On the complexity of the closed fragment of Japaridze's provability logic

We consider well-known provability logic GLP. We prove that the GLP-provability problem for variable-free polymodal formulas is PSPACE-complete. For a number n, let L^n_0 denote the class of all polymodal variable-free formulas without modalities , ,... . We show that, for every number n, the GLP-provability problem for formulas from L^n_0 is in PTIME.Comment: 12 pages, the results of this work and a proof sketch are in Advances in Modal Logic 2012 extended abstract on the same nam

On Elementary Theories of Ordinal Notation Systems based on Reflection Principles

We consider the constructive ordinal notation system for the ordinal ${\epsilon_0}$ that were introduced by L.D. Beklemishev. There are fragments of this system that are ordinal notation systems for the smaller ordinals ${\omega_n}$ (towers of ${\omega}$-exponentiations of the height $n$). This systems are based on Japaridze's provability logic $\mathbf{GLP}$. They are closely related with the technique of ordinal analysis of $\mathbf{PA}$ and fragments of $\mathbf{PA}$ based on iterated reflection principles. We consider this notation system and it's fragments as structures with the signatures selected in a natural way. We prove that the full notation system and it's fragments, for ordinals ${\ge\omega_4}$, have undecidable elementary theories. We also prove that the fragments of the full system, for ordinals ${\le\omega_3}$, have decidable elementary theories. We obtain some results about decidability of elementary theory, for the ordinal notation systems with weaker signatures.Comment: 23 page

Short Proofs for Slow Consistency

Let $\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf T)\!\restriction\!x$ denote the finite consistency statement "there are no proofs of contradiction in $\mathbf T$ with $\leq x$ symbols". For a large class of natural theories $\mathbf T$, Pudl\'ak has shown that the lengths of the shortest proofs of $\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf T)\!\restriction\!n$ in the theory $\mathbf T$ itself are bounded by a polynomial in $n$. At the same time he conjectures that $\mathbf T$ does not have polynomial proofs of the finite consistency statements $\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf T+\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf T))\!\restriction\!n$. In contrast we show that Peano arithmetic ($\mathbf{PA}$) has polynomial proofs of $\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf{PA}+\operatorname{Con}^*(\mathbf{PA}))\!\restriction\!n$, where $\operatorname{Con}^*(\mathbf{PA})$ is the slow consistency statement for Peano arithmetic, introduced by S.-D. Friedman, Rathjen and Weiermann. We also obtain a new proof of the result that the usual consistency statement $\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf{PA})$ is equivalent to $\varepsilon_0$ iterations of slow consistency. Our argument is proof-theoretic, while previous investigations of slow consistency relied on non-standard models of arithmetic