 14 (by ordinal terms) and all the properties of this system of ordinal
torms which we need later will be developed constructively. The full system of
these ordinal terms (up to r 0) is first used in Chapter VIII (for predicative analysis)
while a subsystem (up to eo) occurs in 16 (for pure number theory).
13. Theory of Ordinals of the 1st and 2nd Number Classes
1. Order Types of Well-Ordered Sets
Definition. A set M is said to be orderedby a relation R, if, for all a, b, C E M we have:

1. Not a R a (Irreflexiveness)
2. aRb and b R C imply aRc (Transitivity)
3. aRb or a=b or bRa (Connection)
Corollary of 1-3: If a, b E M then preCisely one of aRb, a = b, bRa holds.
M is said to be well-ordered (by R) if we also have:

4. Every non-empty subset M 0 ~ M contains a first element with respect to R.
That is: there exists ao E M 0 such that ao = x or a o R x for all x E Mo.
We denote a set M, well-ordered by R, by (M, R). If a E M we let (M, R) Ia be
the set of those x E M such that x R a with the relation R restricted to this set.
(M, R) Ia is again a well-ordered set.
74 V. Ordinal Numbers and Ordinal Terms
Two well-ordered sets (Mt, R t ), (M2' R 2) are said to be isotonic if there is an

order preserving map of M t onto M 2, that is, a map f:M t -> M2 such that
j{M t )=M2 and
aRt b=f(a) R2f(b)
for a, bE Mi. Such a map is bijective. Isotonism is an equivalence relation. The
equivalence classes of well-ordered sets under isotonism are called order types.
We set (Mt, R t ) M2' R 2) if there is a2 E M2 such that (Mt, R t ) and
(M2' R 2) Ia 2 are isotonic. This relation is compatible with isotonism. That is: if
(M t , R t ),(M2, R 2 )areisotonicand(M3 , R 3 ), (M 4, R 4) are isotonic then (M t , Rd<
(M 3 , R 3 ) implies (M2' R 2) < (M4' R4)' We can therefore make the following defini-
tion for order types IXt, 1X 2 : IX t <1X2 if, and only if, (Mt, R t )M2 , R 2 ) for well-
ordered sets (Mt, R t ), (M 2 , R 2 ) of order types IXt, 1X2' respectively. The totality of
order types of well-ordered sets is then well-ordered by this relation <.
Ordinal numbers (or ordinals) serve as representatives of order types of well-
ordered sets. In the context of axiomatic set theory (say Zermelo-Fraenkel or
Bernays-G6del) they are defined as specific sets which are well-ordered by the
E-relation in such a way that every order type of a well-ordered set has precisely one
ordinal number belonging to it. The totality of these ordinal numbers is well-
ordered by the E-relation which corresponds to the < -relation on order types here.
The ordinal numbers which belong to order types of finite well-ordered sets
form the I st Cantor number class. These ordinals correspond to the natural
numbers. The ordinals which belong to order types of denumerably infinite well-
ordered sets form the 2nd Cantor number class.
2. Axiomatic Characterization of the 1st and 2nd Number Classes
In this section we restrict our attention to the ordinals of the 1st and 2nd number
classes and we represent these by a set 0 which is characterized as a set of ordinals
by the three axioms below. These axioms uniquely determine, up to isomorphism,
the set of ordinals of the 1st and 2nd number classes as it arises in the context of an
axiomatic set theory. Here we are sticking to an axiomatic determination of the
concept of set, in general in what follows we shall be dealing with a naive concept
of set.
Ax. I. 0 is a set well-ordered by a relation <.
Ax. II. Every bounded subset of 0 is denumerable. That is: if, given Me 0 there
exists IX E 0 such that ~ < IX for all ~ E M, then M is a finite or denumerably infinite
set.
Ax. III. Every denumerable subset of 0 is bounded. That is: for each finite or
denumerably infinite set Me 0 there exists IX E 0 such that ~ < IX for all ~ E M.
Corollary: 0 is an infinite, but not denumerable set.

We call the elements of 0 ordinal numbers (ordinals, for short). We denote them
by small Greek letters. We write rx ~ 13 for rx < 13 or rx = 13, rx > 13 for 13 < rx and rx ~ 13
for 13 ~ rx. All the definitions introduced in this section refer to the axiomatically
given set O.
If d(rx) is a statement about an arbitrary ordinal rx then the property d of
ordinals is said to be progressive if, for all ordinals rx, d(rx) can be deduced from the
hypothesis that d(~) holds for all ~ <rx.
Induction Theorem. If d is progressive then d(rx) holds for all ordinals rx.
Proof Suppose d(rx) did not hold for every ordinal rx. Then the set of ordinals ~
such that d(~) is false is non-empty. By Ax. I this set must contain a least element.
This contradicts the hypothesis that d is progressive.
The induction theorem shows that in order to prove a theorem d(rx) about
ordinals it is sufficient to prove d is progressive. That is: it is sufficient to prove
d(rx) for arbitrary rx EO under the
Induction hypothesis: d(~) holds for all ~<rx.
This proof principle for d(rx) is called transfinite induction (on rx). We shall
frequently apply this transfinite induction below to prove theorems about ordinals
of the set 0.
3. Zero, Successor and Limit Numbers and Supremum
By Ax. I there is a unique smallest ordinal. We denote this by O.

For each ordinal rx there is a unique smallest ordinal> rx.
Proof {rx} is a denumerable subset of 0. By Ax. III it follows that the set of ~ > rx
is non-empty. By Ax. I this set contains a unique smallest element. We call this the
successor rx' of rx.
The following hold for this definition of rx':

rx < rx'
rx<P ~ rx'~p
rx<P' ~ rx~p.
An ordinal 13 is said to be a successor number if there is an rx EO with rx' = p. An
ordinal is said to be a limit number if it is neither 0 nor a successor number.
For every limit number 13 the following holds:
rx <13 ~ rx' <13.
Proof rx < 13 implies rx' ~ p. If 13 is a limit number then rx' #- 13, hence rx' < p.
For every denumerable set Me 0 there is a unique smallest ordinal rx such that
all ~ E M. (This follows from Ax. III and Ax. I.) We call this ordinal rx the
~ ~ rxfor
76 v. Ordinal Numbers and Ordinal Terms
supremum sup M of the set M. The definition yields
~ EM=> ~ ::::; sup M

~ ::::; Pfor all ~ EM=> sup M::::; P
P<sup M => there exists ~ E M with P<~.
Theorem 13.1. If M is a non-empty denumerable subset of 0 which has no maximal

element then sup M is a limit number.
Proof Since M has no maximal element, sup M If M. For all ~ EMit follows that
~ < sup M. Since M is non-empty it follows that sup M =f. O. If rx'::::; sup M then
e
rx < sup M. Then there exists E M such that rx <~. It follows that rx'::::; ~ < sup M.
Therefore sup M is neither 0 nor a successor number, and hence is a limit number.
Definition. The set N ofjinite ordinals is the smallest subset of 0 which contains 0
and is such that if rx is in the subset then so is its successor rx'.
This set N which consists of the ordinals 0, 0', 0", ... , corresponds to the set of
natural numbers. Accordingly we set I : =0', 2: =0", .... Obviously N is a de-
numerably infinite set which contains no maximal element and no limit number.
Lemma 1. rx<P, PE N => rxE N.

Proof by transfinite induction on p. If rx < P and PEN then it follows that there
exists Po EN with p~=p. Then rx::::;Po. If rx=Po, then rx EN. If rx<Po then rx EN
by the induction hypothesis since Po < p.
Definition. w: = sup N.
Theorem 13.2. w is the smallest number and rx < w holds if, and only if, rx EN.
Proof By Theorem 13.2 w is a limit number since N contains no maximal element.

For all rx E N it follows that rx < w. Conversely, if rx < w, then there exists PEN with
rx < p. By Lemma I, rx EN. Hence rx < w if, and only if, rx EN. It follows from this
that w is the smallest limit number, since N contains no limit number.
4. Ordering Functions
For rx E 0 let O( rx) be the set of all ~ < rx. 0(0) is the empty set, and by Theorem 13.2
O(w) = N. Every set O(rx) is denumerable by Ax. II.
Definition. A set A ~ 0 is said to be an O-segment if
The whole set 0 is an O-segment. An O-segment which is =f. 0 is said to be a

proper IO-segment. Obviously every lO(a) is a proper IO-segment. The converse also
holds:
Every proper IO-segment is an lO(a).
Proof If A # 10 then there is a least ordinal a A. If A is an IO-segment then A = IO( a).
Definition. A function f: A
----> B is said to be an ordering function of a set B 10 if
the following holds:
1. The domain A of the functionfis an IO-segment.
2. The function f is strictly monotone, that is, for all ~ < 17 E A we have
f{~)<f{17)
3. The image of the functionfis the set B.
Remark. If B is empty then the empty function 0 ----> 0 is an ordering function of B.

(The empty set 0 is an IO-segment.)
Theorem 13.3. Iff: A ----> B is an ordering function of B then a~a)for alia E A.
Proofby transfinite induction on a. For all ~<a,f{~)<f{a) and by the induction

hypothesis ~ ~f{~), therefore ~ <f{a). Hence a ~j(a).
Lemma 2. Every set B 10 has at most one ordering function.
Proof Let;;: Ai ----> B (i = l,2) be ordering functions of B. We prove by transfinite

induction on a: If a E A l , then a E A2 andfl(a) = f2(a). Now a E Al implies ~ E A 1
for all ~ < a since A 1 is an IO-segment. By the induction hypothesis it follows that
~ E A2 andfl(~) =f2(~) for all ~ <a. By property 3 it follows that a E A 2. By proper-
ties 1 and 2 it follows thatfl(a) is the least element ofB not equal to any fl(~) for
~<a and similarly for f2(a). Hence fl(a)=f2(a). Therefore A l A 2. Similarly
A2 A l It follows that Al =A2 andfl(a) =f2(a) for all a E A 1 and thereforefl =f2'
Definition. By a proper segment of a set BelO we mean a set of the form

B(f3): = BnlO(f3) for some f3 E B.
Lemma 3. If every proper segment ofa set Be 10 has an ordering function then B also
has an ordering function.
Proof Letfp: Ap ----> B(f3) be an ordering function of B(f3) for each proper segment
B(f3) of B. By Ax. II the set B(f3) is denumerable. Since fp is bijective, Ap is also
denumerable and therefore a proper IO-segment. Therefore to each ordinal fJ E B
there is an ordinal g(f3) such that Ap = lO(g(f3. 9 is a map from B into 10.
(l) If f31' f32 EBand f31 < f32 then g(f3 d <g(f32)'
Proof f p2 is a map of lO(g(f32 onto B(f32)' Since f31 EB(f32), there exists a <g(f32)
such thatfp,(a) = f31' The restriction offp2 to lO(a) is an ordering function of B(f31)'
Since f P1 : lO(g(f31 ----> B(f3d is also an ordering function, it follows by Lemma 2
1
that lO(a) = 10 (g(f3 and therefore g(f31) = a <g(f32)'
(2) The image offoe function 9 is an O-segment.
Proof Let 13 E B and (X <g(f3). We have to prove that (X E g(B). Since fp is a map of
O(g(f3)) onto B(f3) and (X <g(f3) there exists 130 E B(f3) withfp(X) = 130. The restriction
ofjp to O(X) is an ordering function of B(f3o). Sincefpo: O(g(f3o)) ~ B(f3o) is also an
ordering function, so by Lemma 2 (X = g(f3o) and therefore (X E g(B).
From (1) and (2) gis an order preserving map of B onto an O-segment A. The
inverse of 9 is an order preserving map of A onto B and therefore an ordering
function of B.
Theorem 13.4. Every set B 0 has exactly one ordering function.
Proof If B(f3) is a proper segment of B then every proper segment of B(f3) is a

proper segment B(f3o) of B for some 130 < 13. It follows from Lemma 3 by transfinite
induction on 13 that every proper segment B(f3) of B has an ordering function. By
Lemma 3, B then has an ordering function. By Lemma 2 this is uniquely determined
by B.
Definitions: A set B 0 is said to be closed if, for every non-empty denumerable

set M,
MB=> sup MEB.
An ordering functionf: A ~ B is said to be continuous if A is closed and, for every
non-empty denumerable set UA,
sup f( U) = f(sup U).
Theorem 13.5. The ordering function of a set B 0 is continuous if, and only if,
B is closed.
Proof Letf:A ~ B be the ordering function of B.

1. Suppose f is continuous. For every non-empty denumerable set MB
there is a non-empty denumerable set U A such that f( U) = M. Since f is con-
tinuous, sup M = f(sup U) and therefore sup ME B. Hence B is closed.
2. Suppose B is closed. Let U be a non-empty denumerable subset of A. Then
f( U) is a non-empty denumerable subset of B. Since B is closed, supf( U) E B.
Hence there exists (X E A such that f( (X) = sup f( U). It follows that for all e E U,
fie) ~f((X) and therefore e ~(X. Hence sup U ~(X. Since A is an O-segment it follows
that supUEA. Hence A is closed. For all eEU, e~supU, thereforef(e)~
f(sup U). It follows that supf(U)~f(sup U). Now sup U~(X impliesf(sup U)~
f((X)=supf(U). Hence supf(U)=f(sup U) and thereforefis continuous.
Definition. An ordering function f: A ~ B is said to be a normal function if A = 0

and f is continuous.
Theorem 13.6. The ordering function of a set B 0 is a normal function if, and only
if, B is closed and unbounded.
Proof By Ax. II and Ax. III a subset of I[j) is bounded if, and only if, it is de-
numerable. It follows that if f:A ----> B is an ordering function, then the set B is
unbounded if, and only if, A is unbounded, but then A = I[j). This together with
Theorem 13.5 yields the assertion.
5. Addition of Ordinals
For a E I[j) let B~ be the set of all ordinals ~ a and f~ the ordering function of B~.
Obviously the set B~ is closed and unbounded. So by Theorem 13.6f~ is a normal
function. In this way f~(P) is defined for all a, 13 E I[j). We write a + 13 for f~(f3). This
definition of addition immediately yields
(+1) a~a+f3
( + 2) 13 < y =;. a + 13 < a + y (right strict mono tonicity)
( + 3) If a ~ 13 there is a unique ~ such that a + ~ = 13.
Since f~ is a continuous function we have
(+4) a+sup U=sup (a+ U)
for every non-empty denumerable set U c I[j) where we write a + U for

{a+f3:f3E U}.
If 13 is a limit number then l[j)(f3) is a non-empty denumerable set and

sup l[j)(f3) = 13 ( + 4) therefore yields in particular
( + 5) a + 13 = sup (a + l[j)(f3 for every limit number 13
We also easily obtain
(+6) a+O=a
(+7) a+f3'=(a+f3)'
(+8) f3~a+f3 (by Theorem 13.3).
Since Bo = I[j),/o is the identity and hence
(+9) 0+13=13.
We also have associativity
(+10) (a+f3)+y=a+(f3+y).
Proof The ordering function for the set Bd p of all ordinals ~ a + 13 is such that
fdP(y)=(a+f3)+y. Let C~.p:={a+(f3+Y):YEI[j)} and g~.p(y):=a+(f3+y). It
follows from ( + 2) that the function g~. p is strictly monotone. Its image is the set
C~. p. Hence g~.P is the ordering function of C~. p. It follows from ( + 1)-( + 3) that
~ E Ca.,fJ if, and only if, lY..+f3~~. Hence

Ca.,fJ=Ba.+fJ Thereforefa+fJ and ga.,fJ are
ordering functions for the same set Ba.+fJ' By Theorem 13.4 it follows thatfa.+p=
ga.,fJ and hence (lY..+f3)+Y=IY..+(f3+y)
We also have left weak monotonicity
(+11) lY..~f3=lY..+y~f3+y.
Proof It follows from IY. ~f3 by ( + 3) that there exists ~ with IY. + ~ = 13. By ( + 8)
Y ~~ +y. From (+2)and (+ 10) it follows thatlY..+Y ~IY..+(~ +y)= (IY..+ 0 +Y= 13 +y.
From ( + 6) and ( + 7) one sees that addition of finite ordinals corresponds to
addition of natural numbers. If IY.., 13 E N then IY. + 13 EN.
Remark. Addition of ordinals is not commutative, since for example we have:

0' +w=sup (0' + N)=sup N =W and w<w'=w+O' and therefore 0' +w<w+O'.
Also left strict monotonicity fails since for example 0 < 0' but 0 + w = w = 0' + w.
Definition. An ordinal IY. is said to be an additive principal number if IY. # 0 and

~+IY..=IY.. for all ~<IY...
Obviously 1 : =0' is the smallest additive principal number.
w is the smallest additive principal number > I.

Proof If ~<w then ~E N and ~+w=sup(~+N)=sup N=w. Hence w is an
additive principal number. If 1 < IY. < w then IY. E Nand 1 + IY. = IY. + I > IY. so IY. is not
an additive principal number. Hence w is the smallest additive principal number> 1.
If IY. is an additive principal number then the set O(IY..) is closed under addition.
That is: ~<IY.. and 11<1Y.. imply ~+I1<IY...
Proof If 11 < IY. then ~ + 11 < ~ + IY.. If IY. is an additive principal number and ~ < IY. then
~+IY..=IY.., and therefore ~ +11 <IY...
Lemma 4. The set of additive principal numbers is closed and unbounded.
Proof of unboundedness. Let IY. be an arbitrary ordinal. We have to prove that there
isan additive principal number >IY... Let 130 :=IY..', f3n+ 1: =f3n+f3n' M: = {f3n: n EN}
and 13= sup M. 'Then f3n<f3n+l and lY..<f3o<f3 and therefore 13#0. If ~<f3 then
there exists n E N such that ~ < f3n. It follows that for all m ~ n, ~ + 13m ~ 13m + 13m =
13m + 1 <13 Hence sup (~+ M) ~f3. From ( + 8) and ( + 4) it follows that f3~ ~ + 13 =
sup (~ + M) ~ 13. Hence ~ + 13 = 13 for all ~ < 13 13 is therefore an additive principal
number >IY...
Proof of closure. Let M be a non-empty denumerable set of additive principal

numbers. Then sup M #0. We have to prove that sup M is an additive principal
number. If ~ < sup M then there exists IY. E M such that ~ < IY.. For all 13 E M which
are ~ IY. it follows that ~ < 13 and, since 13 is an additive principal number, ~ + 13 = 13.
Hence ~ + sup M = sup M for all ~ < sup M. Therefore sup M is an additive
principal number.
Definition. Let 0( ~ of be the ordering function of the additive principal numbers.

It follows from Lemma 4 and Theorem 13.6 that this function is a normal
function so w~ is defined for all 0( E (I) and we have:
(wi) O<w~
(w2) ~<w~ => ~+w~=w~
(w3) OP=>w~<wfJ
(w4) For every additive principal number P there exists 0( such that w~ = p.
By continuity we have
(w5) w supu =sup W u
for every non-empty denumerable set UC (I). In particular we have
(w6) wfJ =sup WO(P) for every limit number p.
From (w2) and (w3) we have
(w7) OP => w~ +wP=w p.
Since I is the smallest additive principal number and w is the next smallest
additive principal number we have
(w8) wo= I
(w9) w 1 =W.
Theorem 13.7 (Cantor Normal Form). For every ordinal 0(#0 there are unique
0(1 ~ . ~ O(n (n~ I) such that o(=W~l + ... + w~n.
Proof of existence by transfinite induction on 0(.

1. Suppose 0( is an additive principal number. By (w4) there is then an 0(1
such that 0( = W~l.
2. Suppose 0( is not an additive principal number. Then there exists ~ < 0( such
that ~ + 0( # 0(. It follows that ~ # 0 and 0( < ~ + 0(. Then there exists", # 0 such that
", < 0( and 0( = ~ +",. By the induction hypothesis there are 0(1 ~ ~ O(m (m ~ I) such
that~ =wa1 + ... + warn and thereexist.B 1 ~ ... ~ Pn(n~ I) such that", =w fl1 + ... +w fln .
If we had O(i <P1 for all i = I, ... , m then it would follow from (w7) that ~ +", =",
contradicting", < 0(. Hence there is a largest number k ~ m such that O(k ~ Pl' It
follows that 0(1 ~ ~ O(k~ P1 ~ ... ~ Pn and by (w7)
Uniqueness proof Suppose o(=W~l + '" +w~rn=wfll + ... +wPn where 0(1 ~ '" ~O(m
(m~l) and P1~"'~Pn (n~I). We prove by induction on m that m=n and
O(i = Pi for all i = 1, ... , m. It follows from the properties of additive principal
numbers that oW~l", 0wfl1 ", 0(1 <P1" and P1 <0(1'. Hence 0(1 ~P1 and P1 ~0(1 and
therefore 0(1=P1' Hence either m=n=1 or m>l, n>1 and w~2++w~rn=
wfJ2 + ... + wfJn. The assertion now follows from the induction hypothesis.
6. O(-Critical Ordinals
Definition. We define a set Cr (0() c (I) and a function <P~ for each ordinal 0( induc-
tively as follows:
1. Cr (0) is the set of additive principal numbers.

2. 4J1l :AIl -+ Cr (a) is the ordering function ofCr (a).
e
3. If a =I: 0, Cr (a) is the set of common fixed points of all functions 4J~ with < a.
That is: "E Cr (a) if, and only if, "E A~ and 4J~(,,) =" for all e < a.
We call the elements of Cr (a) the a-critical ordinals. We write 4Jap instead of
4JiP) for P E All'
Corollaries. 1. a <p:;. Cr (p) ~Cr (a).
2. Every ordinal4Jap is an additive principal number.
3. 4JOp=aJI.
Lemma 5. The set Cr (a) is closed and unbounded.
Proof by transfinite induction on a. If a=O the assertion holds by Lemma 4. Now

suppose a =1:0. If e <a it follows from the induction hypothesis by Theorem 13.6
that 4J~ is a normal function and therefore A~=O. .
Proof of unboundedness. Let P be an arbitrary ordinal. We have to show that there

is an a-critical ordinal> p. Let Yo: = P', y,,+ 1: = sup {4Jey,,: e <a}, U: = {y,,: n E N}
and y:=sup U. Then P<Yot5;,y. If e<a then 4Jey"t5;,y,,+lt5;,y so sup4JeUt5;,y.
Therefore 4Jey = y for all e < a. Hence y is an a-critical ordinal > p.
Proofof closure. Let M be a non-empty denumerable subset ofCr (a). Then for all
e < a and" E M we have 4Je" =". Since 4Je is continuous it follows that 4Je(sup M) =
sup M for all e < a and therefore sup M'E Cr (a). Hence Cr (a) is closed.
Theorem 13.8. For every ordinal a, 4J1l is a normal function and All = O.
Proof This follows from Lemma 5 and Theorem 13.6.
Theorem 13.9. 4Ja1P1 = 4Ja2P2 holds if; and only if, one of the following holds:
1. a1<a2 and P1=4Ja2P2,
2. a1 =a2 and PI =P2'
3. a2 <a1 and 4Ja1P1 =P2'
Proof 4J(1.2P2ECr(a2) If a 1<(1.2 then 4Ja 1(4J(1.2P2)=4J(1.2P2 therefore 4Ja 1P1=

4Ja2(1.2 if, and only if, PI =4Ja 2P2' The case of a2 <a 1 is similar. For a1 =a 2 the
assertion is trivial.
Corollaries. 1. "E Cr (1.') ~ 4Ja" = ",

2. If P is a limit ordinal then Cr (P) is the intersection nll<1I Cr (a) of all Cr (a)
with a<p.
Theorem 13.10. 4Ja 1 Pl <4Ja 2P2 holds if, and only if, one of the folio wing holds:
1. a 1 < (1.2 and P1 < 4Ja2P2'
2. (1.1 =(1.2 and PI <P2'
3. (1.2 <a 1 and 4J(1.1P1 <P2'
13. Theory of Ordinals of the I st and 2nd Number Classes 83
Proof rx2/32 E Cr (rx 2) If rx 1 <rx 2, then <Prx1(rx2/32)=rx2/32' therefore <Prx1/31 <

rx2/32 if, and only if, /31 <rx 2/32. The case of rx 2 <rx 1 is similar. For rx 1 =rx 2 the
assertion follows from the fact that a! is an ordering function.
Theorem 13.11. rx ~ <prxO.
Proof by transfinite induction on rx. If e < rx then eO < e( <prxO) = rxO. By the
induction hypothesis it follows that e < rxO for all e < rx. Hence rx ~ rxO.
Corollary. /3 E Cr (rx) ---> rx ~ /3.
Proof If /3 E Cr (rx) then there exists I'f such that /3 = rxl'f. It follows that rx ~ rxO ~
rxl'f = /3.
Theorem 13.12. For every additive principal number'}' there exist unique rx and /3 <'}'
such that'}' = rx/3.
Existence proof By Theorem 13.11, '}'~'}'O. Since O<,}" '}' <'}"}'. Hence there is a
least ordinal rx ~'}' such that'}' # rx'}'. If rx #0 then e'}' ='}' for all e < rx and therefore
'}' E Cr (rx). By the hypothesis'}' E Cr (0). In any case therefore'}' E Cr (rx). Therefore
there exists /3 such that'}' = rx/3. Since,}, # rx'}' it follows that'}' < rx'}' and /3 < '}'.
Ul'Iiqueness proof If /31 <,}" /32 <'}' and ,},=rx 1/31 =rx2/32 then by Theorem 13.9
rx 1 = rx2 and /31 = /32
Definition. An ordinal rx is said to be strongly critical if rx E Cr (rx).
Theorem 13.13. rx is strongly critical if, and only if, rxO = rx.
Proof If rx E Cr (rx) then there exists /3 such that rx=rx/3. Now from rx~rxO (by
Theorem 13.11) it follows that /3 = 0 and hence rxO = rx. Conversely: if rxO = rx then
rx E Cr (rx).
Theorem 13.14. The set of strongly critical ordinal numbers is closed and unbounded.
Proof of unboundedness. Let rx be an arbitrary ordinal. We have to prove that there

is a strongly critical ordinal > rx. Let /30 : = rx', /3. + 1 : = /3.0, U: = {/3.: n EN} and
/3: =sup U. Then rx</3o ~/3 and by Theorem 13.11 /3.~/3n+1 If e </3 then there
exists n E N such that e < /3n. It follows that for all m ~ n we have e < /3m and
From this it follows that sup e U ~ /3. Since ~ is a normal function it follows that
e/3 = /3 for all e < /3, and therefore /3 E Cr (/3). Hence /3 is a strongly critical ordinal
>rx.
Proof of closure. Let M be a non-empty denumerable set of strongly critical

ordinals. We have to prove that sup M is strongly critical. If ~<sup M there
exists a e M such that ~ < a. It follows that ljJ~P = P for every P e M which is ~ a
since every Pis strongly critical. Hence ljJ~(sup M) = sup M for all ~ < sup M and
therefore sup Me Cr (sup M). Thus sup M is strongly critical.
Following S. Feferman we denote the least strongly critical ordinal by r o.
. 7. Maximal a-Critical Ordinals
Definition. An ordinal ')I is said to be maximal a-critical if ')I e Cr (a) and ')I f/= Cr (~)
for all ~ > a.
Obviously an ordinal ')I is maximal a-critical if, and only if, there exists P< ')I
such that ')I = ljJap. It therefore follows from Theorem 13.12 that for every additive
principal number ')I there is an ordinal a such that ')I is maximal a-critical.
We define ifJap in such a way that ifJ, where ifJ(p):=ifJap, is the ordering
function of the maximal a-critical ordinals.
Definition. If there exists Po and n e N such that P= Po + nand ljJapo = Po let

ifJap : = ljJaP'. Otherwise let ifJap : = ljJap.
Proof By definition P* = P or P* = p'. If ljJap = p then P* = p'. If P* = p' then

p ~ ljJap < ljJap* and 0' ~ ljJap < ljJap*. Since ljJap* is an additive principal number it
, follows that P* = P + 0' < ljJap*. On the other hand, if P* = P then p < ljJap and
therefore P* < ljJap*.
Lemma 7. ifJap is a maximal a-critical ordinal.
Proof ifJap = ljJap* where P* = P or P* = p'. By Lemma 6 P* < ljJap*. Consequently

ifJap is a maximal a-critical ordinal.
Proof ifJaPi = ljJaPt where Pt =Pi or Pt = p; (i = 1, 2). Now P1 < P2 implies Pt ~ /12
If P1=P2 then P1=P'1 and P1=PO+n where ljJapo=po and neN. But then
P2=PO+n' and P~=P~ In every case therefore P1<P~. Hence ljJaP1<ljJap~ and
therefore ifJaP1 <ifJaP2
Theorem 13.15. For each additive principal number ')I there are unique a and P such
that ')I=ifJap.
Existence proof By Theorem 13.12 there exist a and P1 <')I such that ')I=ljJaP1.
If ifJap 1 = ljJap 1 then the assertion is satisfied with P : = P1. Otherwise there exist
Po and n E N such that P1 = Po + nand </Japo = Po Since P1 < </JaP1 it follows that
n =F O. Therefore there is an mEN such that m' = n. Putting P : = Po + m we obtain
I/Iap = </Jap' = y.
Uniqueness proof Suppose I/Ia 1P1 =I/Ia 2P2. By definition there exist pr such that
I/IaiPi = </JaiPr (i = 1, 2). By Lemma 6 Pr < </JaiPr (i = 1, 2). Then by Theorem 13.9
</Ja1Pt=</Ja2P! implies a 1=a2' By Lemma 8 it follows that P1 =P2'
Theorem 13.16. The function 1/1II. given by 1/1 rz<P) : = I/Iap is the ordering function of the
maximal rt.-critical numbers.
Proof This follows from Lemmata 7, 8 and Theorem 13.15.
Remark. By Lemmata 7 and 8 the set of maximal a-critical ordinals is unbounded.

But by Theorem 13.5 it is not closed since its ordering function 1/111. is not continuous
as the following shows.
If e< </Ja'O then by Theorem 13.10 </Jae < </Ja'O and hence </Jae Cr (a') and
e e e
< </Jae. It follows that there is no < </Ja'O with </Jae = and hence I/Iae = </Jae by
the definition of 1/111.' Setting U: = O( </Ja'O) it follows that sup I/IaU = sup </JaU.
Since </JIZ is continuous and sup U = </Ja'O it follows that sup I/Ia U = </Ja'O. But
I/Ia(</Jrt.'O) = </Ja(</Ja'O)' > </Ja'O and therefore I/Ia(sup Usupl/iaU. Hence 1/111. is not
continuous.
THeorem 13.17. 1. If y = I/Iap then a <y if, and only if, y is not a strongly critical
ordinal.
2. For all p, P < I/Iap.
Proof I/Iap = </Jap* where P* = P or P* = p'.

1.1. Suppose y is a strongly critical ordinal. By Theorem 13.13 we then have
y = </JyO. In this case I/IyO = </JyO. But then y = I/IyO = I/Iap implies y = a by Theorem
13.15.
1.2. Suppose y is not a strongly critical ordinal. Then y < </JyO by Theorem
13.11 and 13.13. By Theorem 13.10 y=</Jap*<</JyO implies a<y.
2. By Lemma 6 P* < </Jap* = I/Irt.p. It follows that 13 ~ 13* < I/Iap.
Theorem 13.18. I/Ia 1p 1 < I/Ia2p 2 holds if, and only if, one of the following holds:
1. a1<a2 and 131 <I/Ia2p2'
2. rt.1=a2 and 131<132'
3. rt.2 <a 1 and I/Ia 1p1 ~p2'
Proof 1. Suppose a1 <a 2 and 131 <I/Ia 2p2' Then I/Ia2p2 is an additive principal
number> 1. Therefore 131 <I/Irt. 2p2 implies 13'1 <I/Ia 2p2 and then I/Ia 1p1 ~</Ja1p'1 <
</Ja1(I/Ia2p2)' Since I/Ia2p2ECr(a2) and a1<rt.2 we have </Ja 1(I/Ia2p2) = I/Ia2p2'
Therefore I/Ia1p1 < I/Ia2p2'
2. Suppose a1=a2 and 131 <132' Then by Lemma 8 I/Ia 1p1 <I/Ia2p2'
3. Suppose I/Ia1p1 ~p2' By Theorem 13.17 132 <I/Ia2p2' Therefore I/Ia1p1 <
I/Ia2p2'
4. Suppose none of cases 1-3 holds. Then eitheu l =a1 and Pl = P1 so "'alPl =
",alPZ or one of cases 1-3 for ",azpz < "'alP 1 holds.
14. A Notation System for the Ordinals < r 0
1. Definition of Ordinal Terms

By Theorems 13.7, 13.15 and 13.17 every ordinal -# which is not strongly critical
can be expressed in terms of + and",. Accordingly we introduce a set T of terms
denoting the ordinals < r 0 and at the same time we formally fix their lengths in the
following way.

Inductive Definition of the set T of terms.
I. The symbol is a term in the set T with length 0.
2. If al, ... ,an,pl> ... ,Pn(n~l) are terms in the set T whose lengths are
Lal, ... , Lan' LP1' ... , LPn then (a l , Pl) ... (a n, Pn) is a term in the set T of length
We denote the length of a term a E T by La. This length is a natural number.

Interpretation. 1. The term denotes the ordinal 0.
2. If al> ... , an' Pl' ... , Pn (n ~ I) are terms in the set T which denote ordinals
al , ... , al, 131, ... , Pn then the term (al> Pl) ...(an, Pn) denotes the ordinal "'alPl +
... + "'anPn'
These terms in the set T do not give a system of unique notations for ordinals.
For example the terms
(0, (0, 0 and (0, 0)(0, (0, 0
both denote the same ordinal (J) = ",0(",00) = ",00 + "'O( ",00) according to the given
interpretation.
In order to obtain a system of unique notations for the ordinals < rowe single
out a subset of OT of T. At the same time we inductively define the < -relation.

Inductive Definition of a set OTc T of ordinal terms and a relation < on ~T.
I. The symbol is an ordinal term in the set ~T.
2. If al, ... ,an,Pl, ... ,Pn (n~l) are ordinal terms in the set OT and
(ai+l,Pi+l)~(a;,Pi) for all i=I, ... ,n-I then (al,Pl) ... (an,Pn) is an ordinal
term in the set OT.
We call the ordinal terms (a, p) E OT principal terms.

3. If a E OT then a < 0 does not hold.
4. If P E OT then < P if, and only if, P-# O.
14. A Notation System for the Ordinals <r 0 87
5. If (lXI' PI)' (1X 2,P2)EOT then (1X 1,/31)1X2,P2) exactly when one of the
following holds:
5.1. 1X1<1X2 and Pl1X2,P2),
5.2. IXI =1X2 and IXI <P2,
5.3. 1X2 <IXI and (lXI' Pl)~P2.
6. If Y=Yl ...YmEOT and t5=t5 1 t5 n EOT where Yl, ... ,Ym, t5 1 , ,t5n (m~l,
n ~ I, m + n > 2) are principal terms then Y< t5 exactly when one of the following
holds:
6.1. m<n and Yi=t5 i for all i= I, ... , m.
6.2. There existsj~min (m, n) such that Yj<t5 j and Yi=t5 i for all i= I, ... ,j-1.
IX=P means that IX and P are identical terms. IX~P means that IX<P or IX=P.
We also write IX> P for P < IX and IX ~ P for P ~ IX.
In the sequel only the elements of the inductively given set OT are called
ordinal terms.
It is clear from 13 that the. inductive definition ofthe <-relation corresponds
to that in the interpretation we gave of the ordinal terms as notations for ordinals
< r o. The principal terms denote the additive principal numbers < r o.
In this section we started out from the point of view of the non-constructive
theory of ordinals developed in 13. Now the ordinal terms are to be understood
without reference to their interpretations and simply as formal strings of symbols
for which we have a constructively defined < -relation. All the theorems about
orpinal terms in this section will be proved constructively using only the above
inductive definition. In this way we lay a constructive foundation for the proof
theoretic applications in the next chapter.
We first confirm that we are dealing with decidable properties of ordinal terms.
It is obviously decidable for each string of symbols whether it is a term of the set T.
By the following theorem it is also decidable whether a string of symbols is an
ordinal term of the system OT.
Theorem 14.1. (1) It is decidable whether IX < P, IX = P or P < IX for aI/IX, P E OT.
(2) If YET it is decidable whether Y E OT.
Proofby induction on the maximum of La., LP and Ly and within that by induction
on LIX+Lp.
(I) Fore,,, E(e,,,)
E OT let denote: It is decidable whether e <", e =" or,,<e.
We prove E(IX, P) for IX, P E ~T.
1. Suppose IX or P is O. Then E(IX, P) is trivial.
2. 1X=(1X 1, 1X 2), P=(Ph P2). Then by the induction hypotheses we have
E(IXI, PI), E(1X2, P2), E(1X 2, P) and E(IX, P2). Now E(IX, P) follows by the inductive
definition of the < -relation.
3. 1X=1X 1 lXm, P=Pl ... Pn where IXh ,lXm, Pl, ... ,Pn (m~l, n~l, m+n>2)
are principal terms. Then by the induction hypotheses E( IX;, Pi) for all i ~ min (m, n).
If lXi = Pi for all i ~ min (m, n) then IX < P, IX = P or P < IX according as m < n, m = n or
n<m. If there is a least indexj~min (m, n) such that IXj=FP j then IX<P or P<IX
according as IXj<Pj or Pj<lX j .
(2) If y=O then Y EOT. Otherwise Y=(lXl, Pl)"'(lXn , Pn) (n~ 1). By the main
induction hypothesis it is decidable whether IX; E OT and P; E OT for all i = I, ... , n.
If this is the case, then we also have (IX;, Pi) E ~T. If n> 1 then by the induction
hypotheses it is decidable whether (1X;+l,P;+l)~(IX;,P;) for i=I, ... ,n-1. Hence
YE OT is decidable.
In the following parts of this section small Greek letters will always denote
ordinal terms in the system ~T.
2. The Ordering of the Ordinal Terms
Theorem 14.2. The ordinal terms are linearly ordered by the < -relation, that is,
for all y, Yl' Y2' Y3 E OT we have:
(I) Not Y<Y
(2) Yl <Y2 or Yl =Y2 or Y2 <Yl
(3) Yl <Y2 and Y2 <Y3 imply Yl <Y3'
Proof (1) follows at once by induction on Ly and (2) by induction on LYl +LY2'
Using (2) we prove (3) by induction on LYl +LY2 +Lh We only give the details
of the proof of (3) for the case Y; =(IX;, Pi) (i= I, 2, 3) since in the other cases the
assertion follows easily from the induction hypothesis. The hypotheses Yl <Y2
and Y2 < Y3 produce one of the following seven cases:
1. IXl < 1X 2' Pl <Y2 and 1X2 ~1X3'
By I.H. IXl <1X2 and 1X2~1X3 yield IXl <1X3'
By I.H. Pl <Y2 and Y2 <Y3 yield Pl < h
IXl < 1X3 and Pl <Y3 yield Yl <Y3'
2. IXl < 1X 2, Pl <Y2 and 1X3 < 1X2' Y2 ~P3'
By (2) either IXl <1X3 or IXl =1X3 or 1X3 <lXl'
2.1. Suppose IXl < 1X3'
By I.H. Pl <Y2 and Y2 <Y3 imply Pl < h
IXl < 1X 3 and Pl <Y3 imply Yl <Y3'
2.2. Suppose IXl = 1X 3 .
By I.H. Pl <Y2 and Y2 ~P3 imply Pl <P3'
IXl = 1X 3 and Pl <P3 imply Yl <Y3'
2.3. Suppose 1X3 < IX l
By I.H. Yl <Y2 and Y2 ~P3 imply Yl <P3'
1X3 <lXl and Yl <P3 imply Yl <Y3'
3. IXl =1X2' Pl <P2 and 1X2 < 1X 3' P2 <Y3'
Then IXl <1X3' By I.H. Pl <P2 and P2 <Y3 imply Pl < h
IXl < 1X 3 and Pl <Y3 imply Yl <Y3'
4. IXl =1X2' Pl <P2 and 1X2 = 1X 3' P2 <P3'
Then IXl =1X 3 . By I.H. Pl <P2 and P2 <P3 imply Pl <P3'
IXl = 1X 3 and Pl <P3 imply Yl <Y3'
5. 1X2 ~ IXl and 1X3 < 1X2' Y2 ~ P3'
By I.H. 1X3 < 1X2 and 1X2 ~ IXl imply 1X3 < IX l
14. A Notation System for the Ordinals < r 0 89
By I.H. 11 <12 and 12 :!;"P3 imply 11 <P3

1X3 <IXI and 11 <P3 imply 11 <13
6. 1X2 <lXI' 11 :!;"P2 and 1X2 = 1X 3' P2 <P3
Then 1X3 <IXI. By I.H. 11 :!;"P2 and P2 <P3 imply 11 <P3 1X3 <IX I and 11 <P3 imply
11 <13
7. 1X2 <lXI' 11 :!;"P2 and 1X2 <1X3, P2 <13
By I.H. 11 :!;"P2 and P2 <13 imply 11 <13-
Theorem 14.3. (1) P< (IX, P)

(2) IX < (IX, Pl.
Proof of (1) by induction on Lp.

1. P=O. Then the assertion is trivial.
2. P=(Pl' P2) ByI.H. wethenhaveP2 <pandP2 IX, P2). Now P2 <pimplies
(IX, P2)IX, P) Hence fJ2 IX, Pl.
2.1. Suppose PI <IX. Since P2 IX, P) we then have PIX, P).
2.2. Suppose PI = IX. Since P2 < Pwe then have P< (IX, P).
2.3. SupposelX<Pl. Since p:!;,.pwe have PIX,Pl.
3. P=Pl ... Pn (n~2) where PI' ... , Pn are principal terms. By I.H. PI IX, PI).
Since PI < Pit follows that PI < (IX, P). Hence P< (IX, Pl.
Proof of (2) by induction on LtX.

I. IX = O. Then the assertion is trivial.
2. 1X=(1X 1, 1X 2). By I.H. we then have 1X1 <IX and 1X2 < (1X2' Pl. By (1) 1X2 <IX and
P< (IX, Pl. Hence (1X2' Pl < (IX, Pl. Therefore 1X2 < (IX, Pl. Now 1X1 < IX implies IX < (IX, Pl.
3. 1X=1X1 ... lXn (n~2) where 1X1, ... ,lXn are principal terms. By I.H. 1X1 1X1,P).
By (1) PIX, Pl. Since 1X1 <IX it follows that (lXI' P)IX, Pl. Hence 1X1 IX, Pl. It
follows that IX < (IX, Pl.
Remark. We require ordinal terms in the succeeding chapters in order to carry out
induction over OT with respect to the < -relation. That is to say: we use the prin-
ciple of proof by transfinite induction over the segment of the ordinals < r 0
represented by ~T. However, the well-ordering of OT, on which this transfinite
induction is based, cannot be proved in as elementary a way as Theorem 14.2.
Later we shall establish transfinite induction for OT, using stronger methods step
by step.
3. Addition of Ordinal Terms
Definition of IX + PE OT and IX' E OT for IX, PE ~T.

1. IX+O:=lXandO+p:=p.
2. If IX = 1X1 ... lXm and P= Pl Pn with principal terms 1X1,, IXm' PI'' Pn
(m~l,n~l)set
2.1. IX+P :=P, ifIXl <PI'
2.2. IX + P: = 1X 1.. .lXkP 1.. .Pn, if k is the largest index :!;,.m such that PI :!;,.lXk.
3. IX': = IX + (0, 0).
The following properties are easily established for this addition of ordinal
terms.
1X~IX+p and p~lX+p,
P<y => 1X+/3<IX+Y,
lX~p => lX+y~/3+y,
IX + (13 + y) = (IX + 13) + y.
If IX = 1X1" .lXn (n ~ 2) where 1X 1, "., IXn are principal terms IX = 1X1 + ". + IXn'
IX' is the successor of IX since we obviously have
IX < IX'
IX < /3 => IX' ~ /3
lX<p' => 1X~/3.
The principal terms have the properties of additive principal numbers since
the definition of addition yields
~< (IX, 13) => ~ + (IX, 13) = (IX, 13)

~ IX, /3),,,, IX, /3) => ~ +", < (IX, 13)
Definition of -IX + 13 for IX ~ p.
I. -IX+IX:=O
2. -0+13 :=/3
3. If 1X=1X1."lXm<p=Pl."Pn with principal terms IX b ,,, IXm, 131,"" /3n (m~ 1,
n ~ 1) we consider the following two cases corresponding to the definition of the
< -relation:
3.1. m<n and IX j=/3j for all i= 1, "., m. In this case set -1X+p :=/3m+l".Pn'
3.2. There existsj~min (m, n) such that IXj<pjand IXj=pj for all i= 1, ".,j-l.
In this case set -IX + 13 : = /3j" Pn.
In every case - IX + 13 is again an ordinal term. The definition yields
lX~p => IX+( -1X+p)=p.
4. Ordinal Terms 4>1X/3
We call the ordinal term 0 and the ordinal terms 1X1".lXn (n~ 1) such that IXj=(O, 0)
(i = 1, ... , n) finite ordinal terms.
Definition. w: =(0, (0,0.
Obviously IX < w holds if, and only if, IX is a finite ordinal term.
Definition of 4>lXp for ordinal terms IX, 13:

I. If /3= (pb pz) where lX<pl, then set 4>lXp : = p.
2. If 13=(131, /3z)+y' where lX<pl and y<w, then set 4>1X/3 : = (IX, (/31, Pz)+Y).
3. In every other case set 4>1X/3 : = (IX, 13).
Corollary. 4Ja.p is a principal term.
Theorem 14.4. (l) P ~ 4Ja.p

(2) a. < 4Ja.p.
Proof of (1). If 4Ja.p = P then the assertion holds. If 4Jrxp = (rx, p) then P < 4Jrxp by
Theorem 14.3(1). Otherwise we have P=(PI,P2)+Y' where rx<PI and y<w and
4JrxP=(rx,(PI,P2)+Y)' In this case (0,0)PI,P2)+Y' By Theorem 14.3(1) we
,obtain (P b P2) + Y < 4Jrxp and (0,0) < 4Jrxp. Hence P < 4Jrxp.
Proofof(2). If P=(PI' P2) where rx<PI then 4Jrxp=p. By Theorem 14.3(2) we then
have PI <po It follows that rx<4Ja.p. Otherwise we have 4Jrxp=(rx, Po). Then by
Theorem 14.3(2) again we have rx < 4Jrxp.
Lemma 1. P < Y => 4Jrxp < 4Jrxy.
Proof Following the definition we have the following three cases to consider for
4Jrxp and 4Jrxy.
1. 4Jrxp = p. Then P < Y implies 4Jrxp < 4Jrxy since Y ~'4Jrxy by Theorem 14.4( 1).
2. 4Jrxp = (rx, Po) where P=Po or P=P'o and 4JrxY=Y=(YI, Y2) where rx<YI'
Now P<y implies Po<y. Using rx<YI it follows that 4Jrxp=(rx, Po) <y=4Jrxy.
3. 4Ja.p = (rx, Po) where P=Po of P=P'o and 4Jrxy=(rx, Yo) where Y=Yo ory=Y'o
N.ow P < Y implies P ~ Yo. If P = Yo then Y = Y'o. By the definition of 4Jrxy we then have
P=YO=(Yb Y2)+<> where rx<YI and <><w. Since we have 4Jrxp=(rx, Po) it follows
that <>#0. Then P=P'o. In any case we therefore have Po<Yo. It follows that
4Jrxp = (rx, Po) < (rx, Yo) = 4Jrxy.
Theorem 14.5. 4Jrx i PI =4Jrx2P2 holds if, and only if, one of the following holds.
1. rx l <rx2 and PI =4Jrx2Pb
2. rx l =rx 2 and PI =Pb
3. rx2 <rx l and 4Jrx i PI =P2'
Theorem 14.6. 4Ja. IPI <4Jrx 2P2 holds if, and only if, one of the following holds:
1. rx l <rx 2 and PI <4Jrx 2Pb
2. rx l =rx 2 and PI <P2,
3. rx2<rxl and 4Jrx i PI <P2'
Joint Proof for Theorems 14.5 and 14.6. By definition 4Jrx 2P2 is an ordinal term
(YI, Y2) with rx2 ~YI' If rx l <rx 2 then rx l <YI and then again by the definition
4Jrx l (4Jrx 2P2)=4Jrx 2P2' The assertions of Theorems 14.5 and 14.6 for rx l <rx 2 now
follow by Lemma I. The case where rx 2 < rx l is similar. If rx 1 = rx 2 then the assertions
follow immediately from Lemma 1. These are all the cases since rx 1 <rx 2 or rx 1 =rx2
or rx 2 <rx 1
Theorem 14.7. For each principal term Y there exist unique rx and P < Y such that
y=4Jrxp. Moreover, Lrx<Ly and LP<Ly.
Existence Proof We have y=(tx, Po) where Ltx<Ly.

1. If Po = (P b P2>+ (j where tx < Pl and (j < w then y = c/>txP'o Then Po ~
c/>txpo < c/>txP'o and (0,0) < Po < c/>txP'o It follows that P'o < c/>txP'o Therefore LPo # 0
and LP'o =LPo + I <2 Lpo + I ~ Ly.
2. Otherwise y = c/>txPo and by Theorem 14.3 Po < c/>txpo. Then we also have
LPo<Ly.
Uniqueness Proof y=c/>txlPl =c/>tx 2P2 where Pl <y and P2 <y implies txl =tx2 and
Pl =P2 by Theorem 14.5.
Remark. A comparison of Theorems 13.9, 13.10 and 13.12 with Theorems 14.5-
14.7 shows that the ordinal terms c/>txP have the properties corresponding to those
of the ordinals c/>txP defined in 13.
Theorem 14.8. For each ordinal term y #0 there are unique ordinal terms
txl,,txn, Pl,,Pn (n~l) where Pi<c/>txiPi (i=I, ... ,n), c/>txlPl~~c/>tx~Pn and
y = c/>txlPl + ... + c/>txnPn
Proof We have y=Yl ... yn (n~I) with principal terms Yl~~yn' By Theorem
14.7 there are unique txi and Pi < Yi such that Yi = c/>tx i Pi' Hence the assertion is
established.
5. Ordinal Terms w~, w~ n and w~ P
Definition. w~: = c/>Otx.
Corollaries. w~ is a principal term, W O= (0, 0) and w(o, 0) = W.
Lemma 2. tx < P=> w~ < oJi .

Proof This follows from Lemma I.
Lemma 3. For each principal term P there is a unique ordinal term tx such that P = w~.
Proof By Theorem I4.7we have P=c/>P1P2' If Pl =0 then the assertion holds with
tx: = P2' Otherwise by Theorem 14.5 it holds for tx: = p. The uniqueness of tx follows
from Lemma 2.
Theorem 14.9. For each ordinal term tx#O there are unique txl ~ ... ~txn (n ~ I) such
that tx=W~1 + ... +w~n.
Proof This follows from Lemma 3 and the properties of addition of ordinal terms.
Inductive Definition of w~ n E OT for tx E OT and n EN.

1. w~O :=0
2. w~ (n + I): =w~n +w~.
Definition of v(oc) E OT and k(oc) EN for OC'E OT.

1. If oc=o then set v(oc) :=0 and k(oc): =0.
2. If oc #0 then by Theorem 14.9 there are unique OC 1 ;;:: ... ;;::ocn (n;;:: I) where
oc=afl! + ... + w~n. Then set v(oc) : = OC 1 and k(oc) to be thelargest index ~ n such that
OCk(~) = oc 1
Theorem 14.10. (I) wV(~)k(oc)~oc<wv(~)(k(oc) + I)

(2) If oc <wP and P# 0 then v(oc) < p andfurther wV(~)' (k(oc) + l) <wP.
Proof Immediate from the definitions.
Definition of w~ PE OT for oc, j3 E OT.

1. w"O:=O
2. If P # 0 then by Theorem 14.9 there are unique P1 ;;:: ... ;;:: Pn (n;;:: I) such that
P=w P1 + ... +wPn . Then set w~ p: =W dP1 + ... +wdPn .
Corollaries:
w~(O, O)=w"
=
P<y w~P<w"y
w~ P + w~ y = w~ (P + y)
w~ (w p y)=w"+P .y.
;rheorem 14.11. For each oc and P there are unique ~ and11 <w~ such that P= w~ ~ +11.
Existence Proof I. Supposep<w~. Then theassertionholdswith~: =Oand11: =p.

2. Suppose wl1.~ p. Then there are P1;;:: ... ;;:: Pn(n;;:: 1) such that p=wP 1+ ... +wP"
and OC~P1' Hence there is a largest index m~n such that oc~Pm' We set ~:=
W-~+Pl++W-dP~ and 1'/:=0 if m=n and I'/:=wP~+I++wPn if m<n. In
any case we then have P= w" ~ + 1'/ and 1'/ < w".
Uniqueness Proof Suppose P=w~ ~1 +'11 =w~' ~2 +1'/2 where 111 <w~ and 1'/2 <w~.
Then
It follows that ~1 <~~ and therefore ~1 ~~2' Similarly ~2~~1' It follows that
~1 =~2' Therefore 111 =112'
Lemma 4. Ify<w" P and oc#O then y' <w" p.
Proof y<w~p implies y' ~w~p. Since oc#O, w~p is not of the form y'=y+wo.
It follows that y' < w~ p.
Theorem 14.12. Ify < w~ pandoc 1 < oc then there exists P1 such thaty < W~l. P1 <w~ p.
Proof By Theorem 14.11 we have y = W~l . ~ + 11 where 1'/ < W~l. Therefore
OflC;~y<W~P=W~l(W-~lH.p). It follows that C;<W-~lH.p. Now a l <a

implies 0< -a l +a. By Lemma 4 it follows that C;' <W-~l +~. p. Putting Pl : =C;' we
obtain y<W~l'C;+W~l=W~l'Pl <wal(w-al+ap)=wa.p.
6. Ordinal Terms n . p, 2~ and 2~ P
Since w(O,O)=w, it follows by Theorem 14.11 that for each a there are unique
C; and 1'/ < w such that
For I'/<w, there is a unique nE N such that I'/=won. We define q(a) :=C; and
r(a): =n. In this way, we have q(a) E OT and r(a) EN for each a E OT such that
a=wq(a) +wo r(a)
holds.
Definition of n Pfor n EN:

1.0P:=0
2. n P :=wq(P)+wo (nr(p for n#O.
Corollaries.
I p= P
n(p +y)=n P +ny
n#O, P<y ~ np<ny.
Definitions. 2~: = wq(~) 2r(~), 2~ P: = wq(~) (2r(~). Pl.

Corollaries.
2~(0, 0)=2~
P<y ~ 2~P<2~y
2~ . (P + y) = 2~ . P+ 2~ . Y
2~ (2 fJ . y) = 2~+fJ. y.
Theorem 14.13. If y<2~p and a l +w~a, then there exists Pl such that
y<2~1'Pl <2~p.
Proof a l +w~a implies q(ad<q(a). Therefore, by Theorem 14.12 there exists

Pl such that
It follows that
Since -q(OCl) +q(OC) >0 and 2r(~,)<w, we have also
It follows that
7. Ordinal Terms B~, wn(oc) and 'n

Definition. B~: = cfJ(O, O)oc.
These ordinal terms B~ are called B-terms. They are precisely the ordinal terms ~
such that w~ = e.
It follows from Lemma 1 that
We obviously also have
e< B~ ~ e' < B~.

Inductive Definition of wn(oc) E OT for n EN and oc E OT.
1. wo(oc): = oc
2. wn+l(oc) :=w"'n(~).
Theorem 14.14. OC<Bp ~ Wn(OC) <Bp.
Proof by induction on n. The assertion is trivial for n = O. Suppose n = m + 1. By

I.H. we then have Wm(OC) <Bp. It follows that wn(oc)=w"'m(~)<WP=Bp.
Theorem 4.15. For each OC<Bp there exists nE N and either y=O or Y=B' ~ (where
1'/<P) such that oc<wn(Y)
Proofby induction on Loc.

1. oc=O. Then oc<w o =Wl(O).
2. Suppose oc is a principal term. Then by Theorem 14.7 there exist and 1'/ < oc e
such that oc = cfJe1'/ and L1'/ < Loc.
e
2.1. Suppose = O. Since 1'/ < Bp and L1'/ < Loc by I.H. there exist n E N and a Y
of the required kind such that 1'/<wn(Y). It follows that oc=w~<w"'n(Y) =wn+l(y).
e
2.2. Suppose = (0, 0). Then oc = B~ < Bp and therefore 1'/ < p. It follows that
oc<e~=wo(B~).
e.
2.3. Suppose (0,0) < Then oc = B~ < Bp and therefore oc < p. It follows that
oc < B~ = Wo(B~).
3. Suppose oc=ocl .. OC m (m~2) where OCl' .. , OCm are principal terms. Then
~I< GfJ and L~I < L~. By I.H. there exist therefore n E N and a Y of the required kind
such that ~1<Wn(Y)~Wn+I(Y). Since wn+I(Y) is a principal term it follows that
~<Wn+I(Y).
Inductive Definition of (n E OT for n EN.

