Indefiniteness in semi-intuitionistic set theories: On a conjecture of Feferman

The paper proves a conjecture of Solomon Feferman concerning the indefiniteness of the continuum hypothesis relative to a semi-intuitionistic set theory

The scope of Feferman’s semi-intuitionistic set theories and his second conjecture

The paper is concerned with the scope of semi-intuitionistic set theories that relate to various foundational stances. It also provides a proof for a second conjecture of Feferman’s that relates the concepts for which the law of excluded middle obtains to those that are absolute with regard to the relevant test structures, or more precisely of ∆1 complexity. The latter is then used to show that a plethora of statements is indeterminate with respect to various semi-intuitionistic set theories

Mathematical Logic: Proof theory, Constructive Mathematics

The workshop “Mathematical Logic: Proof Theory, Constructive Mathematics” was centered around proof-theoretic aspects of current mathematics, constructive mathematics and logical aspects of computational complexit

Power Kripke–Platek set theory and the axiom of choice

While power Kripke–Platek set theory, KP(P)⁠, shares many properties with ordinary Kripke–Platek set theory, KP⁠, in several ways it behaves quite differently from KP⁠. This is perhaps most strikingly demonstrated by a result, due to Mathias, to the effect that adding the axiom of constructibility to KP(P) gives rise to a much stronger theory, whereas in the case of KP⁠, the constructible hierarchy provides an inner model, so that KP and KP+V=L have the same strength. This paper will be concerned with the relationship between KP(P) and KP(P) plus the axiom of choice or even the global axiom of choice, ACglobal⁠. Since L is the standard vehicle to furnish a model in which this axiom holds, the usual argument for demonstrating that the addition of AC or ACglobal to KP(P) does not increase proof-theoretic strength does not apply in any obvious way. Among other tools, the paper uses techniques from ordinal analysis to show that KP(P)+ACglobal has the same strength as KP(P)⁠, thereby answering a question of Mathias. Moreover, it is shown that KP(P)+ACglobal is conservative over KP(P) for Π14 statements of analysis. The method of ordinal analysis for theories with power set was developed in an earlier paper. The technique allows one to compute witnessing information from infinitary proofs, providing bounds for the transfinite iterations of the power set operation that are provable in a theory. As the theory KP(P)+ACglobal provides a very useful tool for defining models and realizability models of other theories that are hard to construct without access to a uniform selection mechanism, it is desirable to determine its exact proof-theoretic strength. This knowledge can for instance be used to determine the strength of Feferman’s operational set theory with power set operation as well as constructive Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice