HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

In
proof theory Proof theory is a major branchAccording to Wang (1981), pp. 3–4, proof theory is one of four domains mathematical logic, together with model theory, axiomatic set theory, and recursion theory. Barwise (1978) consists of four corresponding part ...
, the Dialectica interpretation is a proof interpretation of intuitionistic arithmetic (
Heyting arithmetic In mathematical logic, Heyting arithmetic is an axiomatization of arithmetic in accordance with the philosophy of intuitionism.Troelstra 1973:18 It is named after Arend Heyting, who first proposed it. Axiomatization As with first-order Peano ar ...
) into a finite type extension of
primitive recursive arithmetic Primitive recursive arithmetic (PRA) is a quantifier-free formalization of the natural numbers. It was first proposed by Norwegian mathematician , reprinted in translation in as a formalization of his finitist conception of the foundations of ...
, the so-called System T. It was developed by
Kurt Gödel Kurt Friedrich Gödel ( , ; April 28, 1906 – January 14, 1978) was a logician, mathematician, and philosopher. Considered along with Aristotle and Gottlob Frege to be one of the most significant logicians in history, Gödel had an imm ...
to provide a
consistency proof In classical deductive logic, a consistent theory is one that does not lead to a logical contradiction. The lack of contradiction can be defined in either semantic or syntactic terms. The semantic definition states that a theory is consistent ...
of arithmetic. The name of the interpretation comes from the journal '' Dialectica'', where Gödel's paper was published in a 1958 special issue dedicated to
Paul Bernays Paul Isaac Bernays (17 October 1888 – 18 September 1977) was a Swiss mathematician who made significant contributions to mathematical logic, axiomatic set theory, and the philosophy of mathematics. He was an assistant and close collaborator of ...
on his 70th birthday.


Motivation

Via the Gödel–Gentzen negative translation, the consistency of classical
Peano arithmetic In mathematical logic, the Peano axioms, also known as the Dedekind–Peano axioms or the Peano postulates, are axioms for the natural numbers presented by the 19th century Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peano. These axioms have been used nearl ...
had already been reduced to the consistency of intuitionistic
Heyting arithmetic In mathematical logic, Heyting arithmetic is an axiomatization of arithmetic in accordance with the philosophy of intuitionism.Troelstra 1973:18 It is named after Arend Heyting, who first proposed it. Axiomatization As with first-order Peano ar ...
. Gödel's motivation for developing the dialectica interpretation was to obtain a relative
consistency In classical deductive logic, a consistent theory is one that does not lead to a logical contradiction. The lack of contradiction can be defined in either semantic or syntactic terms. The semantic definition states that a theory is consistent ...
proof for Heyting arithmetic (and hence for Peano arithmetic).


Dialectica interpretation of intuitionistic logic

The interpretation has two components: a formula translation and a proof translation. The formula translation describes how each formula A of Heyting arithmetic is mapped to a quantifier-free formula A_D(x; y) of the system T, where x and y are tuples of fresh variables (not appearing free in A). Intuitively, A is interpreted as \exists x \forall y A_D(x; y). The proof translation shows how a proof of A has enough information to witness the interpretation of A, i.e. the proof of A can be converted into a closed term t and a proof of A_D(t; y) in the system T.


Formula translation

The quantifier-free formula A_D(x; y) is defined inductively on the logical structure of A as follows, where P is an atomic formula: : \begin (P)_D & \equiv & P \\ (A \wedge B)_D(x, v; y, w) & \equiv & A_D(x; y) \wedge B_D(v; w) \\ (A \vee B)_D(x, v, z; y, w) & \equiv & (z = 0 \rightarrow A_D(x; y)) \wedge (z \neq 0 \to B_D(v; w)) \\ (A \rightarrow B)_D(f, g; x, w) & \equiv & A_D(x; f x w) \rightarrow B_D(g x; w) \\ (\exists z A)_D(x, z; y) & \equiv & A_D(x; y) \\ (\forall z A)_D(f; y, z) & \equiv & A_D(f z; y) \end


Proof translation (soundness)

The formula interpretation is such that whenever A is provable in Heyting arithmetic then there exists a sequence of closed terms t such that A_D(t; y) is provable in the system T. The sequence of terms t and the proof of A_D(t; y) are constructed from the given proof of A in Heyting arithmetic. The construction of t is quite straightforward, except for the contraction axiom A \rightarrow A \wedge A which requires the assumption that quantifier-free formulas are decidable.


