James Walsh

Why are natural theories pre-well-ordered by consistency strength? In previous work, an approach to this question was proposed. This approach was inspired by Martin's Conjecture, one of the most prominent conjectures in recursion theory. Fixing a reasonable subsystem $T$ of arithmetic, the goal was to classify the recursive functions that are monotone with respect to the Lindenbaum algebra of $T$. According to an optimistic conjecture, roughly, every such function must be equivalent to an iterate $\mathsf{Con}_T^\alpha$ of the consistency operator ``in the limit'' within the ultrafilter of sentences that are true in the standard model. In previous work the author established the first case of this optimistic conjecture; roughly, every recursive monotone function is either as weak as the identity operator in the limit or as strong as $\mathsf{Con}_T$ in the limit. Yet in this note we prove that this optimistic conjecture fails already at the next step; there are recursive monotone functions that are neither as weak as $\mathsf{Con}_T$ in the limit nor as strong as $\mathsf{Con}_T^2$ in the limit. In fact, for every $\alpha$, we produce a function that is cofinally equivalent to $\mathsf{Con}^\alpha_T$ yet cofinally equivalent to $\mathsf{Con}_T$.

We present an analogue of Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem for systems of second-order arithmetic. Whereas Gödel showed that sufficiently strong theories that are $\Pi ^0_1$ -sound and $\Sigma ^0_1$ -definable do not prove their own $\Pi ^0_1$ -soundness, we prove that sufficiently strong theories that are $\Pi ^1_1$ -sound and $\Sigma ^1_1$ -definable do not prove their own $\Pi ^1_1$ -soundness. Our proof does not involve the construction of a self-referential sentence but rather relies on ordinal analysis.

Journal of Mathematical Logic, Volume 23, Issue 02, August 2023. In mathematical logic there are two seemingly distinct kinds of principles called “reflection principles.” Semantic reflection principles assert that if a formula holds in the whole universe, then it holds in a set-sized model. Syntactic reflection principles assert that every provable sentence from some complexity class is true. In this paper, we study connections between these two kinds of reflection principles in the setting of second-order arithmetic. We prove that, for a large swathe of theories, [math]-model reflection is equivalent to the claim that arbitrary iterations of uniform [math] reflection along countable well-orderings are [math]-sound. This result yields uniform ordinal analyzes of theories with strength between [math] and [math]. The main technical novelty of our analysis is the introduction of the notion of the proof-theoretic dilator of a theory [math], which is the operator on countable ordinals that maps the order-type of [math] to the proof-theoretic ordinal of [math]. We obtain precise results about the growth of proof-theoretic dilators as a function of provable [math]-model reflection. This approach enables us to simultaneously obtain not only [math], [math] and [math] ordinals but also reverse-mathematical theorems for well-ordering principles.

Ordinal analysis is a research program wherein recursive ordinals are assigned to axiomatic theories. According to conventional wisdom, ordinal analysis measures the strength of theories. Yet what is the attendant notion of strength? In this paper we present abstract characterizations of ordinal analysis that address this question. First, we characterize ordinal analysis as a partition of $\Sigma^1_1$-definable and $\Pi^1_1$-sound theories, namely, the partition whereby two theories are equivalent if they have the same proof-theoretic ordinal. We show that no equivalence relation $\equiv$ is finer than the ordinal analysis partition if both: (1) $T\equiv U$ whenever $T$ and $U$ prove the same $\Pi^1_1$ sentences; (2) $T\equiv T+U$ for every set $U$ of true $\Sigma^1_1$ sentences. In fact, no such equivalence relation makes a single distinction that the ordinal analysis partition does not make. Second, we characterize ordinal analysis as an ordering on arithmetically-definable and $\Pi^1_1$-sound theories, namely, the ordering wherein $T\leq U$ if the proof-theoretic ordinal of $T$ is less than or equal to the proof-theoretic ordinal of $U$. The standard ways of measuring the strength of theories are consistency strength and inclusion of $\Pi^0_1$ theorems. We introduce analogues of these notions---$\Pi^1_1$-reflection strength and inclusion of $\Pi^1_1$ theorems---in the presence of an oracle for $\Sigma^1_1$ truths, and prove that they coincide with the ordering induced by ordinal analysis.

It is well-known that natural axiomatic theories are well-ordered by consistency strength. However, it is possible to construct descending chains of artificial theories with respect to consistency strength. We provide an explanation of this well-orderedness phenomenon by studying a coarsening of the consistency strength order, namely, the$\Pi ^1_1$reflection strength order. We prove that there are no descending sequences of$\Pi ^1_1$sound extensions of$\mathsf {ACA}_0$in this ordering. Accordingly, we can attach a rank in this order, which we call reflection rank, to any$\Pi ^1_1$sound extension of$\mathsf {ACA}_0$. We prove that for any$\Pi ^1_1$sound theoryTextending$\mathsf {ACA}_0^+$, the reflection rank ofTequals the$\Pi ^1_1$proof-theoretic ordinal ofT. We also prove that the$\Pi ^1_1$proof-theoretic ordinal of$\alpha $iterated$\Pi ^1_1$reflection is$\varepsilon _\alpha $. Finally, we use our results to provide straightforward well-foundedness proofs of ordinal notation systems based on reflection principles.

This paper is an investigation of the relationship between G\"odel's second incompleteness theorem and the well-foundedness of jump hierarchies. It follows from a classic theorem of Spector's that the relation $\{(A,B) \in \mathbb{R}^2 : \mathcal{O}^A \leq_H B\}$ is well-founded. We provide an alternative proof of this fact that uses G\"odel's second incompleteness theorem instead of the theory of admissible ordinals. We then derive a semantic version of the second incompleteness theorem, originally due to Mummert and Simpson, from this result. Finally, we turn to the calculation of the ranks of reals in this well-founded relation. We prove that, for any $A\in\mathbb{R}$, if the rank of $A$ is $\alpha$, then $\omega_1^A$ is the $(1 + \alpha)^{\text{th}}$ admissible ordinal. It follows, assuming suitable large cardinal hypotheses, that, on a cone, the rank of $X$ is $\omega_1^X$.