1. (0: = cpOO,
2. (n+ I : = CP(nO,
By Theorem 14.4(2Hnn+ I.
Theorem 14.16. For every ordinal term ~ there exists n EN such that ~n.
Proof by induction on L~.

1. ~=O. Then ~o.
2. Suppose ~ is a principal term. Then by Theorem 14.7 there exist ~I' ~2
such that ~ = CP~I ~2 and L~i < L~ (i = 1,2). Then by I.H. there exist n i E N suck that
~ini (i= 1, 2). Putting n: = max (n l , n 2 ) it follows that ~I n and ~2 nn+ I.
It follows by Theorem 14.6 that ~ = CP~I ~2 < CP(nO= (n + I.
3. Suppose ~=~I ... ~m (m~2) where ~I' ... '~m are principal terms. Then
L~I <L~. Therefore by I.H. there exists nE N such that ~I ~n0 Since (n is a
principal term it follows that ~n.
8. A Mapping onto the Natural Numbers
Definitions for Natural Numbers.

Ifm, n EN set n(m, n) : =t<m +n)(m +n + 1) +m, it is easy to see that n: N x N ---+ N
is a bijection of the set of ordered pairs (m, n) of natural numbers onto the set N of
natural numbers. Let n l and n2 be the inverses of n such that nl(n(m, n=m,
n 2(n(m, n = nand n(nl (n), n2(n = n for all m, n E N. Just like n the functions n I
and n 2 are calculable arithmetic functions.
Let Po: =2. If n>O let Pn be the n-th odd prime number, thus PI = 3, P2 = 5,
P3 = 7, P4 = 11, etc.
Lemma 5. If kEN then n;(k)+ 1 <pdi= 1, 2).

Proof It is easy to see that n;(k) ~ k and k + 1 <Pk. Hence the assertion follows.
Extension of OT to OT. We adjoin a symbol r 0 to the ordinal terms ofthe system OT

and set
PE OT then ~ < Pif, and only if, either ~, Pare from OT and ~ < Por ~ E OT
If~,
and P= r o. Obviously OT is ordered by this < -relation.
Let N + be the set of positive natural numbers.
Inductive Definition of Nr(lX) EN + for IX E OT (by induction on LIX).

1. Nr (0): = I
2. If 1X=(1X 1, Pl)"'(lXn , Pn) E OT (n~ I) let
n
Nr (IX) : = Il P1t(Nr(~;)-
i= 1
I, Nr(p;)- I)'
We also set
3. Nr(r o) :=0.
Then Nr is a map of OT into the set N of natural numbers.
Inductive Definition of t(m) E OT for mEN + (by induction on m).

1. t(l) :=0
2. Ift( 1t 1(k)+ I)=IX and t(1t z(k) + I)=P, then let t(pd :=(IX, P).
n
3. If m = Il Pk; (n ~ 2), t(Pk;) = ')'i for all i = I, ... , nand f
i= 1
is a permutation of
{l, ... , n} such that')' f(1) ~ ... ~')' fin) then let t(m) : =')' f(1) ... ,), fin)'
By Lemma 5 this is indeed an inductive definition. For every prime number

Pkt(Pk) is a principal term and for every natural number m~ I t(m) is an ordinal
term of the system ~T. We also set
4. t(O) :=ro.
Then t is a map of N into ~T.
Theorem 14.17 Nr is a bijection ofOT onto N with inverse t: N ~ ~T. That is: the
following hold:
(1) t(Nr) (IX = IX for all IX E OT
(2) Nr(t(m=m forallmEN.
Proof (I) and (2) are immediate from the definition. This yields the assertion.
The < -relation of OT induces an ordering relation -< of the natural numbers
under the bijection as follows:
m-<n<:;>t(m)<t(n) for m,nEN,

Nr(lX) -< Nr(p) <:;> IX < P for IX, PE OT.
Theorem 14.18. -< is a decidable arithmetic relation, that is, for any two natural
numbers m, n it is decidable whether m -< n, m = nor n -< m.
Proof Given natural numbers m, n the terms t(m) , t(n) E OT are effectively
calculable. We can then decide whether t(m) <t(n), t(m)=t(n) or t(n) < t(m).
Chapter VI
Functionals of Finite Type
In this chapter we treat the theory of functionals of finite type in which, following
K GOdel [2] pure number theory can be interpreted (19). The functionals con-
cerned are introduced in 15 and they are shown to be calculable in 16 following
W. Howard by transfinite induction up to 8o, in fact, by using the ordinal terms of
14. In 17 we develop a formal system on the basis of the positive implicational
calculus (with equality) as a logical setting for the theory of functiorrals of finite
type.
15. The System of Terms of Finite Type
1. Types
We now introduce function types in contrast to the predicate types of Chapter IV.
Inductive Definition of types:

1. The symbol 0 is a type. (It denotes the type of the natural numbers.)
2. If (J and 't are types then (J)'t is also a type. (J)'t denotes the type of certain
maps (J ~ 't from the set of type (J into the set of type 't.)
For brevity we write (J't for (J)'t, if the type (J is written as a single symbol.
According to the above definition every type different from 0 is of the form
't 1 't no (n~ I).
2. Terms
We take as primitive terms:

1. Denumerably infinitely many variables of each type.
2. The arithmetic primitive term 0 (for the natural number zero) and!/' (for
the successor function).
3. Combinators Kut and SPUt for all types p, (J, 'to (Here we use the combinators
K and S which were introduced by H. B. Curry in a type-free manner but now
making distinctions of type.)
4. An iterator Jt for each type 't.
15. The System of Terms of Finite Type 99
Inductive Definition of the terms and their types:

1. Every variable of type 1: is a term of type 1:.
2. The arithmetic primitive term 0 is a term of type o.
3. The arithmetic primitive term!/ is a term of type 00.
4. The combinator Ka, is a term of type 1:CT1:.
5. The combinator Spa, is a term of type (pCT1:)(pCT)p1:.
6. The iterator J, is a term of type o('t't)'t't.
7. If aa, and ba are terms of types CT1: and CT then aa,( ba) is a term of type 1:.
For brevity we write aa'ba for aa,( ba) if the term ba is not written as a composite
term.
We call terms which contain no variablefunctionals.
Syntactic symbols:
x', y', z' for variables of type 1:,
a', b', c', d', e' for terms of type 1:.
We shall also use these syntactic symbols with subscripts. The superscripts always
give the type.
According to the above definition of term every term which is not primitive is
of the form
.
where aa, .. .a n, is a primitive term .
Inductive Definition of the numerals N" (n EN):

1. No :=0
2. N,,+l :=!/N".
The numerals are special terms of type o.
3. Interpretation
The term iftba denotes the image of ba under the map if': CT -+ 1:. This image is
of type 1:.
The successor functional!/ maps each term aO of type 0 onto its successor !/a O
Thus !/ denotes a map 0 -+ 0 of type 00.
Ka.a' denotes the constant function CT -+ 1: which maps every term ba of type CT
to a'. Thus Ka.a'b a=a'. This mapping Ka.a t is of type CT1:. The combinator Ka,
denotes the function 1: -+ CT1: which maps (J,' to the constant function K.rtrx.. Con-
sequently K a , is a functional of type 1:CT1:.
Spatapa'bPa denotes the function p -+ 1: which maps the term cP to the term
apatcP(bPacP) of type 1:. Thus we have
Consequently Spatapa'bPa is oftype p1:, Spatapat is of type (PCT)p1: and Spa, is of type
(PCT1: )(PCT) p1:
100 VI. Functionals of Finite Type
The iterator J t only has a meaning when together with a numeral N n Then the
functional J.Nn maps a function att: t -+ t onto its n-fold iteration. That is, the
following holds:
where att occurs n times on the right-hand side of the equation. In particular we have
and
Consequently JtNnOtt is of type tt, J.Nn of type (tt)tt and J t of type O(tt)t1;.
The interpretation we have just given serves only to clarify the theory we are
dealing with. In the sequel we shall not refer to this interpretation and the meaning
of the terms will be fixed purely formally by an appropriate reduction procedure.
4. Reduction Procedure for Terms
Definition. A term is said to be open if it is of one of the following three forms:

l. Ka.atbadi' ... d;,.m
2. S patapatbpa cPdi ' ... d:,.m
3. JtNnattbtdP ... d:,.m
where in each case t=t 1 ... t m+1 (m~O). The term is then oftype t m+ 1 .
Inductive Definition of the reducibility of a term.

I. Every open term is reducible.
2. If aat or ba is reducible then aatba is also reducible.
Inductive Definition of at [>1 bt ("at reduces to bt in one step").

The following hold for t = t 1'" tm+ 1 (m ~O):
l. Ka.atbadi' ... d:,.m[>1 atdi' ... d:,.m
2. SpatapatbpacPdi' ... d:,.m [>1 apatcP(bPacP)di' .. .d;,.m
3. JtOattbtdi' ... d;,.m[>1 btdi' ... d:,.m .
4. J tNn+1a tt bt di' ... d:,.m[>1 att(JtNnattbt)di' ... d;,.m
5. ba [>1 Ca => aatbadi' ... d;,.m [>1 aatcadi' ... d:"m,
provided aatbadi' ... d;,.m is not open and aat is irreducible.
These reduction steps correspond to the interpretation of the terms we gave
above. Namely, at [>1 bt says that bt has the same meaning as at in the given
interpretation.
Cases 1.-4. yield reductions of open terms. Case 5. gives a reduction of a re-
ducible term which is not open.
Corollary. For each at there exists bt such that at l> 1 bt if, and only if, at is reducible.
In this case bt is uniquely determined by at.
Inductive Definition of at l>" ht ("at reduces to bt in n steps") for n EN:

1. at l> Oat
2. at l>1 b\ bt l>m ct = at l>m+ 1 ct (m ~ 1).
at l>bt means that there exists n EN such that at l>" bt .
Corollaries. (1) If at l>" b t and, =, 1'" 'm+ 1 (m ~ 1) then we also have
(2) at l>bt and at l>ct implies btl>ct or ctl>bt .
Proof (1) is immediate from the defining rules for reduction. (2) holds because at
most one (one step) reduction is possible for any given term.
5. Characterization of Numerals
Theorem 15.1. The numerals are the only irreducible functionals of type o.
Proof Let a Obe an irreducible functional of type o. We prove by induction on the

length of aO that aO is a numeral. It follows from the rules given above for types when
using combinators that every term of type 0 which begins with a combinator is an
open term. Hence the irreducible term aO cannot begin with a combinator. So we
have at most the following three cases to consider for the term aO (which contains
no variable):
1. aOisO
2. a Ois !/bO
3. aOis JtbOcttdte~I".e~"where '='1.","0 (n~O).
In cases 2 and 3 bO is an irreducible functional of type o. Since bO is shorter than
a O then by I.H. bO is, in these cases, a numeral. But then in case 3 aOis an open,
and therefore reducible, term. So this case is excluded. In the remaining first two
casesaO is a numeral.
6. Substitution Properties
We denote by c" (:: ) the term which results from c" when every occurrence of the
variable xt in c" is replaced by the term at.
Lemma 1. If c" is an open term and c"l>l d" then c"(::)l> 1 d"(::}
Proof This follows at once from the rules for reduction of open terms.
Lemma 2. If x Toccurs in ca and aT is reducible then ca(::) is reducible.
Proof In this case the reducible term aT occurs in ca(::) and hence the assertion
follows by induction on the length of ca.
Lemma 3. If ca is a term which is not open and does not begin with x" and if aT is
reducible then the term ca( ::) is not open.
Proof Suppose ca is a term c~cfl ... c~n where P=Pl ... Pn (n~O) and where c~ is a
basic term different from x T. Then the term ca(::) also begins with ~.
1. Suppose c~ is a variable or an arithmetic basic term. Then trivially ca (::)
is not open.
2. Suppose c~ is a combinator. Then ca(::) is not open since ca is not open.
3. Suppose c~ is an iterator.
3.1. Suppose n~2. Then trivially ca(::) is not open.

3.2. Suppose n > 2. Then PI = 0 and c~ is not a numeral since ca is not open.
If x Toccurs in c~ then c~ (::) is reducible by Lemma 2. In any case c~ (::) is not a
numeral. Therefore ca (::) is not open.
Theorem 15.2. If aT 1:>1 bTand ca(::) I:>m ea where ea is irreducible then ca(~:) I:> ea.
Proof Without loss of generality we may assume that x Tdoes not occur in aT, bT.
For we can choose a variable yT which does not occur in a" b"
ca. Then the terms
ca(::} cae:) are the same as the terms ca(~:)(;:} caG:)G:) so we can replace
ca and x Tin the hypotheses and statement of Theorem 15.2 by ca(~:) andyT where
y' does not occur in a"
bT.
Now we assume that x Tdoes not occur in aT, bTand prove Theorem 15.2 by a
multiple nested induction, namely, by induction
I. on the length of the term a"
2.onm,
3. on the length of the term ca.
For brevity, in what follows we write
for any term d P

1. Suppose ca is an open term.
Then we have a term d a such that ca1>1 d a. It follows by Lemma 1 that ca1>1 d a,
and ca1>1 aa. It follows from ca 1>1 aa and the hypothesis cal>m ea because of the
irreducibility of ea that m > 0 and aa I>m-l ea holds. By the second LH. it follows
that aal>ea. Hence cal>e a also holds.
2. Suppose ca is a term which is not open and does not begin with xt.
If xt does not occur in ca then the assertion is trivial. Now assume that xt does
occur in ~. Then by Lemma 2 ca is reducible and Lemma 3 ca is not open, while at
is reducible by hypothesis. Therefore ca must be of the form
where c: is irreducible and ci' is reducible. It follows by Lemma 2 that xt does not
occur in c:. It now follows from the hypothesis cal>m ea that there is an irreducible
termei' such that ci'l>m, ei' where 1 ~ml ~m. Sincem 1 ~m and ci' is shorter than
ca it follows by the second or third I.H. that ci'l>ei'. Hence
and
Since m-m 1<m it follows by the second I.H. that
But then cal>ea also holds.

3. Suppose ca is a term beginning with xt. Then ca is of the form
3.1. Suppose at is open or ca is not open. Then it follows from the hypotheses
of the theorem that
By the second LH. we have
This is just the assertion caI> ea.

3.2. Suppose at is not open and c" is open. Then it follows from at 1>1 b t that
at is a term a~ai' ... a~r
and
where p = t 1'" tr t (r ~ 1) and where a~ is irreducible and aI' I> 1 b~' holds. Let yt' be
a variable which does not occur in at, bt , c".
Let dr be the term a~y"a~2 ... a~rc!' .. .c:" so that (lr ( at')
1
yt'
is the term C". Since c"
is open and at, a~' are reducible it follows from Lemma 3 that di is also open. Hence
we have a term di such that di I> 1 di. It follows by Lemma 1'that
c" 1>1 J"2 ( yt'

at')
1 I>m-1 e"
and
C"1>1 J" ( b 1 .
t
')
2 y"
It follows from the second I.H. that

J,,(a i') I>e".
2 yt'
Since ai' 1>1 bi' holds and ai' is shorter than at it follows by the first I.H. that
J,,(byt'i') I>e".
2
This yields the assertion C"I> e".
7. The Normal Form of a Term
Definition. bt is said to be a normal form of a term at if at I>b t and bt is irreducible.
Corollary. Every term has at most one normal form.
Proof at I>b t and at I>ct imply bt I>ct or ct I>bt If bt and ct are irreducible then it
follows that bt and ct are identical.
In the next section we shall prove that every term has a normal form.
16. Orders of Terrns 105
Remark. The existence of the normal form can be proved somewhat more simply
by using a strong metamathematical predicate (see J. R. Shoenfield: Mathematical
Logic 1967, pp. 225,227). W. Howard's proof, which is given in 16, requires sub-
stantially more machinery but yields more information, since by its reference to the
ordinals < Eo it gives a connection with the consistency proofs which we shall carry
out in the later chapters using transfinite induction.
16. Orders of Terms
Following a procedure of W. Howard we define the order of a term to be an ordinal

< Eo which is decreased when the reduction process for terms is applied. It then
follows by transfinite induction up to Eo that every term has a normal form.
We represent the ordinals by the ordinal terms we defined in 14 but in this
section we restrict ourselves just to ordinal terms < Eo .
By Theorem 14.9 for every ordinal term IX#O there are uniquely determined
ordinal terms IXI ~ .. ~ IXn (n ~ 1) such that
lX=of ' + ... +o/'n.
It .follows that all IX; < IX if IX < Eo.
1. Natural Sum and Natural Product of Ordinal Terms
In order to assign ordinal terms to terms we use the natural sum IX # P and the
natural product 21Z x Pof the ordinal terms IX, p and we first define these.
Definition of IX # p.
1. IX # 0 : = IX and 0 # P:= p
2. If IX = W lZ1 + ... +wlZm and P=wlZm + 1 + ... +WlZn (I ~m<n) where IXI ~ ... ~lXm
and IXm + I ~ ... ~ IXn and f is a permutation of {1, ... , n} such that IX f(l) ~ ~ IX fin)
then
IX# p: =WlZf + ... +WlZf(n).

(1)
Corollaries.
(# 1) IX#P=P#IX
(#2) 1X#(P#y) =(IX# p) #y
(#3) P<y => IX#P<IX#y.
Definition of 21Z x p.
By Theorem 14.11 for each IX there are unique lXo and m < w such that IX =
wocn+m. We regard m as a natural number so that e2mis defined as the 2m-fold

sum e + ... + e for each ordinal e.
1. 2"x 0:=0
2. If P=w(l'++wP n (n~l) where P1~~Pm and oc=wocn+m where
m<w then set
We immediately obtain from this definition:
(xl) P~2"xP
( x 2) P< y =.> 2" x P< 2" x Y
(x3) 2"x(P=II=y)=(2"xP>=II=(2"xy)
(x4) 21 xP=P=II=p.
We also have
(x 5) oc<p, yl=O =.> 2" x y<2(1 x y.
Proof If oc=woco+m 1<P=wpo+m2 where m1 <w, m2<w then either oco<Po

or oco =P0' m 1 <m 2- If oc0 <P0 then oco1t'..I1.y<P
I ..I1.y.I and w"o#Yi2m'<w(lo#Yi Hence
o1t'
2" x y < 2(1 x y. If OCo = Po, m 1 < m2 then the assertion follows from 2m, < 2m2 .
(x 6) 2" X (2(1 X y)=2,,#(1 X y.
Proof If oc=woco+m1 and P=wpo+m2 where m 1<w, m2<w then oc=ll=P=

w(oco=ll=po)+m 1+m2. The assertion now follows from the~efinition of natural
product.
( X 7) (2" X p> =11= (2" x P) = 211# 1 X p.
Proof By (x3), (x4) and (x6), (2"xP)=II=(2"xP)=2"x(P=II=P)=2"x(2 1 xP)=

2"#1 xp.
2. Assigning Ordinal Terms to Terms
Inductive Definition of the degree g-r of a type -r:

1. go:=O
2. g(u-r) :=max(gu+ l,g.).
The degree of a type is a natural number.
Inductive Definition of an ordinal term [a']i for each term a' and natural number i.
1. If a' is a variable or an arithmetic basic term 0 or [/ then set
2. If a' is a combinator of type or, then set
t] .. ={I ifi~g-r.
[ a.. O.f
1 i>g-r.
3. If Jp is an iterator of type -r=o(pp)pp theng-r=gp+2. Then set
I ifi~gp+ I,
[Jp];:= { w ifi=gp+2,
o ifi>gp+2.
I ifi~gp+ I,
[JpNn ];:= { n if i=gp+2,
o if i>gp+2.
4. If the term autb u is not of the form JpNn then set
This last rule is inductive since [aUtbU]gu+ 1 = [aUt ]gu+1 and therefore [aatb a ];
is determined for i ~g(1 by induction on g(1 - i.
Corollaries. 1. For every term a' there exists kE N such that [at];=Ofor all i>k.
2. If at does not contain an iterator then [at]; < w for all i EN.
3. For all terms a' we have [at]; <Ilo
Lemma 1. [Nn];=O for all i EN.
Proofby induction on n. By definition [No]; = [0]; = o. Since N n+ 1 = [/' N n it follows

from [[/'];=0 and [Nn];=O using clause 4 of the definition that [Nn+1 ];=0, too.
Lemma 2. (I) If aatb a is not of the form JpNn then [aUt];~ [aatba]Jor all i EN.
(2) For all i~g(1 we have [bU];~[iftba];.
Proof (I) follows immediately from the definition of [aatb a];. (2) likewise follows
from this definition if if'ba is not of the form JpNn. Otherwise (2) follows from
Lemma I.
Lemma 3.
ifi~g(1,
Proof 1. Suppose aa'ba is not of the form JpNn. Then the assertion follows from
the definition of [aatb a ];.
2. Suppose aUW' is a term JpNn Then u=o and therefore gu=O and
if i=O,
and the assertion holds.
3. Estimates of the Order of Terms
By the order of a term a' we mean the ordinal term [a']o. We shall prove that b'
has a smaller order than a' if a' reduces to b' in one step.
[a<] < [b'] means that [a']o < [b']o and [a']j ~ [b']j for all i ~gr.
Proof Since [Ku,]o= I we have
By Lemma 2(2) [a']j~[Ku,a']j foralli~gr.

By Lemma 2(1) [Ku~'l~[Ku~'bU]j for all iE N.
It follows that [a']o<[Ku,a'bU]o and [a']j~[Ku~'bU]j for all i~gr.
Proof. For brevity we put aj:=[aPU'l, bj:=[bPUl and cj:=[cPl. From the
definition and Lemma 3 we have
~j :=[apa'CP]j~{2~;+1 x (aj*,c j ) if i~gp,

aj if i>gp
"=[bpa P].:!({2~;+1 x (bj*,cj) ifi~gp,

1/, . C , "'" b.
, ffi>gp
(j : = [apa'cP(bpacP)l = {:~j; + 1 X (~j *' 1/j) if i ~gu,

.. if i>gu.
Spa, has type (pur)(pu)pr which has degree
max(gp + 2, gu + 2, gr + I).
a pa , has type pur which has degree
max(gp + I, gu + I, gr).
bPtI has type P(1 which has degree
max(gp+ 1, g(1).
By. definition we therefore have
201i + 1 x (1 # a;) ifi~max(gp + I,g(1+ I,g-r)

a. i : = [SPtI.aPtlt]i= { 1 if i=max(gp +2, g(1+2, g-r + 1)
o if i> max(gp +2, g(1+2, g-r + 1)
p.. = [S aPtltbPtll = {2fli + 1 x (a. 1#b;) if i~max(gp + 1, g(1)
. Ptlt a.i if i>max(gp+ I,g(1)
._ ptltptlP _{2 Yi +1 X(Pi#C;) ifi~gp

Yi,-[Sptlt a b C ]i- R 'f'
Pi 1 l>gp.
(1) lfmax(gp+ 1, g(1)<i~max(gp+ 1, g(1+ I,g-r) then ei<Yi'
Proof Here 'i=ei~ai and Yi=Pi=a. i =21Z I+l x (1 #aiai' and therefore 'i<Yi'
(2) lfgp<i~max(gp+I,g(1) then
ei#'1i#'i#2~2'i+l#1 x (1 #ai#b;)
and
Further
Proofby induction on max(gp+ I,g(1)-i.

1. Supposegp+I~g(1=i.
Then by (1) 'i+ 1 <Yi+ 1 and so 'i+ 1 # 1 ~Yi+ 1 and 2'1+ 1 # 1 x (1 #ai#b i) ~2Yl+l x
(1 # ai # b;) where the assertion follows by (2).
2. Suppose g(1 <gp + 1 = i.
Then a.i+1~O, 'i=~i~ai and '1i~bi and so
ei#'1i#'i#2~(21 x (1 #a i #bi~(2011+1 x (l #ai#b i

=a.i#bi~2fli+l x (a.i#bi)=/Ji=Yi'
3. Suppose gp < i<max(gp + I, gO').

Then by induction hypothesis ej+ 1 *'1j+ 1 * Cj+ 1 *2~Yj+ 1 and so Cj+ 1 * I <Yj+ 1
whence the assertion follows by (2).
4. Suppose i ~gp.
Thenej~2~i+ I x (a j * Cj),'1j ~2q'+I x (bj*cj),Cj~2"+ I x (ej *'1J,(Xj=2~i+ I x (I *a j ),
+ ,
Pj=2 f1 x (Xj*bj) and Yj=2 Yi +1 x (pj*cJ. It follows that
and
The assertion now follows on using the induction hypothesis ej+ 1 * '1j+ 1 *
Cj+ 1 *2~yj+l'
It follows from (I) and (3) that ej < Yj for all i~!JT and therefore [aPt1t c"(II"'cP)] <
[SPt1taPt1tbPt1 c"].
Lemma 6. [b t ] < [JtOa"b1.
Proof By Lemma 2(1) [JtOaJo~ [JP]o= 1. It follows that
By Lemma 2(2) if i~gr: then [bt]j ~ [JtOa"br:]i" This yields the assertion.
Proof For brevity we write a j : = [att]j and bj : = [bt]j' By definition and Lemma 3
we have
if i~gr:+ I,
if i=gr:+2,
if i>!JT+2
Y, .=[
'o,'
''(IN "bt)],~ { 2"+' x (a j
a t na ,..... a
*'1j ) 'f'
1'f'~
l ..... gr:
j 1 1>!JT
x (I *aJ if i~gr:+ I
{
2~i+'
(Xj:=[JtNn+latt ]j= n+1 ifi=g-r+2
o if i>g-r+2
P,:=[J
,
M
t"'n+l
{2
a"bt].=
'(Xj
f1 + I ( .u. b)
x (Xj"11" j
'f' ~
1 l ..... gr:,
if i>g-r.
We prove ~i<CXi and '1i'*:'i#I~,8i for i~g-r+l by induction ong-r+l-i.

From this it follows that, in particular, 'i <,8i for all i ~g-r which yields the assertion.
1. Supposei=g-r+ 1, then~i=2n x (1 #a i )<2n + 1 x (1 #a;)=cxjand'7i#'i# 1 =
~i#ai# 1 =2n x (l #a;)#a i # 1 ~2n+ 1 X (l #a;)=cx i =,8i'
2. Suppose i~g-r. Then by the induction hypothesis ~i+ 1 < CXi+ l' ~i+ 1 # 1 ~CXi+ 1
and '7i+ 1 #'i+ 1 # 1 ~,8i+ l' It follows that
~i=2~i+ 1 x (l # a;) < 2"i +1 x (1 #ai)=cxi

and
'7j#'i~'7i#(2'i+1 x (ai#'7;~(2'i+1 x a i )#(2'i+I#1 x '7i)
=(2'i+1 x a;)#(2~i+l#"+I#l x (~i#b;
=(2"+ 1 X a;) #(2~i+l#~i+1 #'i+l#1 X (l #a i #(2~'+I#"+I# 1 X b;).
Therefore
'7i#'i# 1 ~(2~i+l#~i+I#'1+1#2 x (l #a;#(2~i+I#'i+l#1 x b;)
and by the induction hypotheses
'7i#'i# 1 ~(2"1+1#1Ii+1 x (l *a i #(2 I1i +1x b;)

=2 I1i +1 X 2"1+ 1 x (l #a i # b;)
=2111+1 x (cxi #b i )=,8;-
Lemma 8. [b"] < [c"] implies [a"tb"] < [a"tc"].
Proof By Lemma 1, [b"] < [c"] implies that c" is not a numeral. Therefore a"tc"
is not of the form JpNn It follows from the definition and Lemma 3 that
2Ia'''bO'Ii+ 1 X ([a"t]. # [b a ].) if i~gu

[aatb a).:!( { "
,,,,, [aat]i if i> gu
at a _{2 IaO"CO'li+lx([aat]I#[Ca ];) ifi~gu

[a c ]i- [aat]; if i>gu.
By hypothesis [ba]j ~[C1i for all i~gu. It follows by induction on gu-i that
[aatba]i~[a"tca]i for all i~gu. Hence [aatba]i~[a"tca]i for all ie N. Using the
hypothesis [ba]o<[ca]o it also follows that [aatba]o<[aatca]o' This yields the
assertion.
Lemma 9. If bat is not an iterator then [aat] < [bat] implies [aatc a] < [batca].
Proof In this case by the definition and Lemma 3 we have

2Ia O"CO'II+ 1 X ([aat]. # [c a].) if i~gu,
. :!( {
[ a"t ca ] ,,,,, "
[aat]; if i>gu
2IbO"CO'li+ 1 X ([bat]. # [ca ].) if i~gu
[batca).= { "
, [b"t]; ifi>gu.
By hypothesis [a"t];~ [b'7t l for all i ~max(gO"+ I, g"). By induction on i it follows

that [a"te"]; ~ [b"te"]; for all i ~g(J. Hence [a"te"l ~ [b"te"l for all i ~g". Using
the hypothesis [a"t]o < [b"t]o it also follows that [a"te,,]o < [b"te"]o.
Theorem 16.1. If a~o 1>1 a~o then a~o has a smaller order than ala.
Proof Suppose ala 1>1 a~o. We prove [a~o] < [ala] by induction on the length of the
term ala. This will yield the assertion.
There are two cases to consider when ala I> 1 a~o :
1. For i= I, 2, afo is a term bfd~\ ... , d~m where" = "I' ... , "m"o (m ~o). This
gives the following four subcases for bl, b~ :
1.1. bl is K"tatb" and b~ is at,
1.2. bl is Sp,,~P"tbpaeP, and b~ is aP"teP(bP"eP),
1.3. b~ is JtOatW and b~ is b"
1.4. bl is JtNn+ Jattbt and b~ is att(JtNnattbt).
2. For i= I, 2, aiD is a term a"tbf d 1T!, , d:,m where"="I ... "n"o
(n~O) where
a"t is irreducible and b~:} 1 b~.
In the first case [b~] < [bl] holds by Lemmata 4-7. Then by Lemma 9 it follows
that [a~o]<[a~o]. In the second case [bn<[bn by the induction hypothesis.
Then [Q:(Jtb~] < [a"tbn by Lemma 8 and [a~o] < [a~o] by Lemma 9.
Theorem 16.2. Every term has a normalform.
Proof This follows at once from Theorem 16.1 by induction on the ordering re-
lation of the ordinal terms < eo, in other words by transfinite induction up to eo.
4. Equality of Terms
Definition. If a", bt are terms then a" = bt means that a" and bt have the same normal
form.
Obviously this equality relation is an equivalence relation such that
a" =bt => 0"="

all> bt => at = bt .
Theorem 16.3. at=b t implies e"(::) = e"(!:}
Proof By hypothesis at and bt have the same normal form dt. It is therefore
sufficient to prove:
We prove this assertion by induction on n.

17. The Formal System FT of Functionals of Finite Type 113
I. Suppose n = O. Then at and d t are identical and the assertion is trivial.

2. Suppose n>O. Then there exists a~ such that
By Theorem 16.2 CO"(::) has a normal form eO". Therefore there exists mE 1\1
such that
By Theorem 15.2 it follows that
Remark. It follows from 16.3 that equality for terms is compatible with arbitrary
reductions. That is: In order to reduce a term we do not need to use the uniquely
determined reduction procedure given above but can carry out the reduction of a
term at at any place in at without altering the normal form.
17. The Formal System FT of Functionals of Finite Type
Inductive Definition of the formulas of the system FT:

1. If at and bt are terms of the same type then at=b t is aformula.
2. If A and B are formulas, then (A - B) is also aformula.
We use A, B, C, D, E, F, G, ~[at], ~[at] (possibly with subscripts) as syntactic
variables for formulas where ~ and ~ are the corresponding nominal forms.
We use r, r i , L1, L1i to denote finite (possibly empty) sequences of formulas.
As in 6 we use the abbreviation:
for
If r is the sequence Ai' ... , An (n ~ 1) then r -+ B denotes the formula
Ai-+ ... -+ An-+ B.
If r is empty then r -+ B denotes the formula B.

r c .1 means that every formula in the sequence r is also a formula in the
sequence .1.
Inductive Definition of the zero functional Ot of type 't.

l. 0:=0
2. OC1t: = K C1tOt
2. Deduction Procedures
The axioms of the system FT are
(Ax. K) KC1t atbC1 =at

(Ax. S) SpC1taPC1tbPC1cP = aPC1tcP(bPC1cP)
(Ax. JO) JtObttc t = ct
(Ax. JY) Jt(YaO)bttct=btt(J~Obttct)
(Ax. =) at = bt -+ ~[atJ -+ ~[bt].
The basic inferences of the system FT are:
(Str) r-+BI-L1-+B, ifrcLi.

(Cut) r-+ A, A-+ BI- r-+ B
{ ~[OJ, ~[xoJ -+ ~[YxoJ I- ~[aoJ,
(CI) provided the variable XO does not occur in the nominal form~.
The basic inferences (Str) and (Cut) are the structural inference and the cut
corresponding to those in 6. (CI) is the inference rule of complete induction.
Inductive Definition of j-!!B ("B is deducible with order n") for n EN:
1. If B is an axiom then j-!!B.
2. If A I- B is a basic inference (Str) and j-!!A then j-!!+ 1 B.
3. If Ai' A2 I- B is a basic inference (Cut) or (CI) and j-!!iA; (i= 1, 2) then j-!!B
where n: =max(n i , n 2 )+ l.
I- B ("B is deducible in the system FT") means that there exists n E N such that
p!- B.
Theorem 17.1 (Substitution rule) . .lfj-!!~[xtJ, where the variable xt does not occur
in the nominalform~, then j-!!~[atJfor every term at of type 'to
Proofby induction on n.
1. Suppose ~[xtJ is an axiom. Then ~[atJ is also an axiom.
2. Suppose j-!!~[xtJ was obtained by a basic inference (Str) or (Cut). Then by
the induction hypothesis the formulas obtained from the premisses by substituting
at for xt are deducible with the same orders as the premisses. Using the appropriate
basic inference (Str) or (Cut) we obtain f-!!ff[a t ].
3. Suppose f-!!ff[xt] was obtained by a basic inference (CI). Then the formula
ff[xt] is a formula ~[bO] and we have
where n=max(n 1 , n 2 )+ 1 and where yO does not occur in~. We choose a variable
z" different from xt which occurs in neither ~ nor in at. By I.H. (induction hypo-
thesis) it follows that
Let ~* be the nominal form obtained from ~ by substituting at for xt. By I.H. it
follows that
Using a (CI)-inference it follows that
b~t ~* [b o (::)] is the formula ff[a t ].
3. The Consistency of the System FT
Definition. A formula is said to be closed if it contains no variable.
Inductive Definition of truth andfalsity for a closed formula.

1. A closed equation at = bt is true if the functionals at and bt have the same
normal form. Otherwise the equation isfalse.
2. A closed formula A --+ B is true if A is false or B is true. Otherwise the
formula isfalse.
Lemma 1. If two funetionals at and bt have the same normal form then a closed
formula ff[a t ] is true if, and only if, the formula ff[b t ] is true.
Proofby induction on the number of symbols --+ occurring in ff[a t ].

1. Suppose ff[a t ] is an equation. Then there are terms e", d" and a variable
xt such that ff[a t ] is the equation
(1) ell(::)=dl (::)

and .F[bt ] is the equation
By Theorem 16.3 the functionals
have the same normal forms as the functionals
Therefore (1) is true if, and only if, (2) is true.

2. Suppose .F[at ] contains the symbol-.. Then the assertion follows from
the induction hypothesis and the truth definition.
Theorem 17.2. Every deducible closed/ormula is true.
Proof Suppose C is a closed formula and ~c. We prove by induction on n that C

is true.
I. Suppose C is an axiom (Ax. K), (Ax. S) or (Ax. JO). Then C is an equation

ct = d t for which ct t> 1 d t holds. It follows that C is true.
2. Suppose C is an axiom (Ax. J.9):
By Theorem 15.1 the normal form of a O is a numeral N m Then by the reduction

procedures the equation
is true. Hence by Lemma I C is true.

3. Suppose C is an axiom (Ax. = ):
at = bt -. .F[at ] -. .F[bt ].
If at = bt is false, then C is true. If at = bt is true then by Lemma I it follows that

.F[at ] is true if, and only if, .F[bt ] is true. Thus in every case C is true.
4. Suppose ~C was obtained by a basic inference (Str). The premise of this
inference is a closed formula which is true by I.H. It follows that C is true by 2. of
the definition of truth.
5. Suppose f-!!C was obtained by a basic inference (Cut). Then Cis a formula
r- B and we have
f-!!tr- A and f-!!2A- B
where n=max(n 1 , n 2 )+ 1. Let A* be the formula obtained from A by replacing

each variable x< occurring in A by the zero functional of the same type. Then by
Theorem 17.1 it follows that
f-!!tr_A* and f-!!2A*-B.
r - A* and A* - B are closed formulas and therefore are true by I.H. It follows
that r - B is true.
6. Suppose f-!!C was obtained by a basic inference (CI). Then C is a formula
ff[a O ] and we have
where n = max (n l ' n 2 ) + 1. By Theorem 17.1 it follows that for all mEN
By I.H. the closed formulas ff[O] and ff[Nm] - ff[Nm+ 1] are true. It follows by
induction on m that ff[N m] is true for every numeral N m. Now the normal form of
a,o is a numeral by Theorem 15.1. So by Lemma 1 it follows that ff[a O ] is true.
Remark. The converse ofTheorem 17.2 does not hold in general. Thus, for example,
is a true closed formula which is not deducible in FT. However, every true closed
equation is deducible in FT. This follows from the fact that every equation a< = b<
such that a< r> l b< holds is deducible in FT.
Corollary to Theorem 17.2. The formal system FT is syntactically consistent. That

is: Not every formula of the system FT is deducible in FT.
Proof The false closed equation 9'0=0 is not deducible in FT by Theorem 17.2.
Remark. Besides elementary methods our consistency proof for the system FT
uses only Theorem 16.1 which we proved by transfinite induction up to eo. (Theorem
16.1 was used to prove Theorem 16.3 and hence also Lemma I which we used to
prove Theorem 17.2.)
4. Fundamental Deduction Rules
Theorem 17.3. f- A-A.

Proof KooOO=O
and
are (Ax. K) and (Ax. = ) axioms (where in the (Ax. = ) axiom!F is a I-place nominal
form A in which the nominal sign *1 does not occur). Using a cut we have f- A -> A.
The next theorem shows that equality is an equivalence relation which is com-
patible with the mapping of terms and formulas.
Theorem 17.4 (Rules for equality).
(= 1) f-!F[a t ] implies f-at=b t -> !F[b t ]

(=2) f-at=a t
(=3) f-at=b t -> bt=at
(=4) f-at=b t -> bt=ct -> at=ct
(=5) f-at=b t -> ca(::)=caC:}
Proof 1. Using a structural inference on the (Ax. =)
at = b t -> !F[a t ] -> !F[b t ]
we obtain
!F[a t ] -> at = bt -> !F[b t ].
Then using f-!F[a t ] by a cut we have
f-at = bt -> !F[b t ].
2. By (= 1) from the (Ax. K)
KoptO=a t
we obtain
KoptO =at -> at =at .
Using a cut we have f-at=a t .

3. (= 3) follows from (=2) by (= 1).
4. Using a structural inference on the (Ax. =)
bt = ct -> at = bt -> at = ct
we obtain (=4).
5. By (=2) we have
Hence by ( = 1) we obtain ( = 5).
Theorem 17.5. lfl-F[O) and I-F[9' x O) where the variable XO does not occur in the
nominal form F then I-F[aO) for every term aO of type o.
Proof By a structural inference from I-F[9'x O) we obtain
I-F[xO) -+ F[9'x O).
Now a (CI)-inference using I-F[O) yields I-F[a).
Corollary to Theorem 17.5. l-ao=O-+ A and l-ao=9'x-+ A yield I-A provided XO

occurs in neither aO nor A.
Proof By Theorem 17.5 from the hypothesis we have l-aO=a-+ A. Hence by

(=2) we have I-A.
Definition of terms for definition by cases.
D,[aO, b', c') : =J,aO(K..c')b'

v[aO) : =JoaO(KOo.)(9'O)
Corollaries. The following equations are deducible
(DO) D ,[0, b', c') = b'

(D9') D,[9'ao, b', c')=c'
(vO) v[O) =9'0
(v9') v[9'aO) =0.
Proof By (Ax. JO), (Ax. J9') and (Ax. K) we have
D,[O, b', c') = J,O(Knc')b'=b'

D,[9'~, b" c')=J,(9'aO)(Kn c')b'=K.,c'(J,aO(K..c')b')=c'.
(vO) and (v9') are special cases of (DO) and (D9').
Theorem 17.6. l-9'ao=O-+ A.
Proofby induction on the number of arrows which occur in the formula A.

1. Suppose A is an equation b' = ct. By ( = 5) we have
Using (DsP) and (DO) we obtain
f-sPao=O -+ b<=c<.
2. Suppose A is a formula B -+ C. Then by I.H. we have
f-sPao=O-+ C.
Using a structural inference we obtain
5. Addition and Multiplication
Definitions.
aO + bO : =Jobo sPaO
aO. bO : =JobO(Joao SP)O.
(+0) aO+O=ao
(+sp) aO+sPbo=sP(ao+bO)
(0) aOO=O
(.sp) aO sPbO =aO bo +ao.
Proof By (Ax. JO) and (Ax. JsP) we have
aO + 0 = Jo0sP aO = aO
aO + sP bO = Jo(sP bO)sPaO = sP( Jobo sP aO) = sP(aO + bO)
aOO=JoO(JoasP)O=O
aO. sPbo = Jo(sPbO)(JoasP)O = Joao sP(Job(JoasP)O) =aO. bO + if
Remark. All the equations for the basic properties of addition and multiplication
follow from the recursion equations (+ 0), (+ sP), (0) and (. sP) by means of
(CI)-inferences:
aO + (bO + cO)=(aO +bO) + CO

aO . (bO + CO) = aO . bO + aO . CO
aO(bocO)=(aobO)co
aO+bo=bo+ao
aO. bO = bO. aD.
6. The Identity Functional It and A-Abstraction
Definition.
Corollary. It is afunctional of type 't! and I-Itat=a t .
Proof By (Ax. S) and (Ax. K) we have
Inductive Definition of hP(c t ).

1. AXP(X P): = Ip.
2. If x P does not occur in ct then set
3. If x P in a'''b t1 then set
Corollary. AXP(Ct ) is a term of type po in which the variable x Pdoes not occur.
Proofby induction on the length of the term ct.

1. AxP(xP)dP=I dP=dP=Xp(d P).
P xP
2. If x does not occur in c" then we have
P
3. If x P occurs in at1t bt1 then we have
Using the induction hypothesis we obtain

Notation. In the sequel we write
for
AXrl( .. .(AX:"( c' ... ).
xr',... ,x:" must always be distinct variables. If these variables do not. occur in
ar',... ,a:" then by Theorem 17.7 we have
7. The Predecessor Functional and the Arithmetic Difference
Definition of an auxiliary functional.
U is a functional of type (00)00. Applying Theorem 17.7 we have
Using (Ax. JO) and (Ax. JY') we obtain
(1) I-UaooO=aOO(Y'O)
(2) I- UaOO(Y'O) = Y'(aOO(Y'O.
Definition of the predecessor functional
P is a functional of type 00. By Theorem 17.7 we have
Using (Ax. JO) and (Ax. JY') we obtain
(3) I-PO=KooOO=O
I- P(Y'CO) = U(JoocOU(KooOO.
Using (1) we obtain

Theorem 17.8. For the predecessor functional P we have:
(PO) I-PO=O
(P9') I-P(9'aO) =aO.
Proof (PO) holds by (3). By (4) we have P(9'O) = J ooOU(KooO)(9'O) = KooO(9'O) = 0

and therefore
(5) I- P(9'O) = o.
By (4) we also have
Using (2) and (4) we obtain
Hence
By a (CI)-inference from (5) and (6) we obtain
Proof By ( = 5) we have
The assertion now follows using (P9').
Definition of the arithmetic difference a..:...bo.
(..:...0) a..:...O=aO
(..:...9') a..:...9'bo = P(a..:...bO).
Proof By (Ax. JO) and (Ax. J9') we have
a..:...O=JoOPao=ao
a..:...9'bo =Jo(9'bO)PaO = P(Jobo PaO) = P(a..:...bO).
Theorem 17.10. Thefollowing equations are deducible
(1) O..:..bo=O
(2) Y'if..:..Y'bo=a..:..bo
(3) Y'a":"ao=Y'O
(4) a":"ao=O.
Proof. 1. We have
(1.1) f-O..:..O=O
(1) follows from (1.1) and (1.2) by a (CI)-inference.

2. Now Y'a..:..Y'O=P(Y'a..:..O) = P(Y'aO) =ao=if":"O, therefore

3. We have
(3.1) f-Y'O..:..O=Y'O

4. From (2) and (3) we obtain a":"ao =Y'if..:..Y'if=P(Y'a..:..aO)=P(Y'O) =0,
and therefore
8. The Recursor
Definition of an auxiliary functional.

Qt is a functional of type (on)(o-r)01:. By Theorem 17.7 we have
Using (P9'), by Theorem 17.8 we have
Definition of the recursor R t
R t is a functional of type -r( on)01:. By Theorem 17.7 we have
Theorem 17.11. (Primitive recursion for type -r).
(RO) I- RtatbOttO = at
(R9') I- Rtatbott(9' CO) = bottcO(RtatbottcO).
Proof 1. From (2) using (Ax. JO) and (Ax. K) we have
Hence (RO) holds.

2. Using (Ax. J9') we obtain from (2)
RptbOtt (9' CO) = 'Ot(9' CO )(Qtbott )(KOta)(9' CO)

= QtbO tt ( 'OtcO(Qtbott)(KOtat(9'cO).
From (I) and (2) we obtain
Hence (R9') also holds.

This theorem shows that RtatbO tt is a termpt depending on at and batt for which
the primitive recursion equations
fOtO=a t
fot(9' CO) = bottcO(fOtcO)
of type -r are deducible.

9. Simultaneous Recursion
Theorem 17.12 (Simultaneous n-fold primitive recursion).

Given terms a? and b't,fnf'(i= 1, ... , n) there are terms hOt; sueh that the equations
hOf'O=aI;
hOf;([/eO) = brf, .. . fnf;eO(ft'eO) ... (J..0fneO)
are deducible for all i= 1, ... , n and all terms eO of type o.
Proofby induction on n. If n = 1 the assertion holds by Theorem 17.11 if we set
Now suppose n> 1. For brevity we write bi' e, dfor brf' ... fnf;,~, dO. Let
(J : = (o't 1) . (otn - 1 )'tn

S" :=.A.x~f' ... x::-il(a!n)
to"" : =A.XOy"zf' ... Z:':i '(bnxO(zf'xO) .. .(Z:':i 'xo )(y"zf' ... Z:':1- I
9 :=R"s"tO"",
where the variables xf', ... , x:':i' do not occur in a!n and the variables xO, y",
Z~f', , z::-i' do not occur in bn. Then 9 is a term of type o(o't 1 ) (O't n_ 1 )'tn such
that the following hold by Theorem 17.11:
I-gO=s"
I-g([/ e) = to"" e(ge).
By the definitions of s", to"<I and Theorem 17.7 we have
(1) I-gOe~f' ... e::-i' =a!n

(2) I-g([/e)e~f' .. .e:':i' = bne(e~f'e) ... (e:':ile)(gee~f' .. .e:':i').
For i = 1, ... , n - 1 let
Vi is a term oftype o(o't 1) .. (o't n- 1 )ot i By the induction hypothesis there are terms
hi of type Oot i (i = 1, ... , n - 1) such that the equations
hiO=ur f ;
hi ([/ e) = vi e(h 1 e) ... (h n- 1 e)
17. The Formal SystemFT of Functionals of Finite Type 127
are deducible for all i= I, ... , n-l and all terms c of type o. From the definitions of
uf t " Vi and Theorem 17.7 we have
(3) I-hiOd=af'.
(4) I-h;(!7c)d= Dt,[d~c, hiCd, bic(h 1cc) ... (h n - 1cC)(gC(hl c) ... (h n- 1c].
By (~O) and (0!7) from (4) we obtain
(4.1) I-d~c=O~ hi(!7c)d=h icd.

(4.2) I-d~c=!70 ~ hi(!7c)d=bAh l cc) ... (hn_1cc)(gc(h 1c) ... (h n- 1c.
Now we define
/;: =.hO(hiXOxO) (i= I, ... , n-I)

In: =h(gxO(hlXO) ... (hn_lXO.
Then/; is a term of type 07:i' By Theorem 17.7 we have
(5) {1-J;C=hiCC (i=I, ... ,n-l)

I-Inc =gC(hl c) ... (h n- 1c)
From (3), (4.2) and (5) we have, for i= I, ... , n-I,
since by Theorem 17.10 (3) l-!7c~c=!70 holds.

From (I) and (5) we obtain
By (4.1) we have
Using (2) we obtain
) I-{XO~c=o~ g(!7xO)(hl(!7c ... (hn_l(!7c

(8 . = bnxO(h l CXO) ... (h n- 1cxO)(gXO(hl (!7 c ... (h n- 1(!7 c)
From !7xo~c=O by Theorem 17.10 we obtain
Hence from (8) and (2) we obtain
{ (XO~c=O ~ gxO(h 1(!7c ... (h n_ 1(!7c=gxO(h l c) ... (h n- 1c

I- ~ (!7xo~c =0 ~ g(!7xO)(hl (!7c ... (h n - 1(!7c) =g(!7XO)(hl c) ... (h n- 1 c
From (1) we also have
Using a (CI)-inference we have
Using I-c...!...c=O (by Theorem 17.10) and (8) we obtain
Hence by (5) we have
With (6), (7) and (9) the proof of the theorem is complete.
Theorem 17.13 (Induction Theorem). For i= 1, ... , n let bi be a term of type

o'tl . 'tn't i . Let Txo,Yl', ... ,y~"] be aformula with distinct variables xO,yl', ... ,y~n
which do not occur in the nominal form nor in the terms b l , ... , bn. Suppose
(I) I- ff[O, yl',., y~"]

(II) I-ff[xO, blxOyl' ..y~n, .. ~, bnxoYl' ... y~"] ~ ff[9"x o, yl', ... , y~"]
hold. Then I-ff[aO, aI', ... , a~"] holdsforall terms aD, aI', ... , a~" of types 0, 't l , .. , 'tn.
Proof By Theorem 17.12 for the terms if and aI', ... , a~" there are terms.!; of type
O't i such that for all i= 1, ... , n and all terms CO of type 0 the equations
(1) f;O=aIi
(2) .!;(9"cO) = bi(a...!...9" CO)(fl CO) ... (fncO)
are deducible. It follows from a...!... ZO = 9"xO that
Therefore, substituting.!;zo for yIi, hypothesis (II) and the equations (2) yield
(3) I-a...!...zo = 9"xo ~ ff[a...!...9" z,fl (9"zO), ... ,f,,(9"zO)]

~ff[a...!...zo,flZo, ... ,fnzO].
Also by hypothesis (I) we have
(4) I-a...!...zo = 0 ~ ff[a...!...9" z,fl (9"zO), ... ,f,,(9"zO)]

~ [a...!...zD,flZo,,fnz].
By Theorem 17.5 from (3) and (4) we obtain
f-ff[a"":""Sf'z,f&9' zO), ... ,f,.(Sf'zO)] -+ ff[a....:....z,f1zo, ... '/nzO].

Hence
(5) f- {(ff[a o....:....zo,fl Zo '. ,fnzO] -+ ff[aO, a~l, ... , a~"])
-+ (ff[a....:....Sf'z,fl (Sf'zO), .. ''/n(Sf'zO)] -+ ff[aO, a~I, ... , a~"]).
Also from the equations (1) we have
Using a (CI)-inference (5) and (6) yield
Using f-a"":""aO=O (by Theorem 17.10) and hypothesis (I) the assertion
f-ff[aO,a~I, ... ,a~"] follows.
Theorem 17.14. Let ff[aO, bO] be aformula. Let xO, yO be distinct variables of type 0
which do not occur in the nominal form ff. Suppose
(I) f-ff[xO,O]
(II) f-ff[O, yO]
(III) f-ff[xO, yO] -+ ff[Sf'xO, Sf'yO]
hold. Then f-ff[aO, bO] holdsfor all terms aD, bO of type o.
Proof ZO = P(Sf' ZO) and hypothesis (III) yield
Also by hypothesis (I) we have
By Theorem 17.5 from (1) and (2) we obtain
The assertion now follows from (3) and hypothesis (11) by Theorem 17.13.
10. The Characteristic Term of a Basic Formula
Definition. Formulas which only contain equations between terms of type 0 are
said to be basic formulas.
Inductive Definition of the characteristic term x[ C] of a basic formula C.

1. x[ao=bO] : = (a...!..bO) + (b...!..aO)
2. X[A -+ B] : = v[X[A]]- X[B].
By this definition X[ C] is a term of type 0 for every basic formula C.
In order to prove the next Theorem 17.15, we need the following Lemmata:
Lemma 2. The following formulas are deducible
(1) O+bo=bo
(2) Obo=O
(3) f/Obo=bo
(4) aO+bo=O-+ bO=O
(5) aO+bo=O-+ aO=O.
Proof. 1. We have
(1.1) f-O+O=O

2. We have
(2.1) f-OO=O
(2.2) f-Oxo=O-+ Of/xo=O.

3. We have
(3.1) f-f/OO=O
and f/O f/xo = f/O XO + f/O = f/(f/O XO + 0) = f/(f/O XO).

Hence

4. Trivially
(4) follows from (4.1) and (4.2) by Theorem 17.5.

5. (5) follows from (4).
Proof By Theorem 17.10 and Lemma 2 we have
therefore
Similarly we obtain
By Theorem 17.10(2) we also have
The assertion follows from (lH3) by Theorem 17.14.
Theorem 17.15. Thefollowing holdfor every basic formula C.
(1) I-x[C] =0-. C

(2) I-C-. X[C]=O.
Proofby induction on the number of -. symbols, occurring in the basic formula C.

1. Suppose C is an equation aO = bO.
By Lemma 2 from the definition of x[aO = bO] we have
I-x[ao=bO] =0-. a..:...bO=O

I-x[ao=bO] =0-. b":"'aO=O.
By Lemma 3 and Lemma 2(1) we have

Hence we obtain
2. Suppose C is a basic formula A-B.

