Power Kripke-Platek set theory and the axiom of choice

Whilst Power Kripke-Platek set theory, KPP, 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 KPP 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 KPP and KPP plus the axiom of choice or even the global axiom of choice, GAC. 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 GAC to KPP 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 KPP+GAC has the same strength as KPP, thereby answering a question of Mathias. Moreover, it is shown that KPP+GAC is conservative over KPP for Pi-1-4 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 KPP+GAC 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.

[1]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, Power Set, and the Calculus of Constructions , 2012, Epistemology versus Ontology.

[2]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  The Realm of Ordinal Analysis , 2007 .

[3]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  Relativized ordinal analysis: The case of Power Kripke-Platek set theory , 2014, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[4]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  From the weak to the strong existence property , 2012, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[5]  Lawrence J. Pozsgay.  Semi-intuitionistic set theory , 1972, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[6]  Leslie H. Tharp.  A Quasi-Intuitionistic Set Theory , 1971, J. Symb. Log..

[7]  Michael Rathjen.  An ordinal analysis of parameter free Π12-comprehension , 2005, Arch. Math. Log..

[8]  Gerhard Max Jäger,et al.  Theories for admissible sets : a unifying approach to proof theory , 1986 .

[9]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  Replacement versus collection and related topics in constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory , 2005, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[10]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  Choice principles in constructive and classical set theories , 2010 .

[11]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  Fragments of Kripke-Platek set theory with infinity , 1993 .

[12]  Harvey M. Friedman,et al.  The lack of definable witnesses and provably recursive functions in intuitionistic set theories , 1985 .

[13]  Lawrence S. Moss,et al.  Power Set Recursion , 1995, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[14]  Jon Barwise,et al.  Admissible sets and structures , 1975 .

[15]  A. R. D. Mathias,et al.  The strength of Mac Lane set theory , 2001, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[16]  S. Feferman.  On the strength of some semi-constructive theories , 2009 .

[17]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  Proof-theoretic analysis of KPM , 1991, Arch. Math. Log..

[18]  Michael Rathjen.  An ordinal analysis of stability , 2005, Arch. Math. Log..

[19]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  Proof Theory of Reflection , 1994, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[20]  Andrea Cantini,et al.  On Weak Theories of Sets and Classes which are Based on Strict ∏ , 1985, Math. Log. Q..

[21]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  Recent Advances in Ordinal Analysis: Π1 2 — CA and Related Systems , 1995, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic.

[22]  O. Veblen.  Continuous increasing functions of finite and transfinite ordinals , 1908 .

[23]  J. Avigad.  Proof Theory , 2017, 1711.01994.

[24]  W. Buchholz,et al.  A simplified version of local predicativity , 1993 .

[25]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  How to Develop Proof-Theoretic Ordinal Functions on the Basis of Admissible Ordinals , 1993, Math. Log. Q..

[26]  Harvey M. Friedman,et al.  Countable models of set theories , 1973 .

[27]  Yiannis N. Moschovakis,et al.  Notes On Set Theory , 1994 .

[28]  Gerhard Jäger,et al.  On Feferman's operational set theory OST , 2007, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[29]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  Ordinal notations based on a weakly Mahlo cardinal , 1990, Arch. Math. Log..

[30]  H. Friedman.  Some applications of Kleene's methods for intuitionistic systems , 1973 .

[31]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  Theories and Ordinals in Proof Theory , 2006, Synthese.

[32]  Ernst-Jochen Thiele.  Über Endlich‐Axiomatisierbare Teilsysteme der Zermelo‐Fraenkelschen Mengenlehre , 1968 .

[33]  Edward Stuart Russell,et al.  Form and Function , 2009 .

[34]  Gerhard Jäger,et al.  Zur Beweistheorie Der Kripke-Platek-Mengenlehre Über Den Natürlichen Zahlen , 1980, Arch. Math. Log..

[35]  Michael Rathjen.  A Proof-Theoretic Characterization of the Primitive Recursive Set Functions , 1992, J. Symb. Log..

[36]  Michael Rathjen,et al.  Collapsing functions based on recursively large ordinals: A well-ordering proof for KPM , 1994, Arch. Math. Log..