The proof-theoretic strength of Ramsey's theorem for pairs and two colors

Ramsey's theorem for $n$-tuples and $k$-colors ($\mathsf{RT}^n_k$) asserts that every k-coloring of $[\mathbb{N}]^n$ admits an infinite monochromatic subset. We study the proof-theoretic strength of Ramsey's theorem for pairs and two colors, namely, the set of its $\Pi^0_1$ consequences, and show that $\mathsf{RT}^2_2$ is $\Pi^0_3$ conservative over $\mathsf{I}\Sigma^0_1$. This strengthens the proof of Chong, Slaman and Yang that $\mathsf{RT}^2_2$ does not imply $\mathsf{I}\Sigma^0_2$, and shows that $\mathsf{RT}^2_2$ is finitistically reducible, in the sense of Simpson's partial realization of Hilbert's Program. Moreover, we develop general tools to simplify the proofs of $\Pi^0_3$-conservation theorems.Comment: 32 page

Computational reverse mathematics and foundational analysis

Reverse mathematics studies which subsystems of second order arithmetic are equivalent to key theorems of ordinary, non-set-theoretic mathematics. The main philosophical application of reverse mathematics proposed thus far is foundational analysis, which explores the limits of different foundations for mathematics in a formally precise manner. This paper gives a detailed account of the motivations and methodology of foundational analysis, which have heretofore been largely left implicit in the practice. It then shows how this account can be fruitfully applied in the evaluation of major foundational approaches by a careful examination of two case studies: a partial realization of Hilbert's program due to Simpson [1988], and predicativism in the extended form due to Feferman and Sch\"{u}tte. Shore [2010, 2013] proposes that equivalences in reverse mathematics be proved in the same way as inequivalences, namely by considering only $\omega$-models of the systems in question. Shore refers to this approach as computational reverse mathematics. This paper shows that despite some attractive features, computational reverse mathematics is inappropriate for foundational analysis, for two major reasons. Firstly, the computable entailment relation employed in computational reverse mathematics does not preserve justification for the foundational programs above. Secondly, computable entailment is a $\Pi^1_1$ complete relation, and hence employing it commits one to theoretical resources which outstrip those available within any foundational approach that is proof-theoretically weaker than $\Pi^1_1\text{-}\mathsf{CA}_0$.Comment: Submitted. 41 page

On Tao's "finitary" infinite pigeonhole principle

In 2007, Terence Tao wrote on his blog an essay about soft analysis, hard analysis and the finitization of soft analysis statements into hard analysis statements. One of his main examples was a quasi-finitization of the infinite pigeonhole principle IPP, arriving at the "finitary" infinite pigeonhole principle FIPP1. That turned out to not be the proper formulation and so we proposed an alternative version FIPP2. Tao himself formulated yet another version FIPP3 in a revised version of his essay. We give a counterexample to FIPP1 and discuss for both of the versions FIPP2 and FIPP3 the faithfulness of their respective finitization of IPP by studying the equivalences IPP FIPP2 and IPP FIPP3 in the context of reverse mathematics. In the process of doing this we also introduce a continuous uniform boundedness principle CUB as a formalization of Tao's notion of a correspondence principle and study the strength of this principle and various restrictions thereof in terms of reverse mathematics, i.e., in terms of the "big five" subsystems of second order arithmetic

On the alleged simplicity of impure proof

Roughly, a proof of a theorem, is “pure” if it draws only on what is “close” or “intrinsic” to that theorem. Mathematicians employ a variety of terms to identify pure proofs, saying that a pure proof is one that avoids what is “extrinsic,” “extraneous,” “distant,” “remote,” “alien,” or “foreign” to the problem or theorem under investigation. In the background of these attributions is the view that there is a distance measure (or a variety of such measures) between mathematical statements and proofs. Mathematicians have paid little attention to specifying such distance measures precisely because in practice certain methods of proof have seemed self- evidently impure by design: think for instance of analytic geometry and analytic number theory. By contrast, mathematicians have paid considerable attention to whether such impurities are a good thing or to be avoided, and some have claimed that they are valuable because generally impure proofs are simpler than pure proofs. This article is an investigation of this claim, formulated more precisely by proof- theoretic means. After assembling evidence from proof theory that may be thought to support this claim, we will argue that on the contrary this evidence does not support the claim

Reverse mathematics and equivalents of the axiom of choice

We study the reverse mathematics of countable analogues of several maximality principles that are equivalent to the axiom of choice in set theory. Among these are the principle asserting that every family of sets has a $\subseteq$-maximal subfamily with the finite intersection property and the principle asserting that if $P$ is a property of finite character then every set has a $\subseteq$-maximal subset of which $P$ holds. We show that these principles and their variations have a wide range of strengths in the context of second-order arithmetic, from being equivalent to $\mathsf{Z}_2$ to being weaker than $\mathsf{ACA}_0$ and incomparable with $\mathsf{WKL}_0$. In particular, we identify a choice principle that, modulo $\Sigma^0_2$ induction, lies strictly below the atomic model theorem principle $\mathsf{AMT}$ and implies the omitting partial types principle $\mathsf{OPT}$

Open questions about Ramsey-type statements in reverse mathematics

Ramsey's theorem states that for any coloring of the n-element subsets of N with finitely many colors, there is an infinite set H such that all n-element subsets of H have the same color. The strength of consequences of Ramsey's theorem has been extensively studied in reverse mathematics and under various reducibilities, namely, computable reducibility and uniform reducibility. Our understanding of the combinatorics of Ramsey's theorem and its consequences has been greatly improved over the past decades. In this paper, we state some questions which naturally arose during this study. The inability to answer those questions reveals some gaps in our understanding of the combinatorics of Ramsey's theorem.Comment: 15 page