Since X[A - B] =v[X[A]] X[B], v[O] =9'0 and YO X[B] =X[B] we have
(2.1) f-X[A]=O- X[A- B]=X[B].
By the induction hypotheses
we obtain
(2.2) f-X[A --+ B] =0- A-B.
The induction hypotheses f-X[A] =0- A and f-B- X[B] =0 together with the
deducible formula
A - (A --+ B)--+ 1J
yield
f-X[A] =0- (A- B)- X[B]=O

by cuts.
Hence using (2.1) we have
(2.3) f-X[A] =0 --+ (A - B) - X[A --+ B] =0.
It follows from X[A - B] =v[x[A]] 'X[B], v[9'x O] =0 and o X[B] =0 that
Hence we also have
(2.4) f-X[A]=9'xo- (A- B)--+ X[A--+ B]=O.
By Theorem 17.5 frOin (2.3) and (2.4) we have
(2.5) f-(A - B) - X[A - B] =0.
(1.1), (1.2), (2.2) and (2.5) complete the proof of Theorem 17.15.
17. The Formal System FT of Functionals of Finite Type l33
Theorem 17.16.
holds for every basic formula A and every formula B.
Proof By Theorem 17.15 we have I-A -. X[A] =0. Hence I-x[A]=9"a-' A-.
9"ao =O.
The assertion follows by Theorem 17.6.
Chapter VII
Pure Number Theory
In 18 we develop a formal system of pure number theory which can, in particular,

be easily interpreted in the system Ff of 17. The interpretation by K. GOdel [2]
is carried out in 19.
18. The Formal System PN for Pure Number Theory
We use the following primitive symbols:

1. Denumerably infinitely many free and bound number variables.
2. The symbols 0, f, +, " =, -+ and V.
3. Round brackets.
Nominal forms are defined in the usual way and denoted by capital script
letters.
Inductive Definition of number terms:

1. The symbol 0 is a number term.
2. Every free number variable is a number term.
3. If t is a number term so is tf.
4. If sand t are number terms then so too are (s+ t) and (s 1).
For brevity we omit the outer round brackets. We regard as stronger than +
and thus abbreviate, for example, tl . t 2) + t 3) by tl . t2 + t3'
Syntactic symbols:
u, U i ' v, Vi for free number variables
x, Xi' y, Yi' Z, Zi for bound number variables
s, Si' t, ti for number terms.
Inductive Definition of formulas

1. If sand t are number terms then s=t is aformula.
2. If A and B areformulas so too is (A -+ B).
18. The Formal SystemPN for Pure Number Theory 135
3. If F[u] is a formula in which the bound variable x does not occur then
IIxF[x] is also aformula.
We use A, B, C, D, E, F, G, IIxF[x], 1I~[x] (possibly with indices) as syn-
tactic symbols for formulas.
For brevity we write
for
(Ai - ( ... - (An- B) ... .
2. The Deduction Procedure
We choose the axioms and basic inferences of the system PN so that every formula
of our language which is deducible in classical predicate calculus is also deducible
in PN. In doing this we do not work from positive and negative parts of formulas as
we did in the system CP for classical predicate calculus, but we choose the axioms
and basic rules of inference in another way to facilitate the interpretation of PN
in FT (19).
~xioms for the system PN:
(AI) A-A
(A2) IIxF[x] - F[t]
(A3) u'=O- A
(A4) u'=v' - u=v
(A5) u+O=u
(A6) u+v'=(u+v)'
(A7) uO=O
(AS) uv'=uv+u.
Basic Inferences for the system PN:
(BI) B I- A- B
(B2) A - B ~ C - D I- A - C - B - D
(B3) A - B - C, C - D I- A - B - D
(B4) A - A - B I- A - B
(B5) u=u- A I- A
(B6) F[s] I- s=t- ~[t]
(B7) A - ~[u] I- A - IIxF[x] provided the free number variable u does not
occur in the conclusion.
(BS) F[O], F[u] - ~[u'] I- ~[t] provided the free number variable u does not
occur in the nominal form F.
136 VII. Pure Number Theory
(AI), (BI)-{B4) are the rules for positive implicationallogic, (BS), (B6) the
rules for equality, (A2), (B7) the rules for V-quantification. The Peano axioms for
arithmetic are given by (A3), (A4), (BS) and the recursion equations for addition
and multiplication are given by (AS)-{AS). Hence from a logical point of view
arithmetic is axiomatised as a fragment of intuitionistic predicate calculus. In this
system PN we shall also obtain all the rules of classical predicate calculus for the
language of PN.
As previously we shall use
to denote a permissible inference of the system PN and I- F to denote that F is

deducible in the system PN.
3. Basic Properties of Deducibility
Lemma 1. A - B, B - C I- A-C.
Proof By (BI) from A - B we have A - A-B. By (B3) from B- C we have

A - A - C. Hence A - C by (B4).
Lemma 2. A, A - B I- B.
Proof By (8 I) from A we have u = u - A. By Lemma I from A - B we have

u=u- B.
Hence B by (BS).
Lemma 3. ,g;;[v] I- Vx,g;;[x] provided the free number variable v does not occur in the
nominal form ,g;;.
Proof By(BI)from,g;;[v] wehaveu =u - ,g;;[v]. By(B7)wehaveu=u- Vx,g;;[x].

Hence by (BS) we have Vx,g;;[x].
Theorem 18.1 (Substitution rule). ,g;;[u] I- ,g;;[t] provided the free number variable
u does not occur in Ihe nominal form ,g;;.
Proof By Lemma 3 from ,g;;[u] we have Vx,g;;[x]. Using the (A2)-axiom

Vx,g;;[x] - ,g;;[I] by Lemma 2 we obtain ,g;;[I].
Theorem 18.2 (Rules for equality).
(I) I-I=t
(2) I-s=l- I=s
(3) I-S=I- ,g;;[s]- ,g;;[I]
(4) I-s= I - s' = I'.
18. The Formal System PN for Pure Number Theory 137
Proof 1. By (BS), from the (AI)-axiom,
u=u-+ u=u
we obtain I-u=u. By Theorem 18.1 we have I-t=t.

2. By (1) 1-8=8 and then by (B6) 1-8=t-+ t=8.
3. By (B6) from the (AI)-axiom '[8] -+ '[8] we have
1-8=t-+ '[8] -+ '[t].
4. By (I) 1-8'=8' and then by (B6) 1-8=t-+ 8'=t'.
Lemma4. I-(A-+ B-+ C)-+ B-+ A-+ C
Proof This follows from the (AI)-axiom
(A-+ B-+ C)-+ A-+ B-+ C
by (B2).
LemmaS. A-+ B-+ CI- B-+A-+ C.
Proof This follows from Lemma 4 by Lemma 2.
Lemma 6. I-A -+ B-+ A.
Proof By (BI) from the (A1)-axiom A -+ A we have
I-B-+A-+A.
The assertion now follows by Lemma S.
Lemma 7. I-A -+ (A -+ B) -+ B.
Proof This follows from the (A I)-axiom
(A-+B)-+A-+B
by Lemma S.
Lemma 8. A -+ B I- (B-+ C) -+ A -+ C.
Proof By Lemma 7
B-+(B-+ C)-+ C
is deducible. From this and A - B by Lemma I we obtain
A- (B- C)- C.
By Lemma 5 we have
(B- C)-A- C.
Lemma 9. ~[OJ, ~[u'J I- ~[tJ provided the free number variable u does not occur
in the nominalform~.
Proof By (Bl) from ~[u'J we have
~[uJ - ~[u'].
From ~[OJ by (B8) we obtain ~[t].
4. Properties of Negation
Definition: The negation of A, -, A, is the formula A - 0' = O.
Lemma 10. I-A - -, -,A.
Proof This follows from Lemma 7 by the definition of negation.
Lemma 11. I--,A - A-B.
Proof By the definition of negation
is an (A 1)-axiom. By Theorem 18.1 from the (A3)-axiom u' = 0 - B we obtain
1-0'=0- B.
By (B3) we have
I--,A- A- B.
Lemma 12. A - B I- -,B_ -,A.
Proof This is a special case of Lemma 8 because of the definition of negation.
Lemma 13. A- B- CI- A- -,C- -,B.

Proof By Lemma 10 we have
f-C-+ -,C-+ 0'=0.
By (B3) from A -+ B-+ C we obtain
A-+ B-+ -,C-+ 0'=0.
by (B2) we have
Lemma 14. f--, -, s= t -+ s= t.
Proof By Theorem 18.2 (1) we have f-O=O. Hence by (Bl) we have
(1) f--,-,O=O-+ 0=0.
By Lemmata 11 and 5 we have
f--,u'=O-+ -,-,u'=O-+ u'=O.
By Lemma 2 using the (A3 )-axiom -, u' = 0 we have
(2) f--,-,u'=O-+ u'=O.
From (1) and (2) by Lemma 9 we obtain
f--, -,u=O-+ u=O.
Hence by Lemma 3
(3) f-'v'x(-' -,x=O-+ x=O).
By Theorem 18.2 (2) we have
f-O=v' -+ v' =0.
Using the (A3)-axiom
v'=O-+ 0'=0
by Lemma 1 we obtain
f--,O=v'.
By Lemmata 11 and 5 we have
I--,O=v' -+ -, -,O=v' -+ O=v'.

By Lemma 2 we have
1--, -,O=v' -+ O=v'.
By (Bl) we obtain
(4) I-'Vx(-' -,x=v-+ x=v) -+ -, -,O=v' -+ O=v'.
By two applications of Lemma 12 we obtain
I--,-,u'=v'-+ -,-,u=v
from the (A4)-axiom
u'=v'-+ u=v.
By Lemma 8 we obtain
I-(-,-,u=v-+ u=v)-+ -,-,u'=v'-+ u=v.
By Theorem 18.2 (4) we have
I-u=v-+ u'=v'.
By (B3) we obtain
I-(-,-,u=v-+ u=v)-+ -,-,u'=v'-+ u'=v'.
Using an (A2)-axiom by Lemma 1 we obtain
(5) I'Vx(-' -,x=v -+ x=v) -+ -, -,u' =v' -+ u' =v'.

From (4) and (5) by Lemma 9 we have
I-'Vx(-' -,x=v-+ x=v) -+ -, -,u=v' -+ u=v'.
Hence by (B7) we have
(6) I-'Vx(-' -,x=v -+ x=v) -+ 'Vx(-' -,x=v' -+ x=v').
By (B8) from (3) and (6) we obtain
I-'Vx(-' -,x=t-+ x=t).

The assertion
1--, -,s=t-+ s=t
now follows by Lemma 2 using an (A2)-axiom.
Lemma 15. I--,-,C-+ C.
Proofby induction on the number of -+ and V symbols occurring in the formula C.

1. Suppose C is an equation s= t. Then the assertion holds by Lemma 14.
2. Suppose C is a formula A -+ B. By Lemma 7 we have
I-A-+ (A-+ B)-+ B.
By two applications of Lemma 13 we obtain
I- A -+ -, -, (A -+ B) -+ -, -, B.
From the induction hypothesis
I--,-,B-+ B
by. (B3) we have
I- A -+ -, -, (A -+ B) -+ B.
Hence by Lemma 5 we have
1--, -,(A -+ B) -+ A -+ B.
3. Suppose C is a formu~a Vx.F[x]. Let u be a free number variable which does

not occur in C. By two applications of Lemma 12 we obtain
1--,-,Vx.F[x]-+ -,-,.F[u]
from the axiom
Vx.F[x] -+ .F[u].
Using the induction hypothesis
1--, -,.F{u] -+ .F[u]
we obtain by Lemma 1
1--, -,Vx.F[x] -+ .F[u].

Hence by (B7) we have
Lemma 16. -,A - B I- -,B- A.
Proof By Lemma 12 from -,A - B we obtain -,B- -, -,A. By Lemma 15 the

formula -, -, A - A is deducible. Hence by Lemma 1 we have -, B - A.
Lemma 17. A - B, -,A - B I- B.
Proof By Lemma 16 from -,A- Bwe have -,B- A. By Lemma 1 usingA- B

we obtain -, B - B. By Lemma 10 the formula B - -, -, B is deducible. Hence by
Lemma 1 we have -,B- -, -,B. Hence by (B4) we obtain -, -,B. By Lemma 15
-, -,B- B is a deducible formula. Hence by Lemma 2 we obtain B.
Lemma 18. -,A- C, B- CI- (A- B)- C.
By Lemma (B3) using B - C we obtain
A- (A-'.B)- C.
From -,A - C by (Bl) and Lemma 5 we obtain
Hence by Lemma 17 we obtain
(A- B)- C.
s. Positive and Negative Parts of Formulas
We define positive and negative parts of formulas, P-forms, N-forms and NP-
forms as in 3 (p. 20) except that the formula 0' =0 now plays the role of ..L. As
before we use the following syntactic symbols:
rJ', rJ'j for P-forms,
%, %j for N-forms,
fl, flj for NP-forms.
Every P-form is a nominal form *1 or rJ'o[C- *1] or %o[-,*tJ and every
N-form is a nominal form rJ' o[ *1 - C] by the inductive definition given above on
p. 20. Now rJ'0 and %0 are shorter nominal forms than rJ' and % respectively.
18. The Formal System PN for Pure Number Theory .143
Consequently we prove our theorems about P-forms and N-forms by induction on

the length of these nominal forms.
Lemma 19.
(1) f-A----.&'[A]
(2) f-,A----. '%[A].
Proo/by induction on the lengths of &' and .%.

1. Suppose &' is *1' Then A ----. &,[A] is the (Al)-axiom A ----. A.
2. Suppose &' is &' o[ C ----. *1]. By the I.H. (induction hypothesis) we then have
f-(C----. A)----. &,[A].
By Lemma 6 the formula
is deducible, hence by Lemma 1 we have
f-A----. &,[A].
3. Suppose &' is .%0['*1]. By I.H. we then have
By Lemma 10 the formula A ----. , ,A is deducible, hence by Lemma 1 f- A ----. &,[A].

4. Suppose.% is &'0[*1 ----. C]. By I.H. we then have
f-(A ----. C) ----. '%[A].
By Lemma 1 the formula
,A----.A----.C
is deducible, hence by Lemma 1 we obtain
f-,A ----. '%[A].
Lemma 20.
(1) &,[A] f- '&,[B]----. A
(2) '%[A] f- A ----. '%[B].
Proo/by induction on the lengths of &' and.%.

1. Suppose &' is *l ' Then the assertion holds by (B 1).
2. Suppose &' is &'0 [C ----. *1]' Then C is a negative part of &'[B]. By Lemma 19
we therefore have
By the I.H. from &,[A] we obtain
-'&,[B] -+ C-+ A.
By Lemmata 5 and 1 we obtain
-,&'[B] -+ -,&'[B] -+ A.
By (B4) we obtain -'&,[B] -+ A.

3. Suppose &' is .IV0[-' *1]. By the I.H. we then obtain from &,[A]
-, A -+ &'[ B].
-'&,[B] -+ A.
4. Suppose.IV is &'0 [ *1 -+ C]. Then C is a positive part of .IV[B]. By Lemma

19 we therefore have
I-C-+ .IV[B].
By I.H. from .IV[A] we obtain
-, .IV[B] -+ A -+ C.
By (B3) we obtain
-,.IV[B] -+ A -+ .IV[B].
By Lemma 13 and (B4) we obtain
-, -,A -+ .IV[B].
By Lemma 10 the formula A -+ -, -, A is deducible so by Lemma I we obtain

A -+ .IV[B].
Theorem 18.3. r~[A, A].
r A -+ ~[A, A] and rIA -+ ~[A, A].
By Lemma 17 we obtain r ~[A, A].
Theorem 18.4. r%[O' =0].
Proof As an (A I)-axiom we have
r,O'=O.
By Lemma 19 we have
rIO' =0-+ %[0' =0].
r%[O'=O].
Theorem 18.5. %[,A],%[B] r %[A -+ B].

Proof By Lemma 20 from %[,A] and %[B] we obtain
IA-+ %[A-+ B] and B-+ %[A-+ B].
By Letpma 18 we obtain
(A -+ B) -+ %[A -+ B].
By Lemma 19 we have
r I (A -+ B) -+ %[A -+ B].
%[A-+ B].
Theorem 18.6. ~[F[u]] r ~[\lxF[x]], provided the free number variable u does
not occur in the conclusion.
Proof By Lemma 20 from ~[F[u]] we obtain
1~[\lxF[x]] -+ F[u].
By (B7) we obtain
-,&'[Vxff[x]] - Vxff[x].
-'Vxff[x] - &,[Vxff[x]].
By Lemma 19 we have
~Vxff[x] - &,[Vxff[x]].
&,[Vxff[x]].
Theorem IS.7. Vxff[x] - %[ff[t]] ~ %[Vxff[x]].
Proof By Lemma 20 from the hypothesis
Vxff[x] - %[ff[t]]
we obtain
ff[t] - Vxff[x] - %[Vxff[x]].
Using the (A2)-axiom
Vxff[x] - ff[t]
by Lemma 1 we obtain
Vxff[x] - Vxff[x] - %[Vxff[x]].
By (B4) we obtain
Vxff[x] - %[Vxff[x]].
By Lemma 19 we have
-,Vxff[x] - %[Vxff[x]].
%[Vxff[x]].
18 .. The Formal System PN for Pure Number Theory 147
Theorem 18.8 (Cut rule). &I[A], A -+ B I- &I[B].
Proof By Lemma 20 from &I[A] we obtain
-, &I[B] -+ A.
By Lemma 1 using A -+ B we obtain
-,&I[B] -+ B.
-,B-+ &I[B].
By Lemma 19 we have
I-B-+ &I[B].
&I[B].
Theorems 18.3-18.8 show that the system PN has all the deduction properties
which were laid down in 3 (p. 20) for the formal system CP of classical predicate
calculus. For by Theorems 18.3 and 18.4 all the axioms of the system CP are
deducible in PN (with 0' = 0 for 1.) and by Theorems 18.5-18.7 the basic inferences
(S 1)-(S3) of the system CP are permissible inferences in the system PN. By Theorem
18.8 cuts, which were shown to be permissible inferences in the system CP, are also
permissible in PN. By Theorems 18.1 and 18.2, axioms (A3)-{A8) and the inference
rule (B8) of complete induction the system PN is also sufficient for all the require-
ments of arithmetic which lie in the domain of classical predicate calculus.
6. The Consistency of the System PN
It was G. Gentzen who in 1936 first proved the consistency ofa formal system for
pure number theory which is equivalent to the system PN. We shall give two dif-
ferent kinds of consistency prooffor PN. The first is in 19 by an interpretation in
the system FT of functionals of finite type following K. GOdel in 1958 and the
second in 23.2 by an embedding in a formal system EN which will be proved
consistent by cut-elimination. Like the original proof of G. Gentzen, besides
elementary methods both proofs only require transfinite induction up to eo.
19. Interpretation of PN in FT
1. Sequences of Terms of the System FT
In this section we use w, Wi' X, Xi' y, Yi' Z, Zi to denote finite (possibly empty)
sequences of distinct variables of the system FT and we use a, ai' b, b i for finite
(possibly empty) sequences of terms of the system FT.
a I-a;. -:an denotes the sequence of terms obtained by concatenating the
sequences of terms a 1 , , an'
If a is a sequence of terms ar l... Pm'l, ... , a: 1 0"",'" and b is a sequence of terms
br ' , ... , b::,m then a(b) denotes the sequence of terms
The sequence of terms a(b) is empty if, and only if, a is empty. If b is empty then a(b)
is the same as a. For brevity we write ab for a(b) provided the sequence of terms b is
denoted by a single symbol.
If a(b 1 -b 2 - -bk ) is defined then by the definition of sequences of terms this
sequence is the same as ab 1 b k
When a:=a~\ ... ,a::,'" and b:=b~I, ... ,b~" are sequences of terms we use the
following conventions:
1. a",b ("a is of equal type with b") means that m=n and t1 i ='i for all
i= I, ... , n. (In particular this holds if a and b are empty.)
2. I-a = b means that a'" band aI; = b~; for all i = I, ... , n is deducible in FT.
I-A-+ a=b
means that a'" band
A-+a?=b?
is deducible in FT for all i= I, ... , n. (I-a =b and I- A -+ a=b are also to hold if
a and b are empty.)
Given sequences of terms a : = all, ... , a;" and b : = b II , ... , b;" let
D[cO, a, b]
be the sequence of terms
Using (DO)and (D[/) (17, p.1l9) we obtain
I-cO=O-+ D[cO, a, b]=a

I-cO= [/UO -+ D[cO, a, b] =b.
19. Interpretation of PN in FT 149
Lemma 1. Given two sequences of terms a and b, then up to equality of type, there is a
uniquely determined sequence of variables x such that
xa~b.
ar
Proof If a is a sequence of terms l , , a::'~ and b is a sequence of terms b~', ... , b~n,
then xa ~ b holds if, and only if, x is a sequence of variables
Lemma 2. Given sequences Xl' ... , X k of distinct variables and a sequence of terms a
there is a sequence of terms b containing no variable occurring in the sequence
Xl' ... , X k , such that
yr
Proof If x;-: .-:Xk is the sequence of variables l , , y~~ and a is the sequence of
terms a~', ... , a~n then the assertion holds for the sequence of terms
2. The Formal System QFT
We obtain the interpretation of PN in FT by using formulas in a language QFT

which is a quantificational extension of the language of FT.
Inductive Definition oftheformulas ofQFT and the free occurrences of variables in

such formulas.
1. Every equation aO = bO between terms aO, bO of type 0 is a formula of Q FT.
A variable isfree in this formula if, and only if, it occurs in aO or bOo
2. If A and B areformulas ofQFT then so too is (A ~ B). A variable isfree in
this formula if, and only if, it is free in either A or B.
3. If F is aformula of QFT and x' is a variable not bound by a quantifier 'ix'
or 3x' then 'ix'F and 3x'F are also formulas of QFT. A variable isfree in such a
formula if, and only if, it is different from x' and is free in F.
A formula ofQFT is said to be quantifier-free if it contains no 'i or 3 quantifier.
The quantifier-free formulas of QFT are exactly the basic formulas of the system
FT (see p. 129).
We use the usual arrangements for omitting brackets and the notation r ~ B,
where r denotes a sequence offormulas, for the formulas ofQFT as we did for FT.
A sequence of terms a is said to be free for a formula F of QFT if no variable y'
occurring in a occurs in a quantifier 'iy' or 3y' in the formula F.
We abbreviate the formulas
ff[a~', ... , a~n]

ofQFT to
Vx~[x], 3x~[x], ~[a],
where x denotes the sequence of variables x~., ... , x~", a the sequence of terms
a~.,... , a~" and ~ an n-place nominal form. We allow the case n=O when x and a
are empty. The notation ~[a] already assumes that the sequence of terms a is free
for the formula ~[x].
Definition of negation in QFT:
Let ,A be the formula A ---> 9'0=0.
It is not necessary to give a deduction procedure for formulas of QFT in order

to give the interpretation ofPN in FT. However, we shall give a deduction procedure
for QFT since it will motivate the choice of the interpreting formulas.
Axioms of the system QFT:

1. All basic formulas which are deducible in the system FT.
2. The V-axioms
Vx~[x] ---> ~[a]
and 3-axioms
~[a] ---> 3x~[x]
for arbitrary sequences of variables x and sequences of terms a ~ x.

3. The IP~-axioms (Independence of premise)
(Vxd[x] ---> 3y g6[y]) ---> 3y(Vxd[x] ---> 2[y])
for quantifier-free formulas d[x].

4. The M'-axioms (Markov's principle)
,,3xd[x] ---> 3xd[x]
for quantifier-free formulas d[x].

5. The AC-axioms (Axioms of choice)
Vx3y~[x, y] ---> 3zVx~[x, zx]
for the sequences of variables x, y, z such that y~ zx.
Basic Inferences of the system QFT

1. The basic inferences (Str), (Cut) and (CI) of the system FT for formulas of
QFT (see p. 114).
19. Interpretation ofPN in FT 151
2. The V-inferences
r ~ ff[x] f- r ~ Vxff[x]
provided that the variables in the sequence x do not occur in ff and do not occur
free in r.
3. The 3-inferences
ff[x] ~ B f- 3xff[x] ~ B
provided that the variables in the sequence x do not occur in ff and do not occur
free in B.
Corollary. Every formula
A~A
is deducible in QFT.
Proof A ~ A is a special case of an V-axiom or 3-axiom with an empty sequence

of variables.
Remark. The formal system QFT corresponds to a fragment of the formal system
obtained by adding the axioms IP~, M' and AC to Heyting arithmetic HAW.
(See A.S. Troelstra: Metamathematical Investigation of Intuitionistic Arithmetic
and Analysis. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 344. Springer-Verlag 1973, p. 46 and
238.) QFT lacks the connectives A and v of HAw.
Lemma 3. The following are deducible in QFT:

(1) (A~ B)~ (B~ C)~ A~ C
(2) (A~B)~-'B~-,A.
Proof The formulas
(A~ B)~ A~ B and B~ (B~ C)~ C
are deducible. Hence by a cut
(A~ B)~ A~ (B~ C)~ C.
Bya structural inference we have

(1) (A~ B)~ (B~ C)~ A~ C
(2) is a special case of (1) with 9'0 = 0 for C.
Lemma 4. The folloWing are permissible inferences of the system QFT:

(1) A~ Bf- (B~ C)~ A~ C
(2) A----+BI-,B----+,A
(3) B ----+ C I- (A ----+ B) ----+ A ----+ C.
Proof This follows from Lemma 3 by cuts and a structural inference.
Lemma 5. Thefollowing are deducible in QFT:

(1) 9'0=0----+ B
(2) ,A----+A----+B.
Proof of (1) by induction on the length of the formula B.

1. Suppose B is an equation aO = bOo Then the assertion holds by Theorem 17.6.
2. Suppose B is a formula A ----+ C. Then by I.H.
is deducible. The assertion follows by a structural inference.

3. Suppose B is a formula Vxff[x] or 3xff[x] where the nominal form ff
contains no variable in the sequence x. Then by I.H.
9'0=0----+ ff[x]
is deducible. The assertion follows by an V-inference or cut using an 3-axiom.

(2) follows from (1) by Lemma 4(3).
Lemma 6. If A is a quantifier-free formula, then
A----+B, ,A----+BI-B
is a permissible inference of the system QFT.
Proof By Theorems 17.5 and 17.6 the formulas
X[A] =0----+ A and X[A]=9'x----+ ,A
are deducible in FT and therefore also in QFT. Using cuts with
A----+ Band ,A----+ B
we obtain
X[A]=O----+B and X[A]=9'x----+B.
Using a structural inference and a basic inference (CI) we obtain
X[A] = X[A] ----+ B.
Hence we obtain B.
Lemma 7. If A is a quantifier-free formula then the formula
is deducible in Q Ff.
Proof The formulas
A -+ -, -,A -+ A and -,A -+ -, -,A -+ A
are deducible in QFT. Hence by Lemma 6 we obtain -, -,A -+ A.

We say that two formulas Fand G are equivalent in QFT if the formulas F -+ G
and G-+ Fare deducible in QFT.
Theorem 19.i. Let Xl' Yl' Zl' X 2 , Y2' Z2 be sequences of distinct variables which do
not occur in the nominal forms d and f!4 and which are such that Y 1 ~ Z 1 X 1 Y 2 and
X 2 ~ Z 2X 1. Let d[x 1, Y 1] and .?l[x 2' Y 2] be quantifier-free formulas, then the formulas
and
are equivalent in QFT.
Proof 1. The formula
is deducible in QFT by Lemma 5(2). Using a cut with an 3-axiom we obtain
By Lemma 4(2) and a cut using the formula
(which is deducible by Lemma 2) we obtain
By an \i-inference and Lemma 4(2) we obtain

Using a cut with an M'-axiom we obtain
By Lemma 3(2) the formula
is deducible and hence by a cut and a structural inference we obtain
Obviously the formula
is also deducible in QFT. Hence by Lemma 6 we obtain
By Lemma 4(3) from an V-axiom we obtain
By a cut and an V-inference we obtain
Bya cut using an AC-axiom we obtain
By a cut using an 3-axiom and an 3-inference we obtain
Bya cut using an IP~-axiom we obtain
From an 3-axiom by Lemma 4(1) we obtain
By a cut and an V-inference we obtain
(3Xl VY1'-91[x 1 , Yl] - 3x zVYz~[xz' Yz]) - Vx 1 3x i"'zVYz(.91[x 1 , zYz]-

- ~[xz' Yz])
19. Interpretation of PN in FT 155
By a cut using an AC-axiom we obtain
(3x l VYl'-G1[x l , Yl] ~ 3x 2VY2.?4[X2' Y2]) ~ 3Z;-Zl Vx;h(d[x l , Zl Xl Y2]

~ .?4[Z2 Xl' Y2])
2. By structural inferences and a cut from the V-axioms
and
we obtain
By an V-inference and a cut using an 3-axiom we obtain
By structural inferences and 3-inferences we obtain
3Z2~Zl Vx{"h(d[x l , Z1 Xl Y2] ~ .?4[Z2 Xl' Y2]) ~ 3x 1 VYl d[Xl' Yl]

~ 3Xi VY2.?4[X 2, Y2].
This completes the proof of Theorem 19.1.
3. Interpreting Formulas
We use formulas
3xVyd[x,y]
of the system QFT as interpreting formulas (for formulas of the system PN) where
x, yare sequences of distinct variables which do not occur in the nominal form d
and d[x, y] is a quantifier-free formula. x and Y may be empty. The choice of
bound variables in the interpreting formulas is not significant. That is to say: two
interpreting formulas
where Xl'" x 2 and Y 1 '" Y2 are identified with each other. We regard every free
number variable as a variable of type 0 and every number term t' as an abbreviation
for9't. The number terms of the system PN are then to be understood as terms of
type 0 in QFT where + and are to be understood according to the definition

in 17 (p. 120).
Inductive Definition of an interpreting formula F* for each formula F of the

system PN.
1. If F is an equation s = t, then F* is the same equation where s, t are under-

stood as terms of type o.
2. If F is a formula A ---+ B and A *, B* are the interpreting formulas
where the variables in the sequences Xl' Y l' xz, Yz are chosen to be distinct from one
another and not to occur in the nominal forms .91, f!l then F* is the interpreting
formula
wherez l , Zz are chosen by Lemma I so thatYl"" ZlX1YZ andx z '" ZZx l . The variables
in the sequences Zl' Zz are to be distinct from each other and from the variables
in the sequences Xl' Yz and are not to occur in the nominal forms .91, f!l. (This
choice of F* is motivated by Theorem 19.1.)
3. If Fis a formula Vxff[x] where the bound number variable Xdoes not occur
in the nominal form ff, u is a free number variable which also does not occur in ff
and ff[u]* is the interpreting formula
where u is distinct from the variables in the sequences Xl' Yl and does not occur in
the nominal form .91, then F* is the interpreting formula
where Z is chosen by Lemma 1 so that Xl '" ZU. The variables in the sequence Z are
to be distinct and also distinct from u and the variables in the sequence Y 1 and not
to occur in the nominal form.9l. UJl denotes the sequence of variables obtained
by concatenating the variable u (of type 0) with the sequence Y l' (This choice of F*
is motivated by an AC-axiom.)
Definition. An interpreting formula
3xVy.9I[x,y]
is said to be valid if there is a sequence of terms a, in which no variable in the

sequence Y occurs, such that a'" X holds and the quantifier-free formula .9I[a, y] is
deducible in the system FT.
Theorem 19.2 (Interpretation Theorem). If F is a formula deducible in the system

PN then its interpreting formula F* is valid.
Corollary. The formal system PN is sententially consistent. That is to say: There

is no formula A such that A and ....,A are both deducible in PN.
Proof ....,A is defined to be the formula A --> 0' =0. If A and A --> 0' =0 were
deducible in PN then by 18 (Lemma 2) the formula 0' = 0 would also be deducible
in PN. But by Theorem 17.2 its interpreting formula YO = 0 is not deducible in FT
and therefore is not valid. It follows by Theorem 19.2 that 0' = 0 is not deducible
inPN.
We prove Theorem 19.2 by induction on the deduction, viz. by induction on
the length of an assumed deduction of F in PN. We write I- A to indicate that A is
deducible in the system FT.
4. Interpretations of the Axioms of the System PN
We first prove that the interpreting formula F* of each axiom F of the system PN
is valid.
1. Suppose F is an axiom
(AI) A --> A.
Then F* is an interpreting formula
By Lemma 2 there are sequences of terms aI' a 2 in which no variable from the
sequences x I ' Y2 occurs such that
Hence we have
Thus F* is valid.
(A2) Vx%Tx] --> %[t].
Then the formulas Vx%[x] and %[t] have interpreting formulas

Hence F* is an interpreting formula
By Lemma 2 there are sequences of terms a o' a l , a 2 in which no variable from the
sequences Xl' Y2 occurs such that
Thus F* is valid.
(A3) u' =O~ A.
3xVy(9"u=0~ d[x,yJ).
By Theorem 17.6 we have
f-9"u=O~ d[x,y].
Thus F* is valid.
(A4) u'=v'~u=v.
Then the interpreting formula F* is the quantifier-free formula
which is deducible in FT by Theorem 17.9 and therefore valid.

5. Suppose Fis one of the axioms (A5)-(A8). Then F* is an equation which is
deducible in FT by 17 (p. 120) and therefore valid.
5. Interpretations of the Basic Inferences in the System PN
We now prove that assuming the interpreting formulas of all premises of a basic
inference of the system PN are valid, then the interpreting formula of the con-
clusion is valid.
I. Suppose G is the conclusion of a basic inference
(BI) B~A-+B.
Then B* is an interpreting formula
and G * is an interpreting formula
By hypothesis there is a sequence of terms a 2 in which no variable from the sequence

Y2 occurs such that
Then by Lemma 2 there is a sequence of terms b 2 in which no variable from the

sequences Xl' Y2 occurs such that
It follows that
Thus G* is valid.
2. Suppose F is the premise and G the conclusion of a basic inference
{ 3Z4~Z3~Z;Z I VXI~X2~X3Y 4(d[x l , Z I Xi X 2 X 3 Y 4] -+ P4[X 2 , Z2 X I X 2 X 3 Y 4]

-+ CC[X 3 ,Z3 X I X 2 X 3Y4] -+ ~[Z4XI X 2 X 3 ' Y4])
and G* is an interpreting formula
{ 3W4~W2"'W3~WI VXI~XI~X3~X2Y4(d[XI' W I X I X 3 X 2 Y4] -+ CC[x 3 , W 3 X I X 3 X 2 Y4]

-+ P4[Xz, W 2 X I X 3 X 2 Y4]-+ ~[W4XIX3X2'Y4])'
By hypothesis there are sequences of terms aI' a 2 , a 3 , a 4 in which no variable from

the sequences Xl' X 2 , X 3 ' Y4 occurs such that
~{d[XI' a l x l x 2 x 3Y4] -+ ~[X2' a 2x l x 2x 3Y4]

-+ CC[x 3 , a 3 x I X 2 X 3 Y4] -+ ~[a4xI X 2 X 3 ' Y4].
By Lemma 2 there are sequences of terms b l , b 2, b 3, b 4 in which no variable from

the sequences Xl' X 2 , X 3 , Y 4 occurs such that
and
Using the equality rules and a structural inference we obtain
f-{d[X I , bl x 1X3X2Y4] -> 'i&'[X3' b 3x I X3X2Y4]

-> 86[x 2, b 2x I X3X2Y4] -> E&[b4x I X3X2' Y4].
Thus G* is valid.
3. Suppose F I , F2 are the premises and G the conclusion of a basic inference
Then F{, Fi are interpreting formulas

3Z3~Z2~Z I VXI~Z;Y3(d[XI' ZIX I X2Y3] -> 86[X2' Z2 XI X2Y3] -> 'i&'[Z3 XIX2' Y3])'
3Z4~Z5 VX3~Y4('i&'[X 3, Z5X3Y4] -> E&[Z4 X3' Y 4])'
3W4~W2~WI VXI~X2~Y4(d[XI' WI X I X2Y4] -> gH[X2' W2X I X2Y4]

-> E&[W 4X I X2'Y4])
By hypothesis there are sequences of terms, a l , , a 5 in which no variable from the

sequences Xl' X2, X3, Y3' Y4 occurs such that
and
f-{d[X I , a l Xl x 2(a 5(a 3x I X2)Y4) -> 86[X2' a 2x I x 2(a 5(a 3X I X2)Y4)]

-> 'i&'[a 3xIX2' a 5(a 3x l x 2)Y4]
and
By a cut we obtain
l-{d[X I , a l Xl x 2 (a 5 (a 3 x I X 2 )Y4)] -4 .?4[X2' a 2 x I x 2 (a 5 (a 3 x I X 2 )Y4)]

-4 f0[a 4 (a 3 x l x 2 ), Y4].
By Lemma 2 there are sequences of terms bl , b2 , b4 in which no variable from the

sequences Xl' X 2 ' Y4 occurs such that
I-b l Xl X 2 Y 4 =a l Xl x 2 (a 5 (a 3 x I X 2 )Y4)'
I-b 2 x l X 2Y 4 = a 2 x I x 2 (a 5 (a 3 x I X 2 )Y4)'
I-b 4 x I X 2 =a4 (a 3 x l x 2 )
Hence we have
I-d[x l , bl x l X 2 Y4] -4 .?4[X2' b2 x I X 2 Y4] -4 f0[b 4 x I X 2 'Y4].
Thus G* is valid.
(B4) A -4 A -4 B I- A -4 B.
and G * is an interpreting formula
By hypothesis there are sequences of terms ao, aI' a 2 in which no variable from the
sequences X O' Xl' Y2 occurs such that
Substituting Xl for Xo by Theorem 17.1 we obtain
By Lemma 2 there are sequences of terms b l , b 2 in which no variable from the

sequences X I' Y 2 occurs such that
(2) I-b 2x I =a 2 x l x l
I-b l x I Y2 =D[X [d[XI' a ox l x I Y2]]' a l x l x l Y2' a ox l x l Y2].
Hence we have (see p. 119)
(3) I-X[d[x l , a oX l x l Y2]] =0-4 b l x I Y2 =a l x l x l Y2

(4) I-X[d[x l , a ox l x I Y2]] =//u o -4 b l x I Y2 =a Ox l x 1Y2].
By a cut with (1) we obtain
Using (2) and (3) we obtain
Using (4) we obtain
By the Corollary to Theorem 17.5 from (5) and (6) we obtain
Thus G* is valid.
5. and 6. Suppose F is the premise and G the conclusion of a basic inference
(B5) u=u- A I- A
or
(B6) 37'[s] I- s=t- 37'[t].
Then trivially F* is valid implies G* is valid.

(B7) A - 37'[u] I- A _ 'v'x37'[x].

By hypothesis there are sequences of terms aI' a 2 in which no variable from the
sequences XI' Y 2 occurs such that
By Lemma 2 there are sequences of terms b1 , b2 in which no variable from the

sequence Xl~U~Y2 occurs such that
Hence
Thus G* is valid.
S. Suppose F l , F2 are the premises and G the conclusion of a basic inference
(BS) $'[OJ, F[uJ -4 $'[u'J I- $'[t].
Then Fi, Fi are interpreting formulas

:3xVyd[x, y, 0],
:3z2~Zl Vry(d[x, ZIXY, u] -4 d[Z2X, y, 9'u]),
where u does not occur in the nominal form d and G* is an interpreting formula
:3xVyd[x, y, t].
By hypothesis there are sequences of terms aD, aI' a 2 in which no variable from the
sequences x, y occurs such that
(1) I-d[a o, y, 0]
I- d[x, a 1 xy,u] - 4 d[a 2x, y, 9'u].
We may assume that u does not occur in aD. By Lemma 2 there are sequences of
terms b 1 , b 2 in which neither u nor any variable from the sequences x, y occurs
such that
I-biu=a i (i= 1, 2).
Hence
(2) I-d[x, b 1 uxy, u] - 4 d[b 2 ux, y, 9'u].
By Theorem 17.12 there is a sequence oftermsJin which neither u nor any variable
from the sequences x, y occurs such that
(3) I-fO=a o
(4) 1-j{!7u)=b2 u(ju).
From (1) and (3) we obtain
(5) 1-.91[10, y, 0].
From (2) and (4) substitutingfu for x we obtain
(6) I-d[fu, b i u(ju)y, u] ~ d[j{Y'u), y, !7u].
From (5) and (6) by Theorem 17.13 we obtain
I- dEft, y, t].
Thus G * is valid.
This completes the proof of Theorem 19.2.
Part C
Subsystems of Analysis
Chapter VIII
Predicative Analysis
In this chapter we consider formal and semi-formal systems in which the Peano
axioms hold for number variables and there is quantification over predicate
variables. In these systems the real numbers are definable by predicators as certain
sets of rational numbers and universal and existential statements about real
numbers are formalizable. Here certain subsystems of classical analysis will be
delimited. We restrict ourselves in this chapter to predicative subsystems of analysis,
that is, to systems which are interpreted in such a way that a concept which is
defined under the assumption of a collection of concepts does not itself belong to
this collection.
20. Systems of L1 ~-Analysis
The systems in this section have the same language as for classical analysis but are
restricted in the definition of predicators (sets) by Ll ~-comprehensioo for which a
predicative interpretation will be made possible (in 22).
1. The Formal Language of Second Order Arithmetic
As primitive symbols we use

1. Denumerably infinitely many free and bound number variables and predi-
cate variables. (All predic::tte variables are to be I-place.)
2. The symbols 0, I, 1.., --., V and A..
3. Symbols for n-place calculable arithmetic functions and n-place decidable
arithmetic predicates (n;?l: 1). (The conditions governing the use of these symbols
will be given on page 168.)
4. Round brackets and comma.
We use nominal forms in the usual way and denote them by capital script
letters.
Inductive definition of terms:

1. The symbol 0 is a term.
2. Every free number variable is a term.
168 VIII. Predicative Analysis
3. If t is a term then so too is t .

4. If f is a symbol for an n-place calculable arithmetic function (n~ 1) and
t l' . . . , tn are terms, then f(t l' . . . , t n) is also a term.
Terms built up according to 1. and 3. only are called numerals. A term is said
to be numerical if it contains no free number variables.
The prime formulae are:
I. The symbol .1..,
2. ~(t1"'" tn) where ~ is a symbol for an n-place decidable arithmetic
predicate (n~ 1) and t 1 , , tn are terms.
A prime formula is said to be constant if it contains no free number variable.
Inductive definition of formulas and predicators:

1. Every prime formula is a formula.
2. Every free predicate variable is a predicator.
3. If P is a predicator and t a term, then P(t) is a formula.
4. If A and B are formulas then so too is (A ---+ B).
5. If ff[O] is a formula and x is a bound number variable which does not
occur in ff, then Itxff[x] is a formula and hff[x] is a predicator.
6. If U is a free predicate variable, ff[ U] is a formula and X is a bound
predicate variable which does not occur in ff then ItXff[X] is a formula.
A formula is said to be simple if it is not of the form (A ---+ B). A predicator is
said to be elementary if it contains no bound predicate variables. By the length of
a formula we mean the number of symbols ---+, It and A. which occur in the formula.
Syntactic symbols:
a, b, c, d for free number variables,
x, y, z for bound number variables,
U, V, W for free predicate variables,
X, Y, Z for bound predicate variables,
s, t for terms,
P, Q for predicators,
A, B, C, D, E, F, G for formulas,
i,j, k, m, n for natural numbers and their corresponding numerals.
(A natural number n corresponds to the numeral in which the symbol occurs
precisely n times.)
We shall also use these syntactic symbols with indices.
Conditions for the use of arithmetic functions and predicates symbols:

1. A symbol f for an n-place calculable arithmetic function (n ~ 1) may only
be used as a primitive symbol provided there is a general procedure by which a
numeral may be calculated as the value of f(m 1, ... , m n) for each n numerals
m 1 , .,mn
2. A symbol ~ for an n-place decidable arithmetic predicate (n~ 1) may only
be used as a primitive symbol provided there is a general procedure which decides,
for each n numerals m 1, ... , m n , whether ~(m1" .. , m n) is true or false.
20. Systems of Lll-Analysis 169
Inductive definition of the value of a numerical term:

1. The term 0 has value O.
2. If t ~s a numerical term of value m, then t' has value m'.
3. If f is a symbol for an n-place calculable arithmetic function (n~ 1) and
t l' ... , t. are numerical terms with values m l' ... , m., then f(t l' ... , t.) has the
value given for f(ml' ... , m.) by the procedure for f which we required to exist.
By this definition every numerical term has a calculable value which is a
numeral.
Definition of the truth-value of a constant prime formula.

1. The formula ..1 isfalse.
2. If ~ is a symbol for an n-place decidable arithmetic predicate (n~ 1) and
t l' . . . , t. are numerical terms with values m l' . . . , m. then ~(t 1, . . . , t.) is true or
false according as ~(ml' ... , m.) is decided to be true or false by the procedure
which we required to exist for ~.
By this definition every constant prime formula is, decidably, either true or
false.
Two formulas are said to be equivalent if they are formulas ff [s l' . . . , sn]
and ff[rl' ... , tn] where Si and ti(i= 1, ... , n) are numerical terms of equal values.
Theorem 20.1. Equivalence offormulae is an equivalence relation.
Proof By definition equivalence is reflexive and symmetric. A numerical term t

is said to be a maximal-numerical component of a formula F, if t occurs in F but
not as a component of a longer numerical term. Bya substitution which transforms
F into an equivalent formula every maximal-numerical component of F is trans-
formed into a numerical term of equal value while every other component of F
remains unaltered. Hence it follows that equivalence offormulas is also transitive.
We define positive and negative parts of formulas, P-forms, N-forms and

NP-forms in the usual way (see p. 20). As before we define:
The minimal positive parts of a formula F are the simple positive parts of F.
The minimal negative parts of a formula F are those negative parts of F which are
not of the form (A -+ ..i). The minimal parts of F are the minimal positive and
negative parts of F.
F~ G (G follows structurally from F) denotes that to every minimal positive
(negative) part of F there is an identical positive (negative) part of G.
We use [7J> for P-forms, JV for N-forms, f2 for NP-forms and Iff for P-forms and
N-forms as syntactic symbols.
As in 4.4 we define
-,A: =(A -+ ..i)
(AAB):=-,(A-+ -,B)
(A v B): =(-,A -+ B)
(A +-+ B): = -,((A -+ B) -+ -,(B -+ A
3xff[x]: = -,Vx-,ff[x]
3Xff[X]: = -,VX-,ff[X].
For brevity we omit the outer round brackets in formulas. We also write
Al ~ ... ~ An~ B for (AI ~ ( ... ~ (An~ B) .. . .
2. The Formal System DA
Axioms:
(Axl) gl/[A], if A is a true constant prime formula,
(Ax2) JV[A], if A is a false constant prime formula.
(Ax3) .E![A, B) if A, B are equivalent formulas of length O.
(Ax4) ff[a I , ... , an] (n~ 1), if for every n numerals m I , ... , mn ff[mI' " ., mn]
is one of the axioms (Axl)-(Ax3).
The minimal parts indicated in axioms (Axl)-(Ax3) are called the principal
parts of these axioms.
Remark. It -is not in general decidable whether a formula is an (Ax4) axiom. A

formula, therefore, may only be used as an (Ax4) axiom if there is a general
procedure which shows that the formula does satisfy the conditions for such an
axiom.
Basic inferences:
(SI) JV[,A], JV[B] I- JV[(A ~ B)], if B is not the formula ..1.
(S2.0) gl/[ff[a]] I- gl/['v'xff[x]], if a does not occur in the conclusion.
(S2.1) gl/[ff[U]] I- gl/['v'Xff[X]], if U does not occur in the conclusion.
(S3.0) ff[t] ~ JV['v'xff[x]] I- JV['v'xff[x]]
(S3.E) ff[P] ~ JV['v'Xff[X]] I- JV['v'Xff[X]], if P is an elementary predicator.
(S3 M {'v'X('v'Yd[X, YJ ~. . dY8l[x, Y]),
. ff[h'v'Yd[x, YJ] ~ JV['v'Xff[X]] I- JV['v'Xff[X]],
if no bound predicate variables occur in d and 81.
(S4) 8[ff[t]] I- 8[2xff[x](t)]
(cut) gl/[A] , A ~ B I- C, if gl/[B] f!. C holds.
(ind) ff[O], ff[a] ~ ff[a'] I- ff[t], if a does not occur in ff.
(Complete induction inference)
Remark on (S3.E) and (S3.~). If ff[U] is a formula containing no bound predicate

variable then 'v'Yff[y] is said to be a II~-formula and 3Yff[Y] is said to be a
L~-formula. If the formula
'v'Yd[Y] +-+ 3Y8I[Y]
is deducible for a II~-formula 'v'YdEY] and a L~-formula 3 Y86[y] then 'v'YdEY]

and 3 Y81[Y] are said to beA ~-formulas. Similarly we call a predicator h'v'Yd[x, YJ
a A ~ -predicator if there is a deducible formula
'v'x('v'Yd[x, Y]+-+3Y86[x, YJ)

where no bound predicate variables occur in d and 81. So by (S3.E) and (S3.M
basic inferences of the form
(S3.1) ff[P] ~ JV['v'Xff[X]] I- JV['v'Xff[X]]
20. Systems of Lll-AnaJysis 171
in the system DA are restricted to those where P is an elementary predicator or a

L1~-predicator. This formation of such predicators is called L1~-comprehension. If
one allows (S3.1) as a basic inference for every predicator P then with the axioms
and the remaining basic inferences of the system DA one obtains full classical
arithmetic of second order which is not, however, predicatively interpretable. The
restriction in (S3.1) to (S3.E) and (S3.L\) which makes a predicative interpretation
possible (in 22) means that the domain of the quantifiers 'if X is restricted to those
predicators which satisfy ,,1 ~ -comprehension.
Inductive definition of D A f!!!' nF:

1. If F is an axiom of the system DA, then DA~' 0 F holds.
2. If DA f!!!.n Fl holds for the premise Fl of a basic inference (S2.0), (S2.1),
(S3.0), (S3.E) or (S4) of the system DA, then DA f!!!.n+ 1 Fholds for the conclusion
F of that basic inference.
3. If DAf!!!i.ni Fi (i= 1, 2) holds for the premises Fl and F2 of a basic in-
ference (SI), or (cut) of the system DA, then DA f!!!.n Fholds, where m: = max (ml'
m 2 ) and n: = max (n 1, n 2 ) + 1, for the conclusion F of that basic inference.
4. If DAf!!!i.ni Fi (i= 1, 2) holds for the premises Fl and F2 of a basic in-
ference (S3.L\) or (ind), then DA f!!!'u Fholds, where m: = max (ml' m 2 )+ 1, for the
conclusion F of that basic inference.
A formula F is said to be deducible in the system DA if there exist n&tural

Plumbers m, n such that DA f!!!.n F holds. If DA f.2..n F holds then F is deducible
in DA without use of the inference rule (S3.L1) and (ind). We also abbreviate
DA f!!!.n Fto I- F.
3. Deducible Formulas and Permissible Inference of the System DA
Let = be the symbol for the 2-place decidable arithmetic predicate such that
=(ml' m 2 ) is true if, and only if, the numerals m 1 , 11.12 are identical. We use = as a
primitive symbol of our formal language and write s = t for = (s, t).
Theorem 20.2. I- t = t.
Proof t=t is an (Axl) if t is numerical, otherwise an (Ax4).
Theorem 20.3. I- s=t~ 2 [ff [s] , ff[t]].
Proof by induction on the length of ff[s].

1. Let ff[s] have length O. Then the formula
s=t~ 2[ff[s], ff[t]]
is an (Ax2) or an (Ax3) if sand t are numerical, otherwise it is an (Ax4).

2. Let F[s] have length >0. Then the assertion follows from the I.H. using
basic inferences (SI), (S2.0), (S3.0), (S2.1), (S3.E) and (S4) as in the proof of
Theorem 4.1.
By Theorems 20.2 and 20.3 aU the laws of an identity relation hold for s=t.
Theorem 20.4. 1-.2[C, C).
Proof By Theorems 20.2 and 20.3 we have I- t=t and I- t=t-. .2[C, C). Bya cut
we obtain I- .2[C, C).
Corollary to Theorem 20.4. The formal system DA is s-complete, that is, every
s-valid formula of our formal language is deducible in DA. (This follows just like
the Corollary to Theorem 4.1.)
By virtue of this corollary it follows in particular that all the inferences- given
in Theorem 4.8 for A and v are also permissible in the system DA and also
.9[(A -. B)], .9[(B -. A) I- .9[(A +-+ B)],

.9[(A +-+ B] I- .9[(A -. B)] and .9[(A +-+ B)] I- .9[(B -. A)].
Theorem 20.S (Structural inference rule). If FI!. G holds, then F I- Gis apermissible
inference.
Proof If F I!. G holds, then
F-.F,FI-G
is a cut. Using I- F -. F (by Theorem 20.4) the assertion follows.
Theorem 20.6 (Basic properties of quantifiers).

a) I- VxF[x] -. F[t] and I- F[t] -. 3xF[x]
b) I- VXF[X] -. F[P] and I- F[P] -. 3XF[X], if P is an elementary or
Af-predicator.
Proof By Theorem 20.4,
I- F[t] -. VxF[x] -. F[t] and I- ,F[t] -. F[t] -. ,Vx,F[x]
hold. Assertion a) follows using basic inferences (S3.0). Assertion, b) follows

similarly using basic inferences (S3.E) and (S3.A).
Theorem 20.7 (Substitution rules). Thefollowing are permissible inferences:
a) F[a] I- F[t], if a does not occur in F.

b) F[U] I- F[P], if U does not occur in F and P is an elementary or Af-
predicator.
20. Systems of L1 t-Analysis 173
Proof This follows from Theorem 20.6 using basic inferences (S2.0) and (S2.1).
Theorem 20.8 (Introduction of existential quantifiers). Thefollowing are permissible

inferences:
a) %[ff[a]] f- %[3xff[x]], if a does not occur in the conclusion.

b) %[ff[U]] f- %[3Xff[X]], if U does not occur in the conclusion.
Proof Bya structural rule we obtain %[-, -,ff[a]] from %[ff[a]] and then
by a basic inference (S2.0) %[-,Vx-,ff[x]]. b) follows similarly using a basic
inferenc;e (S2.1).
Theorem 20.9 (Extensionality Theorem).
f- Vx(d[x] +-+ &I [x]) - ff[..hd[x]] - ff[AX &I[x]].
Proofby induction on the length of the formula ff[U]. If U does not occur in ff
then the assertion holds by Theorem 20.4. If ff[U] is a formula U(t), then the
assertion follows by basic inferences (S4) from
f- Vx(d[x] +-+ &I [x]) - d[t] - &I[t].
In. all the remaining cases the assertIon follows from the IH.
Corollary. Vx(d[x] +-+ ~[x]), ff[AXd[x]] f- ff[AX &I[x]] is a permissible in-

ference.
Let < be the symbol for the 2-place decidable arithmetic predicate such that
m l , m 2 ) is true if, and only if, the numeral m l is shorter than the numeral m 2
We use < as a primitive symbol of our formal language and write s < t for < (s, t).
Theorem 20.10 (Induction Theorem). If I is a symbol for a I-place calculable

arithmetic function then
f- Vx(Vy(I(y)<I(x)- ff[y])- ff[x])- ff[t] holds.
Proof Let
F:=Vx(Vy(I(y)<I(x)- ff[y])- ff[x]),

Vx(I(x)< t - ff[x]).
~[t]: =
Then we have
f-F- ~[O]
f- (F - ~[a]) - (F - ~[a']).
f- F - ~[I(t)'] follows by a basic inference (ind).

Hence
f- F~ $'[t]
which was to be proved.
4. The Semi-Formal System DA *
In DA * we use the same formal language of second order arithmetic as before but
now exclude free number variables. Thus in DA * every term is numerical and every
prime formula constant.
Axioms of the system DA*: (Axl)-(Ax3) as in DA.
Basic inferences of the system DA *: As in DA, but replacing (S2.0) and (ind) by
(S2.0*) &'[$'[n]] for every numeral n f- &'[Vx$'[x]].
All axioms and basic inferences of the system DA * are to be restricted to formulas
in which no free number variable occurs. We call the system DA* semi-formal
since, as opposed to formal systems, it has basic inferences (S2.0*) with infinitely
many premises.
In what follows small Greek letters (possibly with iI1dices) always denote ordinal
terms of the system OT (of 14).
Inductive definition of DA * ~ F and DA * ~ F:

1. If Fis an axiom of the system DA*, then DA*~Fand DA* ti Fhold for
every ordinal term IX of the system ~T.
2. If DA* f!i Fi holds where lXi < IX for every premise Fi of a basic inference of
the system DA *, then DA* ~ F holds for the conclusion F of this basic inference.
3. If DA* IJi Fi holds where lXi < IX for every premise Fi of a basic inference of
the system DA* which is not an inference (S3.d), then DA * ~ F holds for the
conclusion F of this basic inference.
4. If DA*17 Fi holds where lXi+W:;:;1X (i= 1,2) for the premises Fl and F2
of an inference (S3.d) of the system DA *, then DA * ~ F holds for the conclusion
F of this inference.
Corollaries. 1. If DA * ~ F (or DA * ~ F) and IX < p, then DA * fl!. F (or DA * ~ F)

also holds.
2. IfDA* ~ F, then DA* ~ F.
A formula F is said to be deducible (or distinguished deducible) in DA* with

order IX, if DA * ~ F (or DA * ~ F) holds.
Theorem 20.11 (Replacement rule). If DA * ~ F (or DA * ~ F) holds and F, G are

equivalent formulas then DA * ~ G (or DA * ~ G) holds.
20. Systems of LI~-Analysis 175
Theorem 20.12 (Structural rule). q DA * I!. F (or DA * 17 F) and F j!. G hold for
formulas F, G of the system DA*, then DA* I!. G (or DA* 17 G) holds.
Both these theorems are proved by transfinite induction on IX.
5. Embedding DA in DA*
If F is a formula of the system DA then we denote by F* a formula of the system

DA* which results from F when all the free number variables occurring in Fare
replaced by numerals. In the following we write ro m + n for ro m + roO n.
Theorem 20.13 (Embedding Theorem).
DA p!!.n F implies DA* l7' m + n F*.
Proofby induction on m with subsidiary induction on n. Suppose DA p!!.n Fholds.
'*
1. m=O and n=O. Then Fis an axiom of the system DA and F* is an axiom
of the system DA*. Therefore DA * F* holds.
2. m#O or n#O. Then F is the conclusion of a basic inference BI of the
system DA.
. 2.1. If BI is not a basic inference (S2.0) (S3.~) or (ind) then the assertion
follows immediately from the I.H.
2.2 Suppose BI is a basic inference (S2.0). Then Fis a formula &'[V'xF[x]] and
we have DA p!!.no &,[F[a]] where a does not occur in F and n=no+ 1. F* is a
formula&'*['v'xF*[x]]. ByI.H. DA* ji!'m+no &'*[F*[k]] holds for every numeral
k. Using a basic inference (S2.0*) we obtain DA* l7' m + n F*.
2.3 Suppose BI is a basic inference (S3.~). Then we have DA p!!,.n, F; for the
premises Fi (i=I,2) of this inference where m=max(m 1 ,m2 )+1 and n=O.
F* is the conclusion of a basic inference (S3.~) of the system DA * with premises
Fi* such that by I.H. DA* l7' mt + nt Fi* (i= 1,2) holds. Since romi+ni+ro~rom,
DA* l7' m F* follows.
2.4. Suppose BI is a basic inference (ind). Then we have DA p!!,.n, F[O] and
DA P!!2. n 2F[a] -+ F[a'] where m=max (m 1 , m 2 )+ 1 and n=O, a does not occur
in F, F is a formula F[t] and F* is a formula F*[t*]. Let mo: = max (m 1 , m 2 )
and no: = max (n 1 , n 2 ). By I.H. DA* ~'mo+no F*[O] and DA* l7' mo + no F*[k]-+
F*[k'] for every numeral k hold. Using cuts we obtain DA* l7' mo +(no +k) F*[k]
and hence also DA * 17' m F*[k] for every numeral k. Since t* is a numerical term
DA* 17' m F* follows by Theorem 20.11.
Corollaries. 1. For each formula F deducible in DA there exists IX < ro 2 such that
DA* 17 F*.
2. q F is deducible in DA without use of basic inferences (S3.~) and (ind) then
there exists IX < ro such that D A* 17 F *.
6. General Properties of Deduction in the System DA *
Below we consider only formulas ofthe system DA* and we write ~ Ffor DA * ~ F.
e
~ .. F denotes that there exists < ex such that DA * ~ F holds.
A formula Fis said to befinitely deducible if~'" Fholds.
Theorem 20.14. The following formulas are finitely deducible.

a) all s-validformulas,
b) Vx.F[x] -+ .F[n] and .F[n] -+ 3x.F[x],
c) VX.F[X] -+ .F[P] and .F[P] -+ 3X.F[X], if P is an elementary
predicator.
Proof This follows from the second corollary to Theorem 20.13 since the formulas
concerned are deducible in DA without use of a basic inference (ind).
A formula B is said to be a logical consequence of formulas A 1 , , An if B

can be obtained by cuts from the formulas A l' . . . , An and formulas which are
finitely deducible by Theorem 20.14.
Theorem 20.15.lf ~ Ai(i= 1, ... , n)holdandBisalogicalconsequenceofA 1 , , An

then ~"+w B holds.
Proof Trivial.
Theorem 20.16. lf~ .!V[.F[U]] holds where U occurs in neither .!V nor .F then
JL '!v[3X.F[X] for ex<p.
Proof By Theorem 20.12 from ~ .!V[.F[U]] we obtain ~ .!V[...., ....,.F[U]] and
then using a basic inference (S2.1), JL .!V[....,VX....,.F[X]]. That is JL '!v[3X.F[X]].
Theorem 20.17. If ~Vx(VYd[x, y] +-+3Yi[x, Y]) and JL .F[A.xVYd[x, Y]]

where neither d nor i contains bound predicate variables then fL 3X.F[X] if
max (ex, P)<y.
Proof By Theorem 20.12 from the second hypothesis we obtain
Using the first hypothesis a basic inference (S3.~) yields fL VX....,.F[X] -+ 1... That
is fL 3X.F[X].
7. Subsystems of DA and DA*
We denote by EN (elementary number theory) the subsystem of DA in which no

bound predicate variables occur. In this system the basic inferences (S2.1), (S3.E)
and (S3.~). disappear.
21. Deductions of Transfinite Induction 177
We let EA (elementary analysis) be the subsystem of DA in which the basic

inference (S3.il) is not allowed.
The corresponding subsystems of DA * are denoted by EN* and EA *.
21. Deductions of Transfinite Induction
In this section we develop deductions of formalized transfinite induction (over OT)

in systems and subsystems of LI ~ -analysis.
In: is one of the formal systems EN, EA, DA and ~* is one of the semi-formal
systems EN*, EA*, DA* then
~ f- F denotes that the formula F is deducible in ~,
~* f!. F(~* f..!'1X F), that the formula F is deducible in ~* with order ex (with an
order <IX).
The following .obviously hold:
EN f- F = EA f- F and EA f- F = DA f- F,
EN* f!. F= EA* f!. F and EA* f!. F= DA* f!. F.
By Theorem 20.13
~ f- F = ~* f..!'",2 F* also holds.
1. Formalisation of Transfinite Induction
In 14 we defined a bijective mapping Nr from OT onto the set N of natural numbers

with inverse T (p. 97). We regard N as the set of numerals and denote by ~ the
numeral Nr IX of an ordinal term ex from ~T.
Corresponding to the relations < and ::::; on OT the given mapping induces
2-place decidable arithmetic predicates -< and "' defined as follows:
-m, n): > T(m) <T(n)

.,; (m, n): > T(m)::::; T(n).
We use -< and "' as primitive symbols of our formal language and write
s -< t for -< (s, t),

s.,;t for .,; (s, t),
Al~ ~An~B for (AI ~ ( ... ~ (An~ B) .. . ,
tl -<t 2 -<t3 ~ B for tl-<t2~t2-<t3~B,
tl"'t2-<t3~B for tl "'t 2 ~ t2 -<t3~ B,
Vx-<t~[x] for Vx(x -< t ~ ~[x]).
The relation -< is easily shown in EN to be a linear ordering relation, that is,
the following formulas are deducible in EN for arbitrary terms t l' t 2' t 3 :
, t1 -<t1
t1 -<t2~ 12 -</3~ t1 -</3
, I I -</2 ~ , I I =t2 ~ 12 -<11'
The combinations ex + p, cpexp, of n, wm(P) and w m. n of ordinal terms ex, p E OT

where m, n E N correspond under -< to 2-place calculable arithmetic functions
+-,
4>, w, cO and wdefined as follows:
~ ._{r(m)+r(n), ifr(m)#ro and r(n)#ro,

+(m,n).- r o , 1'f r (m ) = r 0 or r ()
n = r o'
A ._{cp(r(m(r(n, ifr(m)#ro and r(n)#r o,

cp(m,n).- -r0' 'f ( ) r 0 or r ()
1 r m = n = r o.
~ ._{~t(m).n, i~r(~#ro and n#O,

w(m,n).- 0, Ifn-O,
ro, if r(m)=r o and n#O.
_ ._{wm(r(n, if r(n)#r o,
w(m,n).- -r 'f ( )-r
0' 1 r n - o.
w(m,n):= wmn.
We use +-, 4>, w, cO, was primitive symbols of our formal language and write
S+I for +-(s, I),
wSI for w(s, I),
cOs(t) for cO(s, I),
wSI for w(s, I),
wS for w(s,1),
wS for w(s, 1),
~t for 4>(1, t).
The following equations are true constant prime formulas for ordinal terms
ex, p from OT and numerals m, n
4>(ii, P) = cpexp,
(l/-n = w rz n, cOm(f3) = wm(P),
(l/i.=wa., w"=w",
From this it follows that the following equations are axioms of the system EN
for arbitrary terms sand t:
&'0=0, &'t'=&"t+&',
w'O=O, w"t'=w't+w',
wo(t) = t, w.,(t) = w~(t),
wt = tP(O, t), ~t = tP(I, t).
Also for all the properties of the ordinal terms 0( + p, lj>O(P, of', n, wm(P) and
wm'n developed in 14 the corresponding formulas are all deducible in EN, for
example
We express the progressiveness 9'~[P] of a predicate P with respect to -< and

transfinite induction up to t, .F[t], with respect to -< by the following formulas:
9'~[P]:=\lX2(\lXl -<X2P(X 1 )-+ P(x 2))

.F[t]: = \lX(9'~[X] -+ \Ix -< tX(x)).
For these the following hold:
(9'~1) EN I- 9'~[P] -+ \Ix -< tP(x) -+ P(t), if P is an elementary predicator.

(9'~2) EA I- 9'~[P] -+ \Ix -< tP(x) -+ P(t) for every predicator P.
(.Fl) EA I- .F[t] -+ 9'~[P] -+ P(t), if P is an elementary predicator.
(.F2) DA I- .F[t] -+ 9'~[P] -+ P(t), if P is an elementary or a ..1~-predicator.
(.F3) EA I- .F[t] -+ s -< t -+ .F[s]
(.F4) EA I- \Ix -< t.F[x] -+ .F[t].
(9'~1), (9'~2) and (.Fl}-(.F3) are easy to prove. (.F4) is obtained as follows:
From (.Fl) we have
EA I- \lx-<t.F[x] -+ 9'~[U] -+ \lx-<tU(x).
Using a basic inference (S2.1), (.F4) follows.
2. Deductions in EN
We set
Y'[P, t]: = \ly(\lx -<yP(x) -+ \Ix -<y+ tP(x))

o[P]: =,1,zY'[P, &z].
Lemma 1. For every elementary predicator P EN I- gh[P] ~ &'-r[o[P]] holds.
Proof We obtain
EN I- o[P](s)~ '<Ix<b+olaP(x)~ '<Ix <b+wsa'P(x)
from the definition of o[P] and the properties of wSt. Applying a basic inference
(ind) we obtain
(1) EN I- o[P](s)~ '<Ix<bP(x)~ '<Ix <b+wStP(x)
for every term t. For ordinal terms IX, /3 and y;i=O such that 1X</3+WYan ordinal
term Yo < y and a numeral n can be determined such that IX < /3 + wYo. n. Hence one
can define 3-place calculable arithmetic functions f and 9 for which the following
hold:
EN I- a <b+wc ~ a< b.f.w !(a,b,C)g(a, b, c)

EN I- O<c~ 1(a, b, c) <c.
By (1) with s:=f(a, b, c) and t:=g(a, b, c) we obtain
(2) EN I- O<c~ '<Ix <co[P](x)~ '<Ix <bP(x) ~ a <b+wc ~ Pea).
Further
holds. Using (&'-rl) we obtain
(3) EN I- c=O~ &'-r[P] ~ '<Ix <bP(x)~ a <b+wc~ Pea).
EN I- &'-r[P]~ '<Ix<c o[P](x)~ '<Ix<bP(x)~ '<Ix <b+wCP(x).
Using basic inferences (S2.0) and (S4) we obtain
EN I- &'-r[P] ~ '<Ix < c o[P](x) ~ o[P](c).
The assertion follows from this by a basic inference (S2.0).
Lemma 2. For every elementary predicator P and every numeral n EN I- &'-r[P] ~

'<Ix <wn(O)P(x) holds.
Pr60jby induction on n. If n~O the assertion is trivial for Wo(O) =0. We now go
from n to n'~ Like P o[P] is also an elementary predicator. Hence by hypothesis
EN f- &>i[o[P]] -4 Vx -<wn(O)o[P](x) hoids. Using Lemma 1 and (&'-d) we obtain
By the definition of o[P] EN f- o[P](t) -4 Vx -<sP(x) -4 Vx -<s-t-a/P(x) holds.

For s: =Oand t: = WnCO), EN f- Vx-<sP(x) and EN f- s-t- 6l =wn,(O) holds. Hence we
have
The assertion EN f- &>i[P] -4 Vx -<wn,(O)P(x) for n' follows from (1) and (2).
Theorem 21.1. For every elementary predicator P and every ordinal term 0: < Go
EN f- &'i[P] -4 Vx -<~P(x) holds.
Proof By Theorem 14.14 if O:<Go there exists a numeral n such that 0: < wn(O) and
therefore a-< wn(O). Hence the assertion follows from Lemma 2.
3., Ded~ctions in EN*
Lemma 3. If'E is one of the formal systems EN, EA or DA and F is a formula of

the corresponding semi-formal system 'E* such that 'E f- F, then 'E* pro 2 F.
Proof This holds by theorem 20.13.
Lentma 4. If 'E* is one of the semi-formal systems EN*, EA * or DA * and 'E*

P" ,c1>[.?[n]] where 0: #0 holds for every numeral n -</3 then 'E* ~ &>[Vx -< J3.?[x]].
Proof From the hypothesis L*P" &>[(n -< J3 -4 .?[n])] for every numeral n -< J3
holds by Theorem 20.12. For every other numeral n &>[(n-</3-4.?[n])] is an
(Ax2). Hence the assertion follows by a basic inference (S2.0*).
Lemma 5. The following hold for every elementary predicator P:
a) EN* pro 2 +ro." &>i[P] -4 P(m) for every numeral m -<BiZ

b) EN* f-!2 2 +w .a+3n+2 &>i[P] -4 Vx -<wnCBiZ+ I)P(x).
Proofby induction on 0:.

a) If 0:=0 then a) holds by Theorem 21.1 and Lemma 3. Suppose now that
0: # O. Then for m -< BiZ there exist, by Theorem 14.14, an ordinal term ~ < 0: and a
numeral n such that m -<wnCB~-t- I). Hence the assertion a) follows from the I.H.
for b).
b) We use a subsidiary induction on n:

bI) n=O. By Lemma 4 from a) we obtain
EN* f!!!2+ ro . a &'t[P] ~ '<IX-<,8a.P(X).
By Lemma 3 using (&'t 1) we obtain
Hence by Lemma 4 using a) we obtain
EN* f!!!2+ ro ' a +2 &'t[P] ~ '<Ix -<,8a.+ 1P(x).
This yields the assertion b) for n=O since WO(8a. +1) =8a. +1.
b2) From n to n'. Like P, o[P] is also an elementary predicator. Therefore by
hypothesis
EN* f!!!2+ ro ' a + 3 'n+2 &'t[o[P]] ~ '<Ix -<.wi8a.+ 1)o[p] (x) holds.
By Lemma 1, (&'tl), the definition of o[P] and Lemma 3 the following hold
EN* ~ro2 &'t[P] ~ &'t[oP]]
EN* ~ro2 &'t[o[P]] ~ '<Ix -<.wi8a.+ 1)o[p](x) ~ o[P](wi8a.+ 1))
EN* ~ro2 o[P](Wn(8a.+ I)) ~ '<Ix -<,Wn,(8a.+ I)P(x).
Using cuts the assertion
+
EN* f!!!2+ro'a+3n+5 &'t[P] ~ '<Ix -<,Wn,(8a. I)P(x) holds for n'.
Theorem 21.2 EN*f!!!2+ro.a&'t[p]~'<IX-<8a.P(X) holds for every elementary

predicator P.
Proof This follows from Lemmata 5a) and 4.
4. Deductions in EA and EA *
Lemma 6. EA f- '<Iy('<Ix-<.y$'[x] ~ $'[y]) ~ '<Ix -<.a[x] holds for rl<e o.
Proof As for Theorem 21.1 we have
EA f- &'t[AZ$'[Z]] ~ '<Ix -<.aAz$'[z](x)
for every predicate AZ$'[Z], since in EA there is no restriction to elementary

predicators. Hence the assertion.
Lemma 7.
a) EA f- J[s] J[t] -4 J[s+o/]

-4
b) EA f- J[s] - 4 J[t] -4 J[s+t]

c) EA f- J[t] -4 J[w.(t)]
d) EA f- I::/x -< tJ[8xJ -4 .jIBt] Jor t -< r o'
Proof a) The following hold by Lemma 1, (Jl) and the definition of o[U]
EA f- &.z[U]-4 &.z[o[U]]
EA f- J[t] -4 g>.z[o[U]] - 4 o[U](t)
EA f- o[U](t)-4l::/x-<sU(x)-4l::/x-<s+o/U(x).
Using cuts
EA f- J[t] -4 &.z[U] -4 I::/x -<sU(x) - 4 I::/x -<s+o/U(x) follows.
Further
EA f- J[s] -4 g>.z[U] -4 I::/x -<sU(x) holds.
Hence we have
EA f- J[s] -4 J[t] -4 &.z[U] -4l::/x -<s+iYU(x).
Using (S2.1) assertion a) follows.

b) follows from a) by (.1'3) since s+t~s+wt.
c) Trivially EA f- .1'[0] holds. Using a) for s: = 0,
By the definition of ws(t) we have
Using a basic inference (ind) we have
EA f- J[t] -4 J[ws(t)].
d) By Theorem 14.14 there are calculable arithmetic functionsJ, 9 and h such

that
(1) EA f- a -< eo - 4 a -< wI(a/O)

(2) EA f- a -< et -4 a -< wg(a, t)(eh(a. t) +I)
(3) EA f- 0 -< t -4 h(a, t) -< t
From EA r- J[O] and c) we have EA I- J[wf(U)(O)]. Using (1) and (.F4) we have
(4) EA I- ,IT~D].
By Theorem 21.1 EA I- J[T] holds. Using b) and c) we have
Using (2), (3) and (J4) we have
(5) EA I- 0 -< t ---+ \Ix -< tJ[~x] ----+ J[~t].
The assertion d) follows from (4) and (5).
Theorem 21.3. I/tJ.<lBo then EA I- J[iX].
Proo/. Letting ~[t] : = t -< r 0 ----+ J[~t] we obtain from Lemma 7d)
EA I- \ly(\lx <yff[x] ----+ ff[ yJ).
By Lemma 6 EA I- ff[PJ follows for all P<BO' Since Bp =IP, EA I- J[$lP]

follows for all P<B o. If tJ.<IBo there exists P<B o such that tJ.<lp. Hence by
(J3) we obtain EA I- J[iX] for tJ.<le o.
Theorem 21.4. EA'" /-S!~+2'''+1 J[~J holds for tJ.<r o'
Proo/by induction on tJ.. From Lemmata 7d) and 4 we have
By I.H. EA ~w2+2'" J[~nJ holds for every numeral n -<iX. By Lemma 5 we obtain
The assertion follows from (1) and (2).
5. The Formula 9l![P, Q, t]
So far the deductions of formalized transfinite induction have essentially depended

on the passage from a predicator P to the predicator o[P] which yields a step up
in the transfinite induction. In order to deduce the formula J[iX] in the systems
DA and DA for higher ordinal terms Q( we need to go from a predicator P to
essentially stronger predicators. To this end following a method suggested by
S. Feferman [1] we use a formula 9l[P, Q, t] by which we recursively define a se-
quence of suitable predicators Qn(n -< t) depending on a predicator P, Hence by
using' basic inferences (S3.A) we can deduce the existence of sufficiently strong
predicators.
In 14 (p. 96) a bijective mapping re of N x N onto N was defined with in-
verses re l and re 2 These definitions give calculable arithmetic functions such
n(rc 1 (n), re 2 {n)) =n,

rci(rc(n l , n 2 )=n i (i= 1, 2).
We use Te, re 1 re 2 as primitive symbols of our formal language and write
pes, t) for P(re(s, t)),

Ps for AyP(re(s, y)).
In addition we use hand e as symbols for the I-place calculable functions

which are defined as follows:
1. If r(m) =0 or r(m)=ro then let h(m):=ij and e(m):=m.
2. If O<r(m)<r o then by Theorem 14.9 there exist unique ordinal terms
~ 1 ~ .. ~ IY. n (n ~ 1) of the system OT such that
r(m)=w~1 + ... +w~n.
Then let
Let 9P[P, Q, t] be the formula
{ VY(P(Y)A~ Q(O, y" Vx(O..(x -< t - Vy(Q(x, y) - Vz(h(x) <z -<x-

9'[Qz' <!>(e(x), y)]))).
lIere the restriction of the universal quantifier \;fz to t -< x is sufficient to obtain the
desired deduction in DA *. The additional restrictioh of "It to hex) < z allows lis,
following H. Schwichtenberg, to also obtain the desired dedu~tion in DA.
LemMa 8, OA f- Vy(Vx <y~[V, V, W,x, t] - ~[U, V, W,y, t]) where
Proof. o?l[ U, V, t] implies that for s -< I Vs is uniquely determined by U and the
Vx(x -<s). Hence the assertion follows by the Extensionality Theorem 20.9.
Let the one-place calculable arithmetic function I be defined as follows:
l. Ifr(m) =Oor r(m)=r o, let I(m):=O.

2. If 0 < rem) < r 0' then by Theorem 14.8 there are uniquely ordinal terms
a1, ... ,an,f31, ... ,f3n (n?l) of the system OT such that f3i<c/Ja if3i(i=I, ... ,n),
c/Ja 1f31? ... ?anf3n and
Then let
where L is the length of the ordinal term defined in 14 (p. 86).
Lemma 9. DA I- .c1l[U, V, t] - 0 -<a -< t - Vx -<ag>,z[VxJ - g>,z[Val
Proof We first prove that 9'[V<, d] is implied by the following formulas (1)-(7).
(l) .c1l[ U, V, t]
(2) a -< t
(3) Vx -<ag>,z[VxJ
(4) Vy -<bVaCy)
(5) Vy(l(y) < led) - y -< (e(a), b) - Vz(h(a),,;;, z -<a - 9'[Vz , y]
(6) d -< (e(a), b)
(7) h(a),,;;, c -<a.
Now using calculable arithmetic functions we can distinguish for d the three
cases 0, d1+d2 and (d1, d2) where in the last two cases l(di)<l(d). The case
d=r o is excluded by (6).
l. d=O. Then trivially 9'[Vc,d] holds.
2. d=d1+d2 where l(d) <l(d) (i= 1, 2). Then di -<(e(a), b) follows from (6).
Using (7) and (5) we obtain 9'[V<, dJ. Hence we obtain
and
hence 9'[ Vc , dl
3. d=(d1, d2) where l(dJ<I(d) (i= 1, 2).
3.l. d1 -<e(a). If c1:=c+al ' then h(a),,;;,c 1 -<a follows from (7). From (6)
we obtain d2-<(e(a),b). Using (7) and (5) we obtain 9'[Vc"d2l Hence
Vx-<d2VC, (X). From (3) we obtain g>,z[Vc1l By (g>,zI) we have Vc,(d2). Since
0-< c1 -< a using (2) and (l) by the definition of.c1l we obtain
Vz(h(c 1) ,,;;, z -< c1 - 9'[ Vz , (e(c 1), d2)])

Since h(c 1 ).r;; c -< c 1 and e(c 1 ) =d1 the assertion 9"[Vc, ~(dl' d2 )] follows.
3.2. e(a)=d1 Then from (6) we have d2 <.b. Using (4) we obtain Vid2 ). By
(1), (2) and (7) from the definition of 9l we obtain 9"[ Vc ' ~(e(a), d2 )].
3.3. e(a) -<d1 Then from (6) we haved -<b. Asin3.2weobtain9"[V" ~(e(a), d)].
Using d.r;;~(e(a), d) we obtain 9"[Vc' d]. Hence we have shown
9l[U, V, t] - a -<t- Vx -<a[11l-t[Vx ] - Vy -<bVa(y) - Vy(/(y) </(d)

DA f- { - y -<~(e(a), b) - Vz(h(a).r;;z -<a - 9"[Vz , y])) - d-<~(e(a), b)
- h(a).r;; c -<a - 9"[Vc ' d].
Using a basic inference (S2.0)
DA f- {9l[U, V, t] - a -< t - Vx -<a[11l-t[VJ - Vy -<bViy) - d -<~(e(a), b)

- Vz(h(a).r;; z -< a - 9"[ Vz , d])
follows by the Induction Theorem 20.10. With the aid of ([11I-tl) we get
DA f- [11I-t[Vc] - Vx -< ~(e(a), b)9"[V" x] - 9"[Vc , ~(e(a), b)].
From the last two formulas we have
DA f- {9l[U, V, t] - a -<t- Vx -<a[11l-t~[VJ - Vy -<bViy)

- Vz(h(a).r;; z -<a - 9"[Vz , (e(a),b)]).
From the definition of 9l we have
The assertion follows by a basic inference (S2.0).
Lemma 10. DA f- VX3 Y 9l[X, Y, t] - oJ' -< t - .1"[&"] - .1"[~(s, 0)].
Proof By the definition of 9l we have
(1) DA f- 9l[ U, V, t] - Vy( U( y) +-+ V(O, y)).
Hence DA f- 9l[U, V, t] - [11I-t[U] - [11I-t[Vo]. Using Lemma 9 we obtain.
For the predicator P: = AX(X -< t - [11I-t[VJ) we obtain
(2) DA f- 9l[U, V, t] - [11I-t[U] - [11I-t[P].
By (.1"1) and the definition of P
(3) DA f- .1"[&"] - [11I-t[P] - &" -< t - [11I-t[VGl.] holds.

Trivially
(4) DA ~ g>z[V6js] --> V(W S , 0) holds.
Obviously h(ol) =0 and e(wS)=s. Therefor\! from the definition of9f we have
Further
(6) DA ~ Y[V(j, $(s, 0)] --> Vx -< $(s, 0) V(O, x) h~lds.
From (1)-(6) we obtain
DA ~ 9f[U, V, t] --> WS-< t --> YEwS] ---+, g>z[ V] ---+, Vx -< $(s, O)U(x).
By Theorems 20.8 and 20.6 we obtain
DA ~ VX3 Y9f[X, Y, t] --> WS -< t --> cf[wS ] --> g>z[ U] --> '<:Ix -< (s, O)U(.~).
The assertiori follows by a basic inferehce (S2.1).
6. Deductions in QA
LenUna 11. For every numeral n
Proof Let ~[U, V, W, s, t] be the formula given in Lemma 8. Since run < eo it
follows from Lemmata 6 and 8 that
That is
DA ~ nl(a) -<w"--> n 1(a) <;(--> 9f[U, V, t] --> ~[U, W, t] --> Vy(V",(a)(Y)

- W",(a)( y)).
The assertion follows with t: = Jl:l (a) +- 1.
Lemma 12. DA ~ VX3 Y9f[X, Y, (h n] holds for every numeral n.
Praof by induction on n, Obviously DA ~ 9f[U, ~zU(nz{z)), wP] halds. So the

'lssertion holds for n = 0,
21. beductions of Transfinite Induction i89
We prove the assertiori for n' under the assumption
(l) DA f- V'X3Y9l[X, Y, w~].
r:l~mentary predicators P and Q depending on tlte free predicate variables U, V, W

and the free number variable a c~n be define4 so tQat the following 1;lold:
(2.1) DA f- V'x < 6taV'y(P(x, y) +-t Vex, y

(2.2) DA /:- VxoVy(P(hna+xo:y)-W(xo,y
(2.3) PA f- V'y(Q(y) +-+ V'z(~(wnq) ~z <wna~ Y[Vz , $(e{wna),y)]).
flere W does not occur in Q. Using the Extensionality TQeoreIl1 20.9 one obtains
the fpllowing properties of P and Q from the definition of 9l: From (2.1) we have
(3.1) DA f- 9l[U, V, w,na] ~ 9l[U, p, w"al
U&ing the formula
which is deducible in DA, from (1.1)-(2,.3) we pbtain
(3.2) DA f- {9l[Q, W, wna] ~ V'y(P(wna, y) ~

. .. V'z(h(dJna) ~z <wna ~ Y[P z , <p(e(w"a), y)]).
Frol11 (2.2) we obtain
(3.3) PA f- {9l[Q, w, w.n] ~ Vxo(.O < ~O, < w n--t V'y"(P(d/'a +xo, y)-
. . V'zQ(h(x o) ~ zQ < xQ -- 5f[PcO"<!+ZQ' <p(e(x o), y)])).
If w"a ->: x < w"a' tlten (} < Xo < w" where x = cIlia +xo, h(x);= wna +h(~o) apd e(x) =
e(x o). Therefore from (3.3) we have .
(3.4) DA f- {.ql[Q, w,ron] -- V'x(w"a < x ~ (bRa.' ~ Vy(P(x, y)-

V'z(h(x) ~ z -< X ~ Y[P z ' c!>(e(x), y)]))).
FroII1 (3.1), (3.2) and (3.4) We obtain

DA f- ~[Q, W, wn] ~ Bl(U, V, wna] ---4 9l[U, P, wna'].
By ThepreIl120,6 we obtain
DA f- i[Q, W, c:b~] ~ ~[U, V, w~a] -d Y9l[U, Y, w"d].

Since W does not occur in Q by Theorem 20.8 we have
By Theorem 20.6 from (1) we obtain DA ~3 Y~[Q, Y, wn]. There follows
DA ~ 9f[U, V, (lla] ~ 3Y9f[U, Y, (iJna'].
By Theorems 20.8, 20.6 and using (S2.1) we successively obtain
DA ~ 3 Y9f[U, Y, (iJna] ~ 3 Y~[U, Y, (iJna,]

DA ~ VX3Y~[X, Y, wna] ~ 3Y9f[U, Y, wna']
DA ~ VX3Y~[X, Y, (iJna] ~ VX3Y~[X, Y, wna'].
As for n=O we also have DA ~ VX3 Y.~[X, Y, (iJnO].

Using a basic inference (ind) we obtain
(4.1) DA ~ VX3Y~[X, Y, (iJnt] for every term t.
There is a one-place calculable arithmetic function! such that
From (4.1) and (4.2) we obtain
With the aid of (5) we now prove that there is a iq-predicator fi[ U] such that
DA ~ 9f[U, fi[U], w n']. We set
d[U, V,s,t]:=1Cl(S)<t~~[U, V,1Cl(S)-+-1]~ V(s)

.?d [U, V, s, t]: = 1C 1 (s) < t ~ (9f[ U, V, 1C 1 (s) -+- 1] 1\ V(s)).
Then
DA ~ 9f[ U, V, 1C 1 (a) -+- 1] ~ d[ U, V, a, (iJn] ~.?d[ U, V, a, (iJn'] holds.
By Theorems 20.6 and 20.8 we obtain
DA ~ 3 Y9f[U, Y, 1C 1 (a) -+- I] ~ VYd[U, Y, a, w n] ~ 3 Yg(J[U, Y, a, (iJn].
Since 1C 1 (a) <wn' we also have 1C 1 (a)-+- 1 iJ n'. Therefore by (5) we obtain
Since n l (a) -< wn' occurs as a premise of an implication in !?J [U, Y, a, (ll] we obtain
(6.1) DAf-VYd[U, Y,a,(bn]-dY!?J[U, Y,a,wnl
By the definitions of d and !?J we obtain
DA f- !?JIU, V, a, (b n] - d[U, W, a, (bnl
By Theorem 20.8 using (S2.1) we obtain
(6.2) DAHY!?J[U, Y,a,(bn]_VYd[U, Y,a,wnl
From (6.1) and (6.2) we obtain
(7) DAf-Vx(VYd[U, Y,x,(bn]~-dY!?J[U, Y,x, (b n]).
Thus
j1[UJ: =).xVYd[U, Y, x, (b n]
is a L1 ~-predicator.
By Theorem 20.6 using (6.2) we get
DA f- VYd[U, Y, n(a, b), (b n'] _ d[U, V, n(a, b), (b n]
DA f- !?J[U, V, n(a, b), (b n] _ VYd[U, Y, n(a, b), (bnl
Using basic inferences (S4) we obtain
DA f- j1[U](a, b) _ d[U, V, n(a, b), (b n']

DA f- !?J[U, V, n(a, b), (b n] - j1[U](a, b).
From the definitions of d and !?J we obtain
(8.1) DA f- a -b n' - ~[U, V, a+- I] - j1[U](a, b) - V(a, b)

(8.2) DA f- a -< (b n' - ~[U, V, a +- I] - V(a, b) - j1[ U](a, b).
Further
(8.3) DA f- c -< (b n ' _ a -< c _ a -< (b n '

(8.4) DAf-~[U, V,c]-a-<c-~[U, V,a+-I] hold.
From (8.1)-(8.4) we obtain
DA r c -< (h"' -4 9l[U, V, c] -4 \Ix < c\ly(V(x, y) ..... p[ U](x, y)).
Using the Extensionality Theorem 20.9 we obtain
DA r c <fif' -4 9l[U, V, c] -4 ~[U, p[U], c].
By Theorem 20.8 we obtain
DA r cb"' -4 3Y9l[U, Y, c] -4 ~[U, p[U], c].
Using (5) we obtain
DA r \lxo < (b"'9l[U, p[U], x o]. Then

DA r ~[U, p[U], (b",]
also holds since (b"' is a limit term. Since p[ U] is a LI ~-predicator,
DA r 3 Y9l[ U, Y, (b"'] follows by Theorem 20.6.
Using a basic inference (S2.1) the assertion
DA r \lX3Y~[X, Y, (b",] follows for n'.
theorem 21.5. DA r .Jf[a] holds for every ordinal term rt. < cjJwO.
Proof Suppose rt. < cjJOJO. Then there is a numeral n such that a < $(n, 0). By
Lemma 10 we have
DA r \lX3Y9i[X, Y, (b",] -4 ron < (b"' -4 .Jf[wn] -4 .Jf[$(n, 0)].
By Lemma 12 DA r \IX3 Y9l[ X, Y, (b",] holds. Further ron = (b" < (b n' and by
Theorem 21.3 DA r .Jf[(b"] also holds. Using cuts DA r .Jf[$(n, 0)] holds. Since
a < <p(n, 0), DA r .Jfta] follows by (.Jf3).
7. Deductions in DA '"
As previously, we put
d[U, V,n,m]:==1r 1 (n)<m-49l[U, V,1t 1 (n)-+I]-4 V(n)

.?I[U, V, n, m]: = 1t 1 (n) <m -4 (9l[U, V, 1t 1 (n) -+ IJ 1\ V(n)).
Lemma 13. For every ordinal term IX of OT and every numeral n
Proof Let ~[U, V, W, s, t] be the formula given in Lemma 8. From Lemmata 8

and 3 we have
(1) DA*~w2lfX<P<[U, V, W,x,t]-<[U, V, W,p,t]
for every numerical term t. We prove
by induction on {3. For {3o < {3, 2 {3o + 1 < 2 {3. Therefore by I.H.
DA*~W2+2'P<[U, V, W,n,t]
for every numeral n <po By Lemma 4 we have
U sing a cut with (l) the assertion
follows, that is
(2) DA* f!2+ Z 'P+l P <t- 9l[U, V, t] --+ 9l[U, W, t] - lfy(Vp(Y) - Wp(y.
- -- - -
{3 < {3 + 1 and lfy(Vp( y) +-+ Wp( y - V({3, 1t z(n - W({3,1t 2 (n
are finitely deducible formulas.

Using (2) for t: = {3 + 1 by two cuts we obtain
-
- W({3,1t 2 (n.
For 1C 1(n) = {3 < OJa we have 2 {3 + 3 < OJ a. It follows that
for 1C 1(n) <OJa. We obtain

for 1tl (n) -( W a as a logical consequence of (3). (4) also holds for w a ~ 1tl (n),
since the formula concerned is in this case an (Ax2). By Theorem 20.16 and a
basic inference (S2.1) we obtain
DA* ~C02+co." 3 Yr!I[U, Y, n, wa] ~ 'v'Yd[U, Y, n, wa]
for every numeral n.
Lemma 14. For every ordinal term wa+n o/OT where n<w
DA* j.!22+ co ',,+n+9 3Y9l[U, Y, w'a+n] holds.
Proo/by induction on wa+n. For a=O the assertion follows from Lemmata 12
and 13. We may therefore assume a;i:O.
Case 1. n=no+ 1. An elementary predicator j't[V] may be defined such that the
following hold:
DA I- 'v'x -( W a + no 'v'y(j't[ V](x, y) - V(x, y
DA I- 'v'y(j't[V](wa+n o, y) - 'v'z(h(wa+no)~ z -(wa+no
~ 9'[Vz' (e(wa+no),y)]
With the aid of the Extensionality Theorem 20.9 we then obtain
DA I- 9l[U, V, w'a+n o] ~ 9l[U, j't[V], wa+n].
By Theorems 20.6, 20.8 and Lemma 3 we obtain
DA* ~co2 3Y9l[U, Y, wa+n o] ~ 3Y9l[U, Y, wa+n].
By I.H.
The assertion follows by a cut.
Case 2. n=O. From the definitions of d and fJ4 we have

By Theorems 20.6, 20.8 and Lemma 3 we obtain
DA* ~W2 3Y9f[U, Y, n1(n)-t- I] ~ VYd[U, Y, n, wo:]
~ 3Y~[U, Y, n, wo:].
For n 1(n)={3 -<wo: we have n1(n)-t- 1=13+ 1 and P+9<w0:. Hence by the I.H.
we have
and consequently also
for n 1 (n) -< wo:. This also holds for W 0: ... n 1 (n), since the formula
VYd[U, Y,n,wo:]~ .?l[U, V,n,wo:]
is in this case an (Ax2). Hence (1) holds for every numeral n. Using Lemma 13
we obtain
DA* ~w2+w.a VYd[U, Y, n, wo:] <--> 3Y~[U, Y, n, wo:].
Using a basic inference (S2.0*) we obtain
By the definitions of d and ~ we obtain from the formulas
VYd[U, Y, n(m, n), wo:] ~ d[U, V, n(m, n), wo:]

~ [U, V, n(m, n), wo:] ~ 3Y~[U, Y, n(m, n), wo:]
which are deducible in DA, that
DAf-m-<wo:~9f[U, V,m-t-l]~VYd[U, Y,n(m,n),wo:]~ V(m,n)

DA f- m -<wo:~ 9f[U, V, m-t-l] ~ V(m, n)~ 3Y~[U, Y, n(m, n), wo:].
Using Lemmata 3 and 13 we obtain
DA* ~w2 m -<wo:~ 9f[U, V, m-t-l] ~ VYd[U, Y, n(m, n), wo:] ~ V(m, n)
DA* ~w2+W"a m -<wo: ~ 9f[U, V, m-t- 1] ~ V(m, n)
~ VYd[U, Y, n(m, n), wo:].
Using a basic inference (S4) for the predicator
fi[U]: =hVY..#[U, Y, x, wcx]
we obtain as a logical consequence
Using a basic inference (S2.0*) we obtain
For k -<wcx the formulas m -<k - 4 m -<WL/.

\
and
~[U, V, k] -4 m -<k - 4 :f4'[U, V, m+ I]
are deducible in DA and therefore in DA * with orders < w 2 . Therefore using two
cuts with (3) we obtain
DA* r 2
+ro-a+2 ~[U, V, k] -4 m -<k-4 Vy(V(m, y) +-+ fi[U](m, y))
and by a basic inference (S2.0*)
(4) DA * r 2
+ w "+ 3 .~[ U. V. k] -. IIx -< klly( Vex. y) <-> A U](x. y))
for k -< W CI.. With the aid of the Extensionality Theorem 20.9 the formula
~[U, V. k] -4 IIx < klly( Vex. y) <-> A U](x . .1')) - ~jf[ u. AU]' k]
is deducible in DA and therefore in DA * with order < 0/.

Therefore by a cut using (4) we obtain
DA* r 2
+ro-d4 ~[U, v. k] -4 .~[U. AU]. k] for k <wcx.
DA* r 2
+w 'd5 3Y~[U, Y, k] -4 ~[U, fi[U], k].
By I.H. we l;lave
DA* ~w2+w.a 3Y~[U, Y, k] for k -<wcx. It follows that

DA* r 2
+ W ' d 6 ~[U, fi[U], k] and by Lemma 4
DA * r 2
+ W ' d 7 Vx <w cx ~[U, fi[U], xl
22. The Semi-Formal System RA* for Ramified Analysis 197
The formula
\Ix -< wa ~[U, .f[U], x] --> ~[U, .f[U], w a]
is deducible in DA and therefore in DA* with order <w 2 . Hence we obtain
(5) DA * f!2+ on +8 ~[U,.f[ U], w . a].
By Theorem 20.17 the assertion
DA* f!2 +W"a+ 9 3Y~[U, Y, wa] follows from (2) and (5).
Theorem 21.6. DA* fb+13 .. IH n+l]for n~ 1.

Proofby induction on n. By Lemmata 10 and 3 we have
w 2 + (n = (n for n ~ 1. Therefore by Lemma 14 we obtain
DA* fb+l0 3Y~[U, Y, (n+ 1].

Using (S2.1) we obtain
DA* fb+ll \lX3Y~[U, Y, (n+ 1]. Bya cut with (1) we obtain
(2) DA* fb+12 ,j'T' Zn] --> f[(n+l].
Ifn= 1, then (n=eo<<pwO. Then by Theorem 21.5 and Lemma 3 DA* ~ro2 f[~n].
By the I.H. in every case we have DA * ~Sn f[~n]. Using a cut with (2) we obtain
DA* fb+13 f[(n+l].
22. The Semi-Formal System RA * for Ramified Analysis
We use the following as primitive symbols:

1. Denumerably infinitely many bound number variables.
2. Denumerably infinitely many free (I-place) predicate variables of level a
for each ordinal term a of the system ~T.
3, Denumerably infinitely many bound (I-place) predicate variables oflevel /3

for each ordinal term /3#0 of the system ~T.
4. The symbols 0, " ..l,~, V and A.
5. Symbols for n-place calculable arithmetic functions and n-place decidable
arithmetic predicates (n ~ 1). (The conditions specified on p. 168 for the use of
these symbols have to be satisfied.)
6. Round brackets and comma.
In this section small Greek letters (possibly with indices) always denote
ordinal terms of the system ~T.
We use nominal forms in the usual way and denote them by capital script
letters. Terms, numerals and prime formulas are defined as in 20.1. In the formal
language of the system RA * every term is numerical and every prime formula
constant. Therefore by 20.I we have: Every term has a calculable value and every
prime formula is decidably true or false.
Inductive definition of formulas and predicators:

1. Every prime formula is a formula of level O.
2. Every free predicate variable of level ct is a predicator of level ct.
3. If pa is a predicator oflevel ct and t is a term, then paCt) is a formula oflevel ct.
4. If A and B are formulas of levels ct and /3 then (A ~ B) is a formula of
level y: = max (ct, /3).
5. If $'[0] is a formula of level ct and x is a bound number variable which does
not occur in $', then Vx$'[x] is a formula oflevel ct and A.x~[x] is a predicator of
level ct.
6. If UfJ is a free predicate variable oflevel /3#0, $'[UfJ] is a formula oflevel
ct and X fJ a bound predicate variable of level /3 which does not occur in $', then
VXfJ$'[XfJ] is a formula of level y=max(ct, /3).
Corollaries. 1. The level of a formula is 0 if it contains no predicate variables,

otherwise it is the maximum of the levels of the predicate variables which occur in it.
2. If s, t are terms then: If $'[s] is aformula, $'[t] is also aformula.
3. If pa is a predicator of level ct, $'[pa] aformula and QfJ a predicator of level
/3 which contains no bound variable occurring in $', then $'[QfJ] is also a formula.
Syntactic symbols:
x, y, z for bound number variables,
U a , V", wa for free predicate variables of level ct,
XfJ, yfJ, ZfJ (where /3#0) for bound predicate variables of level /3,
P", Q" for predicators of level ct,
s, t for terms,
A, B, C, D, E, F, G for formulas,
i, j, k, m, n for natural numbers and the corresponding numerals.
We shall also use these syntactic symbols with subscripts.
In the same way as before we write A ~ B for (A ~ B) and -,A for (A ~ ..l).
We also denote an ordinal term (1)on by n for short. As before, the length of a
formula is the number of~, V and A symbols, which occur in it.
A predicator P~ is said to be:F -permissible if :F[P~] is a formula. In particular

this is the case when :F[UO] is a formula and P~ contains no bound variable
occurring in :F.
We now assign an ordinal term of the system OT as a rank to each formula.
Inductive definition of the rank of a formula:

1. Every prime formula has rank o.
2. Every formula U~(t) has rank p: = w <X.
3. If A and B are formulas of ranks PI and P2 then the formula (A ~ B) has
rank p: = max (PI' P2)+ 1.
4. If :F[O] is a formula of rank Po in which x does not occur then the formulas
'v'x:F[x] and h:F[x](t) have rank p: = Po + 1.
5. If :F[UO] is a formula of rank Po and 'v'XP:F[XP] is a formula of level y
then [UO] has rank p: = max (wy, Po+ 1).
Corollaries. 1. Two formulas :F[s] and :F[t] have the same rank.
2. Two formulas :F[ U~] and :F[ V1 have the same rank.
Theorem 22.1. Every formula of level y has rank P = w y + n (where n is an abbrevia-

tion for WO . n and therefore P < W Y + w).
Proof By induction on the length of the formula.
Theorem 22.2. If P~ is an :F-permissible predicator of level <x<y and :F[UO] is a

formula of level y then :F[P~] has the same rank as :F[ UO].
Proof by induction on the length of the formula :F[UO]. We may assume that
:F[P~] and :F[UO] are different formulas since otherwise the assertion is trivial.
It then follows since y # 0 that :F[ UO] has length > O.
1. Suppose :F[UO] is a formula :FI[UO]~:F2[UO] or 'v'~[UO,x] or
A~[UO, x](t). Then the assertion follows from Theorem 22.1 and the I.H.
2. Suppose:F[UO] is a formula 'v'Xp~[UO, XP]. Then ~[UO, V 9 ] is a formula
oflevel yo~y. Ifyo=y then by I.H. ~[UO, VO] and ~[P~, VO] have the same rank
Po. In this case both formulas :F[UO] and :F[P~] have rank Po+ 1. If Yo<y then
~[P"', VO] is also a formula of level <yo In this case both formulas :F[UO] and
:F[P"'] have rank wy.
Theorem 22.3. a) A and B have smaller ranks than A ~ B.

b) :F[t] has smaller rank than 'v'x:F[x] and AX:F[X](t).
c) Every formula :F[P"'] where rx<P has smaller rank than 'v'XP:F[XPl
Proof a) and b) follow immediately from the definition of the rank of a formula.
c) is obtained as follows: Ify is the level of the formula 'v'XP:F[XP] then :F[UO]
is a formula of a level Yo'" y. If yo=y, then by Theorem 22.2 :F[UO] and ~[P"']
have the same rank Po while the formula 'v'XP:F[XP] has rank Po+ 1. If Yo<y
then :F[P"'] is also a formula ofa level <yo By Theorem 22.1 it has a rank <wy
while the formula 'v'XP:F[XP] has rank wy in this case.
2. The Deduction Procedures
In the same way as before we define positive and negative parts of formulas,
FP- G and the equivalence offormulas. We also use the same syntactic symbols as
before for P-forms, N-forms and NP-forms.
Axioms of the system RA* (corresponding to those for DA*):

(Axl) &l[A], if A is a true prime formula.
(Ax2) JV[A], if A is a false prime formula
(Ax3) ,q[A, B], if A and B are equivalent formulas of length O.
We call the minimal parts indicated in the axioms the principal parts of these
axioms.
Basic inferences of the system RA * :

(SI) JV[iA], JV[B] f-JV[(A ~ B)], if B is not the formula-1..
(S2.0*) &l[$'[n]] for every numeral n f- &l[\fx$'[x]].
(S2.1 *) &l[$'[pa]] for every $'-permissible predicator pa of a level
!X<f3 f- &l[\fXfJ$'[XfJ]].
(S3.0) $'[t] ~ JV[\fx$'[x]] f- JV[\fx$'[x]].
(S3.1) $'[pa] ~ JV[\fXfJ$'[XfJ]] f- JV[\fxfJ] $'[xfJ]] , if !X<f3.
(S4) $[$'[t]] f- $[h$'[x](t)].
(Cut) &l[A], A ~ B f- C, if &l[B] P- C holds.
All premises and all conclusions of these basic inferences must be formulas.
The basic inferences (S2.0*) and (S2.1 *) have infinitely many premises. Every
other basic inference has either one or two premises. We call the basic inferences
(S 1)-(S4) principal inferences. We call the minimal part indicated in the conclusion
of a principal inference the principal part of that inference. The formula denoted
by A in the premises of a cut is called the cut formula. The rank of a cut is the rank
of its cut formula.
Inductive definition of RA * f} F
1. If F is an axiom of the system RA * then RA * f} F holds for all ordinal terms
IX and p of the system OT.
2. If RA * WFi and !Xi <!X for every premise Fi of a principal inference or a cut
of rank < p then RA * f} F holds for the conclusion F of that inference.
Corollary. If RA * f} F, !X ~ f3 and p ~ (7, then RA * ~ F also holds.
A formula F is said to be deducible in RA * with order !X and rank p if RA * f} F

holds. Thus !X is an upper bound for the orders of the basic inferences which occur
in the deduction of F while p says that every cut which occurs in the deduction of
F has a rank < p. If RA * f1r F holds then the formula F has a cut-free deduction
with order !x.
Predicativity of the system RA *. On the basis of the intended interpretation of the

formulas and predicators every formula and every predicator which contains a
universal quantifier VX fJ depends on the totality of those predicators which are to

form the domain of this universal quantifier. The basic inferences (S2.1 *) and
(S3.1) of the system RA * are so formulated that the domain of a universal quantifier
VX fJ consists only of predicators of level < {3 while every formula and every
predicator which contains the universal quantifier VXfJ belongs, according to the
definition, to a level ~ {3. Therefore by means of the levels we have given a pre-
dicative construction of our formal language. We shall also show on pp. 217-220
that the transfinite induction over ordinal terms of the system OT which we use
here is predicatively provable. Thus not only the formal language but also the
deduction procedures of the system RA * are seen to be predicative.
3. Weak Inferences
Below we write ~ F for RA * I%- F. F f- G is said to be a weak inference if the follow-

ing always holds: If I%- Fthen ~ G.
Theorem 22.4 (Replacement rule). If F and G are equivalent formulas F f- G is a

weak inference.
Proof. In this case I%- G follows from ~ Fby induction on rJ..
Theorem 22.5 (Inversion rules). The following are weak inferences:
a) %[(A -> B)] f- %[iA]

b) %[(A -> B)] f- %[B]
c) g>[Vx~[x]] f- g>[~[t]]
d) g>[VXfJ ~[XfJ]] f- g>[~[pa]], if pa is ~-permissible and rJ.<{3.
e) C[AX~[X](t)] f- C[~[t]].
The inductive proofs proceed as for Theorem 4.3.
Theorem 22.6 (Structural rule). If Ff1- G holds then Ff1- G is a weak inference.
Proof. Using Theorem 22.5, as for Theorem 4.4.
4. Elimination of Cuts
Lemma 1. If A is a true prime formula and I-tr A -> B holds, then I-tr g>[ B] for every
P-form g>.
Proofby induction on ex.

1. Suppose A -> B is an axiom. If A is not a principal part of this axiom, then
g>[B] is an axiom of the same sort. Otherwise B is a formula g>1[A 1], where Al
is also a true prime formula. Then &,[B] is the (AxI) &'[&'1[A 1]]. In each case
1-0- &,[B] follows.
2. Suppose A -) B is the conclusion of a principal inference. Then the asser-
tion follows from the I.H. using the structural rule.
Lemma 2. If A is a false prime formula and 1-0- &,[A] holds, then 1-0- &,[B] for every
formulaB.
Proofby induction on IX.

1. Suppose &'[A] is an axiom. If A is not a principal part of this axiom then
&,[B] is an axiom of the same sort. Otherwise &,[A] is an (Ax3) ,q[A1' A] where
A1 is also a false prime formula and &,[B] is the (Ax2) ,q[A1' B]. In each case
1-0- &,[B] follows.
2. Suppose &'[A] is the conclusion of a principal inference. Then the assertion
follows immediately from the I.H.
Lemma 3. If A is a formula Urt(t) or Vxff[x] or VXPff[XP] of rank p and It &,[A]

andf% A -) B hold, then ItH &,[B].
Proofby induction on fJ.

1. Suppose A -) B is an axiom. If &,[B] is also an axiom then the assertion is
trivial. Otherwise A is a formula Urt(t) and B is a formula &'1 [Urt(s)] where sand t
are terms of equal value. Then It H &'[&'1 [U"(s)]] follows from It &'[ Urt(t)] by the
replacement rule and the structural rule.
2. Suppose A -) B is the conclusion of a principal inference with principal
part A. Then A is a formula Vxff[x] or VXPff[XP] and we have fJo<fJ such that
where, in the second case, IX < p. By the structural rule and the I.H. we obtain
In this case by the inversion rules, from It &,[A] we obtain
It &,[ff[t]] or It &'[ff[P1]'
Then ff[t] or ff[Prt], respectively, has a rank <p by Theorem 22.3. Therefore
ItH &,[B] follows by a cut with cut-formula ff[t] or ff[Pa:J.
3. Suppose A -) B is the conclusion of a principal inference whose principal
part is in B. Then the assertion follows from the I.H. by the structural rule.
4. Suppose A -) B is the conclusion of a cut &'1 [C], C -) D I- A -) B such
that &'1 [D] p.. A -) B, whose cut-formula C has a rank < p. From the formulas
&'l[C] and D we obtain formulas &'o[C] and Do such that
by either removing or introducing negative parts A in such a way that f!J' o[Do] f!- B
holds. Now there exist 15;<15 (i= 1,2) such that
f%t &UC] and 1}2 C- D.
By the structural rule we obtain
By I.H. and the structural rule we" obtain
If~' g}'[g}'o[ C]] and ~H2 C - g}'[Do].
Bya cut with cut-formula C of rank <p we obtain ~H g}'[B], since g}'[f!J'o[g}'[Do]]]
f!- g}'[B] holds.
Lemma 4. 1;+ 1 F implies ft-0a F.
Proofby induction on IX. If F is an axiom then the assertion is trivial. Suppose now
that F is the conclusion of a basic inference BI. Then there exist IX; < IX such that
It'+ 1 F; for every premise F; of BI. Hence by I.H. ft- 0a , F;.
1. Suppose BI is a principal inference or a cut of rank <po By BI we obtain
I:*0a since 4JOIX; < 4JOIX for all IX; < IX. "
2. Suppose BI is a cut g}'[A], A - B f- F such that ,?l'[B] f!- F where the cut-
formula A hasrankp. Then Wa l g}'[A] and ft-0a2 A - Bhold where lXi <1X(i= 1,2).11

suffices to prove ft-0a g}'[B] since then ft-0a F follows by the structural rule.
2.1. Suppose A is a prime formula. Then p = and A is either true or false. In
either case ft-0a g}'[B] follows by Lemmata 1 and 2.
2.2. Suppose A is a formula Uao(t) or 'v'xff[x] or 'v'XPff[XP]. In these cases
wa g}'[B] follows by Lemma 3 since 4J01X 1 + 4J01X 2 < 4JOIX.
2.3. Suppose A is a formula Axff[x](t). Then by the inversion rule we have
Wal g}'[ff[t]] and ft-0a2 ff[t] _ B. By Theorem 22.3 ff[t] has a rank <po There-
fore by a cut with cut-formula ff[t] we have wa g}'[B].
2.4. Suppose A is a formula Al - A 2. Then by Theorem 22.3 Al and A2 have
ranks <po From ft- 0a2 (Al - A 2) - Bbythe inversion rule we have ft- 0a2 ,A 1 - B
and ft- 0a2 A2 _ B. Using ft-0al g}'[(Al - A 2)] we obtain ft-0ao + 1 Al - g}'[B] by a cut
with cut-formula A2 and by the structural rule where 1X0: =max (IX 1 , 1( 2 ). Using
ft- 0a2 ,A 1 - Bweobtain ft-0a g}'[B] by acutwithcut-formulaA 1 , where4JOlX 2 < 4JOIX,
4JOlX o + 1 < 4JOIX and ,g}'[B] - B f!- g}'[B].
Theorem 22.7 (First Cut Elimination Theorem). I; F implies fta F.

Proof by induction on p with a subsidiary induction on IX. If F is an axiom the
assertion is trivial. Suppose now that F is the conclusion of a basic inference BI.
Then there exist lXi < IX such that ~ F; for each premise Fi of BI. By the subsidiary
I.H. we have Ita, Fi
1. Suppose BI is a principal inference. Then by BI we have ~P" F since

PlY.i < cPPIY. for alllY.i<lY.
2. Suppose BI is a cut of rank Po < p. Using this cut we obtain Ita~ 1 F. Since
polO, cPO(cPPIY.) = cPPIY. Therefore by Lemma 4 Wo'" F. Since Po<P we also have
cPPo(cPPIY.) = 4!PIY. Therefore by the main I.H. we obtain W'" F.
Theorem 22.7 can be sharpened following W. Tait [3J thus:
Theorem 22.8 (Second Cut Elimination Theorem). It+wv F implies I-$v", F.

