On the logical complexity of cyclic arithmetic

From MaRDI portal



Abstract: We study the logical complexity of proofs in cyclic arithmetic (mathsfCA), as introduced in Simpson '17, in terms of quantifier alternations of formulae occurring. Writing CSigman for (the logical consequences of) cyclic proofs containing only Sigman formulae, our main result is that ISigman+1 and CSigman prove the same Pin+1 theorems, for all ngeq0. Furthermore, due to the 'uniformity' of our method, we also show that mathsfCA and Peano Arithmetic (mathsfPA) proofs of the same theorem differ only exponentially in size. The inclusion ISigman+1subseteqCSigman is obtained by proof theoretic techniques, relying on normal forms and structural manipulations of mathsfPA proofs. It improves upon the natural result that ISigman is contained in CSigman. The converse inclusion, CSigmansubseteqISigman+1, is obtained by calibrating the approach of Simpson '17 with recent results on the reverse mathematics of B"uchi's theorem in Ko{l}odziejczyk, Michalewski, Pradic & Skrzypczak '16 (KMPS'16), and specialising to the case of cyclic proofs. These results improve upon the bounds on proof complexity and logical complexity implicit in Simpson '17 and also an alternative approach due to Berardi & Tatsuta '17. The uniformity of our method also allows us to recover a metamathematical account of fragments of mathsfCA; in particular we show that, for ngeq0, the consistency of CSigman is provable in ISigman+2 but not ISigman+1. As a result, we show that certain versions of McNaughton's theorem (the determinisation of omega-word automata) are not provable in mathsfRCA0, partially resolving an open problem from KMPS '16.














This page was built for publication: On the logical complexity of cyclic arithmetic

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q6304715)