Characterisation principles

It has also been shown that Heyting arithmetic extended with the following principles *
Axiom of choice In mathematics, the axiom of choice, or AC, is an axiom of set theory equivalent to the statement that ''a Cartesian product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty''. Informally put, the axiom of choice says that given any collection ...
*
Markov's principle Markov's principle, named after Andrey Markov Jr, is a conditional existence statement for which there are many equivalent formulations, as discussed below. The principle is logically valid classically, but not in intuitionistic constructive m ...
* Independence of premise for universal formulas is necessary and sufficient for characterising the formulas of HA which are interpretable by the Dialectica interpretation.


Extensions of basic interpretation

The basic dialectica interpretation of intuitionistic logic has been extended to various stronger systems. Intuitively, the dialectica interpretation can be applied to a stronger system, as long as the dialectica interpretation of the extra principle can be witnessed by terms in the system T (or an extension of system T).


Induction

Given Gödel's incompleteness theorem (which implies that the consistency of PA cannot be proven by finitistic means) it is reasonable to expect that system T must contain non-finitistic constructions. Indeed this is the case. The non-finitistic constructions show up in the interpretation of
mathematical induction Mathematical induction is a method for proving that a statement ''P''(''n'') is true for every natural number ''n'', that is, that the infinitely many cases ''P''(0), ''P''(1), ''P''(2), ''P''(3), ...  all hold. Informal metaphors help ...
. To give a Dialectica interpretation of induction, Gödel makes use of what is nowadays called Gödel's
primitive recursive functional In mathematical logic, the primitive recursive functionals are a generalization of primitive recursive functions into higher type theory. They consist of a collection of functions in all pure finite types. The primitive recursive functionals are ...
s, which are
higher-order function In mathematics and computer science, a higher-order function (HOF) is a function that does at least one of the following: * takes one or more functions as arguments (i.e. a procedural parameter, which is a parameter of a procedure that is itse ...
s with primitive recursive descriptions.


Classical logic

Formulas and proofs in classical arithmetic can also be given a Dialectica interpretation via an initial embedding into Heyting arithmetic followed by the Dialectica interpretation of Heyting arithmetic. Shoenfield, in his book, combines the negative translation and the Dialectica interpretation into a single interpretation of classical arithmetic.


Comprehension

In 1962 Spector extended Gödel's Dialectica interpretation of arithmetic to full mathematical analysis, by showing how the schema of countable choice can be given a Dialectica interpretation by extending system T with bar recursion.


Dialectica interpretation of linear logic

The Dialectica interpretation has been used to build a model of Girard's refinement of
intuitionistic logic Intuitionistic logic, sometimes more generally called constructive logic, refers to systems of symbolic logic that differ from the systems used for classical logic by more closely mirroring the notion of constructive proof. In particular, systems ...
known as
linear logic Linear logic is a substructural logic proposed by Jean-Yves Girard as a refinement of classical and intuitionistic logic, joining the dualities of the former with many of the constructive properties of the latter. Although the logic has also ...
, via the so-called Dialectica spaces. Since linear logic is a refinement of intuitionistic logic, the dialectica interpretation of linear logic can also be viewed as a refinement of the dialectica interpretation of intuitionistic logic. Although the linear interpretation in Shirahata's work validates the weakening rule (it is actually an interpretation of
affine logic Affine logic is a substructural logic whose proof theory rejects the structural rule of contraction. It can also be characterized as linear logic with weakening. The name "affine logic" is associated with linear logic, to which it differs by all ...
), de Paiva's dialectica spaces interpretation does not validate weakening for arbitrary formulas.


Variants of the Dialectica interpretation

Several variants of the Dialectica interpretation have been proposed since. Most notably the Diller-Nahm variant (to avoid the contraction problem) and Kohlenbach's monotone and Ferreira-Oliva bounded interpretations (to interpret weak Kőnig's lemma). Comprehensive treatments of the interpretation can be found at , and.{{cite book , title = Metamathematical Investigation of Intuitionistic Arithmetic and Analysis , author = Anne S. Troelstra (with C.A. Smoryński, J.I. Zucker, W.A.Howard) , publisher = Springer Verlag, Berlin , year = 1973 , pages = 1–323


References

Proof theory Intuitionism 1958 introductions