Proofby induction on v with a subsidiary induction on IY.. The assertion holds for
v = 0 by Lemma 4. If F is an axiom the assertion is trivial. Now suppose v # 0
and F is the conclusion of a basic inference BI. Then there exist lY. i < IY. such that
W+w v Fi for each premise Fi of BI. By the subsidiary I.H. we obtain I-$v"" Fi .
I. Suppose BI is a principal inference or a cut of rank < /3. Then using BI
we have I-$v", F.
2. Suppose BI is a cut of rank P where {3 ~ P < {3 + WV. Then there exist Vo < v
and nE N such that p<{3+w vo n. Using this cut we obtain l-$':wvo.nF. Since
Vo < v, 4lvo(cPvlY.) = cPwY.. Therefore by n-fold application of the main I.H. we obtain
W"'F.
5. Fprther Properties of Deductions
Theorem 22.9. /fC l and Cl are equivalent formulas of rank p, then ~.p 22[C l , Cll
Proof by induction on P as in the proof of Theorem 4.1. For example, if Ck is a

formula \fXPffk[XPJ and F; is an ffl-permissible predicator, then Pi" is also g>l-
permissible and by Theorem 22.3 g>k[Pt] is a formula of rank Pi < p. Then by I.H.
Hence by basic inferences (S3.1) we obtain
and using a basic inference (S2.1 *)
since 2 Pi + 1 < 2 P holds for all Pi < p.
Theorem 22.10. /fO<{3<y and\fXYg>[XYJ is aformula of rank p, then

Proof By Theorem 22.9
holds. By an inversion rule we obtain
for every ff -permissible predicator pa of level rx. < p. Hence the assertion follows
by a basic inference (S2.1 *).
Definitions. As before we set
(A +-+ B): = -,A - B) - -,(B- A

3XPff[ XP] : = -, IfxP -, ff[ XP].
Theorem 22.11 (Extensionality Theorem) . .if ff[A.xd 1 [x]] and ff[A.xd z[x]] are
formulas of maximal rank p then
holds for (i,j)=(I, 2) and (i,j) =(2, I).
Proofby induction on p. For brevity we set
A: = Ifx(d 1 [x] +-+ .91 2[X]),

P k :=2xdk [x] (k=I,2).
The assertion then reads
l. Suppose ff[P;] has length O. Then Pi does not occur in ff[P;] so ff[P 1 ]
and ff[P z ] are the same. In this case the assertion holds by Theorem 22.9.
2. Suppose ff[P;] is a formula Pi(t). Then by Theorem 22.3 the formulas
d1(t) and .912(/) have a maximal rank Po<p. We set
%:={(*l- -,(d 2[t]-d 1[t] if(i,j)=(1,2),

.91 1[t] - .91 2[t]) - -, *1)' if (i,j) =(2, I).
Then % is an N-form such that -, %[(di[l] - dJt])] is the formula

(.91 1[t] +-+ .91 2[t]). By Theorem 22.9 we have
f-ffPO -,%[-,.91;[1]] - (A - ,q[d;[l], dlt]]),

f-ffpo -,.;V[dJt]] - (A - ,q[d;[l], dltJ]).
Hence by a basic inference (S 1)
and by a basic inference (S3.0)
since 2 Po + 1 < 2 p. The assertion follows by two basic inferences (S4).

3. Suppose%[P;J is a formula %1 [p;J ---> %2[P;J odx'[Pi , x](t) or \fx'[Pi ,x]
or \fXP,[pi'XP]. Then the assertion follows from the I.H. by appropriate basic
inferences.
Theorem 22.12. Ij\fY"id[n, Y"i] and3 Y"i,i3l[n, Y"i] areformulasoflevelai{i = 1,2)

where O<a l <a 2 and
~\fX(\fY"i d[x, y"i]~-dY"i,i3l[X, Y"i]) (i=1,2)
holds where w a 2 + w!( It. and w . a 2 + w!( p then
~+5 \fx(\fY"'d[x, Y"'] _ \fY" 2d[x, Y"2]).
Proof For brevity we set
dJn]:=\fY"id[n, Y"i] and ,i3li[n]:=3Y"i,i3l[n, Y"i] (i=I,2).
Let the maximal rank of the formulas dJn], {!BJn](i= 1, 2) be Po. By Theorem
22.1 po<waz+w. Then 2po<wa 2+w also and therefore 2po<1t. and Po<p.
From the hypotheses I-} \fx(dJx] - {!BJx])(i= 1, 2} by the inversion rule we
obtain
that is,
~ --, ((dJn] ---> {!B In]) ---> --, (,i3l In] ---> dJn])).
Hence by the inversion rules we obtain
Using the axioms -1---> {!Bl[n] and -1---> d 2[n] we obtain by cuts with cut-formula
-1 and rank O<p
~+l--,(dl[n]---> {!Bl[n])---> {!Bl[n] and ~+l--,({!B2[n]--->d2[n])

---> d zen].
By the structural rule we obtain
The formula \fyu2,~[n, Y U2] has a rank <Po. Since 2po<rt.. it follows by
Theorem 22.10 that
that is
(2) I%- ~ len] ---+ &l 2[n].
The formulas &l1[n] and ~ 2[n] have ranks <po Therefore by two cuts from (1)
and (2) we obtain
By Theorem 22.10 we also have
From (3) and (4) by the structural rule we obtain
Using a basic inference (Sl) we obtain
for every numeral n. The assertion f%+ 5 \fx(d I [x] ~ d 2[X]) follows by a basic
inference (S2.0*).
6. Interpretations of EA * and DA * in RA *
If F is a formula of the system DA * and 0' # 0 then we denote by FU a formula of

RA * which results from F by replacing every bound predicate variable X by XU
and every free predicate variable by a predicator of a level < 0'. Then F U is a formula
of a level ~ 0'. It has a rank < w 0'+ W.
For the subsystem EA * of DA * which lacks the basic inference (S3.L1) we
have:
Theorem 22.13 (First Interpretation Theorem). EA * ~ F implies RA * H;;!~ Fl.

Proof by induction on IX. Suppose EA * ~ F holds.

1. Suppose F is an axiom of the system EA *. If F is an (Axl) or (Ax2) then
the assertion holds since then Fl is an axiom of the system RA *. If F is an (Ax3)
then Fl is a formula .El[C l , C 2 ] where C l and C2 are equivalent formulas oflevel O.
They have a rank <w. Thus the assertion holds by Theorem 22.9,
2. Suppose F is the conclusion of a basic inference BI of the system EA"'.
2.1. Suppose BI is a basic inference (S2.1). Then F is a formula ,o/I[\f X g;[ X]]
and there exists lXo < IX such that
EA * ~o ,o/I[g;[ U]],
where U does not occur in F, Fl is a formula ,0/11 [\f Xl g;l [Xl]]. By I.H.
holds for every g;l-permissible predicator Po of level O. The assertion follows

using a basic inference (S2.1 *).
2.2. Suppose BI is not a basic inference (S2.1). If BI is a cut with cut-formula
A then BI is replaced by a cut with a cut-formula Al of level ~ 1 whose rank is
< w + w. In every case the assertion follows immediately from the I.H.
Theorem 22.14 (Second Interpretation Theorem). DA* ~ F(or DA * f1- F) implies
RA * H;;: ~!:+6' a F' for any a= w a , f3 (or a = 2~ f3) such that f3 #0.
Proof by induction on IX. Suppose DA * ~ F (or DA * If F) holds and a = w a f3

(or a=2 a f3) where f3=10.
I, Suppose F is an axiom of the system DA *. If F is an (Ax!) or (Ax2) then
the assertion holds since then F" is an axiom of the system RA *. If F is an (Ax3)
then pI is a formula .El[C l , C 2 ] where C l , C z are equivalent formulas of a level
< a, They have a rank p < w a. Then 2 p < w a also. Therefore the assertion
holds by Theorem 22.9.
2. Suppose F is the conclusion of a basic inference BI of the system DA *
which is not an inference (S3.M. Then there exist lXi < IX such that DA * ~ Fi
(or DA * IT F) for each premise Fi of BI. Putting f3i: =w -ai+a. f3 (or f3i: = 2- ai +a. f3)
we have f3i =10 and W lli . f3i = w a . f3 = a (or 2~i. f3i =2a. f3 = a). Therefore by the I.H.
holds for appropriate formulas F;". The assertion follows as in the proof of
Theorem 22. B.
3. Suppose F is the conclusion of a basic inference (S3 ..1) of the system DA *.
Then F" is a formula fi[\fX"g;[X"]] and by I.H. there exist lXi<1X (or lXi+W~IX)
(i = 1, 2) such that
(1) RA* H;;:~!:+6.a, \fx(\fY"d[x, Y"] ~-dY"gj[x, Y"]),

(2) RA*H;;:~!:+6.a2g;[Ax\fY"d[x, Y1]~fi[\fX"g;[X"]],
where den, VO] and fJ6 [u, VO] are formulas of a maximal level 0"0<0". Since
a l <cx and O"=w",p (or a l +w~a and 0"=2~P), by Theorem 14.12 (or 14.13)
there is an ordinal term 0"1 = w~, . Pl (or 0"1 "'" 2'" . Pl) such that 0"0 < 0" 1 < 0". By
Theorem 22.11
( 3) RA'" 1iQ.,,+w{V'X(V'Y"'d[X, Y"'] +-+ V'Y" d[x, P])

m _ (ff[AXV'P'd[x, Y"']] _ ff[hV'Y" d[x, P]] holds.
By a cut from (2) and (3) we obtain
ff[AXV'Y t1 'd[X ' Y"']] _ (V'x(V'Y"'d[x , Y"']

RA*lw',,+w+6'a 2 +l {
r,;;,,+w +-+V'Pd[x, Y"]) _ %[V'X"ff[X"]).
Here hV'Y"'d[x, Y"'] is an ff-permissible predicator of level 0"1 <0". Therefore

using a basic inference (S3.1) we obtain
(4) RA* IW,,,+w+6.a2+2{V'X(V'Y<1'd. [x, P'] +-+ V'Y" d[x, Y"])

. r,;;',,+w _ %[V'X"ff[X"]].
By I.H. we also have
(5) RA"'H;;:::~~+6''''VX(V'P'd[x, Y<1']+-+3Y"'fJ6[x, YO',])
From (1) and (5) by Theorem 22.12 we obtain
and we have 6cx l +S<6a and 6cx 2 +2<6a. Therefore by a cut from (4) and
(6) we obtain the assertion
23. The Limits of the Deducibility of Transfinite Induction
1. Orders of Deductions of Induction in RA '"
As in 21 we define in RA"':
fl1t[P"J: = V'X 2(V'X l -<X 2 P"(X 1 ) - P"(X2))

JP[t]: = V' XP(fl1t[XP] - V'x -< tXP(x)).
Lemma 1. Assume:
I. M + and M _ are diSjoint finite sets of numerals, M + is non-empty and
}' : = min {t(n) In E M + }.
II. F is aformula with the following properties: The minimal negative parts of
Fare .?h[U"'J, all U"'(n) such that n E M _ and otherwise only true prime formulas
(if any). The minimal positive parts ofF are only the U"'(n) such that n E M +.
III. RA* ~F.
Then: y<wc5.
Proofby induction on c5. By hypotheses I and II F can only have been obtained by a
basic inference (S3.0). Therefore it follows from hypothesis III that there exist
c5 0 < c5 and a numerical term t such that
Suppose the numerical term t has value m. Then by Theorems 22.4 and 22.5a)
and b) from (1) we obtain
(2) RA* I-&' -,\fx 1 -<mU"'(x 1 )---+ F

(3) RA* ~ U"'(m)---+ F.
1. Suppose m M +. Then the formula U"'(m) ---+ F satisfies hypotheses I and

II of our lemma with the same set M + as for F. Therefore from (3) by I.H. y < w c5 0
and therefore y < w c5.
2. Suppose mEM+. Then y~r(m). Since M_ is a finite set and c5 0 <c5 there
exists a numeral kM_ such that wc5o~r(k)<wc5. By Theorem 22.5c) from
(2) we obtain
Assume that r(k)<y. Then k-<m is a true prime formula and the formula
-,(k -<m ---+ U"'(k)) ---+ F satisfies hypotheses I and II of our lemma with {k}uM +
instead of M + and r(k) = min {r(n) In E {k}uM +}. By I.H. from (4) it follows that
r(k) < w c5 0 contradicting the choice of k. Thus the assumption r(k) < y is refuted.
Hence y ~ r(k) whence y < w c5.
Proof By Theorem 22.5c) from the hypothesis we obtain
By Lemma I we have ~<wc5 for all ~<y, therefore y~wc5.
Theorem 23.2. RA* ~ JP[n (where P=I=O) implies y~wc5.
Proof By Theorem 22.5d) from the hypothesis we obtain
RA * ~ &l1[U"'J ---+ \fx -<yU"'(x)
for r:x<p. By Theorem 23.1 we obtain y~wc5.

2. The Limiting Numbers of the Systems EN, EA and DA
By the limiting number of the system EN we mean the least ordinal term y such that
the formula
.?h[U]~ Vx<.YU(x)
is not deducible in EN.
Theorem 23.3. The formal system EN has limiting number Bo.
Proof Suppose
(I) EN I- &'~[U] ~ Vx <.YU(x).
By Lemma 3 of 21 we obtain
(2) EN* pro 2

&'~[U] ~ Vx <.yU(x).
EN* can be regarded as a subsystem of RA* in which every free predicate variable
belongs to level 0 and every formula has a rank <w. It follows from (1) that the
formula
has a deduction in this subsystem with cut-rank restricted to < w. Therefore there
exists a numeral n such that
Now cpOW 2 <Bo and cpOa<Bo for a<Bo. Therefore it follows from (3) by n-fold
application of Theorem 22.8 that there exists b < Bo such that
By Theorem 23.1 it follows that y:::;Wb<B o. Consequently EN has a limiting

number :::;Bo. It follows from Theorem 21.1 that Bo is the limiting number of EN.
By the limiting number of the system EA (or DA) we mean the least ordinal
term y such that the formula J[y] is not deducible in EA (or in DA).
Theorem 23.4. Theformal system EA has limiting number cplB o.
Proof Suppose
(I) EA I- J[y] holds.

By Lemma 3 of 21 we obtain
(2) EA * ~w2 Jl"[YJ.
By Theorem 22.13 EA* can be interpreted in RA* where every formula has a
rank < w + w. It follows from (l) that the formula Jl"l [yJ has a deduction in RA *
with cut ranks restricted to < w + w. Therefore there is a numeral n such that, by
Theorem 22.13,
It follows from (3) by n-fold application of Theorem 22.8 that there exists <5 < So
such that
Hence by Theorem 22.8
By Theorem 23.2 we have y ~ </J 1<5 < </J Iso. Consequently EA has a limiting number
~</Jlso. It follows from Theorem 2l.3 that </Jls o is the limiting number ofEA.
Theorem 23.5. The formal system DA has limiting number </JwO.
Proof Suppose
DA f- Jl"[yJ
holds. By Theorem 20.13 there exists an ordinal term wm+n<w 2 such that
DA* f.1. rn + n Jl"[YJ.
Putting a:=2 w rn + n =wm 2" from Theorem 22.14 we obtain
Here wa+w~wa+w+6(wm+n)<Wm+2. Therefore we also have
RA* ft-(m+2)(W m + 2 ) Jl""[Y].

By Theorem 23.2 we obtain y~wrP(m+2)(wm+2)<rPwO. Consequently DA has a

limiting number ~rPwO. By Theorem 21.5 it follows that rPwO is the limiting
number of DA.
3. The Autonomous Ordinal Terms of the Systems EN*, EA* and DA*
Inductive definition of the autonomous ordinal terms of the semi-formal system EN*:
1. If y is less than the limiting number of EN then y is autonomous in EN*.
2. If () is autonomous in EN* and
EN* f! ~,z[U] ~ Vx -< yU(x)

holds where ()<y, then y is also autonomous in EN*.
Lemma 2. If y is autonomous in EN*, then y + 1 is also autonomous in EN*.

Proofby induction on y. If Y is less than the limiting number of EN then y + 1 is
also less than the limiting number of EN and therefore autonomous in EN*.
Otherwise there is an autonomous ordinal term () < y such that
(1) EN* f! ~,z[U] ~ Vx -<YU(x) .

.
We may assume that ()~W2. The formula
~,z[U] ~ Vx-<yU(x)~ Vx-<y+ lU(x)
is deducible in EN. By Lemma 3 of 21 it follows that
(2) EN* ~ro2 ~,z[U] ~ Vx -<yU(x) ~ Vx -<y+ lU(x).
From (1) and (2) by a cut we obtain
EN* f!+1 ~,z[U]~ Vx-<y+1U(x).

Here () + 1 < y + 1 and by I.H. () + 1 is autonomous in EN*. Consequently y + 1
is also autonomous in EN*.
Lemma 3. The autonomous ordinal terms of EN* form a segment. That is: If y
is autonomous in EN* and Yo <y then Yo is also autonomous in EN*.
Proofby induction on y. If Y is smaller than the limiting number of EN, then Yo

is autonomous in EN*. Otherwise there is an autonomous ordinal term () < y such
that
(1) EN* f! 2h[U] ~ Vx -<yU(x).

We may assume that ()~W2. The formula
Vx -<yU(x) - 4 Vx -<yoU(x)
is deducible in EN for Yo<Y. It follows by Lemma 3 of21 that
(2) EN* ~ro2 Vx -<yU(x) - 4 Vx -<yoU(x).
By a cut from (1) and (2) we obtain
(3) EN* ~+1 ~h[U] - 4 Vx -<Yo U(x).
By Lemma 2 15+ 1 is autonomous in EN*. Consequently Yo is autonomous in EN*

by I.H. ifYo~bo+ 1 and otherwise by (3).
Definition. Following S. Feferman [1] we denote by Aut(EN*) the least ordinal

term which is not autonomous in EN*.
Theorem 23.6. Aut(EN*) = 20.
1. Proof of 20~Aut(EN*). Set OC o :=80 and ocn+1:=8~n=locn. Then ocn<ocn+1

and w2 +wocn =ocn Therefore from Theorem 21.2 we have
(I) EN* f!2 &>.z[U] -4 Vx -< aoU(x)

(2) EN* ~n&>.z[U] - 4 Vx -<ocn+1U(x).
By Theorem 21.1 w 2 is autonomous in EN*. It follows by induction on n using

(1) and (2) that every ordinal term ocn is autonomous in EN*. For each ordinal
term y < 20 there is a natural number n such that y < ocn. Therefore by Lemma 3
every ordinal term <20 is autonomous in EN* and therefore 20~Aut(EN*).
2. Proof of Aut(EN*) ~ 20. By Theorem 23.3 20 is greater than the limiting

number of EN. Suppose
(1) EN* ~ &>.z[U] - 4 Vx -<yU(x)
holds, where 15 < 20. We have to prove that y is also less than 20. We regard
EN* as a subsystem of RA* in which every free predicate variable belongs to
level 0 and every formula has a rank <w. Then it follows from (1) that
RA* ~1~ &>.z[UO] -4 Vx -<YUO(x).
By Theorem 23.1 we have y~wlb<20. Hence Aut(EN*)~20.

Below we denote by L one of the formal systems EA, DA and by L* the

corresponding semi-formal system.
Inductive definition of the autonomous ordinal terms of the semi-formal system L*.
1. If y is less than the limiting number of L then y is autonomous in L*.
2. If <5 is autonomous in L* and L* f2- J[y] holds where <5 < y, then y is also
autonomous in L*.
Lemma 4. If y is autonomous in L* then, for all n < ro, y + n is autonomous in L*.
Proof by induction on y. If y is less than the limiting number of L then y + n is

also less than the limiting number of L and therefore y + n is autonomous in L*.
Otherwise there is an autonomous ordinal term <5 <y such that
We may assume that ro 2 ~<5 and I ~n. By Lemma 7b) of 21 the formula
J[y] -+ J[n] -+ J[y + n]
is deducible in L. By Theorem 21.3 J[n] is also deducible in L. Using a cut and

Lemma 3 of ~21 we obtain
L* f2-+1 J[y+n].
Here <5 + I < y + n and by I.H. <5 + I is autonomous in L*. Consequently y + n is

also autonomous in L*.
Lemma 5. The autonomous ordinal terms of L* form a segment.
Proof This result follows in the same way as Lemma 3 since the formula
is deducible in L for yo<y.
Definition. Again following S. Feferman [1] we denote by Aut(L*) the least

ordinal term which is not autonomous in L*.
Theorem 23.7. Aut(EA*)=20.
1. Proof of 20 ~ Aut(EA *). Let an be defined as in the proof of Theorem 23.6.

Then w 2 + 2 O(n = O(n. Therefore from Theorem 21.4 we have
By Theorem 23.4 0(0 + 1 is autonomous in EA *. Using Lemma 4 it follows by

induction on n that every ordinal term O(n is autonomous in EA *. As in the proof
of Theorem 23.6 it follows that </120::::; Aut(EA *).
2. Proof of Aut(EA *)::::; </120. By Theorem 23.4 </120 is greater than the limiting
number of EA. Suppose
EA* ~f[y]
where (j < </120. We have to prove that y is then also less than </120.
By two applications of Theorem 22.8 we obtain
By Theorem 23.2 we obtain y::::;w</11(</11(w+(j<</120. Hence </120 is not auto-

nomous in EA * and therefore Aut(EA *)::::; </120.
Theorem 23.8. Aut(DA*)=r o.
1. Proof of ro::::;Aut(DA*). By Theorem 21.6 we have
DA* f.+13 f['n+l].
'0
By Theorem 23.5 + 13 is autonomous in DA *. It follows by induction on n
using Lemma 4 that every ordinal term 'n
is autonomous in DA*. By Theorem
14.16 to each ordinal term y<ro there is a natural number n such that y<'n.
Therefore by Lemma 5 every ordinal term < r 0 is autonomous in DA * and
therefore r 0::::; Aut(DA *).
2. Proof of Aut(DA *)::::; r o. By Theorem 23.5 r0 is greater than the limiting

number of DA. Suppose
DA*~f[YJ
holds where (j < r o. We have to prove that y is then also less than r o. By Theorem
22.14 for 0": =wo we have
It follows by Theorem 22.7 that for 1X:=(wa+w)(wa+w+65)<ro that
RA*lTI-f"U]'
By Theorem 23.2 we obtain y~wlX<ro. Hence ro is not autonomous in DA*

and therefore Aut(DA *) ~ r o.
4. The Autonomous Ordinal Terms of the System RA *
IfL is a formal system with the basic inference rule (ind) and L* is the semi-formal
system obtained from L by replacing (ind) by (S2.0*) then by Theorem 20.13
infinite deductions in L* with orders < w 2 correspond to the finite deductions of
the system L. It is therefore fitting to allow the following inductive definition of the
autonomous terms of the system RA* to begin with the ordinal terms < w 2
Inductive definition of the autonomous ordinal terms of the semi-formal system RA * :

1. Every ordinal term < w 2 is autonomous in RA *.
2. If RA * I%- fl [YJ holds where (X and p are autonomous ordinal terms which
are less than y, then y is also autonomous in RA *.
Lemma 6. If y is autonomous in RA * and w 2 ~ y, then y + 1 and w Yare also autono-

mous in RA*.
Proofby induction on y. By the hypothesis there exist autonomous ordinal terms

(X<y and p<y such that
It follows from Lemma 7 of 21 that
EA f- fey] - 4 f[y+ I]
EA f- fey] -4 f[w Y].
By Lemma 3 of 21 and Theorem 22.13 it follows that there exist 5 1 <W2 and
5 2 < w 2 such that
(2) RA* f*!~' fl[y] -4 fl[y+ I]

(3) RA* f*!~2fl[y] -4 fl[W Y]'
We may assume that w+5 1 ~IX, w+5 2 ~(X and w+w~p. The formula fl[y] has
a rank <w+w. Therefore by cuts from (1)-(3) we obtain
(4) RA*I%-+lfl[y+l]
(5) RA*I%-+l fl[W Y]'
If IX<W 2, then IX+ 1 <W2 is autonomous in RA*. Otherwise IX+ 1 is autonomous

by the I.H. Since IX + 1 < y + 1, it follows by (4) that also y + 1 is autonomous in RA *.
If wY = y, then wY is autonomous by the hypotheses. Otherwise y < wYand IX + 1 < wY
Then wY is autonomous in RA * by (5).
Lemma 7. The autonomous ordfnal terms ofRA* form a segment.
Proof Suppose Yo<y and y is autonomous in RA*. We prove by induction on y

that Yo is also autonomous in RA*. This is trivial for y~W2. Now suppose w 2 <y.
Then there exist autonomous ordinal terms IX < y and p < y such that
For Yo<y we have
By Lemma 3 of 21 and Theorem 22.13 it follows that there exists ~<W2 such
that
We may assume that W+~~IX and w+w~p. By a cut from (1) and (2) we obtain
By Lemma 6 IX + 1 is autonomous in RA *. If Yo ~ IX + 1 or Yo ~ P then Yo is autono-

mous in RA* by I.H., otherwise Yo is autonomous in RA * by (3).
Definition. As before we denote by Aut(RA *) the least ordinal term which is not
autonomous in RA *.
Proof It follows from the hypothesis by Theorem 22.5 d) that
holds for every permissible predicator po of level o. The assertion follows using
a basic inference (S2.1 *).
Theorem 23.9. Aut(RA *) = r o.

1. Proof that ro~Aut(RA*). By Theorem 21.3
EA f- ..F[(1]
where (I =4>10=8 0 .
It follows by Lemma 3 of 21 and Theorem 22.13 that there exists <5 < w 2 such
that
Hence (I is autonomous in RA *. By Theorem 21.6 if n~ 1 then
DA* fb+13 ..F[(n + IJ.
where a:=w'n+ 13 . Now wa+w+6((n+13)<w'n+14. Therefore, we have by

Lemma 8
RA * Iw' +14 a1[-r-]

fW';:+14J Sn+l'
If C is autonomous in RA *, then by Lemma 6 C + 14 and w'n+ 14 are also autono-

mous in RA *. Since w'n + 14 < (n + l' it follows that (n + 1 is autonomous in RA *.
By induction on n, every ordinal term (n(n ~ 1) is autonomous in RA *. Then by
Theorem 14.15 and Lemma 7 every ordinal term <ro is autonomous in RA*
and therefore r 0 ~ Aut(RA *).
2. Proof that Aut(RA*)~ro. Suppose
holds where rx < r 0 and p < r o. It follows by Theorem 22.7 that
Hence by Theorem 23.2
Consequently r 0 is not autonomous in RA * and therefore Aut(RA *) ~ r o.

5. The Limits of Predicativity
Predicative inferences are formalized in a natural way in a system of ramified

analysis of the same sort as RA *. But such a system can only be seen to be predica-
tive if the only ordinal terms permitted to be orders of deductions and levels of
formulas are those for which transfinite induction can be proved using solely
predicative means. If RA * ~ .f1 [y] holds then in RA * there is a deduction of the
formula .f1 [YJ of order a in which only formulas of levelland levels < p occur.
Therefore from the proof of Theorem 23.9 we see that: to every ordinal term
a:;" w 2 and < rowe can fix a strictly increasing sequence of ordinal terms ao, ... , an
such that ao = w 2 and an = a in such a way that a deduction of order < ai can be
given for formalized transfinite induction up to ai + 1 (i < n) in which, besides
formulas of levell, only formulas of level < ai occur. In this way transfinite
induction is predicatively provable up to each ordinal term < r o' On the other
hand, by Theorem 23.9, a deduction of transfinite induction up to r 0 must have
an order :;" r 0 or it must contain occurrences of formulas of levels up to r o'
Therefore transfinite induction up to r 0 is not strirtly predicatively provable.
Our formalization of transfinite induction is based on a given well-ordering
-< of the natural numbers. For a differently defined well-ordering Wthe associated
ordinal number Autw(RA *) may be < r o' But the proof that Aut(RA *) ~ r 0 can
be carried over, without any difficulty, to every well-ordering W. We also have:
1. For every ordinal term a < r 0 there is a predicatively provable well-ordering
of order type a.
2. There is no predicatively provable well-ordering of any order type:;" r o.
Thus r 0 is the limiting number for the predicative provability of transfinite
induction. (ef. S. Feferman [1])
The semi-formal system of A f-analysis with deduction of orders < r 0 must
now also be considered predicative since by Theorem 22.14 DA * can be interpreted
in RA *. In DA * by Theorem 23.8 formalized transfinite induction is even provable
autonomously up to the limits of predicative provability.
The proofs of Theorem 23.3~23.5 show that every formal system L we have
considered can be embedded in a subsystem of RA * for which eliminability of
cuts is provable by means of transfinite induction up to the limiting number of L.
Hence we have a proof of the consistency of L by transfinite induction up to the
limiting number for L. (Such a proof for pure number theory was given by G.
Gentzen [2] and [3].) Likewise, for every semi-formal system L* (with deductions
of orders < Aut(L* we have considered we have a consistency proof by transfinite
induction up to Aut(L*). These consistency proofs yield still stronger methods
than for the demonstration of predicativity, since, for example, in order to deduce
.f1[(n+ 1] in RA * we need a subsystem of RA * for which the elimination of cuts
can be carried out only with the use of deductions of orders > (n + l '
Chapter IX
Higher Ordinals and Systems of ni-Analysis
Our aim in this chapter is the proof-theoretic treatment of lIt-Analysis following

G. Takeuti [4]. In 24-26 starting from normal functions we present an extended
constructive system of ordinals with the necessary properties for this and in 29
we give a constructive proof of well ordering for this system. In 27 and 28 we
carry out a constructive consistency proof for a formal and for a semiformal
system of lIt-Analysis, using transfinite induction on the system or ordinal terms
of 25.
f4. Normal Functions on a Segment (])* of the Ordinals
In this section we consider ordinals in the sense of the classical theory of ordinals
based on the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel or Bemays-GOdel set theory. These
ordinals, as defined in 13, characterize the order types of the well-ordered sets.
However, we do not deal here with the class of all ordinals but only with a proper
segment 0* which nevertheless is larger than the segment 0 dealt with in 13.
We characterize 0* itself by an axiom system without tying this to a general axiom
system for set theory. Thus we use the notions map (function) and set in a naive
way. But these may also be regarded as being determined axiomatically (in the
context of a general axiom system for set theory).
1. Axiomatic Characterization of the Segment 0* of the Ordinals
Ax. I. 0* is a non-empty set well-ordered by the relation <. (See 13.1.)
We call the elements of 0* ordinals. We denote by 0 (zero) the least element

of 0* (with respect to the relation <). In this section the letters rx, [3, y, 6, ~, 11, (
(possibly with indices) always denote ordinals from the set 0*. rx~[3 means that
rx<[3 or rx=[3. rx> [3 (rx ?; [3) stands for [3<rx ([3~rx). We denote by O*(rx) the segment
of all ordinals ~ < rx.
An ordinal rx is said to befinite (transfinite) if O*(rx) is a finite (infinite) set.
222 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of nl-Analysis
If M 1 and M z are subsets of 0* then M 1 '" M z denotes that there is a bi-

jection of Ml onto M z. This relation is obviously an equivalence relation. An
ordinal IX is said to be a cardinal if there is no ~ <IX such that O*@",I(])*(IX).
Ax. II. There is a map ~ from 0* to 0* with the following properties:

11.1. ~(IX) is a transfinite cardinal of 0*.
11.2. For each transfinite cardinal /3 of I(])* there is an IX such that ~(IX)=/3.
11.3. IfIX</3 and I(])*(~(IX"'O*(~), then ~<~(/3).
11.4. IX<~(IX).
From 11.3 (for ~=~(IX we have: If IX </3, then ~(IX)<~(/3). It follows by 11.1
and 11.2 that ~ is an order preserving map of I(])* onto the set of transfinite cardinals
in 0*. In the classical theory of ordinals there is a map ~ with properties 11.1-
11.3 from the class of all ordinals onto the class of all transfinite cardinals. This
map has fixed points IX=~(IX). By 11.4 0* is restricted to the segment of those
ordinals which are less than the least fixed point of~. .
By 11.4, for each ordinal IX there is an ordinal> IX in 0*. Using Ax. I it follows
that for each IX there is a smallest ordinal >IX in I(])*. We call this the successor IX'
of IX. An ordinal /3 is said to be a limit number if /3 '" 0 and there is no IX such that
IX' =/3.
A set Me I(])* is said to be bounded if there exists /3 such that IX ~ fJ for all
IX E M. By Ax. I for every bounded set Me I(]) * there is a unique least ordinal /3
such that IX ~ /3 for all IX E M. As previously we call this ordinal fJ the supremum
sup M of the set M.
We say that a set M ~ 0* has cardinality IX if IX is a cardinal such that M", I(])*(IX).
In this case IX is uniquely determined by M.
The closure of a set M 0 ~ 0* under finitely many ni-placed functions of
ordinals I; (i = 1, ... , m) is the smallest set M ~ I(]) * such that M 0 ~ M and
1;(1X1' ... , IXn,) E M for alllX 1 , ... , IXn, E M (i= 1, ... , m).
Ax. III. If M is the closure of the set {O} u 0*(13) under finitely many functions of
ordinals then every subset of M has cardinality ~max(/3, ~(O.
This property of 0* is provable in the classical theory of ordinals.
Ax. IV. If M is a subset of O*(~(IX' which has cardinality < ~(IX') then sup M <
~(IX').
This property of 0* which we call the regularity of the cardinal ~(IX') is
provable in the classical theory of ordinals using the axiom of choice.
Ax. I-Ax. IV comprise all the properties of the segment 0* of the ordinals
which will be used in the sequel without reference to a general system of axioms
for set theory.
2. Basic Properties of 0*
By Ax. I the induction theorem formulated in 13 (p. 75) also holds for 0*.
As in 13 we denote by N the set {O, 0', 0", ... } of finite ordinals. Then putting
w : = ~(O), w = sup N holds.
24. Normal Functions on a Segment 0* of the Ordinals 223
We define O*-segments and the ordering functions in the same way as in

13 (p. 77). Every proper O*-segment (that is, every O*-segment different from
0*) is a set O*(IX). Every set M~O* has precisely one ordering functionfwhich
maps an O*-segment A onto M preserving order. Then IX ~f(lX) for all IX E A. We
denote the domain A of the ordering functionfby D(f).
We also define continuity of an ordering function as in 13. A normal function
on 0* is a continuous ordering function with domain 0*. A set M ~ 0* is said
to be closed if for every nonempty bounded set M 0 ~ M we have sup MoE M.
Lemma l. ff the ordering function f of a set M ~ 0* has domain 0* and M is

closed then f is a normal function.
Proof like that for Theorem 13.5.
*O. Let
*
We set w : = ~(O), Q o : = 0 and Q a : = ~(IX) for IX K be the set of trans-
finite cardinals > w, then K: = {Q a IIX O}.
Lemma 2. If K~M~O* then the ordering function of M has domain 0*.
Proof Letfbe the ordering function of M. It follows from K~M that for every
ordinal IX E 0* there is an ordinal ~ E D(f) such that f(~) = Qa" where IX ~ ~. Thus
IX E D(f) too. Hence D(f) = 0*.
Lemma 3. a) ljlX is transfinite, then O*(IX')~O*(IX).

b) Every transfinite cardinal is a limit number.
Proof a) If IX is transfinite, then the function f given by fen) : = n' for n < w,
f(~) :=~ for W~~<IX andf(lX) :=0 is a bijective map ofO*(IX') onto O*(IX).
b) follows from a).
Addition of ordinals is defined as in 13.5. Let Ba:={~IIX~~EO*},fa be the

ordering function of Ba and 1X+{3:=fa({3) for {3ED(fa).
Lemma 4. If IX < {3 and {3 E K, then {3 E D(fa) and IX + {3 = {3.
Proof There exists Y E DUJ such that 0 < Y ~ IX + Y = {3. There are the following
two cases to consider for {3 E K.
1. {3=~(c5'). If M:={IX+~ I ~<y} then M~O*(~(c5')) and M~O*(y). By
Lemma 3b) ~(c5') is a limit number. Therefore sup M = ~(c5'). By Ax. IV it follows
that M has cardinality ~ ~(c5'). Thus {3 = ~(c5') ~y. It follows that {3= y and there-
fore {3 E D(Ja) and IX + {3 = {3.
2. {3=~(c5) where c5 is a limit ordinal. Assume that y<{3. Then there exists
~ < c5 such that y < ~(n < {3 and IX < ~(~'). It follows from I. that ~(n E D(fa) and
IX + Y< IX + ~(~') = ~(n < {3 contradicting IX + y = {3. Hence {3 = y and therefore
{3 E D(fa) and IX + {3 = {3.
224 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of lI~-Analysis
Theorem 24.1. h. is a normalfunction.

e
Proof For each ordinal E 0* there exists p E K such that rx < P and < p. Then e
e
by Lemma 4 pE D(fa) and therefore E D(h.) too. Hence D(h.) = 0*. Since Ba is
closed it follows by Lemma 1 that the ordering function of Ba is a normal function.
By virtue of Theorem 24.1 we 0 btain all the properties of addition of ordinals

developed in 13.5. We set 1 : =0',2: =0", .... Then rx' =rx+ l.
We define additive principal numbers and the ordering function rx f-+ w a as in
13. Corresponding to Theorem 13.7 there are, for each rx # 0, uniquely determined
rxl~~rxn such that rx=wal++wan . We call the additive principal numbers
wal , ... , wan involved the components of the ordinal rx. The ordinal 0 has no com-
ponents. We denote the set of additive principal numbers in 0* by P and the
finite set of components of rx by P(rx). The set P(O) is empty. rx E P holds if, and
only if, P(rx) = {rx}. In general we have pcP) ~P(rx+ P) ~P(rx) u PcP).
Theorem 24.2. K~P.
Proof If P E K then by Lemma 4 PEP.
Definition of the level Srx of an ordinal rx. Given rx there is a unique smallest
ordinal P such that O*(P),.... O*(rx). This ordinal is a cardinal. If P < w let Srx: = O.
Otherwise there exists y # 0 such that P = Qy. Then let Srx : = y.
Corollaries QSa ~ rx < Qsa. + 1 and SQ y= y.
Proof If rx is finite then Srx=O and QSa.=O~rx<QSot+l' Otherwise there exists y

such that O*(~(y)),....O*(rx). Then Srx=y, Qsa.~~(Y)~rx and by Ax. II.3
rx<~(y+ 1)=QSa.+l'
By definition we also have SQy=Y.
3. Definitions of the Functions ()a.
Following a definition of S. Feferman and P. H. G. Aczel [I] we define functions

()a. as follows.
Inductive definition of sets of ordinals CnCrx, p), C(rx, p), In (rx) and ordering func-
tions ()a:
(DI) Co(rx,p):=O*(P)
e
(D2) p(e)~ CnCrx, P) = E Cn+l(rx, P)
(D3) e<rx, e
E C(e, ()e'1), '1<()e'1 and e, '1 E CnCrx, p) = ()e'1 E Cn+ (rx, P)
1
24. Normal Functions on a Segment I()I* of the Ordinals 225
(D4) (#0, (E Cia, f3) => Q~ E Cn+ lea, f3)

(D5) C(a, f3) : = U Cn(a, f3)
(D6) In (a): = {f31 f3 C(a, f3)} uK
(D7) Let 8a be the ordering function of the set In (a). We write 8af3 for 8a (f3).
This definition is inductive since it only assumes knowing the functions 8~ and
sets C( (, 8(1]) for a. Since K s; In (a) it follows by Lemma 2 that the ordering
function 8a ofIn (a) has domain 0*. Hence 8af3 is defined for all a, f3 E 0*.
S. Feferman's definition refers to the closure Clif3) of the set {O} u 0*(f3)
under addition and the functions 8~(<a) and (f--+Q~ instead of C(a,f3). By
W. Buchholz [l], C(a, f3)=Cl a (f3). Thus the functions 8a defined here agree with
the functions defined by S. Feferman. The condition ( E C((, 8(1]) in (D3) which
is the essential difference from the definition of Clif3) is included since it makes
the most important properties of the functions 8a easier to prove than on the
basis of Clif3). The stratification of C(a, f3) into Cia, f3) (n E N) introduced by
W. Buchholz helps in carrying out the proofs of induction.
The property f3 C(a, f3) occurring in (D6) says that f3 is inaccessible from
ordinals <f3 by certain functions such that the only 8~ which occur among these
functions are ones for which a. We therefore denote by In (a) the set of a-
inaccessible ordinals. If a < r 0 then the set Cr (a) of a-critical numbers defined in
13 is a subset of In (a) as we shall show in 25.
4. Properties of the 8 Functions
Lemma 5. a) f3~8af3,
b) f31 <f32 => 8af31 < 8af32'
c) f3=> (EC(a,f3),
d) 0 E C(a, f3),
e) 8af3 E P,
f) yE Cn(a, f3) => P(y)s;Cia, f3),
g) Cn(a, f3)s;C n+ l (a, f3).
Proofs. a) and b) hold because 8a is an ordering function.

c) holds by (DI) and (D5).
d) holds by (D2) and (D5) since P(O) is empty.
e) Assume that 8af3 P. Then y < 8af3 for all y E P(8af3) and therefore by (DI)
P(8af3) c CoCa, 8af3) and by (D2) and (D5) 8af3 E C(a, 8af3). By Theorem 24.2 if we
also had 8af3 K, we should have 8af3 In (a) by (D6) contradicting (D7). Conse-
quently 8af3 E P.
f) Suppose y E Cia, f3). If n =0 or YEP then trivially P(y) s; Cn(a, f3). If n # 0
and y P then from e) and Theorem 24.2 we have that y E Cn(a, f3) can only hold
by (D2). In this case P(y)s;Cn- l (a,f3). It follows that for all YiEP(y), P(yJ=
{yJ S; Cn - l (a, f3) and by (D2) Yi E Cia, f3). Thus P(y) s; Cn(a, f3).
226 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of IIi-Analysis
g) By f) from I' E Cn(a, fJ) we have P(y) S; Cn(a, fJ) and by (02) I' E Cn+ 1(a, fJ).
Hence Cn(a, fJ) S; Cn+ 1 (a, fJ)
Theorem 24.3. a) I' E C(a, fJ) ;> P(y) S; C(a, fJ)

b) If ~ < ex, ~ E O(~, 8~11) and ~, 11 E C(a, fJ) then 8~11 E C(a, fJ)
Proofs. a) By (05) and Lemma 5 f) we obtain P(y) S; C(a, fJ) from I' E C(a, fJ). If
P(y) S; C(a, fJ) holds then by (05) and Lemma 5 g) there exists n such that P(y) S;
Cn(a, fJ). Hence by (02) and (05) I' E C(a, fJ)
b) If ~, 11 E C(a, fJ) then by (05) and Lemma 5 g) there exists n such that
~, YJ E Cn ( a, fJ). If 11 < 8~11 then from ~ < a and ~ E C( ~, 8~11) by (03) and (05) we
obtain 8~11 E C(a, fJ) Otherwise 8~11 = 11 E C(a, fJ).
Lemma 6. a) a l ~a2' fJl ~fJ2 => C.(a l , fJI)S;Cn(a 2 , fJ2)' C(a l , fJI)s;C(a 2, fJ;J
b) If a is a limit number, then C(a, fJ) = U C(~, fJ).
c) If fJ is a limit number, then C(a, fJ)= U C(a,l1).

~<P
Proofs. a) If ex l ~a2' fJl ~fJ2 then C.(a l , fJI)s;Cn(a 2, fJ2) by induction on n. By

(05) we obtain C(a l , fJ I) S; C(a 2, fJ2)'
b) Suppose a is a limit number and I' E Cn(ex, fJ). We prove, by induction on n,
that there exists ~ < a such that I' E C.( ~, fJ).
bl). Suppose I' E C.(a, fJ) by (01), then I' E Cn(O, fJ).
b2). Suppose YEC.(a,fJ) by (02), then YiECn-l(ex,fJ) for all YiEP(y). By
LH. there exist ~ i < a such that Yi E Cn_ I (~i' fJ). Let ~ be the maximum of these ~ i
then by a) P(y) S; Cn -I (~, fJ) and by (02) I' E C.( ~, fJ).
b3). If I' E C.(a, fJ) holds by (03) then 1'=81'11'2 where 1'1 <a and 1'1,1'2 E
Cn-l(a,fJ). By LH. there exist ~i<a such that YiECn-IGi,fJ) (i=I,2). Let ~:=
max(YI+l'~I'~2) then ~<a, YI<~ and by a) YI,Y2ECn-l(~,fJ). By (03) we
obtain I' E C.(~, fJ)
b4). Suppose I' E Cn(ex, fJ) holds by (04), then the assertion follows immedi-
ately from LH.
Hence Cn(a, fJ) S; U Cn(~' fJ) and consequently by (05) C(a, fJ) S; U C(~, fJ)
By a) we also have U C(~, fJ) S; C(a, fJ)

~<~
c) Suppose fJ is a limit number and I' E C.(a, fJ). We prove, by induction on n,

that there exists 11 < fJ such that I' E C n( a, 11). If n = 0, then this holds for 11 = I' + 1
since then I' + 1 < fJ. If n # then I' E C.(a, fJ) holds on the basis of finitely many
hypothesis YiECn-l(a,fJ) (i=I, ... ,m). By I.H. there exist l1i<fJ such that YiE
Cn-l(a, YJJ Let 11 : = max (YJI' ... , 11m) then by a) Yi E Cn- l (a, 11) (i = 1, ... , m). Hence
I' E Cia, 11) Thus Cn(a, fJ)c U Cn(a,l1) By (05) we obtain C(ex, fJ)s; U C(a,l1)
~<P ~<P
By a) we also have U C(a, YJ)s;C(a, fJ).
~<P
24. Normal Functions on a Segment O of the Ordinals 227
Theorem 24.4. a) In (O)=P, ()Of3=oI

b) ex l <ex 2 ~ In (ex 2) sIn (ex l ), ()exlf3~()ex2f3.
c) If ex is a limit number, then In (ex) = n In (e).
~<"
Proofs. a) If f3 E P and f3 K then we obtain f3 Cn(O, f3) by induction on n. By

(D5), (D6) and Theorem 24.2 we obtain PsIn (0). By Lemma 5 e) we also have
In (0) S P. Hence In (0) = P. It follows that ()0f3 = w P, since f3 f-+ wP is the ordering
function of P.
b) If ex l <ex 2 then by Lemma 6 a) C(ex l ,f3)SC(ex 2 ,f3). By (D6) we obtain
In (ex 2) S In (ex l ) and by (D7) ()ex l f3 ~ ()ex 2f3 by induction on f3.
c) Follows from Lemma 6 b) by (D6).
Lemma 7. For each ex, f3 there exists a least ordinal y C(ex, f3). This ordinal y has
the properties: f3 ~ y, Sf3 = Sy, C(ex, f3) = C(ex, y) and y E In (ex).
Proof. Let M be the closure of the set {O} u O*(f3) under addition and the
e
functions (e, 1]) f-+ ()e1] and f-+ Q~. By (Dl)-(D6) C(ex, f3)sM and therefore we
also have Mo:=C(ex, f3) n O*(QSP+l) sM. By Ax. III Mo has cardinality~max
(f3, ~(O<QSP+l Hence Mo is a proper subset of O*(QSP+l). Therefore there
exists a least ordinal y<QSP+l such that y C(ex, f3). By Lemma 5 c) f3~y.
e
Since y < QSfJ + l' Sf3 = Sy. By the minimality of y C(ex, f3) we have E C(ex, f3) for
aU e<y. Consequently C o(ex,y)sC(ex,f3). It follows by induction on n that
Cn(ex, y)s C(ex, f3) for all n E ~. Therefore by (D5) C(ex, y)s C(ex, f3). By Lemma 6 a)
we also have C(ex, f3) S C(ex, y). Thus y C(ex, f3) = C(ex, y) and by (D6) y E In (ex).
Lemma 8. a) C(ex, 0) = C(ex, ()exO).

b) C(ex, ()exf3 + 1) = C(ex, ()ex(f3 + 1.
Proofs. a) By Lemma 7 there exists y E In (ex) such that C(ex, 0) = C(ex, y). It follows
that ()exO ~ y and by Lemma 6 a)
C( ex, 0) S C(ex, ()exO) S C( ex, y) = C(ex, 0),
and therefore C(ex, 0) = C(ex, ()exO).

b) By Lemma 7 there exists y E In (ex) such that C(ex, ()exf3 + 1) = C(ex, y) and
()exf3 + 1 ~ y. It follows that ()exf3 +- 1 ~ ()ex(f3 + 1) ~y and by Lemma 6 a)
C(ex, ()exf3 + 1) s C(ex, ()ex(f3 + 1 s C(ex, y) = C(ex, ()exf3 + 1),
and therefore C(ex, ()exf3 + 1) = C(ex, ()ex(f3 + 1.
Theorem 24.5. a) S()exf3 = Sf3.

b) ()exy = y for y E K.
228 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of n:-Analysis
Proofs. a) There exists y such that QS/J+l=Orxy since QSP+1EKS;In(rx). For

~<QSP+l' by Lemma 7, there exists '1EIn(rx) such that ~~'1<QSP+l' Let M:=
{Orx'1l '1 <y} then sup M = Qsp+ l' Thus Ms; O*(Qsp+ 1) and M", O*(y). By Ax. IV
we obtain QSP+l ~y. Therefore
Hence SOrxf3 = Sf3.

b) If y E K there exists 13 such that y = Orxf3 since K S; In (rx). By a), Sy = S13. It
follows that
and therefore f3=y and Orxy=y.
Theorem 24.6. a) Q y E C(rx, 13) ~ y E C(rx, 13)

b) y E C(rx, 13) = QSy E C(rx, 13)
Proofs., a) The assertion is trivial if y=O. Now suppose y#O. If Qy E C(rx, 13) then
there is a least number n such that Qy E CnCrx, 13). If n = 0 then y < Qy< 13, and
therefore, also, y E Co(rx, 13). If n #0, then by Theorems 24.2 and 24.5 b) we have
that Qy E C(rx, 13) can only hold because of (D4). Therefore y E Cn- l (rx, 13). There-
fore from Q y E C(rx, 13) we have, in every case, y E C(rx, 13). By (D4) and (DS) from
y E C(rx, 13) we obtain Qy E C(rx, 13).
b) Suppose y E C(rx, 13) holds then there exists n such that y E CnCrx, 13). By
Theorem 24.5 a) we obtain QSy E C(rx, f3) by induction on n.
Proof Suppose y E Cn(rx 2, 13). We prove by induction on n that y E Cn(rx l , 13). If

y E Cn(rx 2, 13) holds by (DI), (D2) or (D4), then y E Cn(rx l , 13) follows either trivially
. or by the I.H. Now suppose YECn(rx 2,f3) holds by (D3). Then y=O~'1 where
~ < rx 2 and ~, '1 E Cn- l (rx 2, 13) By I.H. we have ~, '1 E Cn- 1(rx l , fJ). Using ~ < rx 2 and
the hypothesis \f~(rxl ~~<rx2 ~ ~ C(rx l , 13 we obtain ~<rxl' By (D3) we obtain
YECnCrx l ,f3). Hence CnCrxz,f3)S;CnCrxl,f3) holds. By (DS) we obtain C(rx 2,f3)s;
C(rx l ,f3) By Lemma 6 a) C(rx l , 13) S; C(rx 2, 13) also holds.
Theorem 24.7. a) rx l < rx 2, \f~(rxl ~ ~ < rx 2 ~ ~ C(rx l , Orx 2f3 = Orx l f3 = Orx 2f3.
b) 3~(rxl ~ ~ < rx 2 J\ ~ E C( rx l , Orx 2f3 = Orx l (Orx 2f3) = Orx2f3.
Proofs. a) When '1 ~Orx2f3 we obtain
from the hypothesis. By Lemma 6 a) and by Lemma 9 C(rx l , '1)=C(rx 2, '1). By (D7)
we obtain Orx l f3 = Orx2f3.
24. Normal Functions on a Segment iIJI* of the Ordinals 229
b) If erJ,2{3 E K, then erJ,l (erJ, 2{3) = erJ,2{3 holds by Theorem 24.5 b). Now suppose
erJ,2{3 rj K. By Theorem 24.4 b) rJ,1 :( ~ < rJ,2 implies erJ,2{3 E In m. Therefore there
exists '1:(e~'1=erJ,2{3. Using ~ E qrJ,1,@rJ,2{3), by Lemma 6 a) we obtain
If we had '1 < erJ,2{3, then by Lemma 5 c) we should have '1 E qrJ,2' erJ. 2{3) and by
Theorem 24.3 b) e~'1 E q rJ,2' erJ,2{3) which contradicts (D6) since e~1J = erJ,2{3 rj K.
Thus '1=erJ,2{3. By Theorem 24.4 b) we have
and therefore erJ,l (erJ,2{3) = erJ,2{3.
Lemma 10. a) IferJ,l{3l =erJ,2{32 where rJ,1 :(1X 2 , then PI ={32 or {3l =erJ,2{32'
=
b) rJ,1 <rJ,2, rJ,1 E qrJ,2' erJ,2P) erJ,1(erJ,2{3) = eIX 2{3
Proofs. a) If 1X1 :(rJ,2 then by Theorem 24.7 erJ,1{32 =erJ,2~ or erJ,1(ea 2{32)=erJ,2{32'
IferJ,l{3l =erJ,2{32' then {3l ={32 or {3l =erJ,2{32'
b) Suppose rJ,1 < rJ,2 and a l E qrJ,2' erJ,2{3). IflXl rj qrJ,l' ea 2/3) then qrJ,l' erJ,2{3) #
qrJ,2, erJ,2{3) Then, by Lemma 9, there exists ~ E qrJ,l' erJ,z/3) such that rJ,1 ~~<rJ,2'
By Theorem 24.7 b) it also follows in the case that a l E qa l , erJ,2{3) that erJ,l (ert. 2/3) =
ed. 2 /3
Lemma 11. erJ,{3 rj K, erJ,{3:( l' E q rJ" erJ,{3) = S{3 < Sy.
Proof By hypothesis there exists m such that l' E Cm(rJ" erJ,{3). We prove S{3 < Sy by
induction on m. Since erJ,/3:(y, m#O therefore m=n+ 1.
1. Suppose l' E Cn+1(rJ" erJ,/3) holds by CD2). Since erJ,/3 E P, it follows from
erJ,{3:(y that there exists Yo E P(y) where ea/3:(yo' Hence Yo E Cn(cx, erJ,/3). By I.H.
we obtain S{3 < SYo' Therefore we also have S{3 < Sy.
2. Suppose l' E Cn+ 1(a, erJ,{3) holds by (D3). Then l' = e~'1 where ~ < rJ, and
~, '1 E CnCrJ" erJ,/3). By Lemma 10 b) we have ()~(ea{3) = erJ,{3. Using erJ,{3:( l' = e~'1 we
obtain erJ,{3:('1. By I.H. we obtain S{3<S'1. Then by Theorem 24.5 a) we also
have S{3 < Sy.
3. Suppose l' E Cn+1(rJ" erJ,{3) holds by (D4). Then l' E K. Since erJ,{3 rj K and
erJ,{3:(y, we have ecx/3<y and S{3<Sy.
Theorem 24.S. a) {3 rj K = qa, ea{3) n O*(Qsp+ 1) = o*(erJ,{3).

b) qrJ" 0) n O*(Ql) = o*(erJ,O).
Proofs. a) By Lemma 5 c) we have
(1) o*(erJ,{3)r;;qrJ" erJ,/3).

230 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of l1~-Analysis
By Theorem 24.5 a) ()a.f3< QS/i+ 1 and therefore
(2) 0*()a.f3) S O*(QS/i + 1)
By Theorem 24.5 b) f3 K implies ()a.f3 K. If ()a.f3:::; y E C(a., ()a.f3) then by Lemma 11

QS/i+l :::;y. Hence we also have
Assertion a) follows from (l}-{3).

b) Follows from a) since SO=O K and by Lemma 8 a) C(a., 0) = C(a., ()a.0).
Theorem 24.9. ()" is a normal function.
Proof Since ()" has domain 0*, by Lemma 1 it remains only to prove that In (a.)
is closed. Let M be a non-empty bounded subset of In (a.). We have to prove that
sup M is then a member of In (a.). If sup ME K or sup ME M then trivially
sup ME In (a.). Now suppose sup M K and sup M M. Then sup M is a limit
number. Assume that sup ME C(a., sup M). Then by Lemma 6 c) there exists
", < sup M such that sup ME C(a., ",). Since M S In (a.) and sup M K there is then
()a.e K such that ",:::; ()a.e :::; sup M and S()a.e = Se = S sup M. By Lemma 6 a)
sup ME C(a.,,,,) implies sup ME C(a., ()a.e). By Lemma 11 we have Se < S sup M
contradicting the choice of e. Consequently sup M C(a., sup M) and by (D6)
sup ME In (a.).
-
5. The Sets In(a.) and Functions ()"
We introduce sets In (a.) of ordinals and functions ()" on the ordinals following
W. Buchholz [2] and use these to develop a notation system for a segment of the
ordinals.
Definition. In (a.) : = In (a.)\In (a. + 1). That is to say y E In (a.) is to hold if, and only
if, y E In (a.) and y In (a. + 1).
In this case by Theorem 24.4 b) YEIn(e) for all e:::;a. and yIn(",) for all
", > a.. In (a.) is therefore the set of those ordinals which are maximally a.-inaccess-
ible.
Corollaries. 1. In (a.) S P.
2. In (a.) and K are disjoint sets.
- -
3. If a. l #a. 2 then In (a. l ) and In (a. 2 ) are diSjoint sets.
Theorem 24.10. In (a.) is the set of those ordinals ()a.f3 such that a. E C(a., ()a.f3) and
{3 < ()a.f3.
24. Normal Functions on a Segment (]I* of the Ordinals 231
Proof l. Suppose Y E In (a), then Y E In (a) and y In (a + 1). Then there exists
f3 such that y = ()af3 K, ()af3 C( a, ()af3) and ()af3 E C(a + 1, ()af3). It follows that
C(a, ()af3)"# C(a+ 1, ()af3) and by Lemma 9 a E C(a, ()af3). Since ()af3 E C(a + 1, ()af3)
there exists a least number n such that ()af3 E Cn<a+ 1, ()af3). Because ()af3 E P and
()af3 K this can only hold by (D3). Then we have 1] < ()~1] = ()af3 where ~::( a. By
Theorem 24.4 b) we have ()af3::( ()a1]. Then f3::( 1], and therefore f3 < ()af3.
2. Suppose a E C(a, ()af3) and f3 < ()af3. By Theorem 24.5 b) we then have
()af3K. By Lemmata 6 a) and 5 c) it follows that aEC(a+1,()af3) and f3E
C(a+l,()af3). By Theorem 24.3 b) we obtain ()af3E C(a+l, ()af3). By (D6) using
()af3 K we have ()af3 In (a + 1). Hence we have ()af3 E In (a).
Lemma 12. ~ E C(~, ()~1]), 1] < ()~1] and f3::( ()~1] E C(a, f3) imply ~ < aand~, 1] E C(a, f3).
Proof By Theorem 24.5 b) 1] < ()~1] implies ()~1] K. Since ()~1] E C( a, f3) there is a
least number n such that ()~1] E Cn< a, f3). Since f3::( ()~1] E P and ()~1] K this can
only hold by (D3). Then we have ()~1]=()~01]0 wherel.o<a, ~oEC(~o,()~o1]o),
1]0 < ()~01]0 and ~o, 1]0 E C(a, f3). By Theorem 24.10 ()~1] E In m
and ()~01]0 E In (~o)
If ~"#~o, In (0 and In(~o) are disjoint. Therefore from ()~1]=()~01]0 we have
~ = ~o. So we also have 1] =1]0 and therefore ~ <a and ~, 1] E C(a, f3).
Definition. We set f1(a) to be the least ordinal 1] such that a E C(a, ()a1]). (Such an
ordinal f1(a)::( a + 1 exists since a E C(a, ()a(a + 1)).
Lemma 13. f1(a) is not a limit ordinal.
Proof If f1(a) were a limit number, then we should have
since by Theorem 24.9 ()a is continuous. Then, by Lemma 6 from a E C(a, ()a(f1(a)))
we should have 1] <f1(a) such that a E C(a, ()a1]). This contradicts the minimality
of f1(a).
Lemma 14. (E Cn(a, f3), ( C(y, ()yc5), (E C(y, ()yc5 + 1) => c5 E C(a, f3).
Proof By induction on n. By Lemma 5 c) ( C(y, ()yc5) implies ()yc5::(.

1. Suppose ( E Cn<a, f3) holds by (D 1). Then ( < f3. It follows that c5::( ()yc5::( ( < f3
and c5 E C(a, f3).
2. Suppose (E Cn(a, f3) holds by (D2). By Theorem 24.3 a) ( C(y, ()yc5)
implies that there exist (0 E P) such that (0 C(y, ()yc5). Hence (0 E Cn-1(a, f3)
and (0 E C(y, ()yc5+ 1). By I.H. we obtain c5 E C(a, f3).
3. Suppose (ECn<a,f3) holds by (D3). Then we have (=()~1] where ~<a,
~ E C(~, ()~1]), 1] < ()~1] and ~, 1] E Cn - 1 (a, f3).
3.1. Suppose ()yc5 = (. By Theorem 24.10 ()~1] E In (~). Therefore from ()yc5 =()~1]
we obtain y~~ and by Lemma 10 a) c5=1] or c5=()~1]=y; therefore in every case
c5 E C(a, f3).
232 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of In-Analysis
3.2. Suppose ()yb. Then ()yb+ 1 ';;;;()~11 E C(y, ()yJ+ 1). By Lemma 12 we
obtain ~<y and~, 11 E C(y, ()yJ+ 1). Then by Theorem 24.3 b) from ()~11 C(y, ()yJ)
we obtain ~ C(y, ()yJ) or 11 C(y, ()yJ). By LH. (for ~ or 11 replacing 0 we obtain
J E C(a, [3).
4. Suppose (E Cn(a, [3) holds by (D4). Then we have (= Q~ where
~ECn-l(a,[3). By Theorem 24.6 a) ~C(y,()yJ) and ~EC(y,()yJ+l) also hold.
By LH. we obtain J E C(a, [3).
Lemma 15. y E C(a, [3) ~ J1(Y) E C(a, [3).
Proof If J1(Y) = 0, then J1(Y) E C(a, [3) holds by Lemma 5 d). Otherwise by Lemma
13 J1(y)=J+ 1 where y C(y, ()yb) and YE C(y, ()y(J+ 1)). By Lemma 8 we obtain
y E C(y, ()yJ + I). Using y E C(a, f3) by Lemma 14 we obtain J E C(a, [3). By Lemma
6 a) from y E C(a, [3) and y C(y, ()yJ) we obtain y<a or ()yJ<[3 and therefore
a #0 or 1 < [3. If a #0 then, since 0 E C(a, [3) by Theorem 24.3 b) 1 = ()OO E C,(a, [3).
If 1 < [3 then 1 E C(a, [3) by Lemma 5 c). Therefore in every case J E C(a, [3) and
1 E C(a, [3). By Theorem 24.3 a) we obtain J1(Y) = J + 1 E C(a, [3).
Definitions. 1. If SJ1(a),;;;; S[3, set ri[3) to be the unique ordinal determined by

[3 = QSI'(a) + ra([3)
2. If [3 = [30 + n where n < wand J1( a) < [30 = ()a[3o, then set la[3 : = 1. Otherwise
set la[3 : = O.
3. If SJ1(a),;;;; S[3 set (}a([3) : = ()a(J1(a) + ri[3) + laf3). We write Oa[3 for (}i[3).
Theorem 24.11. Ba is an order preserving map of the set of ~ ~ QSI'(a) onto the set
In (a).
Proof 1. Suppose [3~QS/i(al' then SJ1(a),;;;;S[3. We prove that Oa[3 E In (a). We

have (}a[3 = ()ap where
P = J1(a) +ri[3) + la[3.
By Lemma 6 a) from aE C(a, ()C((J1(a))) and ()a(J1(a)),;;;;()ap we have
(1) aEC(a,()ap).
Assume that ()ap = p. Then 1 < PEP, consequently la[3 = 0 and by Lemma 13
ra([3) # O. Hence
13 = J1(a) + ri[3) = ri[3)
Using QSI'(a) ';;;;J1(a) we obtain [3= Qs*) + ri[3),;;;;/3 =r a([3) ';;;;[3,

and therefore [3=P, ()a[3=[3 and J1(a) <[3. But in this case la[3= 1. Hence ()ap#p
and therefore
(2) P< ()ap.

By Theorem 24.10 from (1) and (2) we obtain Oa[3=()ap E In (a).
24. Normal Functions on a Segment O of the Ordinals 233
2. Suppose Y E In (ex). We have to prove that there exists f3 such that Stt(ex) ~Sf3
and Y = {}o:f3. By Theorem 24.10 there exists 11 such that y = ()ex/3, ex E C( ex, ()ex/3) and
11<()ex/3. By the definition of tt(ex) and Lemma 6 a) we obtain ()ex(tt(ex))~()ex11 and
therefore tt(ex)~/3. Therefore there exists f3* such that
11 = tt(ex) + f3*.
If f3*=f3o+n where tt(ex)<f3o=()exf3 o and n<w then it follows from /3<()ex/3 that
n>O. In this case let f3:= Qsl1(IZ)+f3o+(n-l). Otherwise let f3:= Qsl1(IZ)+f3*. In
any case we then have Stt(ex)~Sf3 and
/3 = tt(ex) + ra(fl) + lexf3,

and therefore y = ()ex/3 = {}exf3.
3. Suppose QSI1(IZ)~f31 <f3 2 We prove that {}exf31 < {}exf3 2 We have {}exf3;=
()ex11; where
Q~I1(a)~f31<f32 implies rif31) <ra(f32)' Iflexf31=0 then 111</32' If lexf31=1 and

rif31) + I =rif32) then we also have lexf32=1. In every case /31 </32' Therefore
{}ex 1f31 < (}ex 2f32'
Theorem 24.12. If Sttm ~ SYf then

a) f3~{}~Yf E C(ex, f3) =
~ <ex and~, Yf E C(ex, f3).
b) ~ < ex and ~, Yf E C(ex, f3) =
(}~Yf E C(ex, f3).
Proof We have (}~Yf=()~i1 where i1=tt(~)+r~(Yf)+I~Yf. By Theorems 24.10 and

24.11 ~ E C(~, ()~i1) and i1<()~i1.
a) Suppose f3~ ()~Yf E C(ex, f3). By Lemma 12 we have ~ < ex and ~, i1 E C(ex, f3).
Hence by Lemma 15 and Theorem 24.6 b) we have QSI1(~) E C(ex, f3) and by Theorem
24.3 a) r~(Yf) E C(ex, f3). Then by Theorem 24.3 a)
also holds.
b) Suppose ~ <ex and~, Yf E C(ex, f3). Hence by Lemma 15 we have tt(~) E C(ex, f3)
and by Theorem 24.3 a) r~(Yf) E C(ex, f3). Since ex#O, 1 E C(ex, f3). By Theorem
24.3 a) we obtain
ii = tt(~) + r~(Yf) + lexf3 E C(ex, f3).

Using ~ < ex, ~ E C(~, ()~ij) and ~ E C(ex, f3), by Theorem 24.3 b) we obtain {}~Yf =
()~i1 E C( ex, f3).
Theorem 24.13. If Stt(ex) ~ Sf3 then ex E C(ex, (}exf3), f3 < {}exf3 and S{}exf3 = Sf3.
234 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of ill-Analysis
Proof We have 8ap = 8a/3 where /3 = f1.(a) + riP) + lap. By Theorems 24.10 and
24.11, a E C(a, 8a/3) and /3 < 8a/3. It follows that a E C(a, 8ap) and
P = QS/l(IZ) + riP) ~ P < 8ap.
Sf1.(a)~Sp implies S/3=Sp. Using Theorem 24.5 a) we obtain S8ap=Sp.
Theorem 24.14. If Sf1.(aJ ~ SPi (i= 1,2), then

a) 8a l PI =8a 2P2 => a l =a 2, PI =P2
b) a l <a 2, a l E C(a 2, 8a 2P2)' PI <8a 2P2 => 8a l PI <8a 2P2.
Proof a) By Theorem 24.11 8a iPi E In (aJ If a l #-a 2 then In (a l ) and In (a 2) are

disjoint. Therefore from 8a l Pl =8a 2P2 we obtain a l =a 2. Then by Theorem 24.11
we also have PI = P2.
b) It follows from the hypotheses by Lemma 2 c) that PI E C(a 2, 8a 2Pi) and
by Theorem 24.12 b) that 8a l Pl E C(a 2, 8a 2P2). By Theorem 24.13 PI <8a 2P2
implies 8a l PI < QSP2 + 1 Since 8a 2P2 Kby Theorem 24.8 a) we have 8a l PI < 8a 2P2
25. A Notation System for Ordinals Based on the ()a. Functions
1. The Set 8(Q) of Ordinals
Inductive Definition of the set 8(Q) c (D* and the degree Ga E N of an ordinal
a E 8(Q):
1. 0 E 8(Q), GO: =0.
2. O<y P, P(y)c8(Q) => Y E 8(Q), Gy: = max {GYi IYi E P(y)} + 1.
3. a, P E 8(Q), Sf1.(a)~Sp => 8ap E 8(Q), G8ap: = max (Ga, GP)+ 1.
4. O<a E 8(Q) => QIZ E8(Q), GQIZ : =Ga+ 1.
Obviously, for every ordinal a such that a E 8(Q) at most one of the above
four defining rules can hold. It follows by Theorem 24.14 a) that every ordinal
a E 8(Q) has a uniquely determined degree Ga EN.
2. Sets of Coefficients
We introduce finite sets of coefficients for ordinals Y E 8(Q) in such a way that
Y E C(a, 8ap) can be characterised in a useful recursive way.
Inductive Definition of the coefficient sets Kv*Y and KvY for v E (D* and Y E 8(Q):
1. Kv*0=KvO:=0(emptyset).
2. O<y P => Kv*Y: = U KV*Yi' KvY: = U KvYi
YiEP(y) YiEP(y)
25. A Notation System of Ordinals Based on the 6. Functions 235
3. Y E]>, Sy~v => K:y: = 0, K,Y: = {y}.

4. y=8e'1, v<Sy => K:y :={e} u K,*e u K,*'1, K,y :=K,e uK,Yf.
5. y=Q~, v<e=Sy => K,*y :=K,*e, K,y :=K,e.
Corollaries. 1. Kv*y is a finite set of ordinals of 8(Q) which is empty if Sy ~ v.

2. K,y is a finite set of principal numbers for addition from 8(Q) whose levels
are ~v.
Notations for M c: {}(Q) and rx E 0* :

e e
1. M < rx means that < rx for all E M. (If M is empty then M < rx for all
rxEO*.)
e
2. rx ~ M means that there exists E M such that rx ~ e.
Theorem 25.1. /f 13 K and y E 8(Q) then y E C(rx, (}rxf3) holds if, and only if, Ks~y < rx
and Kspy < (}rxf3.
Proof By induction on Gy.

1. y P. Then the assertion follows from the I.H. by Theorem 24.3 a).
2. YEP where Sy ~ Sf3. Then Ktpy =0< rx. In this case by Theorem 24.8 a)
y E C(rx, (}rxf3) holds if, and only if, y < (}rxf3 and therefore Kspy = {y} < (}rxf3.
3. y=8eYf where Sf3<Sy. Then (}rxf3<8eYf. In this case by Theorem 24.12 a)
e e,
y E C( rx, (}rxf3) holds if, and only if, < rx and Yf E C(rx, (}rxf3). By I.H. this is the case
if, and only if, Ktpy={e} u Ktpe u KtpYf<rx and Kspy=Kspe u KspYf<(}rxf3.
4. y=Q~ where Sf3<e=Sy. Then the assertion follows from the I.H. by
Theorem 24.6 a).
Corollary to Theorem 25.1. /f S JL(a) ~ S13 and y E 8(Q) then y E C(a, 8af3) if, and
only if, Ktpy<rx and Kspy < 8af3.
Proof There exists /1 K such that {}af3 = (}a/1 and Sf3 = S/1. Therefore the assertion
holds by Theorem 25.1.
Theorem 25.2. If (}af3 E {}(Q) then Ktprx < rx and Kspa u {f3} < 8rxf3.
Proof By Theorem 24.13 we have a E C(a, (}af3) and 13 < (}af3. Hence the assertion
follows by the corollary to Theorem 25.1.
Theorem 25.3. /fa, 13 E 8(Q) then SJL(a)~ Sf3 if, and only if, Ktpa<a.
Proof 1. Suppose SJL(a) ~ Sf3. Then {}af3 E {}(Q). By Theorem 25.2 we obtain
Ktpa<a.
2. Suppose Ktprx < a. Let y be the maximum element of the finite set {Qsp } u
Ksprx, then Kspa<y+ 1 ~(}a(y+ 1), Sf3= S(y + 1) and y+ 1 K. By Theorem 25.1
we obtain a E C(rx, (}a(y + 1. By the definition of JL(a) it follows that JL(a) ~ y + 1.
Therefore SJL(rx) ~ Sf3.
Theorem 25.4. If eIXJ3 i E e( Q) (i = 1, 2) where S131 = S13 2 = v then erx 1131 < eIX 2f3 2 if,
and only if, one of the following three conditions holds:
a) 1X1 < !Xl' KvlXl U {f3d < e1X 2f32'
b) 1X1 = 1X 2 , 131 < 132'
c) 1X2 <lXI' (j('J.lf31 ~Kv1X2 U {f32}'
Proof Suppose condition a) holds. By Theorem 25.2 Kv*lXl < 1X1 < 1X 2 . Using
KvlXl < fJIY. 2f32' by the corollary to Theorem 25.1, we obtain 1X1 E C(1X 2 , fJIX 2f32)'
Using 1X1 <!X2 and 131 <fJrx 2f32' by Theorem 24.14 b) we obtain ea l f31 <fJrx 2 f3 2.
2. Suppose condition b) holds. Then tJrx l f31 < (}rx 2f32 holds by Theorem 24.11.
3. Suppose condition c) holds. Then, by Theorem 25.2, {}1X 1f3 1 ~Kv1X2 U
{f32} < {}rx 2 f32 and therefore erx l f31 < {}1Y. 2 f3 2
4. Suppose none of the conditions holds. Then either tJrx 1f31 = (}rx.2f32 or by
a)-c) (with SUbscripts interchanged) eIX 2f32 < {}a l f31'
3. The Systems T* and OT* of Terms
Inductive Definition of the system of terms T* and of the degree Gc E N of a term

cET*.
1. OET*, GO:=O.
2. If ci is a term eaib i or Qa, in T* for i = 1, ... , n (n ~ 2) then set c1 + ... + cn E
T* and G(c l + .. , +cn ): =max (Gc l , ... , GCn ) + 1.
3. (I, bET* => eabET*, Geab :=max(Ga, Gb)+ 1.
4. O#a E T* => Qa E T*, GQa : =Ga+ 1. (Here O#a means that 0 and a are
terms of different forms).
We call the terms in T* of the form 'eab or Qa' principal terms.
Inductive Definition of the notation YE T* for an ordinal Y E e(Q):

1. 0:=0.
2. IfY=Yl + .. , +Yn E e(Q) where Yl ~ ... ~Yn (n~2) are principal numbers for
addition, then set Y:=Yl + ... + Yn'
3. If Y = elXI3 E fJ(Q), then set Y: = eEifJ.
4. If y = Q a E e(Q) where IX # 0, then set Y: = Q~.
This is an inductive definition on the degree Gy of the ordinal Y E e(Q).
Obviously the term YE T* has the same degree as the ordinal y.
The notation system OT*
Let OT* be the subsystem of T* which contains only ordinal terms YE T* which
denote ordinals Y E e(Q). This system OT* of terms is a system of unique notations
for the set of ordinals fJ(Q). That is to say: Each term YE OT* denotes one and
only one, ordinal Y E e(Q) and each ordinal y E tJ(Q) is denoted by one, and only
one term YE e(Q). The remaining terms in T* which do not belong to OT* are
formal strings of symbols which do not denote ordinals.
25. A Notation System of Ordinals Based on the 9. Functions 237
We set OT* = lJ(Q) whereby we identify each ordinal Y E lJ(Q) with its nota-
tion YE OT*. Also we now call the ordinals of lJ(Q) ordinal terms (because of the
uniqueness of the notations).
We say that two ordinal terms Yl, Y2 E lJ(Q) are recursively comparable if it
can be decided whether Yl <Y2, Yl =Y2 or Y2 <Yl'
It is obviously decidable whether any string of symbols is a term ofT*. Below
we prove that it is also decidable for every term c E T* whether c is an ordinal
term of the system lJ(Q) and that two ordinal terms from lJ(Q) are recursively
comparable.
If MclJ(Q) then GM <n (GM~n) means that G~<n (G~~n) for all ~ E M.
Lemma 1. a) 0 < oc E lJ(Q) => Soc E lJ(Q), GSoc < Goc.

b) v E 0*, oc E lJ(Q) => GKv*oc< Goc, GKvoc~ Goc.
Proof By induction on oc.
Theorem 25.5. a) It is decidable,for c E T*, whether C E lJ(Q).

b) Any two ordinal terms Yl, Y2 E lJ(Q) are recursively comparable.
Proof of a) and b) by induction on the maximum of 2Gc + 1 and 2Gy , + 2Gn .

a 1) Suppose C is O. Then C E lJ(Q).
a 2) Suppose C is c 1 + ... + Cn (n;;:,: 2) with principal terms C 1, , Cn' By I.H.
it' is decidable, for i = 1, ... , n, whether Ci E lJ(Q). If Ci : lJ(Q), then c : lJ(Q). Now
suppose c1 , ,CnElJ(Q). 2Gc'+2GC,+'<2Gc+l for i=l, ... ,n-l and therefore by
I.H. ci is recursively comparable with ci+ l' If C1 ;;:,: . ;;:,:cn, then C E lJ(Q). Otherwise
C : lJ(Q).
a 3) Suppose C is lJab. By I.H. it is decidable whether a and b belong to lJ(Q).
If a: lJ(Q) or b : lJ(Q), then C : lJ(Q). Now suppose a, b E lJ(Q). It then follows
from I.H. that Sb and Kt"a are calculable and it is decidable whether Ktba<a. By
Theorem 25.3 cElJ(Q) holds if, and only if, Ktba<a.
a 4) Suppose C is Qa where a I: O. By I.H. it is decidable whether a E lJ(Q).
C E lJ(Q) holds if, and only if, a E lJ(Q).
b 1) Suppose Yl or Y2 is O. If both are the ordinal term 0, then Yl =Y2' Other-
wise the ordinal term 0 is less than the other ordinal term.
b 2) Suppose Yi is Yil + ... + Yin, (n i ;;:': 1) with principal terms Yil;;:': ... ;;:':Yin,
(i=1,2), where n 1 +n2>2. Let m :=min(n 1 ,n 2 ). By I.H. Y1k and Y2k are recur-
sively comparable for k=I, ... ,m. If there is a least subscriptj::::;m such that
Y1j l:Y2j then Yl <Y2 (Y2 <Yl) if Ylj<Y2j (Y2j<Yl)' Now suppose Y1k=Y2k for all
k= 1, ... , m. Then Yl <Y2, Yl =Y2 or Y2 <Yl according as n 1 <n 2, n 1 =n 2 or n 2<n 1
b 3) Suppose Yl and Y2 are principal terms. Then it follows from the I.H.
that SYI and SY2 are recursively comparable. If SYI < SY2 (SY2 < SYl)' then
Yl <Y2 (Y2 <Yl) Now suppose SYI =SY2 =v. If both are the ordinal term Qv, then
Yl =Y2 If only one of the two ordinal terms is Qv, then this one is less than the
other ordinal term. There remains the case Yi=lJocd3i where SYi=SPi=V (i= 1, 2).
Then by I.H. oc 1 and OC 2 are recursively comparable.
238 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of lIl-Analysis
b 3.1) OC 1 <OC 2 It follows from the I.H. that K.oc 1 is calculable and it is decid-
able whether K.oc 1 u {Pd <Y2 holds. By Theorem 25.4, Yl <Y2 if K.oc 1 u {Pd <Y2
and Y2<Yl ifY2~K.ocl U {PI}
b 3.2) oc 1 =oc 2 By I.H. PI an<;l P2 are recursively comparable. Yl <Y2, Yl =Y2
or Y2 <Yl holds according as PI <P2' PI =P2 or P2 <Pl
b 3.3) oc 2 <oc 1 . Then it follows in the same way as in b 3.1) that Yl and Y2 are
recursively comparable.
4. The Subsystem (j( t) of (j( D)
Below we assume O<t E 0*.
Inductive Definition of B(t) c 0*:

l. 0 E B(t)
2. O<Y P, p(y)cB(t) => Y E B(t)
3. oc, P E (j(t), SJ1.(rx)~SP => Brxp E B(t)
4.0<rx<t,rxE{j(t)=>D"EB(t)
(j(t) is obviously a subsystem of B(D). Therefore every ordinal OCE{j(t) has a
uniquely determined degree Grx EN.
Theorem 25.6. a) It is decidable,for c E T*, whether c E B(t).

b) Any two ordinal terms/rom (j(t) are recursively comparable.
Proof This follows from Theorem 25.5 since (j(t) is a subsystem of (j(D).
Lemma 2.
a) rxEB(t)-=P(rx)cB(t)
b) rx E (j(t) => Ds" E B(t)
Proof By induction on Goc.
Theorem 25.7. B(t)=qD"0) n O*(D,).
Proof l. Suppose Y E B(t). We prove that Y E q D" 0) and Y< D, by induction

onGy.
1.1 Y P. Then the assertion follows from the I.H.
1.2 Y = Brxp. Then by I.H. rx, P E qD" 0), rx < D, and P < D, hold. It follows
that Y < D, and by Theorem 24.12 b) that Y E qD" 0).
l.3 Y = D" where rx # O. Then rx < t and by I.H. rx E qD" 0). It follows that
Y E qD" 0) and y<D,.
2. Suppose Y E q D" 0) and y < D,. Then there exists n such that
yE Cn + 1 (D" 0). We prove by induction on n that yE B(t).
2.1 Suppose y E Cn + 1(D" 0) holds by (D2). Then the assertion follows from
the I.H.
25. A Notation System of Ordinals Based on the O. Functions 239
2.2 Suppose Y E Cn+ 1(Q" 0) holds by (D3). Then y=()a!3 where a<Q"
a E C(a, ()ap), p<()ap and a, P E Cn(Q, , 0). By I.H. we obtain a, P E eeL). By
Theorems 24.10 and 24.11 there exists {3 such that Sfl(a),:;;S{3=SP and y=ea{3.
Here
P= flea) + ri{3) + la{3.
It follows from PE eeL) by Lemma 2 that QspE eeL) and ri{3)E e('c:). If Sfl(a) = S{3,
then by Lemma 2 a) we have
If Sfl(a)<S{3 then
In any case we have a, {3E eeL) where Sfl(a)':;;S{3. It follows that y=ea{3E eeL).
2.3 Suppose YECn+ 1(Q,,0) holds by (D4). Then y=Q" where O<a<r. By
I.H. we have a E eeL). Hence it follows that y E eeL).
Theorem 25.8. 8(,) n O*(Q1)=O*(()Q,0). That is to say: The 0 level ofe(,) con-
sists of the segment of all ordinals < ()Q,O.
Proof This follows from Theorems 25.7 and 24.8 b) .
. 5. The Ordinal Ao
By definition e(Q) is the closure of the set {O} under finitely many functions of
ordinals. Therefore by Ax. III the set 8(Q) n O*(Q1) has cardinality < Q1' It
follows by Ax. IV that there is a least ordinal rt 8(Q) which is < Q1' We denote
this least ordinal by Ao. Therefore we have
Lemma 3. IfYEe(Q) there exists ,#0 such that YE8(,).
Proof This follows by induction on Gy.
Theorem 25.9. e(Q) n O*(Q1) = O*(Ao). That is to say: The 0 level of 8(Q) con-
sists of the segment of all ordinals < Ao.
Proof Suppose YEe(Q) n O*(Q1)' By Lemma 3 there exists ,#0 such that
y E eeL) n O*(Q1)' By Theorem 25.8 we obtain
Since Ao rf. e(Q), we have OQtO~Ao' Then y E O*(Ao). Thus
From the properties of Ao we also have
6. Relations between Cr (oc) and In (oc)
The set 0 of ordinals considered in 13 can be identified with 0*(Q1)' Then, for
the set Cr (oc) of oc-critical numbers defined in 13, we have
/3 E Cr (oc) = oc, /3 E 0*(Q1)'
Lemma 4. OC<OQ10 = oc E C(oc, /3).
Proof By Theorem 24.8 b) from OC<OQ10 we have ocEC(D1,0). Since Q 1 is a

limit number it follows by Lemma 3 b) of 24 that there is a least ordinalI'{ < Q 1
such that oc E C(I'{, 0). Because of its minimality this ordinalI'{ is not a limit number.
If I'{=O, then OCEC(O,O), hence OCEC(OC,f3) by Lemma 3 a) of 24. Otherwise
I'{=e+ 1 where oc rf. C(e, 0) and oc E C(e+ 1, 0). Then C(e, 0):;6 C(e+ 1, 0) and con-
sequently by Lemma 9 of 24 e E C(e, 0). Since e<Q 1 and OC<Q1' by Theorem
24.8 b) e E C(e, 0) and oc rf. C(e, 0) imply e < OeO ~ oc, and therefore e + 1 ~ oc. Then
from oc E C(e + 1, 0) it follows that oc E C(oc, f3) by Lemma 6 a) of 24.
Lemma 5. e<oc~OQ10, y E In (oc) = Oey=y.
Proof There exists /3 such that y = Ooc/3. By Lemma 4 e E C(e, Ooc/3). By Theorem
24.7 b) we obtain Oe(Ooc/3)=Ooc/3, and therefore Oey=y.
Theorem 25.10. Ifoc~OQ10, then:

a) Cr(oc)=In(oc)nO*(Q 1)
b) /3 < Q 1 = f/Joc/3 = Ooc/3
Proof of a) by induction on oc. By the definition of Cr (0), Cr (0)=PnO*(Q1)'

By Theorem 24.4 a) In (0) = P. Therefore the assertion holds for oc = O. Now sup-
pose 0 < oc ~ OQ 1 O. If Y E In (oc) n 0*(Q1)' then for all e < oc, by Lemma 5, we have
Oey = y and consequently by I.H. 0ey = y. Then y E Cr (oc) by the definition of
Cr (oc). Hence
Now suppose y E Cr (oc). Then for all e < oc, by the definition of Cr (oc) we have
f/Jey = y and consequently by I.H. Oey = y. It follows that yEn In (e). If oc is a
~<'"
26. Level-Lowering Functions of the Ordinals 241
limit number, then by Theorem 24.4 a) we have ')!EIn(et). Otherwise et=et o +l

where (}et o')! = ')!. By Theorem 24.10 we have ')! ~ In (et o). Since YE In (et o) it follows
that Y E In (et). We therefore also have
(2) Cr(et)cIn(et).
The assertion follows from (1), (2) and Cr (et)c O*(Q1)'

b) follows from a), since </Ja and (}a are the ordering functions of Cr (et) and
In (et).
Lemma 6. (}Q 10 is the least ordinal Yf such that (}YfO = Yf.
Proof 1. If e<(}Q10 then by Lemma 4 e E C(e, 0). It follows by Theorem 24.8 b)

that e < (}eO.
2. If(}Q10~e<Q1' then by Theorem 24.8 a) e ~ C(Q 1, (}Q10). By Lemma 6a)
of 24 we have
By Theorem 24.7 a) we obtain (}((}Q10)0=(}Q10.
Proof By definition r 0 is the least ordinal Yf such that </JYfO = Yf. By Theorem
25.10 b) and Lemma 6 we have rO=(}Q10.
Theorem 25.12. OT=B(I).
Proof By 13 OT denotes the segment o*(r 0) of the ordinals. By Theorems 25.7

and 25.8
Hence, by Theorem 25.11, OT=B(l).
26. Level-Lowering Functions of the Ordinals
In this section we introduce some functions of ordinals which we shall use in 27

for the consistency proof of the formal system P A. Thus here we shall be chiefly
concerned with functions which assign ordinal terms of lower levels to certain
ordinal terms.
242 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of l1:-Analysis
l. Basic Concepts
In the following we suppose O<O"~w. We consider ordinal terms from the

notation system 0(0"+ 1). The maximal level of these ordinal terms is 0". We also
regard the ordinal terms < 0" as natural numbers.
We use the syntactic symbols
ct, {3, y, J for principal terms of level 0" in the system 8(0"+ 1),
~,17," /1, v for arbitrary ordinal terms of the system 8(0"+ 1),
i,j, k for ordinal terms (natural numbers) < 0".
We shall also use these syntactic symbols with subscripts. For brevity we write
(~, 17) for 0~17
Definition of Si+2~ E 0(0"+ 1):

1. If ~ < Qi+2' then set Si+2~ : =0.
2. If Qi+2~~=~1+"'+~n with principal terms ~l?:"'?:~n (n?:1) then set
Si+2~ : = ~1 + ... + ~m' where m is the largest subscript ~n such that Qi+2 ~ ~m'
Corollaries.!' For each ~ there exists 17<Qi+2 such that ~=si+2~+17.

2. ~<17=Si+2~~si+217.
3. si+2~<Si+217 = ~<Si+217, si+2~+Qi+2~Si+217
Inductive Definition of h~ :
1. hO=hQa :=0.
2. 0 < i < 0" = hQ i : = i.
3. h(~l' ~2):=max{h~1,h~2}'
4. 0< ~ ~ P =h~ : = max {h~i I ~i E P(~)},
that is to say: h~ is the least number such that no Q k occurs in ~ with h~ < k < 0".
We say that 17 is a sub term of ~ if either ~ 1=17 E P(~) or ~ =(17, ~2) or ~ = (~1' 17)
or ~=Qq.
Lemma 1. a) h~ < 0".

b) S~<O"= S~~h~.
c) For every subterm 17 of~, h17 ~h~.
d) If 17 is a subterm of ~ such that S17 < 0", then S17 ~h~.
Proofs. These follow at once from the definition of h~.
2. Properties of the Sets of Coefficients
~EM ~EM
maximum of the finite set K;*~ u {O}.

Lemma 2. /fi<k, then:

a) K/Kk*r:;::,Ki*'
b) KiKk*r:;::,Ki'
c) Ki*=Kk* u Ki*Kk'
Proof These follow by induction on G.
Lemma 3. a) S1] = (J ~ < (, 1]).

b) S=(J, h<i<(J ~ Ki*<'
Proof of a). If S1]=(J then by Theorem 25.2 K,,, 1]). Here K,,=P() since
S<(J. Therefore P() ,1]) holds. Hence we have ,1]) since (,1]) is a
principal term.
Proof of b) by induction on G using Lemma 1 c), d) ..

l. ~P. For all kEP() such that Sk<(J we have Sk<h<i and conse-
quently K;*k= 0. For all kEP() such that Sk=(J we have hk<h and conse-
quently by I.H. Ki*k<k' Hence we obtain K/<.
2. =(1' 2)' Then S2 =(J, h2 <h and, by I.H., K;*2 <2 <. If S1 <(J,
then 1 < and S1 <h < i, and consequently Ki*1 = 0. If S1 =(J, then h1 <h
and consequently by I.H. and a) Ki* 1 < 1 < . In every case K;* = g d U
K/1 UK/2<'
3. =Q". Then K/=K/(J= 0 since S(J=O.
Lemma 4. a) Ki*k'n<k'n.
b) K/< ~ K i*Si+2<Si+2'
c) Ki*Si+2k'n<Si+2k'n.
Proofs. a) By Lemma 2 a) K/k'nr:;::,K;*. Moreover ki Ki*k'n. Therefore

K/k'n<k'n.
b) If K/<Si+2' then also K/S i+2<Si+2' Now suppose Si+2<Ki*'
Then since Ki* < it follows that there is an ordinal term 1] of least degree such
that Si+2 < Ki*1] < . By the minimality of G1] we have 1] E P and 1] K, and there-
fore 1] = (1] 1,1]2) where ki1] = 1] 1 and
Then Si+2=Si+21]1 and consequently K i*Si+2r:;::,K/1]1 <Si+2'

c) follows from a) and b).
Proof by induction on G1]. If Qi+2 <1], then the assertion is trivial. If 1] P then
it follows from the I.H. If 1] < Qi+ l' then K;*1] = 0 < + 1]. There remains the case
1] = (1]1,1]2) where S1]2 = i+ l. Then by Lemma 2 c)
244 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of IIi-Analysis
If ~ E Ki+ 1'11 U{l72}, then G~ <G'1, K{cK{'1 <~ +Qi+2 and therefore by I.H. and
Theorem 25.2 K;*~ < ~ + ~ < ~ + '1.
By Theorem 25.2 we also have K;*+1'11 <'11' It therefore remains only to prove
'11 <~+'1. If '11 <~, then '11 <~+'1. Now suppose ~<I1t. Then from
it follows that there exists '10<Qi+2 such that '11 =~+'10. Hence we obtain
Ki + 1'10 C K i + 1'11 < '1, where K i + 1'10 = P('1o) since '10 < Qi+ 2' Therefore P('1o) < '1
holds. Since '1 is a principal term, we obtain IJo < IJ. Then IJ 1 = ~ + IJo < ~ + '1 as was
to be proved.
Lemma 6. a) ~<Qi+2' Ki*t1'1<'1, ('1, Qi+1)<~ => '1<Ki*~'

b) Ki*IJ<IJ, ~IJ, Qi+1) => K;*~<'1.
Proofs by induction on G~.

a) If ~P, then the assertion follows from the I.H. Otherwise ~=(~1' ~2) where
S~2 =i+ 1. Then by Lemma 2 c)
If IJ<~l' then the assertion IJ<Ki*~ holds. If ~1 <IJ, then from ('1, Qi+1)<~=
(~1' ~2)' by Theorem 25.4 we obtain
Then it follows by I.H. that IJ<K;*(Ki+1~lug2}) and therefore also, '1<K;*~.

b) If ~ P the assertion follows from the I.H. If ~ <Qi + l' then K;* ~ = 0 < IJ.
There remains the case ~ = (~1' ~ 2) where S~ 2 = i + 1. Then, by Lemma 2 c)
We therefore only have to prove ~1 <'1. Assume that '1<~1' Since
by Theorem 25.4, we obtain (~1' Qi+l) < K i + 1'1. Then there exists '10 E Ki+ 1'1 such
that '10 < Qi+ 2 and (~1' Qi+ 1) < IJo By a)(with '10' ~ 1 instead of~, IJ), using Ki*+ 1~ 1 <
~1 we obtain ~1 <K;*IJo~K;*'1<IJ Hence ~1 <IJ
26. Level"Lowering Functions of the Ordinals 245
3. The Ordinal Term d/1.
Now, for each number i < (J, we define a map di which assigns a principal term d/1.
of level i to each principal term IY. of level (J. We shall use these in 27.
Inductive definition of dilY. :

1. If hlY.~i<(J, set dilY.: =(IY., QJ.
2. If i<hlY., set
d . . ={(Si+2kidi+llY., Q;), if di+llY.=(Si+2kidi+llY., Qi+l)

,IY.. (Si+2 k*d .
i i+ llY.+di+llY., Q;) otherwIse.
(The definition is by induction on hlY. - i).
According to this definition dilY. is always a term of the system T*. We prove:
Theorem 26.1. dilY. is a principal term of level i in the system i1( (J + 1).
It suffices to prove that dilY. E i1( (J + 1). If hlY. ~ i < (J, then by Lemma 3 b) K"(IY. < IY.
and consequently dilY.=(IY., Q;) E i1((J+ 1). We prove the assertion by induction on
hlY. - i for i < hlY.. In this case dilY. = (~, Q;) where
Then, by I.H., di +llY. E i1((J+ 1) and consequently ~ E i1((J+ 1) too. By Lemma 4 c)
(1) Ki*Si+2k*di+llY.<Si+2k idi+llY.

Ki*di +llY. < Si + 2k idi+llY. + Qi+ 2
also holds. By Lemma 5 we obtain
From (1) and (2) we obtain Ki*~ < ~ and therefore dilY. = (~, Q;) E i1((J+ 1).
Proof 1. If hlY.~i, then dilY. = (IY., Q;) and Qi+l ~IY.. It follows that (Q i + l , Q;)~dilY.
2. We prove the assertion by induction on hlY.-i for i<hlY.. By the definition
there are the following two cases to be considered.
2.1 dilY.=(~, Q;) where di+llY.=(~, Qi+l)' Then by I.H. (Q i + 2 , Qi+1)~di+l!X=
(~,Qi+l)' dilY.=(~,Q;)Ei1((J+I) implies Kn<~ By Lemma 6 from (~,Qi+l)<
Qi+2' K;*Qi+2<Q i+2 and (Q i + 2 , Qi+l)~(~' Qi+l) we therefore have Qi+2~
K;*(~, Qi+l)' Hence Qi+2~~ and (Q i + 1 , Q;)~, Q;)=dilY.
2.2 dilY.=(~, Q;) where ~=Si+2kidi+llY.+di+llY.. Then Qi+l ~di+llY.~~. Hence
(Q i + l , Qi)~dilY.
246 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of n!-AnaJysis
Lemma 8. i<j = Kidp.=Kirx u {I}.
Proof 1. If hrx ~j then
Kidp.=Ki(rx, Qj)=Kirx u {I},
since KiQj=KJ= {l}.

2. We prove the assertion by induction on hrx - j for j < hrx.
2.1. dp.=(~, Qj) where dj+lrx=(~, Qj+l). Then Kidjrx=Kidj+lrx and conse-
quently by I.H. Kidp.=Kirx u {I}.
2.2. dp.=(~, Qj) where ~=sj+2kjdj+lrx+dj+lrx. By Lemma 2 b)
It follows that Ki~=Kidj+lrx and by I.H. Ki~=Kirx u {I}. Then we also have
Kidp.=Kirx u {I}.
Proof 1. If hrx ~ i then dirx = (rx, QJ and, by Theorem 25.2, Kirx < dirx.
2. If i < hrx we have dirx = (~, Qi) where, by Theorem 25.2 Ki~ < dirx.
2.1. di+lrx=(~, Qi+l). Then, by Lemma 8,
It follows from Lemma 7 that 1 <dirx. Using Ki~<dirx we obtain Kirx < dirx.
2.2. ~=Si+2kidi+lrx+di+lrx. Then, by Lemma 2 b) and 8)
Therefore from Ki~<dirx we obtain Kirx<dirx.
Lemma 9. If hrx<i+ 1 <(J', then dirx=(Si+2kidi+lrx, Qi) and di+lrx=(Si+2kidi+lrx,

Qi+l)
Proof If hrx<i+ 1 <(J', then dirx = (rx, Qi)' di+1 rx=(rx, Qi+l)' K i*di+1 rx={rx} u Ki*rx
and by Lemma 3 b) Ki*rx < rx. It follows that kidi +1 rx=rx and, since rx is a principal
term of level (J' ~ i + 2, we also have Si + 2kidi +1 rx = rx. This yields the assertions.
Proof By the definition of dirx and Lemma 9 dirx=(~, Qi) where
By Lemmata 2 b) and 8
It follows from Lemma 7 that 1 <d;/3. Using the hypothesis KilX< d;/3 we obtain
Ki~<diP, We have diP=(Yf, [1i)' We prove ~<Yf. Then usingKi~<diP and [1i < diP,
by Theorem 25.4, the assertion dilX < diP follows. By the definition of diP and
Lemma 9 it follows that there are two cases for Yf.
1. di+1P=(Yf, [1i+l) and Yf=Si+2Yf. Then Ki*Yf<Yf. Therefore from di+11X<
di+1P=(Yf, [1i+l) we obtain by Lemma 6 b) K i*di+11X<Yf and therefore
Si+2kfdi+11X<Yf also. Since di+11X<[1i+2 and Yf=Si+2Yf we obtain -
2. Yf=Si+2kfdi+1P+di+1P.
By Lemma 4c)
Ki*Si+ 2kfdi + llX <Si+2 k fdi+l lX
Were di+11XSi+2kfdi+11X, [1i+l) then by Lemma 6 b) we should obtain
Ki*di+1IX<Si+2ktdi+11X which is false. Hence (Si+2ktdi+11X, [1i+1)~di+11X. Using
the hypothesis di+1lX<di+1P we obtain (Si+2ktdi+11X, [1i+1)<di+1P. Now di+1P<
[1i+2' Therefore by Lemma 6 a) we obtain
Then
too. Using the hypothesis di +11X<di+1P we obtain
Lemma 11. IfIX<P and KilX < diP for all i~j, then dilX < diP holdsfor all i~j.
Proof 1. max U, hlX, hP) ~ i. Then dilX = (IX, [1i) and diP = (P, [1i)' In this case by
Theorem 25.4 from the hypotheses IX < P and KilX < diP we obtain dilX < diP by using
[1i < diP
2. j ~ i < max (hlX, hP). Then we obtain dilX < diP by Lemma 10 by induction
on max (hlX, hp) - i.
Definition. IXP (IX is essentially less than P) denotes that IX<P and KilX < diP for
alli<u.
Theorem 26.3. If IX P, then dilX < diP for all i < u.
Proof This holds by Lemma 11 withj=O.
Theorem 26.4. IX P, P Y :;. IX y.
Proof PY implies P<y and by Theorem 26.3 diP<diy for all i<u. Using IXP
we obtain IXY.
248 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of lI:-Analysis
4. The Natural Sum
Definition of the natural sum ~ *rJ :

1. ~*O=O*~ :=~.
2. If ~=(l+"'+(m where (l~"'~(m (m~l) are principal terms and
rJ =(m+ 1 + ... +(m+n where (m+ 1 ~ ... ~ (m+n (n~ 1) are principal terms then set
where n is a permutation of the numbers 1, ... , m+n such that (1t(1)~'" ~(1t(m+n)'
Corollaries. 1. ~ * *
rJ = rJ ~.
2. (~*rJ)*(=~*(rJ*().
3. ~<rJ ~ ~ *( <rJ*'-
4. Ki*(~*rJ)=K;*~ u Ki*rJ, Ki(~*rJ)=Ki~ u KirJ
Theorem 26.5. a) a (v, a ~) *

b) af3 ~ (v, a*~)(v, f3*~).
c) fl < v < Q 1, a(v, (3) => (fl, a) (v, f3).
Proofs. a) a~a*~v, a*~) and Kia <;; Ki(v, a*~) hold. By Theorem 26.2 we
obtain Kia < di(v, a*~). Hence we have a(v, a*~).
b) a<f3 implies (v, a*~)v, f3*~). By a) f3(v, f3*~). By Theorem 26.4:
using af3, we obtain a(v, (3*~) and therefore Kia < di(v, (3*~). By Theorem
26.2 Kiv u Ki~<;;KJv, f3*~) implies Kiv U Ki~<dlv, (3*~). Hence
Hence we obtain (v, a*~)(v, f3*~).

c) Using K(1fl = P(fl) v, (3) from fl<V<Q 1 and av, (3), by Theorem 25.4,
we obtain (fl, a)v, f3). By Theorem 26.2 from Kiv<;;Ki(v, (3) we obtain Kiv<
di(v, (3). Hence we obtain v <di(v, f3), since Kiv=P(v) and di(v, f3) is a principal
term. Using fl<V we obtain Kifl = P(fl) <di(v, (3). Using a(v, f3) we obtain
Hence we have (fl, a)(v, f3).
5. Deduction Functions
We define some functions which map the set of principal terms of level a into
itself. We shall use these in 27.
Inductive definition of the deduction functions of rank p ~ a.

1. The identity function on the set of principal terms of level a is a deduction
function of rank p and degree O.
2. Iff is a deduction function of rank p and degree nand
g(a) = (v,J(a) "" ~),
then 9 is a deduction function of rank p and degree n + 1.

3. Iffis a deduction function of rank p and degree nand
g(a) =(0, Qa+dd(a)) where p~k<u,
then 9 is a deduction function of rank p and degree n + 1.

According to this definition every deduction function of rank p#-O is also a
deduction function of every rank < p. Therefore every deduction function is a
deduction function of rank O.
If p ~ U we denote the set of numbers i such that p ~ i < u by [p, u). (If p = u
this set is empty).
Lemma 12. If 9 is a deduction function of rank p ~ u, a < 13 and Kia < dif3 for all
i E [p, u), then g(a) <g(f3) and Kig(a) < d ig(f3) for all i E [p, u).
Proof by induction on the degree of the deduction function g.

1. g(a)=a. Then the assertion is trivial.
2. g(a) = (v,J(a) "" ~), where, by I.H., f(a) <f(f3) and K;!(a) < d;!(f3) hold for
a,ll i E [p, u).f(a) <f(f3) implies g(a) <g(f3). By Theorem 26.5 a) f(f3) g(l3). Hence
by Theorem 26.3 we obtain d;!(f3) <dig(f3) and by the I.H. K;!(a) <dig(f3) for all
i E [p, u). By Theorem 26.2 from Kiv U Ki~ ~ Kig(f3) we obtain Kiv U Ki~ < d ig(f3).
Hence. we obtain
for all i E [p, u). I
3. g(a)=(O, Qa+dd(a)) where p~k<u and where, by I.H., f(a) <f(f3) and
K;!(a) < d;!(f3) holds for all i E [p, u). By Lemma 11 we obtain d;!(a) < d;!(f3) for
all iE [p, u) and therefore, in particular, dd(a)<dd(f3). Hence we obtain g(a) <
g(f3). We now prove Kig( a) < dig(f3) for i E [p, u).
3.1. k ~ i < u. Then Kig(f3) = Kiu U {dd(f3)}. By Theorem 26.2 we obtain
Kiu U {dd(f3)} < dig(f3). Using dd( a) < dd(f3) we obtain
Kig(a) =Kiu U {dd(a)} <dig(f3).
3.2. p~i<k. Then by Lemma 8

By 3.1. dd(f3) <d,g(f3). Using KJ(f3) < dig(f3) , by Lemma 10 using induction on
k - i we obtain dJ(f3) < dig(f3), Hence
Kig(a) =KiauKJ(a)u{l} <d;9(f3)
Theorem 26.6. af3 implies g(a) g(f3) for every deduction function g.
Proof This holds by Lemma 12 (with p=O).
Lemma 13. If 9 is a deduction function of rank p ~ a, then
for all i<p.
Proof By induction on the degree of the deduction function g.

1. g( a) = a. Then the assertion is trivial.
2. g(a)=(v,f(a):jf~) where, by I.H.,
holds for all i < p. In this case
Hence the assertion follows from the I.H.

3. g(l>:) =(0, Q,,+dd(a)) with p~k<a, where, by I.H.,
for all i<p. Then by Lemma 8
for i < p. Hence the assertion follows from the I.H.

We shall use the following theorem in 27.
Theorem 26.7. Ifa=(v, (0, Q,,+dky):jf(j), f3=(v+ 1, (j) andg is a deductionfunction

of rank k+ 1 ~a such that yg(f3), then g(a) g(f3).
Proof dky<Q,,v+ 1, (j) implies Q,,+dkyv+ 1, (j). Then
too. Using (jv+ 1, (j) we obtain

By Theorem 25.2 Kcrv<;;Kcr(v + l)v+ 1, b). By Theorem 25.4 we obtain
We now prove that g(ex) <g(P) and Kig(ex) <dig(f3) for all ka.
1. Suppose k+ 1 =a. By Lemma 12 ex<fl implies g(ex) <g(fl).
2. Suppose k<i<a. By Theorem 26.2 from Kiv U Kib<;;Kifl we obtain
Ki v U Kib < difl. Using
we obtain
K/f.=Kiv u Kia u {dky} u Kib<difl.
Since this holds for all i E [k + 1, a) using ex < fl we obtain g(ex) <g(fl) and Kig(ex) <
dig(fl) by Lemma 12.
3. Suppose i~k. Then Kiex = Kiv u Kia u Kidky u Kib and consequently by
Lemma 13
By Lemma 7 a~wQl' 0) implies a<dig(f3). Thus
too. From yg(f3) we obtain K iy<dig(f3) and by Theorem 26.3 we also obtain
dky < dkg(fl). If i = k we obtain
If kk, then by Lemma 8
In every case
By Theorem 26.2
also holds. Kig(ex) <dig(f3) follows from (1)-(4).

252 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of llJ-Analysis
27. The Formal System GPA for a Generalized II~-Analysis
G. Takeuti [4J proved the consistency of subsystems of classical analysis in which

the comprehension axiom is essentially restricted to In-formulas. In this section
we prove the consistency of a corresponding formal system GPA following the
proof of Takeuti.
We use the formal language of classical second order arithmetic described in

20.1 with the syntactic symbols listed there.
Inductive definition of the set Pr (F) of free predicate variables which are' in the
scope of a predicate quantifier:
1. If F is a prime formula or a formula U(t), then Pr (F) is empty.
2. Pr (A ~ B): =Pr (A) u Pr (B).
3. If F is a formula Vx%'[xJ or AX%'[XJ(t), then Pr (F) : = Pr (%'[OJ).
4. If F is a formula VX%,[XJ, then Pr(F) is the set offree predicate variables
occurring in F.
Inductive definition of weak formulas.

1. Every prime formula and every formula U(t) is a weak formula.
2. If A and B are weak formulas, then (A ~ B) is a weak formula too.
3. If %'[OJ is a weak formula in which the bound number variable x does not
occur, then Vx%'[xJ and h%'[xJ(t) are weak formulas too.
4. If %'[ UJ is a weak formula in which the bound predicate variable X does
not occur and U rt Pr (%'[UJ), then VX%,[XJ is a weak formula too.
G. Takeuti called the weak formulas which we have defined here isolated.
Amongst these formulas there are, in particular, the In-formulas that is to say
the formulas VX%,[XJ where no bound predicate variables occur in %'.
By weak predicators we mean the free predicate variables and the predicators
of the form AX%'[XJ where %'[OJ is a weak formula.
We call formulas and predicators, which are not weak, strong.
Inductive definition of the degree gr (F) of a formula F:

1. If F is a prime formula or a formula U(t), then set gr (F) : = O.
2. gr (A ~ B) : = max (gr (A), gr (B) + 1.
3. gr (Vx%'[xJ) = gr (AX%'[XJ(t : = gr (%'[OJ) + 1.
4. IfVX%,[XJ is a weak formula, then set gr(VX%,[XJ) :=gr(%'[UJ)+ 1.
5. IfVX%,[XJ is a strong formula, then set gr(VX%,[XJ) :=gr(%'[UJ)+w.
By this definition every formula has a degree w m + n (where m, n EN). We
call m the weight of the given formula. The weight is 0 if, and only if, the formula
is a weak formula.
27. The Formal System GPA for a Generalized nl-Analysis 253
Lemma 1. If P is a weak predicator, then:

a) If d[U] is a weak formula, then d[P] is a weakformula too.
b) Every formula ff[ P] has the same weight as the formula ff[ U].
c) If VXff[X] is a strong formula, then ff[P] has a smaller degree than
VXff[X].
Proof a) follows by induction on the length of the nominal form d. b) follows

from a) by induction on the length of the nominal form ff. c) follows from b)
since a strong formula VXff[X] has greater weight than the formula ff[U].
Inductive definition of the rank rk (F) of a formula F:

1. If F is a prime formula or a formula U(t), then set rk (F) : = o.
2. rk (A ~ B) : = max (rk (A), rk (B).
3. rk (Vxff[x]) =rk (Axff[x](t): =rk (ff[O]).
4. IfVXff[X] is a weak formula, then set rk(VXff[X]) :=rk(ff[U])+ r
5. IfVXff[X] is a strong formula, then set rk(VXff[X]) :=w.
Lemma 2. a) Every formula has a rank ~ w.

b) rk (F) < w if, and only if, F is a weak formula.
c) The rank of a formula is equal to the maximum of the ranks of its minimal
parts.
1',roof This follows at once from the definition of rank.
Definition of formulas %[ ] and .,q[ , B] :

1. Every N-form % is a nominal form g}[(*1 ~ C)] where g} is a P-form.
Now set %[ ] to be the formula g}[C].
2. For every NP-form .,q .,q[* l' B] is an N-form %. Now set.,q[ ,B] to be
the formula %[ ].
2. Axioms, Basic Inference and Substitution Inferences
Axioms of the formal system GPA:

(Axl) g}[A] if A is a true constant prime formula.
(Ax2) %[A] if A is a false constant prime formula.
(Ax3) .,q[A, B] if A and B are equivalent simple formulas.
(Ax4) ff[a 1, ... , an] (n~ I) if a 1, ... , an do not occur in ff and ff[m1' ... , m n] is
one of the axioms (Axl}-(Ax3) for all n numerals m 1 , , mn
The minimal parts of the axioms (Axl)-(Ax3) indicated are said to be the
principal parts of those axioms.
Remark. The axioms of the system GPA are formulated somewhat more generally
than the axioms of the system DA in so far as the principal parts of (Ax3) in DA
have degree 0 while those in GPA are only required to be simple. This has no
fundamental significance but it proves to be useful for the investigations below.
254 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of lIi-Analysis
Basic inferences of the formal system GPA:

(Sl) %[iA], %[B] I- %[A ~ B] if B is not the formula_L
(S2.0) &'[~[a]] I- &,[\v'x~[x]] if a does not occur in the conclusion.
(S2.1) &'[~[U]] 1-&'[\iX~[X]] if U does not occur in the conclusion.
(S3.0) ~[t] ~ %[\ix~[x]] I- %[\ix~[x]].
(S3.1) ~[P] ~ %[\iX~[X]]I- %[\iX~[X]] if P is a weak predicator or
\iX~[X] is a weak formula.
(S4) @''[~[t]] I- C[Ax~[X](t)].
(cut) &,[A], %[A] I- B if &'[%[ ]] f!. B holds.
(el) ~[O], ~[a] ~ ~[a'] I- ~[t] if a does not occur in ~.
(str) FI- G if Ff!. G holds.
In addition to these basic inferences we use the substitution inferences of the
following sort:
(sub) ~[U] I- ~[P] if U does not occur in ~ and U Pr (~[U]).
The way in which the formal system GPA is restricted as opposed to full
classical second order arithmetic is because of the restricting condition for (S3.1)-
inferences. The restriction to weak predicators P corresponds to restricting the
comprehension axiom to In-formulas. On the other hand the wider condition on
(S3.1) allowing weak formulas \iX~[X] and arbitrary predicators P means the
formal system GPA is a strengthening of IIf-analysis. (It contains IIf-compre-
hension with bar-induction for arithmetic relations.)
We call the basic inferences (Sl)-(S4) principal inferences. The minimal part
shown in the conclusion of a principal inference is called the principal part of that
inference.
The free variable denoted by a and U in the premises of the inferences (S2.0),
(S2.l), (el) and (sub) is called the eigenvariable of that inference.
The formula denoted by ~[P] in the premise of a basic inference (S3.1) is
called the eigenformula of that inference. The formula denoted by A in the premises
of a basic inference (cut) is called the cut formula.
A basic inference (el) is a complete induction inference and a basic inference
(str) is a structural inference.
We set the degree of a basic inference (S3.1) to be the degree of its eigen-
formula. We set the degree of a basic inference (cut) to be the degree of its cut
formula. We set the degree of a basic inference (el) to be the degree of its first
premise.
Lemma 3. If the premise of an inference (str) or (sub) is an axiom, then the con-
clusion of the inference is also an axiom.
Proof The axioms were chosen here to be so general that Lemma 3 would hold.
Lemma 4. If both premises of a cut are axioms which contain no free number
variables and the cut-formula is simple, then the conclusion of the cut is also an
axiom.
Proof Let &,[A], %[A] I- B where &'[%[ ]] f!. B be a cut satisfying the hypo-
27. The Formal System GPA for a Generalized 111-Analysis 255
theses of the Lemma. It suffices to prove that .?Ji[%[ ]] is an axiom since then
by Lemma 3 B is also an axiom. If the minimal part A of .?Ji[A] or of %[A] is not
a principal part of the axiom involved then obviously .?Ji[%[ ]] is also an axiom.
Otherwise one of the following three cases holds.
1. A is a true constant prime formula and % is an N-form 2[*1' A 2 ] where
A and A2 are equivalent. Then A2 is also a true constant prime formula and
.?Ji[%[ ]] is the (Axl) .?Ji[2[ ,A 2]].
2. A is a false constant prime formula and.?Ji is a P-form 2[A1' *1] where Al
and A are equivalent. Then A 1 is also a false constant prime formula and .?Ji[%[ ]]
is the (Ax2) 2[A 1 , .[ ]].
3. .?Ji is a P-form 2 1[A 1 , *1] and % an N-form 2 2[ *1' A 2] where AI' A and
A, A2 are equivalent. Then (by Theorem 20.1) Al and A2 are also equivalent and
.?Ji[%[ ]] is the (Ax3) 2 1 [A 1 , 2 2 [ ,A 2 ]].
3. Deductions
For the system GPA deductions are defined in the following way as finite tree-like
configurations of formulas.
Inductive definition of deductions:

1. If F is an axiom then the formula F forms a deduction with end formula F.
2. If H is a deduction whose end formula is the premise of an (S2.0), (S2.1),
(S3.0), (S3.1), (S4), (str) or (sub) inference with conclusion Fthen the figure
H
F
forms a deduction with end formula F.

3. If HI and H2 are deductions whose end formulas are the premises of an
(SI), (cut) or (eI) inference with conclusion F then the figure
forms a deduction with end formula F.

We call the formulas of the deduction which do not occur as conclusions of
inferences initial formulas. These initial formulas are axioms. However, besides
the initial formulas, a deduction can contain other axioms (as conclusions of
inferences).
Inductive definition of the end piece of a deduction:

1. The end formula of the deduction belongs to the end piece of the deduction.
2. If the conclusion of an inference (cut) belongs to the end piece of the
deduction then so too do both premises of this inference.
256 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of rrl-Analysis
3. If the conclusion of an inference (str) or (sub) belongs to the end piece of

the deduction so too does the premise of this inference.
No other formula belongs to the end piece.
By the inferences of the end piece we mean those inferences of the deduction
whose premises belong to the end piece. Every inference of the end piece is a
(cut), (str) or (sub) inference.
By the initial formulas of the end piece of a deduction we mean those formulas
of the end piece which do not occur as conclusions of (cut), (str) or (sub) infer-
ences. Every initial formula of the end piece is an axiom or the conclusion of a
principal inference or a basic inference (el).
Inductive definition of the bundle of formulas of a minimal part M of a formula F

of the end piece of a deduction:
1. The minimal part M of the formula F belongs to the bundle of formulas.
2. For every inference (cut) .?JI[A], %[A] f- B such that .?JI[%[ ~] ~ B
occurring in the end piece: If a minimal positive (negative) part of the conclusion
B belongs to the bundle of formulas then so too does every identical positive
(negative) part of the premise .?JI[A] occurring in .?JI and every identical positive
(negative) part of the premise %[A] occurring in %.
3. For every inference (str) A f- B such that A ~ B occurring in the end piece:
If a minimal positive (negative) part of the conclusion B belongs to the bundle of
formulas so too does every identical positive (negative) part of the premise A.
4. For every inference (sub) .?F[U] f- .?F[P], where U does not occur in .?F,
occurring in the end piece: If a minimal positive (negative) partSJ1[P] of the con-
clusion .?F[P], where U does not occur in $, belongs to the bundle of formulas
then so too does each positive (negative) partSJ1[U] of the premise .?F[U].
No other parts of formulas belong to the bundle of formulas.
Every bundle of formulas of the kind just defined consists either entirely of
minimal positive parts or entirely of minimal negative parts of formulas of the
end piece of a deduction.
Lemma 5. If the minimal part M of a formula of the end piece of a deduction has
degree 0 then the bundle offormulas of M consists solely ofminimal parts ofdegree O.
Proof This follows from the definition of bundle of formulas.

Definitions. I. A minimal part of a formula of the end piece of a deduction is
said to be explicit if it belongs to the bundle of formulas of a minimal part of the
end formula of the deduction. Otherwise it is said to be implicit.
II. The rank of an inference (sub) which occurs in the end piece of a deduction
is the maximum of the ranks of the implicit minimal parts of its premise. (If the
premise contains no implicit minimal parts then the inference (sub) has rank 0.)
III. A basic deduction is a deduction in which no inference (sub) occurs.
IV. A normal deduction is a deduction H for which the following holds:
Every inference (sub) occurring in H is an inference of the end piece of H with a
rank < OJ, whose eigenvariable does neither occur in the principal part of an
(S2.1 )-inference nor in the eigenformula of an (S3.1 )-inference of H.
27. The Formal System GPA for a Generalized Ill-Analysis 257
V. A formula F is said to be deducible in the formal system GPA if there is a

basic deduction with the end formula F.
According to these definitions every basic deduction is a normal deduction
and every initial formula of the end piece of a normal deduction is the end formula
of a basic deduction.
The main task is now to prove that there is no basic deduction with the end
formula L The proof will be obtained in the way of G. Takeuti using reductions
of deductions which cannot be restricted just to basic deductions but only to
normal deductions.
4. Orders of Normal Deductions
We assign ordinal terms of the notation system fJ(Q) to the formulas of a normal
deduction like the ordering functions which W. Pohlers [1] carried out using
ordinal terms of the notation system L. For this we first assign weights m < wand
ranks (J ~ w to normal deductions in such a way that a normal deduction of weight
m and rank (J has the following properties:
1. Every formula of the normal deduction has a weight ~ m and a rank ~ (J.
2. Every inference (sub) which occurs in the normal deduction has a rank
<(J.
Obviously for each normal deduction H there is a number m < w such that H
c~m be regarded as a normal deduction of weight m and rank w. If only weak
formulas occur in H then H can also be regarded as a normal deduction of a
rank <w.
We use principal terms of level (J of the subsystem fJ((J+ 1) of fJ(Q) as orders
of the formulas of a normal deduction of rank (J~ w. As in 26 we write (~, 1]) for
fJ~1]. For k < (J we also use the function dk introduced in 26 which assigns to every
principal term of level (J a principal term of level k. In case (J = 0 set dorx : = rx. If
rx, P are principal terms of level (J then, as in 26, rx P denotes that rx < P and
Kirx < diP for all i < (J. The degrees of formulas will be represented by ordinal terms
<w 2 =(0, (0,0)+(0, 0)). We use v, vo, vl , V2 as syntactical symbols for such
degrees.
Inductive definition of the order of a formula in a normal deduction of weight m

and rank (J:
1. Every initial formula of the normal deduction has order (0, 0) if (J = 0 and
order Q" if (J#O.
2. If the premises of a basic inference (Sl) have orders rx l and rx 2 then the
conclusion has order (0, rx l # rx 2 ).
3. If the premise of a basic inferenoe (S2.0), (S3.0), (S4) or a basic inference
(S2.1) whose principal part is a weak formula has order rx then the conclusion has
order (0, rx).
4. If the premise of a basic inference (S2.1) whose principal part is a strong
formula has order rx then the conclusion has order (w(m+ 1), rx) (where m is the
weight of the normal deduction).
5. If the premise of a basic inference (S3.1) of degree v has order a then the
conclusion has order (v+ 1, a).
6. If the premises of a basic inference (cut) of degree v have orders a l and a 2
then the conclusion has order (v, a l =IF ( 2 ).
7. If the premises of a basic inference (CI) of degree v have orders a l and
a2 then the conclusion has order (v+ 1, a l =IF( 2 ).
8. The conclusion of a basic inference (str) has the same order as its premise.
9. If the premise of an inference (sub) of rank k < (J has order a then the
conclusion has order (0, Q,,+dka).
By the order of a normal deduction we mean the order of its end formula.
5. Transformations of Normal Deductions
Theorem 27.1. ifF and G are equivalent formulas then every normal deduction H
with end formula F may be transformed into a normal deduction H' of the same
weight, rank and order with the end formula G. If H is a basic deduction, so too
isH'.
Theorem 27.2. Every normal deduction H with endformula ff[a] where a does not
occur in ff may be transformed into a normal deduction H' of the same weight, rank
and order with end formula ff[t] for each term t. If H is a basic deduction, then
so too is H'.
Both these theorems follow by induction on the length of H.
Theorem 27.3. If H is a basic deduction of weight m, rank OJ and order a with end
formula ff[U] where U does not occur in ff then H may be transformed into a basic
deduction of the same weight, rank and with an order (OJ(m+ 1), a) with end
formula ff[P] for each weak predicator P.
Proofby induction on the length of the basic deduction H. We may assume that
the eigenvariables of basic inferences (S2.0), (S2.1) and (CI) which occur in Hare
chosen so that they are different from U and do not occur in P. From H we then
form H' in which the free predicate variable U is replaced by the weak predicator
P wherever it occurs in H. It follows from Lemmas 1 and 3 that H' is also a
basic deduction of weight m. H' has end formula ff[P]. We still have to prove
that H', as a basic deduction of weight m and rank OJ, has an order (OJ (m + 1), a).
1. Suppose ff[U] is an initial formula of H. Then Hand H' have the same
order Qro(OJ(m+ 1), Qro)'
2. Suppose ff[U] occurs in H as the conclusion of a basic inference (str).
Then the assertion follows immediately from the I.H.
3. Suppose ff[ U] occurs in H as the conclusion of a basic inference (S2.1)
whose principal part is a strong formula. Then a=(OJ(m+ 1), ao) where a o is the
order of the premise of the (S2.1)-inference. In this case ff[P] is, in H', the con-
clusion ofa corresponding (S2.1)-inference whose premise has, by I.H., an order
poa. Then H' has order (OJ(m+ I), Po)(OJ' (m+ 1), a).
27. The Formal System GPA for a Generalized nl-Analysis 259
4. Suppose ff[ U] occurs as the conclusion of a basic inference other than

those under 2. and 3. Then (x=(V l , (Xl) or (X=(v l , (Xl # (X2)' where Vl <w(m+ 1),
where (Xi is the order of the i-th premise of the basic inference. In this case in H',
ff[P] is the conclusion of a corresponding basic inference whose i-th premise has,
by LH., an order Pi(w(m+l)'(Xi). Then there exists v2 <w(m+l) such that
H' has order
or
6. Reducible Normal Deductions
In specifying parts of a normal deduction we shall write f!. F below to mean that
the formula F has order (X in the given place in the normal deduction.
Definition. A normal deduction of order (X is said to be reducible if it can be trans-

formed into a normal deduction whose order is (X while maintaining its weight,
rank and end formula.
Theorem 27.4. If a normal deduction contains a cut with cut formula (A ~ ..L), then
the normal deduction is reducible.
Proof Suppose a normal deduction of rank (1 contains the cut
Hl H2
f!. &,[(A ~ ..L)] f1!- %[(A ~ ..L)]
fL B where &'[%[ ]] f!- B
Here Hi and H2 denote the subdeductions of H with end formulas &,[(A ~ ..L)]
and %[(A ~ ..L)]. We replace this cut by two cuts with cut formulas ..L and A as
follows:
~ %[..L]
H2
f1!- %[(A ~ ..L)] A ~ &'[%[ ]]
~ B where %[(&'[%[ ]] -.. ..L)]f!- B
By this replacement we obtain a normal deduction H' which has the same weight,
rank and end formula as H. H' has the axiom %[..1] as an initial formula with
order (Xo=(O, 0) (if (1=0) or (Xo = Q.,. (if (1#0). Suppose the formula A has degree v.
Then (A --> 1..) has degree v+ 1 and
There is a deduction function g (according to the definition on p. 249), such that

H has order g(y) and H' has order g(b). Since by by Theorem 26.6 we have
g(b)g(y). Thus the normal deduction H is reducible.
Theorem 27.5. If a normal deduction contains a basic inference (el) whose con-
clusion contains no free number variable then the normal deduction is reducible.
Proof Suppose a normal deduction H contains the inference
fL ~[t],
where a does not occur in ~ and t is a numerical term. Here HI and H2 are basic
deductions with orders rx and p and end formulas ~[O] and ~[a] --> ~[a']. By
Theorem 27.2 for every numeral n, H2 can be transformed into a basic deduction
H 2 n of order p with end formula ~[n] --> ~[n'] which has the same weight and
rank as the normal deduction H 2 Suppose the formula ~[O] has degree v. Then
y=(v+ 1, rx#fJ).
We prove then
Lemma. For every numeral n there is a basic deduction H~ of order bny with end
formula ~[n] which has the same weight and rank as the normal deduction H.
The proof of this Lemma is by induction on n.

1. n=O. Then the assertion holds for HI with bo=rxy.
2. n =nh. By I.H. there is a basic deduction H~o whose order bno y. From
this and the basic deduction H2i no' using a cut, we form the basic deduction
f.n~[n]
Here
Thus the Lemma is proved.

The numerical term has a numeral k as its value. Then ~[k] and ~[t] are
equivalent formulas. Therefore by Theorem 27.1 the basic deduction H~ can be
transformed into a basic deduction H' of order bk y with end formula ~[t]
where H' has the same weight and rank as the normal deduction H. Now we
27. The Formal System GPA for a Generalized l1;-Analysis 261
replace the subdeduction with end formula ~[t] in H by the basic deduction H'
and we obtain a reduction of H.
7. Singular Normal Deductions
Definitions. I. A minimal part ofa formula of the end piece ofa normal deduction
is said to be distinguished if the principal part of a principal inference whose con-
clusion is an initial formula of the end piece belongs to its bundle of formulas.
II. A normal deduction is said to be singular if its end formula is not an axiom
and has no distinguished minimal part.
III. A cut .?P[A], JV[A] f- B such that .?P[JV[ ]] ~ B in the end piece of a
normal deduction is said to be a suitable cut if the following hold:
1. The negative part A of the premise JV[A] is a distinguished minimal part.
2. If A is a simple formula then the positive part A of the premise '?p[A] is a
distinguished minimal part.
Lemma 6. Every singular normal deduction contains a cut or the conclusion of a

basic inference (el) in its end piece.
Proof Suppose H is a singular normal deduction with no cut occurring in its end
piece. Then the end piece of H has precisely one initial formula A from which the
end formula of H is obtained using only (str) and (sub) inferences. If A were an
axiom then by Lemma 3 the end formula of H would also be an axiom. If A were
the conclusion of a principal inference then the end formula of H would have a
distinguished minimal part. Therefore by the singularity of H it follows that A is
the conclusion of a basic inference (el).
Theorem 27.6. Every singular normal deduction whose end piece contains no free
number variable is reducible or contains a suitable cut in its end piece.
Proof by induction on the length of the singular normal deduction H. Since the
end piece of H contains no free number variable every axiom which occurs in the
end piece of H is one of the axioms (Ax1)-(Ax3). If the end piece contains the
conclusion of a basic inference (el) then the normal deduction H is reducible by
Theorem 27.5. Otherwise by Lemma 6 the end piece of H contains a cut. Then
suppose
p:. B where .?P[JV[ ]] ~ B
is the last cut in the end piece of H. Here HI and H2 are normal deductions of
orders IX and P with end formulas 9[A] and %[A] which occur as subdeduc-
tions in H. If HI or H2 is singular then the assertion of our theorem follows
from the I.H. Now assume that neither HI nor H2 is singular. The end formula
of H follows from the formula B by using only (str) and (sub) inferences. Were
9[%[ ]] an axiom then by Lemma 3 the end formula of H would also be an
axiom. Therefore by the singularity of H it follows that 9[%[ ]] is not an
axiom. Otherwise by the singularity of H it follows that a distinguished minimal
part of 9[A] or %[A] can only occur in the cut formula A.
1. Suppose A is a formula'(A l - A2)'
1.1. Suppose A2 is the formula ..l. Then by Theorem 27.4 H is reducible.
1.2. Suppose A2 is not the formula ..l. Then A is a minimal negative part of
%[A] which cannot occur as the principal part of an axiom. Since 9[%[ ]] is
not an axiom it follows that %[A] is not an axiom. Since H2 is not singular it
follows that the negative part A of %[A] is a distinguished minimal part. Then
the cut considered is a suitable cut.
2. Suppose A is a simple formula.
2.1. Suppose neither 9[A] not %[A] is an axiom. Since neither HI nor H2
is singular it follows that A is a distinguished minimal part in both 9[A] and
%[A]. Then the cut considered is a suitable cut.
2.2. Suppose 9[A] is an axiom. Since 9[%[ ]] is not an axiom it follows
by Lemma 4 that %[A] is not an axiom. Since H2 is not singuhir it follows that
the negative part A in %[A] is a distinguished minimal part. It follows by Lemma
5 that A is not a prime formula. Since 9[A] is an axiom and 9[%[ ]] is not an
axiom4 is a principal part of the axiom 9[A]. Then, since A is not a prime formula,
9[A] is an (Ax3) ~[Al' A] where Al and A are equivalent formulas and
~[AI' %[ ]] P- B holds. It follows that %[Al] P- B. By Theorem 27.1 the
normal deduction H2 can be transformed into a normal deduction with end
formula %[Al] while retaining the same weight, rank and order. By introducing
an inference (str) we obtain a normal deduction H~ of order py with end formula
B where H~ has the same weight and rank as H. This shows that H is reducible.
2.3. Suppose %[A] is an axiom. Then as under 2.2 it follows that %[A] is
an (Ax3) ~[A, A 2] where A and A2 are equivalent formulas and 9[~[ ,A 2]] P- B
holds. It follows that 9[A 2 ] P- B. Then from HI by Theorem 27.1 using an
inference (str) we obtain a normal deduction H~ of order IXP with end formula B
where H~ has the same weight and rank as H. This again shows that H is reducible.
8. Reduction of a Suitable Cut
We use the following notations for parts of a normal deduction H:

1. If F is a formula of H then set H(F) to be the normal deduction with end
formula F which occurs as a subdeduction in H.
2. A deduction thread F - G in the end piece of H is a sequence of formulas
F l , ... , Fn (n~ 1) of the end piece of H where FI is the formula F, Fi occurs in H
as the premise of an inference with conclusion Fi + I and Fn is the formula G.
27. The Formal System GPA for a Generalized Ill-Analysis 263
3. A deduction part
of H consists of a deduction thread F-G of the end piece of H and the normal
deduction H1 =H(F). Ifsuch a deduction part is replaced by
then this means that Hi is a normal deduction with end formula A -.F and every
formula Fi of the deduction thread F-G is replaced by the formula Ai - Fi where
Ai is determined as follows: A1 is the formula A. If Fi is a premise of an inference
(cut) or (str) then A i + 1 is the formula Ai. If Fi f- Fi+ 1 is an inference (sub) ff[U] f-
ff[P] then Ai+ 1 results from Ai by replacing the free predicate variable U in Ai
by the predicator P throughout. If Fn is the last formula G of the deduction thread
F-G then B denotes the formula An.
Lemma 7. Suppose F-G is a deduction thread in the end piece of a normal deduction
H, H1 =H(F) and H~ is a normal deduction with endformula A - F.lfthe deduc-
tion part
H1 Hi
F in H is replaced by A- F
I I
G B-G,
then the subdeduction H(G) is transformed into a normal deduction with endformula
B - G by this replacement.
Proof This is apparent from the form of the inferences (cut), (str) and (sub)
which occur as the only inferences in the end piece of H.
We make use of Lemma 7 repeatedly for the following reductions of deduc-
tions without particular mention.
Theorem 27.7. If the end piece of a normal deduction contains a suitable cut, then
the normal deduction is reducible.
Proof Let H be a normal deduction of weight m and rank (f whose end piece
contains a suitable cut.
Case 1. Suppose A ---+ B is the cut formula of a suitable cut. Then H has a deduction
part
HI H2
~1 .AI' [-, A ] ~ .AI' o[ Bo]
(Sl) ~.AI' or(A o ---+ Bo)]
Ho I
fLl &[(A ---+ B)] fL2 .AI'[(A ---+ B)]
(cut) f!. C where &[.AI'[ ]] ~C
Here the principal part Ao ---+ Bo of the (SI)-inference belongs to the bundle of
formulas of the minimal negative part A ---+ B of the second premise .AI'[(A ---+ B)]
of the suitable cut. We replace this deduction part as follows:
(str)------- (str) - - - - - - -
Ho
f1-' &' [A - t BJ f!' B - t JV[A - t BJ
Ho Ho (cut)-----------
f1-' &' [A - t BJ f!' ,A - t JV[A - t BJ f1-'&'[A-tBJ B-tC
(cut)----------- (cut)---------
,A-t C
(cut) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
f.C
There is a deduction function g (see 26, p. 248) with Y2 =g({3) and bi=g(r:t.J
(i= I, 2). Since r:t. i {3 it follows by Theorem 26.6 that bi Y2 (i= I, 2). Suppose the
degrees of the formulas A and B are VI and V 2 Then A ---+ B has degree v: =
max (VI' V 2 ) + 1. It follows that
Thus we have that H is reduced by the given replacement.

Case 2. Suppose ,h~[x](t) is the cut formula of a suitable cut. Then H has a
deduction part
We replace this deduction part by

27. The Formal System GPA for a Generalized 11~-Analysis 265
HI
f!' 9'O["I[t]]
(str)-------- (S4)-----
f!!-', .j"I[t] -> 9'O[.l.x"I[X](t)] f!' 9'O[.l.x"I[X](t)]
H2
f!> % 0["2[t]]
(S4) (str)--------
fh %0[..1.X"2[X](t)] f!> "2[t] -> %0[..1.X"2[X](t)]
I I
f!'
,"[t] -> 9'[..1.x"[x](t)] tv %[..1.x"[x](t)] IV 9'[.l.x"[x](t)) fb "[t] -> %[.l.x"[x](t))
(cut) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (cut)-------------
,"[t] -> B "[t]-> B
(cut) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
fiB
There are deduction functions gi such that gi(Pi)=Yi and gi(X;)=~i Since (XiPi
it follows by Theorem 26.6. that ~i<<Yi (i= 1, 2). Suppose the formula ff[t] has
degree v. Then hff[x](t) has degree v+ 1. It follows that
~=(v, (v+ 1, ~l *Y2)*(V+ 1, YI *~2(V+ 1, YI *Y2)=Y
Consequently H is reduced by the given replacement.
Case 3. Suppose Vxff[x] is the cut formula of a suitable cut. Then H has a
.
deduction part
By Theorem 27.2 the basic deduction HI can be transformed into a basic deduction
Hi of the same weight, rank and order with end formula &o[ff I [t]]. We replace
the given deduction part as follows:
H'1
,(str) - - - - - - - - (S2, 0) - - - - -
f!' '"I[t] ..... 9'o['v'x"IEx]] fl.' 9'0 ['v'X"1 [x]]
H2
f!> "2[t] ..... %0['v'X"2[X]]
(S3, 0) - - - - - - - H2
f!> "2[t] ..... %0['v'X"2[X]]
f!' ,"[t] ..... 9'['v'x"[x]] IV 9'['v'x"[x]] fb "[t] ..... %['v'x"[x]]

tv %['v'x"[x]]
(cut) (cut) - - - - - - - - - - - -
,"[t] ..... B "[I] ..... B
(cut) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As in case 2 we then have biYi (i= 1, 2) and by so that H is reduced by the

replacement.
Case 4. Suppose '1Xg;-[X] is the cut formula of a suitable cut. Then H has a
deduction part
HI H2
~1
f
&' o[g;-[ U]]
(S2.t) 1" 9'0 [V ff[ XJ]
1 ~2 g;-[P] -4
(S3. ) 1" A'o [T""[
JV 0['1 Xg;-[X]]
X]]
fb &,['1Xg;-[X]] fD JV['1Xg;-[X]]
(cut) --------------------~--~~~_=~--
B where &>[ JV[ ]] \-!. B
Here the principal parts of the basic inferences (S2.1) and (S3.1) belong to the
bundle of formulas ofthe cut formula '1Xg;-[X]. The formulas in this bundle of
formulas are not altered by substitution inferences since the eigenvariable of an
inference (sub) does not occur governed by a predicate quantifier. Therefore this
bundle of formulas consists solely of identical minimal parts 'v'Xg;-[ X].
Case 4a. Suppose '1Xg;-[X] is a strong formula. Then /31 =(w(m+ 1), 1X 1 ) and P
is a weak predicator. In this case H has rank w. By Theorem 27.3 the basic deduc-
tion HI can be transformed into a basic deduction H~ of weight m, rank wand
ordeuo(w (m+ 1), 1X 1 ) = /31 with end formula &' o[g;-[P]]. We replace the given
deduction part as follows:
H'1
(str) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (S2.1) - - - - - - - - -
f!-o ,3i'[P] -> &'o[\iX3i'[X]] ~1 &'o[\iX3i'[X]]
H2
~ 3i'[P] -> %o[\iX3i'[X]]
(S3.l) - - - - - - - - - - - - - H2
~ 3i'[P] -> %o[\iX3i'[X]]
I
fb ,3i'[P] -> &'[\iX3i'[XJ] fl.2 %[\iX3i'[X]] fL' &'[V'X3i'[X]] fh 3i'[P] -> %[V'X3i'[X]]
(cut) (cut) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
,3i'[P] -> B 3i'[P] -> B
(cut) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here biYi (i= 1, 2). Suppose the formula '1Xg;-[X] has degree v. By Lemma
lc) g;-[P] has a degree Vo < v. It follows that
Hence H is reduced by the replacement.

27. The Formal 8ystem GPA for a Generalized nl-Analysis 267
Case 4b. Suppose VXff[X] is a weak formula. It has a rank k+ 1 ~O' where k is
the rank of ff[U]. Suppose C is the highest formula below the premises of the
suitable cut which has no implicit minimal part of rank > k. Such a formula C
exists since the end formula H has no implicit minimal parts. Suppose C has order
Yo. We replace the given deduction part as follows:
HI H2
f!' 9"0[JOE U]] jO[P] --+ "o[\lXjO[X]]
~
(str) - - - - - - - - (83.1) - - - - - - - -
f!' --,jO[U] --+ 9"o[lIXjO[X]]
--,jO[U] --+ 9"[\lXjO[X]] fV "[\lXjO[X]]

(cut) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--,jO[U] --+ B
~ --,jO[U] --+ c
(sub) H2
--,jO[P] --+ c ~ jO[P] --+ "o[\lXjO[X]]
(82.1) (cut)
f!' 9"0[\1XjO[X]]
I
f2' 9"[\1XjO[X]] --,C--+ "[\lXjO[X]]
(~D-----------------
--,C--+ B
fL--,c--+c
(str)---
fLc
There is a deduction functionfsuch that f(Pl)=YO and f(Xl) =15 0 , Since (Xl Pi'
it follows by Theorem 26.6 that
The newly introduced inference (sub) has rank k<O'. Suppose the formula ff[P]
has rank v. Then
No substitution ofa rank ~k occurs between the formulas .Ko[VX[X]] and C.

Therefore there is a deduction function 9 of rank k + I (see 26, p. 248) with

g({J2)=YO and g(rt.)=b. By Theorem 26.7 from (1)-(3) we obtain
Thus we have that H is reduced by the given replacement.
9. The Consistency of the System GPA
Definition. A formula F is said to be primitive if every minimal part of F has

degree 0 and is therefore a prime formula or a formula U(t).
Theorem 27.8. A primitive formula is deducible in GPA only if it is an axiom.
Proof Suppose H is a normal deduction of order rt. whose end formula is a

primitive formula F. We prove by induction on dort. that F is an axiom.
I. Suppose F contains no free number variable. Then we may transform the
normal deduction H into a normal deduction H' whose end piece contains no
free number variable while retaining its weight, rank, order and end formula. By
Lemma 5 the primitive formula Fhas no distinguished minimal part. If Fwere not
an axiom then H' would be a singular normal deduction which, by Theorems
27.6 and 27.7, would be reducible. But then it follows from the I.H. that F is an
aXiOm.
2. Suppose F is a formula ~[aI' ... , anJ (n?: I) such that no free number
variable occurs in~. For each n numerals m I , ... , mn the normal deduction H can,
by Theorem 27.2, be transformed into a normal deduction of the same weight,
rank and order with end formula ~[mI' ... , m n ]. By case I proved above it follows
that ~[mI' ... , mnJ is an axiom for all n numerals m I , ... , m n. Therefore F is an
axiom (Ax4).
Corollary. The formal system GPA is consistent.
Proof By Theorem 27.8 the formula 1.. is not deducible in GPA since it is a
primitive formula and not an axiom.
The consistency proof we have given above depended on transfinite induction
up to ai, Q",), 0) = (}(}W2(Q", + 10.
10. The Subsystem PA of GPA
Let PA be the subsystem of GPA where the inferences (S3.1) and (sub) are only
allowed in the following restricted forms:
(S3.1) ~[PJ ~ %[VX~[XJJ ~ %[VX~[XJJ, if P is a weak predicator,
(sub) ~[UJ ~ ~[PJ, if U does not occur in~,U=Pr(~[UJ) and P is a weak
predicator.
All the Lemmata proved above for GPA also hold for PA. That is to say if
(S3.1) is only allowed in the restricted form then the reduction of deductions
given in the proof of Theorem 27.7 only requires (sub) inferences in the restricted
form.
Substitution inferences can be eliminated in PA since we have:
Theorem 27.9. Every normal deduction in the system PA can be transformed into
a basic deduction in the system PA of the same endformula.
Proof Suppose H is a normal deduction in the system PA with end formula F.

We regard H as a normal deduction of rank OJ and prove our assertion by induc-
tion on the length of H.
1. Suppose F is an initial formula of H. Then the assertion is trivial.
2. Suppose F occurs in H as the conclusion of a basic inference. Then the
assertion follows from the I.H.
3. Suppose F occurs as the conclusion of an inference (sub) g-[U] f- g-[P]
where U does not occur in g- and P is a weak predicator. Then by I.H. we have a
basic deduction with end formula g-[U]. From this, by Theorem 27.3, we obtain
a basic deduction with end formula F.
Theorem 27.10. The formal system PA is sententially consistent. That is to say:

There is no formula A such that A and A ---+ 1.. are deducible in P A.
Proof If A and A ---+ 1.. were deducible in PA then, by Theorem 27.9, there would
be basic deductions with end formulas A and A ---+ 1... Thence by a cut we would
obtain a basic deduction with end formula 1... But by Theorem 27.8 the formula
1.. is not deducible in PA.
28. The Semi-Formal System PA*
We now go from the formal system PA to a corresponding semi-formal system PA *

in order to eliminate cuts which are not eliminable in PA because of the basic
inference (el) which occurs there. PA is embeddable in PA*. In PA* we first
eliminate those cuts which have strong cut formulas as the cuts in RA * (22,
p. 203) were eliminated. Then we show the eliminability of the other cuts using
the reduction procedure of 27. In this way we obtain a consistency proof for the
formal system PA using a weaker transfinite induction than we had to use in 27
for the consistency proof for GPA.
1. Axioms and Basic Inferences of the System P A *
The terms, formulas and predicators of the system PA * are the terms, formulas
and predicators of the system PA which contain no free number variable. Hence
270 27. The Formal System GPA for a Generalized l1~-Analysis
every term of the system PA* is numerical and every prime formula is either true
orfalse. We define weak and strong formulas and predicators and also the degree
and rank of a formula in PA * just as in P A.
Axioms of the system PA *
(Axl) and (Ax2) as in PA.

(Ax3*) !LEA, B], if A and B are equivalent formulas of degree O.
Basic inferences of the system PA *
(SI), (S2.1), (S3.0), (S3.1), (S4) and (cut) as in PA.
(S2.0*) &[ff[n]] for every numeral n I- &[\fxff[x]].
All axioms and basic inferences of the system PA * are restricted to formulas
in which no free number variables occur. Just as in PA the basic inferences (S3.1)
are restricted in PA* to ff[P] -+ %[\fXff[X]] I- %[\fXff[X]] for weak pre-
dicators P as opposed to the corresponding basic infere~ces ofGPA.
All the principal parts of axioms of the system PA * are formulas of degree 0
while the principal parts of (Ax3) in PA are only required to be simple. Because of
this stronger restriction on the axioms of PA * we gain the permissibility of the
structural inferences which we do not take as basic inferences here. Also the basic
inferences (CI) occurring in PA do not occur as basic inferences in PA *. Here they
arise as permissible inferences.
We count the basic inferences (S2.0*) as principal inferences. The principal
part of such an inference is the positive part \fxff[x] indicated in the conclusion.
As before the degree of a cut is defined to be the degree of its cut formula. A
cut is said to be weak (or strong) if its cut formula is a weak (or strong) formula.
2. The Strength of a Formula
For eliminating strong cuts we use a notion which we call the strength of a formula.
For PA * and also for PA this is defined as follows:
Inductive definition of the strength st (F) of a formula F:

1. If F is a weak formula, then st (F) : = O.
2. If F is a strong formula (A -+ B), then st (F) : = max (st (A), st (B + 1.
3. If Fis a strong formula \fxff[x] or Axff[x](t), then st (F): =st (ff[O]) + 1.
4. If Fis a strong formula \fXff[X], then st (F): =st (ff[U]) + 1.
According to this definition the strength of a formula'is a natural number

which is 0 if, and only if, F is a weak formula.
Lemma 1. If P is a weak predicator then any two formulas $'[U] and $'[P] have
the same strength.
Proof This follows by induction on the length of the nominal form $'.
3. Basic Deductions in the System P A *
Below ~, ", , (possibly with subscripts) denote ordinal terms of level 0 in the
notation system lJ(w+ 1). By the strength of a cut we mean the strength of its cut
formula.
Inductive definition of the basic deductions of strength ~ m.

1. If F is an axiom of the system PA* and ~ is an arbitrary ordinal term of
level 0 of the system lJ(w+ 1), then the formula F forms a basic deduction of
strength ~ m and depth ~ ~ with end formula F.
2. If H is a basic deduction of strength ~ m and depth ~ ~ whose end formula
is the premise ofa basic inference (S2.1), (S3.0), (S3.1) or (S4) of the system PA*
with conclusion F and ~ <" then
H
F
forms a basic deduction of strength ~ m and depth ~" with end formula F.
3. If HI and H2 are basic deductions of strengths ~m and depths ~~i
(i= 1, 2) whose end formulas are the premises ofa basic inference (Sl) or (cut) of
strength < m of the system PA* with conclusion F and ~i <" (i = 1, 2) then
forms a basic deduction of strength ~ m and depth ~" with end formula F.
4. If, for every natural number n, Hn is a basic deduction of strength ~ m and
depth ~ ~n with end formula &I[$'[n]] and ~n <" for all n EN then
{Hn}neN
&I[V'x$'[x]]
forms a basic deduction of strength ~ m and depth ~" with end formula
&I[V'x$' [x]].
According to this definition, in a basic deduction of strength ~ m no cut
occurs of strength ~ m. Thus in a basic deduction of strength ~ 1 no strong cuts
occur and in a basic deduction of strength ~ 0 no cuts occur at all .
. By the initial formulas of a basic deduction H we mean, as before, those
formulas in the deduction H which do not occur as conclusions of basic inferences.
PA * ~ F means: There is a basic deduction of strength ~ m and depth ~ ~ with

end formula F.
Then by the definition of basic deduction we have:
Ie, l F'
PA* rrii
Theorem 28.1. PA* K .El[A, B] holds for every formula .El[A, B] of the system PA*
with equivalent formulas A, B.
Proof It follows by induction on the number of symbols~, 'r:j and A. occurring in

A that PA * ~n .El[A, B] (as in the proof of Theorem 22.9). The assertion follows.
Theorem 28.2. IfF and G are equivalent formulas and PA * ~ F holds, then so too
does PA* ~ G.
Proof This follows by induction on ~.
Theorem 28.3. The following inverses of (S 1), (S2.0*), (S2.1) and (S4) hold:
(Invl) PA* ~ %[(A ~ B)] ==> PA* ~%[IA], PA* ~ .AI[B]
(lnv2.0*) PA* ~ 8i'['r:jx~[x]] ==> PA * ~ 8i'[~[n]]for every numeral n
(Inv2.l) PA* ~ 8i'['r:jX~[X]] ==> PA* ~ q)'[~[U]] for every free predicate vari-
able U.
(Inv4) PA* ~ C[A.X~[x](t)] ==> PA * ~ C[~[t]].
Proof These follow by induction on ~ since all principal parts of axioms of the
system PA* have degree O.
Theorem 28.4. IfPA * ~ F and F ~ G hold for formulas F, G of the system PA * then
PA* ~ G also holds.
Proof This follows by induction on ~ using Theorem 28.3 (as in the proof of
Theorem 4.4).
4. Embedding of PAin P A*
We define the strength of a cut in the system PA as for PA *. The strength of a basic
inference (el) of the system PA is the strength of its first premise ~[O].
Inductive definition of P A Hi; F:

1. If F is an axiom of the system P A, then P A f;}; F.
2. If PA Hi; F holds for the premise of a basic inference (S2.0), (S2.1), (S3.0),
(S3.1), (S4) or (str) of the system PA, then PAJ~+l Fholds for the conclusion F
of this basic inference.
3. If PA ~ F (i= 1, 2) holds for the premises F l , F2 of a basic inference (Sl)
or (cut) of strength <m or (CI) of strength <m in the system PA, then PA fii F
holds for the conclusion F of this inference where n : = max (n l , n 2 ) + 1.
Lemma 2. Aformula F is deducible in PA if, and only if, there are natural numbers
n > 0 and m such that PA ~ F.
Proof This follows from Theorem 27.9.
Definition. A formula F* of the system PA* is said to be a specialization of a

formula F of the system PA if F* arises from F by replacing all the free number
variables occurring in F by numerals.
Lemma 3. If F is an axiom of the system PA, then PA * ffJ F* holds for every
specialization F* of F.
Proof This follows from Theorem 28.1.
Theorem 28.5 (Embedding Theorem). PA fii F implies PA * f*' nF* for every
specialization F* of F.
P~oofby induction on n.
1. Suppose n = 1, then F is an axiom of the system PA. Then the assertion
holds by Lemma 3.
2. Suppose PA fii F by a principal inference, cut or structural inference. Then
the assertion follows by the I.H. and Theorem 28.4.
3. Suppose PA ~ F is obtained by a (CI)-inference. Then F* is a formula
ff*[t*] where t* is a numerical term and we have no<n so .that by I.H.
PA* f*.n o ff*[O] and PA* f*.n o (ff*[k] -. ff*[k']) for every numeral k. Now
ff*[k] has strength <m. Using cuts we obtain PA* f*.nO+k ff*[k] for every
numeral k. The assertion PA* f*.n ff*[t*] follows by Theorem 28.2 since t* is a
numerical term and OJ no + k < OJ n.
Corollary to Theorem 28.5. For each formula F deducible in PA there exist ~<OJ2
and mEN such that PA * ~ F* for every specialization F* of F.
Proof This holds by Lemma 2 and Theorem 28.5.
5. Elimination of Strong Cuts in P A*
Lemma 4. IfPA * ~ ff[ U], where U does not occur in ff and P is a weak predicator
of the system PA*, then PA* f*H ff[P].
Proofby induction on ,. If ff[U] is an axiom of the system PA*, then ff[P] is a

specialization of an axiom of the system P A. Then the assertion holds by Lemma 3.
In all other cases it follows by Lemma 1 from the I.H.
Lemma 5. If A is a formula Vxff[x] or VXff[X] of strength m+ 1 where

PA* ~+I .?JJ[A], PA* ~+I JV[A] and B is a formula of the system PA* such that
.?JJ[JV[ ]] f!. B, then PA * Iii!i+q B.
Proofby induction on '1 (as for Lemma 3 of 22).

1. Suppose JV[A] is an axiom of the system PA*. Then JV[ ] is also an
axiom since A is not a principal part of the axiom JV[AJ. Using .?JJ[JV[ ]] f!. B
we have that B is also an axiom of the system PA *. In this case the assertion is
trivial.
2. Suppose PA* ~+I JV[A] was obtained by a basic inference (S3.0) or
(S3.1) with principal part A from PA* 1;f+1 (Ao ...... JV[AJ) where '10<'1. Here Ao
is a formula [t] or [P] which has strength m by Lemma 1. By I.H. we obtain
By Theorem 28.3 and Lemma 4 from PA* ~+I .?JJ[A] we obtain
(2) PA* Iii!i .?JJ[AoJ.
The assertion PA* Iii!i+q B follows from (1) and (2) using a cut with cut formula
Ao
3. Suppose PA* ~+I JV[A] by a basic inference other than those under 2.
Then the assertion follows from the I.H. (as in the proof of Lemma 3 in 22).
Theorem 28.6. PA* ~+z Fimplies PA* ~~I F.
Proofby induction on ,.
1. Suppose F is an axiom of the system P A *. Then the assertion is trivial.
2. Suppose PA*~+zF was obtained by a.principal inference or a cut of
strength ~ m. Then the assertion follows from the I.H.
m+ 1 from PA* ~+z .?JJ[A] and PA* I~'+z JV[A] where 'i<'
3. Suppose PA* ~+z Fwas obtained by a cut with cut formula A of strength
(i= 1,2) and
.?JJ[JV[ ]] f!.F, By I.H. we then have PA* ~~I .?JJ[A] and PA* ~~I JV[A].
3.1. Suppose A is a formula (AI ...... A z). Then Al and A z have strengths ~m.
By Theorem 28.3 from PA* ~~I JV[(AI ...... A z )] we obtain
(1) PA* ~~\ JV[-,AIJ.
(2) PA* ~~\ JV[A z ]'
Suppose '0 := max ('.J.' 'z) From PA * ~~\ .?JJ[(AI ...... A z )] and (2) we obtain
(3) PA* ~~:I (At ...... .?JJ[JV[ ]])

by a cut with cut formula A 2 The assertion PA* Hii~1 Ffollows from (1) and (3)
by a cut with cut formula Al since W~2<W~O+ 1 <w~.
3.2. Suppose A is a formula Ax~[X](t). Then it follows by Theorem 28.3 that
PA * Hii~lI .9l[~[t]] and PA * Hii~ I .;V[~[t]J. Here ~[t] has strength m. Therefore
the assertion PA * Hii~ I F follows by a cut with cut formula ~[tJ.
3.3. Suppose A is a formula \fx~[x] or \fX~[XJ. If ~2 =0, then .;V[A] is an
axiom of the system PA * in which A does not occur as principal part. Then .;V[ ]
is also an axiom and since .9l[.;V[ ]] f!- F, F is an axiom of the system P A *. In
this case the assertion is trivial. Now suppose ~2#0. Then W+W~1+W~2<W~. In
this case the assertion PA * Hii~ I F follows from Lemma 5.
Theorem 28.7. ifF is a formula deducible in PA then there exists ~ <eo such that
PA * ft F* holds for every specialization F* of F.
Proof By the Corollary to Theorem 28.5 there exist ~o < w 2 and mEN such that
PA * ~ F* holds for every specialization F* of F. The assertion follows by induc-
tion on m.
6. Normal Deductions in the System PA *
By a basic deduction in the wider sense we mean a basic deduction in which arbitrary
specializations of the axioms of the system PA may occur as initial formulas
besides axioms of the system P A *.
As in PA we employ the following inferences in PA*:
(str) F f- G if F f!- G holds.
(sub) ~[U] f- ~[P] if U does not occur in~, UPr(~[U]) and P is a weak
predicator.
We call such an inference an inference of the system PA * if its premise and

conclusion contain no free number variables.
Inductive definition of normal deductions:

1. Every basic deduction in the wider sense whose strength is ~ 1 is a normal
deduction.
2. If H is a normal deduction whose end formula is the premise of an inference
(str) or (sub) of the system PA* with conclusion F, then
H
F
forms a normal deduction with end formula F, if in the case of an inference (sub)
the eigenvariable does not occur in the principal part of an (S2.l )-inference of H.
3. If H1 and H2 are normal deductions whose end formulas are premises ofa
weak cut of the system PA * with end formula F, then
forms a normal deduction with end formula F.

As in 27 we define the end piece of a normal deduction, the initial formulas
of the end piece, the bundle offormulas of a minimal part of a formula of the end
piece and the explicit and implicit minimal parts of the formulas of the end piece.
In PA *, as in PA, the end piece of a normal deduction consists of only finitely
many formulas. But besides its end piece a normal deduction in the system PA *
may contain infinitely many formulas.
As before we set the rank of an inference (sub) in a normal deduction to be
the maximum of the ranks of the implicit minimal parts of its premise (or 0 if the
premise has no implicit minimal part). This rank is already < w here since no
strong cut occurs in a normal deduction in the system PA * and therefore every
implicit minimal part of a formula of the end piece is a weak formula.
As in PA we assign principal terms of level w from the notation system
8(w+ 1) to the formulas in a normal deduction. We use 0(, f3, y, () (possibly with
subscripts) as syntactic symbols for principal terms of level w from the system
8(w+ 1). As before rxf3 means that 0f3 and K i Odi f3 for all i<w. Then by
Theorem 26.3, d i Odi f3 for all i<w. 0(~<f3 means that 0(<<f3 or 0(=f3.
Inductive definition of the order of a formula in a normal deduction:

1. Every initial formula of a normal deduction has order Qro'
2. If the premises of a basic inference (SI) have orders 0(1 and 0(2' then the
*'
conclusion has order (0, 0(1 0(2)'
3. If the premise of a basic inference (S2.1), (S3.0), (S4) or a basic inference
(S3.1) whose principal part is a strong formula has order 0(, then the conclusion
has order (0, O().
4. If the premise of a basic inference (S3.1) whose principal part is a weak
formula has order 0(, then the conclusion has order (n + 1,0() where n is the degree
of the eigenformula of the inference. (This degree is finite since the principal part
of the inference is a weak formula).
5. If every premise ofa basic inference (S2.0*) has an order O(nO( (where 0( is
a principal term oflevel w of the system 8(w+ 1)), then the conclusion has order 0(.
(In this case the order of the conclusion is not uniquely determined by the orders
of the premises but can be chosen arbitrarily as long as the condition O(n 0( is
satisfied. Such an 0( always exists as the proof of Theorem 28.8 will show.)
6. If the premises of a weak cut have orders 0(1 and 0(2 then the conclusion
*'
has order (n, 0(1 0(2) where n is the degree of the cut formula.
7. If the premise of an inference (str) has order 0(, then the conclusion also
has order 0(.
8. If the premise of an inference (sub) of rank k has order rx, then the con-
clusion has order (0, Qro + dkO().
GH f.!. F (or N H f.!. F) denotes that there is a basic deduction of strength ~ I

(or a normal deduction) in which the formula F has order 0(. Since every basic
deduction of strength ~ I is a normal deduction if GH f.!. F holds, NH f.!. F also
holds.
Theorem 28.S. If PA * ft F holds, then there exists 0( ~< (co, DOl + e) such that
GHf.!.F.
Proofby induction on e.
I. Suppose F is an axiom of the system PA*. Then the assertion is trivial
since Dw (co, DOl + e) holds.
2. Suppose PA* ftFwas obtained from PA* f-ii Fi where ei<e (i= I, 2). Then
by I.H. there are O(i~CO, Dw+e i) such that GHj!i Fi . Using a corresponding
basic inference we obtain G H f.!. F where 0( = (n, 0(1) or 0( = (n, 0(1 =11= 0(2) with n < co.
Since O(i~< (co, DOl + ei) and ei < e we have O(<co, DOl + e).
3. Suppose F is a formula &,['v'x~[x]] and PA* W&'[~[n]] where en<e
for every numeral n. Then by I.H. there exist O(n~co, DOl + en) such that GHj!t'
&'[~[n]] for every numeral n. Putting 0( : = (co, DOl + e) we have 0(" 0( and GH f.!. F.
7. Reducible Normal Deductions
In the same way as in 27 we define the distinguished minimal parts of formulas in

the end piece of a normal deduction, the suitable cuts in the end piece of a normal
deduction and singular and reducible normal deductions.
A normal deduction in the system PA* is said to be singular if its end formula
is not a specialization of an axiom of the system PA and has no distinguished
minimal part.
A normal deduction of order 0( of the system PA * is said to be reducible if it
can be transformed into a normal deduction in the system PA* of order 0(
retaining the same end formula.
Theorem 28.9. Every singular normal deduction of the system PA* is reducible.
Proof Suppose H is a singular normal deduction in the system PA *. The proofs

of Theorems 27.6 and 27.7 can be immedifltely carried over to H. This leaves only
the cases where basic inferences (CI) or strong cuts occur. Indeed in PA* the
definition of order for those basic inferences (S2.1) and (S3.1) which have strong
formulas as principal parts are somewhat different from those encountered in PA.
But this does not affect the possibility of reductions of H since no strong cuts
occur in H. H contains no free number variables. It therefore follows from the
proofs of Theorems 27.6 and 27.7 that H is reducible.
8. Elimination of Cuts in P A *
Theorem 28.10. NH~ F implies PA* r%0a F.
Proofby induction on dort.. Suppose H is a normal deduction of order rt. with end
formula F.
1. Suppose H is singular. Then by Theorem 28.9 there is an rt.o rt. where
NH ~ F. It follows that dort.o < dort. and by I.H. PA * I%oa oF and therefore
PA* I%0a F.
2. Suppose F is a specialization of an axiom of the system PA. Then the
assertion holds by Lemma 3 since wQw' O)=doQw~dort..
3. Suppose H is not singular and F is not a specialization of an axiom of the
system PA. Then F has a distinguished minimal part.
3.1. Suppose F is a formula %[(A - B)] with distinguished minimal negative
part (A - B). Then H has a deduction part
Here the principal part (Ao - Bo) of the (Sl) inference belongs to the bundle of
formulas of the minimal negative part (A - B) of the formula %[(A - Bn
From H we form two new normal deductions in which the given deduction parts
are replaced by deduction parts of the following two sorts:
Then rt.irt. (i= 1, 2). It follows by I.H. that PA* l%oa 1(,A - %[(A - B)]) and
PA * l%0a2(B _ %[(A _ Bn Using an (Sl) inference it follows that
PA* Ifr ((A - B)- %[(A - B)]).
The assertion PA* r%0a %[(A _ B)] follows by Theorem 28.4.

3.2. Suppose F is a formula &'[Vx$'[x]] with distinguished positive part
Vx$'[x]. Then H has a deduction part
Hn
(S2.0*) f-ln &> o[$' o[n]] for every numeral n
f-l &> o[Vx$' o[x]]
I
~ &>[Vx$'[x]]
From H, for every numeral n, we form a new normal deduction in which the given
deduction part is replaced by
Then IXn1X for every numeral n and therefore by I.H. PA* I%0a nC-,$'[n]-+
&>[Vx$'[x]]). Using a basic inference (S2.0*) we obtain PA* I%0a (,Vx$'[x]-+
&>[Vx$'[x]]). The assertion PA* ~oa &>[Vx$'[x]] follows by Theorem 28.4.
3.3. Suppose F is a formula %[Vx$'[x]] or %[VX$'[X]] where the indi-
cated part is distinguished. Then H has a deduction part
Ho Ho
f-lo $' oCt] -+ % o[Vx$' o[x]] (S3.1) f-lo $'[Po] -+ %o[VX$'[X]]
(S3.0) f-l % o[Vx$' o[x]] f-l %o[VX$'[X]]
I or
I
~ %[Vx$'[x]] ~ %[VX$'[X]]
We form a new normal deduction from H in which the given deduction part is
replaced by
Ho Ho
f-lo $' o[t] -+ % o [Vx$' o[x]] f-lo $'[P o] -+ % o[VX$'[X]]
~ $'[t] -+
I
%[Vx$'[x]]
or
~ $'[P] -+
I
%[VX$'[X]]
Here, in the second case, P as well as Po is a weak predicator. In any case lXolX.
By I.H. we obtain
PA* I%0a o($'[t] -+ %[Vx$'[x]]) or PA* f-!APa o ($'[P] -+ %[VX$'[X]]).
The assertion PA * I%0a F follows using a basic inference (S3.0) or (S3.1).

280 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of rr:-Analysis
3.4. Suppose Fis a formula &,[V'Xff[XJJ, &'[hff[xJ(t)J or %[hff[xJ(t)]

where the minimal part indicated is distinguished. Then we have in the same way
as before (Xo(X so by I.H. we have:
PA* ~<zo (-...,ff[UJ ---+ &,[V'Xff[XJJ, PA* ~<zo (-,ff[tJ ---+ &'[hff[xJ(t)]) or
PA * fW'<zo (ff[tJ ---+ %[hff[xJ(t)], where, in the first case, U does not occur in ff.
Using a basic inference (S2.1) or (S4) and Theorem 28.4 we obtain the assertion
PA* ~o<Z F.
Theorem 28.11. ifF is a formula deducible in PA, then there exists 11 < cu, Q",+
eo), 0) such that PA * 1-6- F* holds for every specialization F* ofF.
e
Proof By Theorem 28.7 there exists < eo such that PA * If F* holds for every
specialization F* of F. Then by Theorem 28.8 there exists (X~cu, Q",+~) such
that NH'r- F*. Here (X may depend on the choice of the specialization F*. It
follows from Theorem 28.10 that PA* ~o<z F*. Then if 11 : = do(cu, Q", + e) we have
and therefore, also, PA * 1-6- F* where 11 depends only on F.
Corollary. The formula ..1 is not deducible in PA.
Proof This follows from Theorem 28.11 since it follows by induction up to

cu, Q",+e o), 0) that there is no 11 < cu, Q",+e o), 0) such that PA* 1-6-..1.
At the same time we have also proved the sentential consistency of the system
PA since
A, -,A 1-..1
is a permissible inference of the system PA.

This consistency proof uses transfinite induction up to cu, Q", + eo), 0). This
is weaker than the transfinite induction wt( used for the consistency proof of PA
in 27 since cu, Q", +eo), 0) < cu 2 , Q",), 0).
Remark. The normal deductions of the system PA * we have defined here corre-
spond to normal deductions of rank cu in the system PA. In a similar way to that
for PA we may define normal deductions of rank < cu in PA * and the corresponding
Theorems hold for them.
From Theorems 28.6, 28.8 and 28.10 we have that ifPA* ~Fthen there is an
ordinal term 11 such that PA* 1-6- F. If we restrict F to deducible formulas in the
e
system PA then, by Theorem 28.5, may be restricted to ordinal terms <cu 2 while
we can only restrict the corresponding ordinal term 11 so that 11 < cu, Q w + eo), 0).
But it is possible to estimate a certain ordinal term bound , such that to every
29. Proofs of Well-Ordering 281
ordinal term ~ <, such that PA * ~ F there is an ordinal term '1 <, such that
PA*ij- F. The smallest bound of this kind which we obtain by our theorems is
ro,Q",+Q1),0)=suP~n where ~o:=O and ~n+1:=ro,Q"'+~n)'0). Using the
neN
next theorem we prove that the ordinal term ro, Q", + Q1)' 0) is an ordinal term
bound of the type described.
Theorem 28.12. The following three properties of a formula F are equivalent to

each other.
(1) There exists meN and ~(ro, Q", +Q1)' 0) such that PA* ~ F.
(2) There exists a(ro, Q",+Q1) such that NH~F.
(3) There exists '1 < ro, Q", +Q1)' 0) such that PA* ~ F.
Proof of (1) => (2). Obviously the ordinal term ro, Q",+Q1)' 0) denotes an 6-
number. Therefore it follows from (1) by Theorem 28.6 using induction on m that
there exists '1< ro, Q",+Q1)' 0) such that PA* ptF. Then by Theorem 28.8 there
exists a,ro,Q",+'1) such that NH~F. It follows from '1(ro,Q",+Q1)'0)
that (ro, Q",+'1)(ro, Q",+Q1) and therefore a(ro, Q",+Q1) too.
Proof of (2) => (3). By Theorem 28.10 it follows from (2) that PA* Iff F. Then it
follows from a(ro, Q",+Q1) that doa(ro, Q", +Q1)' 0).
This completes the proof of Theorem 28.12 since (3) => (1) holds trivially.
This theorem says that: If one defines a formula to be deducible in PA * if,

and only if, there exist meN and ~(ro,Q",+Q1)'0) such that PA*~Fthen
every formula F deducible in PA* is deducible with a cut free proof (that is to say,
there exists '1 < ro, Q",+Q1)' 0) such that PA* ~ F) and Fis deducible in PA* if,
and only if, there exists a(ro, Q", + Q1) such that NH ~ F. Moreover, every
specialization of a formula deducible in PA is also deducible in PA *.
29. Proofs of Well-Ordering
1. A Constructive Proof of Well-Ordering for Subsystems of 8(Q)
In the following we let -r be an ordinal term > 0 of level 0 in the notation system
8(Q).
Assumption. The well-ordering of the ordinal terms <-r is constructively provable.
Under this assumption we produce a constructive proof of well-ordering for

the subsystem 8(-r) of 8(Q). In particular this assumption is valid for -r~ro+ 1 so
we prove constructively that the systems of ordinal terms used in 27 and 28 are
well-ordered.
282 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of JIl-Analysis
However the well-ordering of the full system lJ(Q) is not deducible using the
weak methods of proof which we employ in this section. W. Buchholz [2] has
produced a proof of the well-ordering of lJ(Q) and certain stronger systems of
ordinal terms using stronger methods of proof in a certain constructive way. The
proof of well-order given below uses special techniques from W. Buchholz' proof.
Notations for M~lJ(Q):

1. Let M(rx) be the set of ~ E M which are <rx.
2. Let W(M) be the set of rx E M such that M(rx) is well-ordered.
Lemma 1. If M, M* are subsets oflJ(Q) then:

a) rx E W(M) => M(rx) ~ W(M).
b) rxEM, M(rx)~ W(M) => rxE W(M).
c) rx E M(f3) (\ W(M*), M(f3) ~ M* => rx E W(M).
Proof This follows from the definition of W(M).
Inductive definition of Ma for 11<-':

Let Mn be the set of rx E lJ(Q) such that Srx~11 and K"rx;; W(Mv) for all V<I1.
Lemma 2. If 11<-', then:

a) rx E Ma => P(rx);;Ma
b) rx,f3EMa=>rx+f3EMa
c) rx+f3EMa=>f3EMa
d) rx, f3 E W(Ma) => rx+ f3 E W(Ma)
e) rx E W(Ma) > P(rx) ~ W(Ma)
Proofs. a) follows immediately from the definition of Ma

b) rx, f3 E Ma implies S(rx + (3) = max (Srx, S(3) ~ 11 and Kv(rx+ (3) ~ Kvrx uKvf3~
W(Mv) for all V<I1. Hence rx+ f3 E M a.
c) By a) rx+f3EMa implies P(f3)~P(rx+f3)~Ma. Obviously OEMa. By b),
using P(f3);;Ma we obtain f3 E M a
d) Because of the hypothesis f3 E W(Ma) we can use induction on Ma up to
f3. Then we have the I.H.
Now suppose ~ E Ma(rx + (3). IH E Mirx), then ~ E W(Ma) follows from rx E W(Ma)
by Lemma 1 a). Otherwise ~=rx+'1EMa where '1<f3. Then we obtain '1EMa(f3)
by c) and ~ = rx + '1 E W(Ma) by the I.H. Hence Mirx + (3) ;; W(Ma) rx, f3 E W(Ma)
imply rx, f3 E Ma and by b) rx + f3 E Ma. By Lemma 1 b) we obtain rx + f3 E W(Ma).
e) rx E W(Ma) implies rx E Ma and by a) P(rx) ;; Ma. By Lemma 1 a) we obtain
P(rx) ~ W(Ma). Obviously 0 E W(Ma). Therefore from P(rx) ~ W(Ma) we obtain
rx E W(Ma) by d).
Lemma 3. If p:::;O"<-c:
a) M,i Qp+1) r;;;.Mp.
b) W(Mp)r;;;. W(Mo.).
Proof a) follows immediately from the definition of Ma.

b) is obtained as follows by induction on 0". Suppose (X E W(Mp). Then (X E Mp
and S(X:::;p. If v<p then Kv(Xr;;;. W(M). If p:::;v<O" then Kv(X=P(X) and by I.H.
(xE W(Mv) and therefore by Lemma 2 e) Kv(Xr;;;. W(Mv). Hence we have
(X E M a(Qp+1). Using (X E W(Mp) it follows by a) and Lemma 1 c) that (X E W(Ma).
Hence W(Mp)r;;;. W(Ma).
Definition. Qt: = U W(Ma)

a<t
Lemma 4. IfO"<-c then Q.(Qa+1)= W(Ma)
Proof Suppose (X E Q.(Qa+1). Then S(X:::; 0" and there exists v < -c such that
(XE W(Mv). It follows that (xE Mv and S(X:::;v. If S(X<v then P(X) = KSa(Xr;;;. W(MSa)
and by Lemma 2 e) (X E W(Msa). Hence in every case (X E W(Msa). Using S(X:::; 0" it
follows by Lemma 3 b) that (XE W(Ma). Therefore Q.(Qa+1)r;;;. W(Ma) holds. By
definition we also have W(Ma)r;;;.Q.(Qa+1).
Theorem 29.1. Qt is well-ordered.
Proof IhE Qt then S(X<-c and by Lemma 4 (xE W(MSa) = Q.(QSa +1) By Lemma
1 c) we have (X E W(Qt). Hence Qtr;;;. W(Qt) and therefore Qtis well-ordered.
Theorem 29.2. P(X)r;;;.Qt = (xE Qt.
Proof P(ct)r;;;.Qt implies S(X<-c and by Lemma 4 P(X)r;;;. W(Msa). It follows by

Lemma 2 e) that (XE W(Msa)r;;;.Qt.
Theorem 29.3. IfO<O"<-c then QaE Qt.
Proof By the assumption on -c, 0" E W(Ma). It follows from Lemmata 2 e) and 3 b)
that for all v < 0"
Hence Qa E Ma. S(x<O" for all (X E MiQa) and P(X) = KSa(X r;;;. W(MSa consequently
by Lemmata 2 e) and 3 b) (X E W(Ma). Hence Ma(Qa) r;;;. W(Ma). Using Qa E Ma it
follows by Lemma 1 b) that QaE W(Ma)r;;;.Qt.
Lemma 5. If 9(Xp E 9(Q) where Sp < -c, then:

Proof If v < S/3 then K.(KsplX) = K.IX and consequently K}JIX/3 = K.IX U K./3 =
K.(KsplX U {/3}). Therefore it follows from lJlX/3 E Msp that K.(KsplX U {/3}) : W(M.)
for all v< S/3. Hence we obtain KsplX U {/3} : Msp.
Lemma 6. IX E Q, implies K.IX : Q, for all v < T.
Proof IX E Q, implies SIX<T and by Lemma 4 we obtain IX E W(MSa) and therefore

IX E MSa. It follows that K.IX : W(M.) : Q, for all v < SIX. If SIX ~ v < T then K.IX =
P(IX). Then it follows from IXE W(MSa) by Lemma 2 e) that K.IX: W(MSa):Qt.
Lemma 7. IX, /3 E Q" lJlX/3 E lJ(Q), MsP(lJlX/3) : Qt => lJlX/3 E Q,.
Proof IX, /3 E Qt implies S/3 < T and by Lemmas 6 and 4 we obtain
for all v < S/3. Hence we have lJlX/3 E Msp. By Lemma 4 MsP(lJlX/3) : Qt implies
MSP(lJlX/3) : W(Msp ) Using lJlX/3 E Msp we obtain lJlX/3 E W(Msp) : Q, by Lemma
1 b).
Theorem 29.4. IX, /3 E Q" lJlX/3 E lJ(Q) => lJlX/3 E Q,.
Proof We have
(1) IX, /3 E Q,
(2) lJlX/3 E lJ( Q)
as hypotheses and lJlX/3 E Q, as assertion. By Theorem 29.1 it follows from (1) that
we can use induction over Qt on IX. Then we have the induction hypothesis
We may also use a subsidiary induction over Qt on /3 with induction hypothesis
'1 E Q, , '1 < /3, lJlX'1 E lJ(Q) => lJlX'1 E Q, .
If S'1 = S/3 it follows from (2) by Theorem 25.3 that lJlX'1 E lJ(Q) too. Therefore we
have, in particular, as induction hypothesis
In order to prove the assertion lJlX/3 E Qt it suffices, by (1), (2) and Lemma 7, to
prove that MsP(lJlX/3): Qt. Now suppose
(5) Y E M sP(lJlX/3).
Now in order to prove our theorem it suffices to prove Y E Qt under the hypotheses
(l)--{5).
29. Proofs ofWeJl-Ordering 285
Proof of Y E Qt by induction on the degree Gy.

1. Y ~ P. If () E P(Y) then G{) < Gy and by (5) and Lemma 2 a) () E Msp(BrxP). It
follows by I.H. that () E Qt for all () E P(Y). By Theorem 29.2 we have Y E Qt.
2. Y = Q". where 0 < CT. Since Y < Brxp and P E Qt' CT ~ Sp <. and therefore
Y E Qt by Theorem 29.3.
3. y=BY1Y2 where y~Ksprx u {P}. It follows from (1) by Lemma 6 that
Ksprx u {P} Qt and by Lemma 4 that Ksprx u {P} W(Msp ). Therefore there
e e.
exists E W(Msp) such that Y ~ Then by (5) Y E Msp. By Lemma 1 a) we obtain
yE W(Msp) Qt
4. y=BY1Y2 where Ksprx u {P}<y. Then Sp~Sy=S'Y2- Since by (5) y<BrxP,
we have SP=Sy. It follows by Theorem 25.2 that KSP Y1 u {Y2} <yo By I.H. we have
() E Qt for all () E K SP Y1 u {Y2} and therefore
(7) Y2 E Qt
4.1. Y1 =rx. Now y=BY1Y2 <BrxP and SP=SY2 imply QSP~Y2 <po Using (7) we
therefore have, by (4), y={JrxY2 E Qt.
4.2. Y1 =lrx. By Theorem 25.4 Ksprx u {P}<y=BY1Y2<(JrxP implies Y1 <rx. We
prove K".y 1 Qt for all CT <. by induction on CT.
a) CT~ Sp. Then K"'Y1 = K".(KsPY1). Using (6) we obtain K"'Y1 Qt by Lemma 6.
b) SP<CT< . By I.H. for all V<CT, we have Kv(K".Y1)=KvY1Qt and conse-
quently by Lemma 4 Kv(K"'Y1)W(Mv). Hence we obtain K"'Y1M".. By 24
(p. 232) Brxp E B(Q) implies SJl(rx) ~ Sp < CT and Orx(Q". + 1) = BrxQ". E B(Q). Similarly
BY1Y2 E B(Q) and SP=SY2 imply OY1(Q".+ 1)=BY1 Q".E B(Q). By Theorem 25.2 we
obtain K"'Y1 <By 1Q". By Theorem 24.4 b) Y1 <rx implies OY1(Q".+ 1)~Orx(Q".+ 1)
and therefore BY1Q".~BrxQ".. Hence we have K"'Y1 M".({JrxQ".). Q". E Qt by Theorem
29.3. Thus the hypotheses (1)--(5) are satisfied with rx, Q"., () E K"'Y1 replacing rx,
p, y. If () E K"'Y1 then G{) ~GY1 < Gy. Therefore by induction on Gy it follows that
() E Qt for all () E K".y 1 and therefore K".y 1 Qt
Since K"'Y1 Qt for all CT<. and since Y1 < rx E Qt too we have in particular
P(Y1)=Ksy ,Y1Qt. By Theorem 29.2 we have Y1EQt. Using (7), Y1<rx and
BY1 Y2 E (J(Q) by (3) we obtain Y = (JY1 Y2 E Qt
Theorem 29.5. (J(.) is well-ordered.
Proof Ifrx E B(.) we obtain rx E Qt by induction on Grx because of Theorems 29.2-

29.4. Hence B(.) Qt. By Theorem 29.1 it follows that B(.) is well-ordered.
2. The Formal System IOn of n-Fold Iterated Inductive Definitions
The proof of well-ordering of B(.) above is not predicative nor can it be

presented predicatively since (J(I) already contains all ordinal terms < r o. How-
ever the proof does not require full classical second order arithmetic but can be
accomplished in a formal system which comes from first order arithmetic by

adding generalized inductive definitions. In this way the proof of well-ordering
does have a constructive character.
The proof of well-ordering of ()(N) can be formalized in a formal system IDN
for 0 < N < 0) where ID" is constructed as follows for 0 ~ n < 0).
The terms and prime formulas of the system ID" are the same as those of the
formal systems GPA and P A.
Inductive definition of the formulas and predicators of the system ID,,:

I. Every prime formula is a formula.
2. Every free predicate variable is a predicator.
3. If P is a predicator and t a term, then pet) is a formula.
4. If A and B are formulas so too is (A ~ B).
S. If ff[O] is a formula in which the bound number variable x does not occur
then Vxff[x] is a formula and Axff[x] a predicator. .
6. Ifn>O and
Vx(U(x)~ V(x~ Vx(d[U, x] ~ d[V, x]) (Monotonicity condition for d)
where U, V are distinct free predicate variables and no free number variable and
no free predicate variable occurs in d, is a formula deducible in ID"_l then
f1Jd is a predicator.
No bound predicate variables occur in IDn. We use the same syntactic symbols
for IDn as for GPA.
Axioms of the system ID n:
(Axl)-(Ax4) as for GPA
(AxS) d[PI'd' t] ~ PI'.,(t)
(Ax6) Vx(d[P, x] ~ P(x ~ (PI'd{t) ~ pet~
Basic inferences in the system IDn:
(Sl), (S2.0), (S3.0), (S4), (cut), (el) and (str) as for GPA, (sub) ff[U] I- ff[P] if
U does not occur in ff.
All the axioms and basic inferences of the system ID" shall consist of the
formulas of ID" defined above. P denotes an arbitrary predicator of the system
ID n and Pl'd a predicator given by rule 6 of the definition above. By (AxS) and
(Ax6) such a predicator must represent the predicate f1J d such that Pl'd(n) holds
if, and only if, n is an element of the smallest set {x IP(x)} such that Vx(d[P, x] ~
P(x where the existence of such a smallest set is guaranteed by the monotonicity
condition imposed on d. In this way a generalized inductive defifiition is formal-
ized by Pl'd.
ID" I- F denotes that F is a deducible formula in ID".
Theorem 29.6. IDn I- F=> IDn+l I- F.
Proof This follows immediately from the definition of ID n.

3. Formalization of the Proof of Well-Ordering of B(N) in IDN
Let n be the bijective map of N x N onto N defined on p. 96. As before we set

Po:=2 andpn' for n#O, to be the n-th odd prime.
Inductive definition of an injective map rx f--?-' rx' of B(Q) into N:

l. '0': = 1
2. IfO<rxEB(Q) set 'Q a' :=P,,(,a,.o)
3. If Brxf3 E B( Q) set' Brxf3' : = P P,) ,,(,a,.,
4. If rxl++rxnEB(Q) where rxl~~rxn (n>I) are principal terms set
n
, rx 1 + ... + rx n' : = TI 'rx i ' .
i= 1
Corollary. If rx E B( Q) then 0 <, rx' EN. Hence it follows that rx f--?- ' rx' is injective.
n
Definition of a surjective mapping /1 f--?- of N onto B(Q)u {Ao}. (Ao denotes the
least ordinal which is not denoted by an ordinal term in the system 8(Q).)
n:={rxE.B(Q) if. 'rx'=n,

Ao otherwise.
Obviously nis calculable for every natural number n.

Ifm, /1 EN then -< (m, /1) holds if, and only if, m< n. Therefore -< is a decidable
2-place arithmetic predicate. As before we write s -< t for -< (s, t).
If:F is a I-place nominal form such that :F[t] is a formula for every term t
then the progressiveness of a predicator P with respect to the relation -< on the
set {x I :F[x]} is expressed by the formula
Prog [:F, P] : = V'x(:F[x] /\ V' y(y -<x /\ :F[y] --> P(y --> P(x.
If
IDn f-:F[t] /\ Pr [:F, P] --> pet)
holds for every predicator P then this means that the well-ordering of the set
{x I:F[x]} by -< up to t is provable in IDn'
From now on we let N denote a fixed natural number> O. We define decidable
arithmetic predicates as follows:
1. TN(m) holds if, and only if, mE B(N).
2. Si(m) holds if, and only if, mE B(Q) and Sm~ i.
3. K;(m, /1) holds if, and only if, n E B(Q) and mE Kin.
n
Define (A /\ B) and (A v B) as above (p. 25). We write A 1\ Bi for A /\ Bo

i=O
n
/\ ... /\ Bn and V AJor Ao v ... v An'

i=O
288 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of rr:-Analysis
Inductive definition of formulas Jtn[t], dn[U, t] and 1I'"n[t]:

1. Jt o[t] : = So(t)
2. dn[U, t] : = Jtn[t] 1\ 'v'y(Jtn[y] I\y-<t~ U(y
3. 1I'"n[t] : = Jtn[t] M!I sln(t)
i=O
By induction on n one simultaneously proves:
a) Jt nEt] is a formula of the system IDn.
b) IDn f- ('v'x(U(x) ~ Vex~ ~ 'v'x(dn[U, x] ~ dn[V, x]).
c) f!J sin is a predicator of the system IDn + 1 .
d) 1I'"n[t] is a formula of the system IDn + 1 .
It follows that Jtn[t], f!J sln(t) and 1I'"n[t] are formulas ofIDN if n <N. There-
fore, as (Ax5) and (Ax6) hold for n<N
IDN f- Jtn[a] 1\ 'v'y(Jtn[y] 1\ Y -<a ~ f!J sln(Y ~ f!J slJa)

IDN f- 'v'x(Jtn[x] 1\ 'v'y(Jtn[y] I\y-<x~ P(y~ P(x~ (f!J sln(t)~ pet~
It follows by the definition of 1I'"n[t] that
IDN f- Prog [Jt n, Ax1l'"n[X]]

IDN f- 1I'"n[t] ~ Jtn[t] 1\ (Prog [Jt n, P] ~ pet~
From here and the definition of Jto[t] and Jtn+1[t] we therefore see that the
sets Mn and W(Mn) defined on p. 282 are expressed in IDN for n < N by
Now set
N-l
,qN[t] : = V 1I'";[IJ.
i=O
Then ,q N[t] is a formula of the system IDN such that the set QN defined on p. 283
is represented by
The proof of well-ordering of (}(N) can now be translated into IDN in the following
way:
Theorem 29.7. IDN f- Prog [TN' P] ~ 'v'x(TN(x) ~ P(x
Proof As for Theorem 29.1 one proves

In the same way as in the proof of Theorem 29.5 we proved B(N) ~ QN we now
prove
From (2) we have
IDN I- Prog [TN' P] ~ Prog [!2 N' h(TN(x) ~ P(x))]
Since (1) also holds with h(TN(x) ~ P(x)) instead of P we obtain
Using (2) we obtain
IDN I- Prog [TN' P] ~ (TN(a) ~ Pea)).
The assertion follows using a basic inference (S2.0).
4. Embedding IDn in a Subsystem of PA
If 0 < v ~ ill let PA v be the subsystem of PA which contains only formulas of rank
< v and let PA? be the subsystem of PAv in which no free predicate variable occurs
inside a predicate quantifier. That is to say: The set Pr (F) defined on p. 252 is
to be empty for every formula Fin the system PA? Then PAw is the subsystem of
PA which contains only weak formulas.
If 0 < n < v ~ ill then PAn is a subsystem of PA v and PA~ a subsystem of PA?
Lemma 8. If g-[U] is a formula and P a predicator in the system PA? (O<V~ill)

where U does not occur in :!F, then
:!F[ U] I- :!F[P]
is an inference (sub) in the system PA?
Proof In this case Pr (:!F[U]) is empty and P is a weak predicator. Therefore the
rank of :!F[P] is equal to the maximum of the ranks of :!F[U] and P(O). The
assertion follows.
Inductive definition of a formula P and a predicator P in the system PA~ + 1 for

each formula F and predicator P of the system IDn.
1. For each prime formula F set P : = F.
2. For each free predicate variable U set U: = U.
3. For each predicator P in the system IDn set P(t): =P(t).
4. (A~B):=(A~B).
290 IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of nt-Analysis
s. If ff[a] is the formula ff[a] where a does not occur in the nominal forms
ff and ff then set
6. If f?JJ..t is a predicator in the system IDn and d[U, a] is the formula d[U, a]
where U and a do not occur in the nominal forms d and d then n > 0 and, because
of the inductive definition, dEl!, a] is a formula of the system PA~. Then set
f?JJ..t : = AzVY(Vx(d[Y, x] -+ Y(x -+ Y(z.
Theorem 29.8 (Embedding Theorem). If IOn I- F holds then F is a deducible

formula in the system PA~ + 1.
Proofby induction on n with a nested induction on the length of the deduction of

Fin IOn.
1. Suppose F is not an (AxS) or (Ax6). Then the assertion follows from the
subsidiary I.H. using Lemma 8.
2. Suppose F is an (AxS) or (Ax6). Then n > 0 and the axiom is for a predicator
f?JJ..t such that
IOn - 1 I- Vx(U(x) -+ V(x -+ Vx(d[U, x] -+ drY, x]).
By the I.H. we obtain
(1) PA~ I- Vx(U(x)-+ V(x-+ Vx(d[U,x]-+ d[V,x]).
f?JJ..t is the predicator
AzVY(Vx(d[Y, x] -+ Y(x -+ Y(z
of the system PA~+ 1. For each predicator P of the system IDn we have
PA~+l I- Vx(d[P, x] -+ P(x-+ (VY(Vx(d[Y, x] -+ Y(x-+ Y(t -+ P(t.
Using a basic inference (S4) we obtain
(2) PA~+ 1 I- Vx(d[P, x] -+ P(x -+ (f?JJ..t(t) -+ P(t.
That is to say:
(3) PA~+1 I- F if Fis an (Ax6).

PA~+ 1 I- 'Vx(&'d(X) --+ U(~ --+ (d[&' d' t] --+ d[U, t])
PA~+ 1 I- 'Vx(d[U, x] --+ U(x --+ 'VX(&' d(X) --+ U(x.
From these two formulas we obtain
Using basic inferences (S2.1) and (S4) we obtain

o -- -
PA,,+1 I- d[&'d' t] --+ &'d(t).
That is to say:
(4) PA~+1 I- F if Fis an (Ax5).
(3) and (4) prove the assertion.
Theorem 29.9. /fO<N<w, then:

a) Formalized transfinite induction
Prog [TN' P] --+ 'VX(TN(X) --+ P(x
over iJ(N) is deducible in the system PA~+ l '

b) The consistency of the formal system PAN+ 1 is provable by transfinite
induction up to w, UN)' 0) = O(Ow(UN+ 10.
Proof a) follows from Theorems 29.7 and 29.8.

b) Every normal deduction in the system PAN +1 has an order IX E lJ(N + 1)
where IX(W, UN)' Therefore dolX< w, UN)' 0). The assertion therefore follows
from the proofs of Theorems 27.8 and 27.9.
Remark. By W. Pohlers [2] the consistency of the formal systems IDN and
PA~+1 is provable even by transfinite induction up to (1, UN)' 0) = OSU N + 10 and
formalized transfinite induction is deducible in these systems up to each ordinal
term lkI, UN)' 0).
Definition. Let TW+l be the deducible arithmetic predicate which holds if, and
only if, fl E lJ(w+ 1).
Theorem 29.10. The ordinalOUwO is characteristic for the formal system PAw in
the following sense:
a) Formalized transfinite induction up to n is provable in PA~for every ordinal
term fl<OUwO that is to say, the formula
292 29. Proofs of Well-Ordering
Prog [T",+1> P] ~ P(n)
is deducible in PA~.
b) The consistency of the formal system PA", is provable by transfinite induction
up to OQ",O.
Proof a) If ti < OQ",O there is a natural number N> 0 such that mE /}(N) for all
m~ti. Then it follows from Theorem 29.9 a) that the formula
Prog [T",+ l' P] ~ P(n)
is deducible in PA~+1 and therefore in PA~ too.

b) For each normal deduction H of the system PA", there is a natural number
N> 0 such that H is a normal deduction of the system PAN +1. Hence the assertion
follows from Theorem 29.9 b) since O(Ow(QN + 1))0 < OQ",O.
Remarks. 1. By W. Buchholz [1] and [6] OQ",O is the order type of level 0 of
the notation system I: of H. Pfeiffer [2]. This is at the same time the order type
of the union of all invariant segments of the systems I:(N) (N E N) of K. Schiitte
[10]. By H. Levitz [1], [2] and [3] this is simultaneously the order type of all
the ordinal diagrams offinite order of G. Takeuti [2].
2. The proof of well-ordering given in the first part of this section for /}(r)
can be formalized in a system with transfinitely iterated inductive definitions in
the case where r = w + 1. But it cannot be formalized in any system IDn where
n<w nor in GPA. This also holds for every proof of well-ordering up to the

ordinal term w 2 , Q",), 0) of the system /}( w + 1). Transfinite induction up to this
ordinal was used in 27 to prove the consistency of GPA.
3. It follows from work of W. Buchholz and W. Pohlers [5] that formalized
transfinite induction is deducible in GPA up to each ordinal term
It can further be shown that this induction is deducible in PA up to each ordinal

term ti < 0, Q", + 8 0 ), 0) = O(Q", . 8 0 )0. It is possible to give consistency proofs for
the systems GPA and PA with weaker transfinite inductions than were used in
27 and 28. For by the result!> ofW. Buchholz [4] and W. Pohlers [3] if iXoPA and
ocpA are the least ordinals up to which transfinite induction is sufficient for such
consistency proofs then we have
Bibliography
Ackermann, W.:
[1] Zur Widerspruchsfreiheit der Zahlentheorie. Math. Ann. 117 (1940), 162-194.
[2] Widerspruchsfreier Aufbau einer typenfreien Logik. (Erweitertes System). Math. Zeitschr. 55
(1952), 364-384.
[3] Widerspruchsfreier Aufbau einer typenfreien Logik. II. Math. Zeitschr. 57 (1953), 155-166.
Aczel, P.:
[I] A new approach to the Bachmann method for describing countable ordinals. Mimeographed.
Bridge, J.:
[1] Some problems in mathematical logic. Systems of ordinal functions and ordinal notations. Thesis
Oxford 1972.
[2] A simplification of the Bachmann method for generating large countable ordinals. Journal of
. Symbolic Logic 40 (1975),171-185.
Buchholz, w.:
[1] Rekursive Bezeichnungssysteme fUr Ordinalzahlen auf der Grundlage der Feferman-Aczelschen
Normalfunktionen 6. Dissertation Miinchen 1974.
[2] Normalfunktionen und konstruktive Systeme von Ordinalzahlen. Proof Theory Symposion Kiel
1974. Springer Lecture Notes in Math. 500 (1975), 4-25.
[3] Uber Teilsysteme von 9({g}). Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 18 (1976),85-98.
[4] Zur Beweisbarkeit der transfiniten Induktion in l1~-CA. Erscheint im Archiv f. math. Logik u.
Grundlagenf.
Buchholz, W. and Pohlers, w.:

[5] Provable wellorderings of formal theories for transfinitely iterated inductive definitions. To appear
in Journal of Symbolic Logic.
Buchholz, W. und Schutte, K.:

[6] Die Beziehungen zwischen den Ordinalzahlsystemen E und 9(w). Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grund-
lagenf. 17 (1976),179-190.
Diller, J. und Schutte, K.:

[1] Simultane Rekursionen in der Theorie der Funktionale endlicher Typen. Archiv f. math. Logik u.
Grundlagenf. 14 (1971),69-74.
Fe/erman, S.:
[I] Systems of predicative analysis. Journal of Symbolic Logic 29 (1964), 1-30.
[2] Systems of predicative analysis, II: Representations of ordinals. Journal of Symbolic Logic 33
(1968), 193-200.
[3] Autonomous transfinite progressions and the extent of predicative mathematics. Logic,
Methodology and Philosophy of Science III. Amsterdam 1968, 121-135.
294 Bibliography
[4] Hereditarely replete functionals over the ordinals. Intuitionism and Proof Theory. Amsterdam
1970,289-301. .
[5] Formal theories for transfinite iterations of generalized inductive definitions and some subsystems
of analysis. Intuitionism and Proof Theory. Amsterdam 1970, 303-326.
[6] Ordinals and functionals in proof theory. Proc. of the International Congress of Math. Nice 1970.
Paris 1971, Vol. 1,229-233.
Gentzen. G.:
[I] Untersuchungen iiber das logische SchlieBen. Math. Zeitschr. 39 (1934),176-210,405-431.
[2] Die Widerspruchsfreiheit der reinen Zahlentheorie. Math. Ann. 11Z (1936), 493-565.
[3] Neue Fassung des Widerspruchsfreiheitsbeweises fiir die reine Zahlentheorie. Forschungen zur
Logik und zur Grundlegung det exakten Wissenschaften. Neue Folge 4 (1938),19-44.
[4] Beweisbarkeit und Unbeweisbarkeit von Anfangsfallen der transfiniten Induktion in der reinen
Zahlentheorie. Math. Ann. 119 (1943), 149-161.
GOdel. K.:
[I] tiber formal unentscheidbare Siitze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatsh.
Math. Phys. 38 (1931), 173-198.
[2] tiber eine bisher noch nicht beniitzte Erweiterung des finiten Standpunktes. Dialectica 1~ (1958),
28(}-287.
Henkin. L.:
[1] Completeness in the theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic 14 (1949), 159-166.
Hilbert. D. und Bernays. P.:

[I] Grundlagen der Mathematik I, II, Die Grundlehren der math. Wissenschaften 40,50.2. Aufiage,
Springer 1968, 1970. .
Howard. W.:
[I] Assignment of ordinals to terms for primitive recursive functionals offinite type. Intuitionism and
Proof Theory. Amsterdam 1970,443-458.
[2] A system of abstract constructive ordinals. Journal of Symbolic Logic 37 (1972), 355-374.
Kreisel. G.:
[I] La predicativite. Bull. de Ia Soc. Math. de France 88 (1960), 371-391.
[2] A survey of proof theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 33 (1968), 321-388.
[3] A survey of proof theory II. Proc. of the 2nd Scandinavian Logic Symposium. Amsterdam 1971,
109-170.
Levitz. H.:
[I] On a simplification of Takeuti's ordinal diagrams of finite order. Zeitschr. f. math. Logik u. Grundl.
d. Math. 15 (1969), 141-154.
[2] On the relationship between Takeuti's ordinal diagrams O(n) and Schiitte's system of ordinal
notations 1:(n). Intuitionism and Proof Theory. Amsterdam 1970,377-405.
Levitz. H. and Schutte. K.:

[3] A characterization of Takeuti's ordinal diagrams of finite order. Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grund-
lagenf. 14 (1970), 75-97.
Lorenzen. P.:
[I] Aigebraische und logistische Untersuchungen iiber freie Verbiinde. Journal of Symbolic Logic 16
(1951), 81-106.
Pfeiffer. H.:
[I] Ausgezeichnete Foigen fUr gewisse Abschnitte der zweiten und weiterer Zahlenklassen. Dis-
sertation Hannover 1964.
Bibliography 295
[2] Ein Bezeichnungssystem fUr Ordinalzahlen. Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 12 (1969), 12-17.
[3] Ein Bezeichnungssystem fUr OrdinaIzahlen. Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 13 (1970),74-90.
[4] Vergleich zweier Bezeichnungssysteme fUr Ordinalzahlen. Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf.
15 (1972), 41-56.
[5] Ober zwei Bezeichnungssysteme fUr Ordinalzahlen. Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 16
(1974),23-36.
Pohlers, W.:
[I] Eine Grenze fUr die Herleitbarkeit der transfiniten Induktion in einem schwachen n:-Fragment der
Analysis. Dissertation Miinchen 1973.
[2] An upper bound for the provability of transfinite induction in systems with N-times iterated inductive
definitions. Proof Theory Symposion Kiel 1974. Springer Lecture Notes in Math. SOO (1975),
271-289.
[3] Ordinals connected with formal theories for transfinitely iterated inductive definitions. To appear
in Journal of Symbolic Logic.
Prawitz, D.:
[1] Hauptsatz for higher order logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 33 (1968), 452-457.
[2] Ideas and results in proof theory. Proc. of the 2nd Scandinavian Logic Symposium. Amsterdam
1971,235-307.
Schiitte, K.:
[1] Beweistheoretische Erfassung der unendlichen Induktion in der reinen Zahlentheorie. Math. Ann.
122 (1951),369-389.
[2] Beweistheoretische Untersuchung der verzweigten Analysis. Math. Ann. 124 (1952), 123-147.
[3] Ein System des verkniipfenden SchlieBens. Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 2 (1956),55-67.
[4] Syntactical and semantical properties of simple type theory. Journal of Symbolic Logic 25 (1960),
305-326.
[5] Beweistheorie. Die Grundlehren der math. Wissensch. 103. Springer 1960.
[6} Logische Abgrenzungen des Transfiniten. Logik und Logikkalkiil. Freiburg, Miinster 1962,
105-114. .
[7] Der Interpolationssatz der intuitionistischen Pradikatenlogik. Math. Ann. 148 (1962), 192-200.
[8] Eine Grenze fiir die Beweisbarkeit der transfiniten Induktion in der verzweigten Typenlogik.
Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 7 (1964), 45-60.
[9] Predicative well-orderings. Formal Systems and Recursive Functions. Proc. of the 8th Logic
Colloquium Oxford 1963. Amsterdam 1965, 280--303.
[10] Ein konstruktives System von Ordinalzahlen. Archiv f. math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 11 (1969),
126-137; 12 (1969), 3-11.
[11] Einfiihrung der Normalfunktionen 8. ohne Auswahlaxiom und ohne Regularitiitsbedingung.
Archiv f.-math. Logik u. Grundlagenf. 17 (1976), 171-178.
Tait, W. W.:
[1] Infinitely long terms of transfinite type. Formal Systems and Recursive Functions. Proc. of the
8th Logic Colloquium Oxford 1963. Amsterdam 1965, 176-185.
[2] A non constructive proof of Gentzen's Hauptsatz for second order predicate logic. Bull. Amer.
Math. Soc. 72 (1966), 980--983.
[3] Normal derivability in c1assicallogic. The Syntax and Semantics of Infinitary Languages. Springer
Lecture Notes in Math. 72 (1968),204-256.
Takahashi, M.:
[1] A proof of cut-elimination theorem in simple type theory. J. Math. Soc. Japan 19 (1967),399-410.
[2] Simple type theory of Gentzen style with the inference of extensionality. Proc. Japan Acad. 44
(1968),43-45.
[3) A system of simple type theory of Gentzen style with inference on extensionality, and the cut-
elimination in it. Comment. universitatis Sancti Pauli, Tokyo 18 (1969), 129--147.
Takeuti, G.:
[1] On a generalized logic calculus. Japan J. Math. 23 (1953), 39--96.
[2] Ordinal diagrams. J. Math. Soc. Japan 9 (1957), 386-394.
296 Bibliography
[3] Ordinal diagrams II. J. Math. Soc. Japan 12 (1960), 385-391.

[4] Consistency proofs of subsystems of classical analysis. Ann. of Math. 86 (1967), 299-348.
[5] Proof Theory. Studies in Logic 81. Amsterdam 1975.
Troelstra, A. S.:
[I] Metamathematical investigations of intuitionistic arithmetic and analysis. Springer Lecture Notes
in Math. 344 (1973).
Subject Index
A.-abstraction 121 - parts of a formula 63

Aczel 4,224 Curry 98
addition in the system FT 120 cut 37,170,200,254
- of ordinals 80, 223 Cut Elimination Theorem 203, 204
- of ordinal terms 89,90 cut formula 200, 254
additive principal numbers 80, 224 Cut rule 24, 62, 70
arithmetic difference 123
atomic formulas 20, 57
autonomous ordinal terms 213,215,217 decidable arithmetic predicates 167
axioms of choice 150 deducibility 14
D-chain (deduction chain) 29,33,63
deduction functions 248, 249
bar-induction 254 - part 263
basic deduction 256,271,275 - threat 262
- formula of the system FT 129 degree of a basic inference 254
- inferences 14 - ofa formula 41,252
Bemays-Godel set theory 74,221 - of an M-term 68
Beth 36,55 - of an ordinal of lJ(Q) 234
Bridge 4 - of a term of T* 236
Brouwer 36 - of a type 106
Buchhoa 4,225,230,282,292 D-form 40
bundle of formulas 256, 276 !i)-formula 27
directly derivable inferences 16
distinguished part of a formula in classical
calculable arithmetic functions 167 predicate calculus 29,62,63
Cantor normal form 81 - - ofa formula in a normal deduction 261,
cardinality of a set of ordinals 222 277
cardinals 222
characteristic term of a basic formula 130
closed formulas 115
- set of ordinals 223 eigenformula of an (S3.1)-inference 254
coefficient sets 234, 235 eigenvariable of an inference 20, 41, 60, 254
combinators98 elementary analysis 177
Compactness Theorem 34 - formulas 168
complete induction inference 170, 254 - number theory 176
Completeness Theorem 29, 35, 69 ,Embedding Theorem 175,273,290
components of an ordinal 224 end formula of a deduction 255, 275, 276
connectives 7 - part of a formula 40
consistency 15 - piece of a deduction 255, 256, 276
Consistency Theorem 17,28,35 equality of terms of finite type 112
consistent set of formulas 32 equivalent formulas 169
constant prime formulas 168 essentially less 247
continuous ordering functions 78 explicit minimal parts of a formula in a normal
Craig 51 deduction 256, 276
critical ordinals and functions <p. 81, 82, 83 Extensionality Theorem 173, 205
298 Subject Index
Feferman 4, 84,214,220,224,225 - of a term of the set T 86

finite ordinals 76, 221, 222 level of formulas and predicators 198
- ordinal terms 90 - of ordinals 224
finitely axiomatisable theories 54 Levitz 292
- deducible formulas 176 limit numbers 75,222
formal system, CS of classical sentential calculus limiting number of a formal system 211
17 Lowenheim-Skolem Theorem 29
- - CP of classical predicate calculus 19 logical consequence 176
- - IPI-IP3 of intuitionistic predicate calculus
36,38,40
- - cr of classical simple type theory 56 Markov's principle ISO
- - FT of functionals of finite type 113 maximal ex-critical ordinals and functions "'.
- - PN of pure number theory 134 84,85
- - DA of Ll~~analysis 170 maximally ex-inaccessible ordinals 230, 232
- - EN of elementary number theory 176 metalogic, metamathematics 2
- - EA of elementary analysis 177 minimal parts ofa formula 12,20,169
- - GPA of generalized n~-analysis 252 model of classical predicate calculus 27
- - PA of n~-analysis 248 M-term, AI-formula, M-variant 65, 66
- - ID of n-fold iterated inductive definitions mUltiplication in the system FT 120
286
formalized transfinite induction 179,209,291
functionals of finite type 99 natural product of ordinal terms 105, 106
- sum of ordinal terms 105, 248
negative parts of formulas and N-forms 10, II,
generalized inductive definitions 286 20
Gentzen 3,21,38, 147,220 nominal forms 1l,14
Godel 2, 3, 62, 98, 134, 147 normal deduction 256, 275, 276
- form ofa term 104
- functions 78, 223
height of a type 58 notation systems iJ(Cl) and iJ(T) for ordinals 237,
Henkin 66 238
Heyting 36 NP-forms II
Hilbert 2, 3, 26 number terms 134
Howard 3, 98, 105 numerals 99,168
numerical terms 168
identity functional 121
implicit minimal paris of a formula in a normal
deduction 256, 276 open terms 100
inaccessible ordinals and functions 8. 224, 225 order of a deducible formula IS
- of a formula in a normal deduction 257, 276
inconsistent set of formulas 32
- of a normal deduction 258
independence of premise ISO
- of a term. of finite type 108
induction on the deduction 15
ordering functions 77, 223
Induction Theorem 75, 128, 173,222
inductive definitions 8 ordinal numbers 74,75
ordinals of the segment 0 74, 0* 221,
initial formulas of a deduction 255, 271
Interpolation Theorem 51, 54
222
- of the set iJ(Cl) 234
Interpretation Theorem 157,207,208
ordinal terms. 213,215,217,236
interpreting formulas ISS, 156
- terms of the set OT 86, 87, OT* 236,
Inversion rules 22,61,201,272
237
isotonism 74
O-segment 76,77, O-segment 223
iterator 98
Konig's Lemma 30 partial valuation 63, 64

Kreisel 55 Peano axioms 167
Kripke 36 permissible inferences IS
IF-permissible formulas 199
Pfeiffer 292
left parts of formulas and L-forms 39, 40 PN-Lemma 27,66
length of formulas and predicators 168, 198 Pohlers 257, 291, 292
Subject Index 299
positive parts of formulas and P-forms 10, II, s-closed, s-complete, s-consistent, s-valid 16, 17
20 simple formulas of second order arithmetic 168
possible valuations 67 simultaneous primitive recursion 126
Prawiu 3,62,64,67 singular normal deduction 261,277
predecessor functional 122 Soundness Theorem 66
predicators 168, 198 specialization of a formula 273
prime formulas of second order arithmetic 168 strength of a cut 271, 272
- terms of the system cr 58 - of a formula 270
primitive formulas 63, 268 strong formulas and predicators 252
- terms of finite type 98 strongly critical ordinals 83
principal inferences 200, 254, 270 structural inferences F j! G 20,40, 169
- parts of axioms 170, 200, 253 Structural rule 23,61,172,175,201,254
- - of basic inferences 21,41,60, 200, 2~4 substitution inference 254
Principal Semantic Lemma 29,34,64 Substitution rule 22,42,61,114,136,172
- Syntactic Lemma 29, 33, 64 subterm of an ordinal term 242
principal terms of T 86, T* 236 - of a term of the system cr 58
progressive 75 subterm-chain 58
progressiveness ~.[Pl 178, ~.[P"l 209, successor of an ordinal 75, 222
Prog [', PI 287 - functional 98
- number 75
suitable cut of a normal deduction 261, 277
quantifiers 19 supremum 75, 76, 222
syntactic 4
- consequence 35
rank of a cut 200 - equivalenceA~B 47, AB 51
- of a deduction function 248, 249 system of sets 65
- of a formula 199, 253
- of an inference 256, 276
- of a normal deduction 257 Tait 62,204
- of a term 58, 59 Takahashi 3, 62, 64
recursively comparable ordinal terms 237 Takeuti 4,62,221,252,257,292
recursor 125 terms of finite type 98
reducibility degree ofa formula 18,29 - of second order arithmetic 167, 168
- of a term of finite type 100 - of the set T 86, T* 236
reducible and irreducible formulas 12, 13, 29, - of the system CT 57
62 tertium non datur 2, 3
- normal deductions 259,277 total valuation 66
- parts of a formula 28, 62 transfinite induction 75
reduction of terms of finite type 100, 101 Troelstra 151
regular terms of the system CT 58 truth functions 7
regularity of a cardinal 222 - values 7
Replacement rule 174, 201 truth-value of a constant prime formula 169
right parts offormulas and R-forms 3.9, 40 types of functions 98
- of terms of the system cr 56
Satisfiability Theorem 34
satisfiable set of formulas 32 valid formulas 10, 11,27,66
Schwichtenberg 185 valuations 27
secondary part of an (-+ L)-inference 41 value ofa numerical term 169
semantic 4
semantically equivalent sentential forms 8
semantic consequence 35 weak formulas and predicators 252
Semi-formal system, DA* of .1 I-analysis 174 - inferences IS, 22, 23
- - EN* of elemllDtary number theory 177 weight of a formula 252
- - EA of elementary analysis 177 - of a normal deduction 257
- - RA of ramified analysis 197 well-ordered sets 73
- - PA* of nl-analysis 269
sentential form 8
- valuation 8 Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory 74,221
Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften
in Einzeldarstellungen
mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Anwendungsgebiete
Eine Auswahl
23. Pasch: Vorlesungen iiber neuere Geometrie
41. Steinitz: Vorlesungen iiber die Theorie der Polyeder
45. Alexandroff/Hopf: Topologie. Band I
46. Nevanlinna: Eindeutige analytische Funktionen
63. Eichler: Quadratische Formen und orthogonale Gruppen
102. Nevanlinna/Nevanlinna: Absolute Analysis
114. Mac Lane: Homology
123. Yosida: Functional Analysis
127. Hermes: Enumerability, Decidability, Computability
131. Hirzebruch: Topological Methods in Algebraic Geometry
135. Handbook for Automatic Computation. Vol. I/Part a: Rutishauser: Description of ALGOL 60
136. Greub: Multilinear Algebra
137. Handbook for Automatic Computation. Vol. IjPart b: Grau/Hill/Langmaack:
Translation of ALGOL 60
138. Hahn: Stability of Motion
139. Mathematische Hilfsmittel des Ingenieurs. I. Teil
140. Mathematische Hilfsmittel des Ingenieurs. 2. Teil
143. Schur/Grunsky: Vorlesungen iiber Invariantentheorie
144. Weil: Basic Number Theory
145. Butzer/Berens: Semi-Groups of Operators and Approximation
f46. Treves: Locally Convex Spaces and Linear Partial Differential Equations
147. Lamotke: Semisimpliziale i!lgebraische Topologie
148. Chandrasekharan: Introduction to Analytic Number Theory
149. Sario/Oikawa: Capacity Functions
150. losifescu/Theodorescu: Random Processes and Learning
lSI. Mandl: Analytical Treatment of One-dimensional Markov Processe~
152. Hewitt/Ross: Abstract Harmonic Analysis. Vol. 2: Structure and Analysis for
Compact Groups. Analysis on Locally Compact Abelian Groups
153. Federer: Geometric Measure Theory
154. Singer: Bases in Banach Spaces I
155. Miiller: Foundations of the Mathematical Theory of Electromagnetic Waves
156. van der Waerden: Mathematical Statistics
157. Prohorov/Rozanov: Probability Theory. Basic Concepts. Limit Theorems. Random Processes
158. Constantinescu/Cornea: Potential Theory on Harmonic Spaces
159. Kothe: Topological Vector Spaces I
160. Agrest/Maksimov: Theory of Incomplete Cylindrical Functions and their Applications
161. Bhatia/Szego: Stability Theory of Dynamical Systems
162. Nevanlinna: Analytic Functions
163. Stoer/Witzgall: Convexity and Optimization in Finite Dimensions I
164. Sario/Nakai: Classification Theory of Riemann Surfaces
165. Mitrinovic/Vasic: Analytic Inequalities
166. Grothendieck/Dieudonne: Elements de Geometrie Aigebrique I
167. Chandrasekharan: Arithmetical Functions
168. Palamodov: Linear Differential Operators with Constant Coefficients
169. Rademacher: Topics in Analytic Number Theory
170. Lions: Optimal Control of Systems Governed by Partial Differential Equations
171. Singer: Best Approximation in Normed Linear Spaces by Elements of Linear Subspaces
172. Biihlmann: Mathematical Methods in Risk Theory
173. Maeda/Maeda: Theory of Symmetric Lattices
174. Stiefel/Scheifele: Linear and Regular Celestial Mechanics. Perturbed Two-body
Motion-Numerical Methods-Canonical Theory
302
175. Larsen: An Introduction to the Theory of Multipliers

176. Grauert/Remmert: Analytische Stellenalgebren
177. Fliigge: Practical Quantum Mechanics I
178. Fliigge: PraCtical Quantum Mechanics II
179. Giraud: Cohomologie non abelienne
180. Landkof: Foundations of Modern Potential Theory
181. Lions/Magenes: Non-Homogeneous Boundary Value Problems and Applications I
182. Lions/Magenes: Non-Homogeneous Boundary Value Problems and Applications II
183. Lions/Magenes: Non-Homogeneous Boundary Value Problems and Applications III
184. Rosenblatt: Markov Processes. Structure and Asymptotic Behavior
185. Rubinowicz: Sommerfeldsche Polynommethode
186. Handbook for Automatic Computation. Vol. 2. Wilkinson/Reinsch: Linear Algebra
187. Siegel/Moser: Lectures on Celestial Mechanics
188. Warner: Harmonic Analysis on Semi-Simple Lie Groups I
189. Warner: Harmonic Analysis on Semi-Simple Lie Groups II
190. Faith: Algebra: Rings, Modules, and Categories I
192. Mal'cev: Algebraic Systems
193. P6Iya/Szego: Problems and Theorems in Analysis I
194. Igusa: Theta Functions
195. Berberian: Baeu-Rings
196. Athreya/Ney: Branching Processes
197. Benz: Vorlesungen iiber Geometrie der Algebren
198. Gaal: Linear Analysis and Representation Theory
199. Nitsche: Vorlesungen iiber Minimalfiiichen
200. Dold: Lectures on Algebraic Topology
201. Beck: Continuous Flows in the Plane
202. Schmetterer: Introduction to Mathematical Statistics
203. Schoeneberg: Elliptic Modular Functions
204. Popov: Hyperstability of Control Systems
205. Nikol'skii: Approximation of Functions of Several Variables and Imbedding Theorems
206. Andre: Homologie des Algebres Commutatives
207. Donoghue: Monotone Matrix Functions and Analytic Continuation
208. Lacey: The Isometric Theory of Classical Banach Spaces
209. Ringel: Map Color Theorem
210. Gihman/Skorohod: The Theory of Stochastic Processes I
211. Comfort/Negrepontis: The Theory of Ultrafilters
212. Switzer: Algebraic Topology-Homotopy and Homology
213. Shafarevich: Basic Algebraic Geometry
214. van der Waerden: Group Theory and Quatum Mechanics
215. Schaefer: Banach Lattices and Positive Operators
216. P6Iya/Szego: Problems and Theorems in Analysis II
217. Stenstrom: Rings of Quotients
218. Gihman/Skorohod: The Theory of Stochastic Processes II
219. Duvaut/Lions: Inequalities in MeChanics and Physics
220. Kirillov: Elements of the Theory of Representations
221. Mumford: Algebraic Geometry I: Complex Projective Varieties
222. Lang: Introduction to Modular Forms
223. Bergh/Lofstrom: Interpolation Spaces. An IntroduCtion
224. GilbargfTrudinger: Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order
225. Schiitte: Proof Theory

Proof Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proof Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grundlehren der

mathematischen Wissenschaften 225

Translation from the German

Translation of the revised version of "Beweistheorie",

ISBN-13: 978-3-642-66475-5 e-ISBN-13: 978-3-642-66473-1

by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1977.

Munich, March 1977

Part A. Pure Logic 5

Chapter II. Classical Predicate Calculus 19

5. Semantics of Classical Predicate Calculus 26

Chapter III. Intuitionistic Predicate Calculus . 36

Chapter IV. Classical Simple Type Theory. 56

3. Extending a Partial Valuation 67

Part B. Systems of Arithmetic 71

Chapter V. Ordinal Numbers and Ordinal Terms. 73

Chapter VI. Functionals of Finite Type 98

5. Addition and Multiplication . 120

Chapter VII. Pure Number Theory. 134

Part C. Subsystems of Analysis . 165

Chapter VIII. Predicative Analysis. 167

2. The Deduction Procedures 200

Chapter IX. Higher Ordinals and Systems of 1I~-Analysis 221

28. The Semi-Formal System PA* 269

29. Proof of Well-Ordering . 281

Subject Index . 297

is satisfied for all g > 2.

In mathematical logic sentences are represented by formulas. Those investigations

1. CJassical Sentential Calculus

Truth values are denoted by t (true) andf(false). An n-place truth function is an

vet, t)= v (t,f)= v (I, t)=t, v(f,f)=f,

Using connectives and sentential variables, which we denote by v, VI' V 2 , , we

3. Complete Systems of Connectives

A set M of connectives is said to be a complete system of connectives if to every

sentential form A there is a semantically equivalent sentential form Ball of whose

Proof Let A be an arbitrary sentential form. We prove by induction on the number

Corollary 1.4. The connectives 1- and -4 form a complete system of connectives.

4. A Formal Language for the Sentential Calculus

In formalizing classical sentential calculus we need only consider connectives from

5. Positive and Negative Parts of Formulas

Examples. A is a positive part of the formulas I lA, (A v B) and (B - A) and a

positive and negative parts. By an n-place simple nominalform (n~ 1) we mean a

Definition. A formula A is said to be a positive (negative) part of a formula F, if

Examples. (*1--4*2), ('(*lAV)V(VV*2)) and *2--4..L)--4(*l--4V are NP-

Theorem 1.5. If tff is a P-form (N-form) and Va sentential valuation with VA = t

Proofby induction on the length of tff.

Definition. A positive part is said to be minimal if it is not of the form -, A, (A v B)

6. Syntactic Characterization of Valid Formulas

A formula is said to be reducible if it is of the form &[(A /\ B)], %[(A v B)] or

Proof 1. Let V be an arbitrary sentential valuation. If Vv = t, then by Theorem

Theorem 1.8. The following hold for reducible formulas:

Proof of (I). I. Under a valuation Veither V(A 1\ B) = V A or V(A 1\ B) = VB, so

~2. Certain finite strings of primitive symbols are selected as formulas by an

Deducibility of formulas in a formal system is determined by the axioms and basic

Sometimes we need to specify the deducibility of a formula more closely so to

where A 1, . , An and B are formulas (n ~ 1) is said to be a permissible inference if the

may be permissible for several different reasons.

directly derivable. Clearly a directly derivable inference remains permissible if we

is permissible in L since a formula (A v A) can only be deduced from the basic

4. Sentential Properties of Formal Systems

Example. If~ is a formal systemcontaining~ as a primitive symbol and (A ~ A)

5. The Formal System CS of the Classical Sentential Calculus

Primitive symbols of the system CS: Denumerably infinitely many sentential

The basic inferences of the system CS are all inferences of forms:

Consistency Theorem. Every deducible formula is valid.

Examples. (1--42), ('(lAV)V(VV2)) and 2--4..L)--4(l--4V are NP-