Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T14:31:44.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2017

Per Lindström
Affiliation:
Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Only works mentioned in the text (Notes) have been included among the references; for a more comprehensive bibliography, see Hájek, and Pudlák, (1993).
Beklemishev, L. D. (1995). Iterated local reflection versus iterated consistency, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 75, 25–48.Google Scholar
Beklemishev, L. D. (199?). Notes on local reflection principles, to appear.
Bennet, C. (1986). On some orderings of extensions of arithmetic, Thesis, Dept. of Philosophy, Univ. of Göteborg.
Bennet, C. (1986a) Lindenbaum algebras and partial conservativity, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 97, 323–327.Google Scholar
Berarducci, A. (1990). The interpretability logic of Peano arithmetic, J. Symb. Logic 55, 1059–1089.Google Scholar
Boolos, G. (1979). The Unprovability of Consistency, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USA.
Boolos, G. (1993). The Logic of. Provability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USA.
Carnap, R. (1934). Logische Syntax der Sprache, Springer.Google Scholar
Craig, W. (1953). On axiomatizability within a system, J. Symb. Logic 18, 30–32.Google Scholar
Davis, M. (ed.) (1965). The Undecidable, Raven Press.
Ehrenfeucht, A. and Feferman, S. (1960). Representability of recursively enumerable sets in formal theories, Arch. Math. Logic 5, 37–41.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1960). Arithmetization of metamathematics in a general setting, Fund. Math. 49, 35–92.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1962). Transfinite recursive progressions of axiomatic theories, J. Symb. Logic 27, 259–316.Google Scholar
Feferman, S., Kreisel, G., Orey, S. (1960). 1–consistency and faithful interpretations, Arch. Math. Logic 6, 52–63.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. (1975). One hundred and two problems in mathematical logic, J. Symb. Logic 40, 113–129.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I, Monatsh. Math. Physik. 38,173–198 (English translation in Davis (1965)).Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1934). On undecidable propositions of formal mathematical systems (mimeographed lecture notes by S. C. Kleene and J. B. Rosser), Princeton (reprinted in Davis (1965)).Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1936). Über die Länge von Beweisen, Ergebnisse eines math. Koll, 7, 23–24 (English translation in Davis (1965)).Google Scholar
Goryachev, S. N. (1986). On the interpretability of some extensions of arithmetic, Mat. Zametki 40, 561–572; English transl. in Math. Notes 40.Google Scholar
Guaspari, D. (1979). Partially conservative extensions of arithmetic, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 254, 47–68.Google Scholar
Hájek, P. (1971). On interpretability in set theories, Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 12, 73–79.Google Scholar
Hájek, P. (1979). On partially conservative extensions of arithmetic, in: Logic Colloquium 78 (eds. Boffa, et al.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 225–234.
Hájek, P. (1984). On a new notion of partial conservativity, in: Computation and Proof Theory, Springer Lecture Notes in Math. 1104, 217–232.Google Scholar
Hájek, P., Montagna, R, Pudlák, P. (1992). Abbreviating proofs using metamathematical rules, in: Proof Theory and Computational Complexity (eds. Clote, P. and Krajíček, J.), Oxford University Press, 197–221.
Hájek, P. and Pudlák, P. (1993). Metamathematics of First–Order Arithmetic, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer–Verlag.
Hájková, M. (1971). The lattice of bi-numerations of arithmetic I, II, Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 12, 81–104, 281–306.Google Scholar
Hájková, M. and Hájek, P. (1972). On interpretability in theories containing arithmetic, Fund. Math. 76, 131–137.Google Scholar
Hubert, D. and Bernays, P. (1934, 1939). Grundlagen der Mathematik I, II, Springer–Verlag, Berlin.
Jensen, D. and Ehrenfeucht, A. (1976). Some problems in elementary arithmetics, Fund. Math. 92, 223–245.Google Scholar
Jeroslow, R. G. (1971a). Consistency statements in formal theories, Fund. Math. 72, 17–40.Google Scholar
Jeroslow, R. G. (1971b). Non-effectiveness in S. Orey's compactness theorem, Zeitschr. Math. Log. Grundl. Math. 17, 285–289.Google Scholar
de Jongh, D. and Montagna, F. (1989). Much shorter proofs, Zeitschr. Math. Log. Grundl. Math. 35, 247–260.Google Scholar
Kaye, R. (1991). Models of Peano arithmetic, Oxford Logic Guides 15, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Kent, C. F. (1973). The relation of A to Prov'A’ in the Lindenbaum sentence algebra, J.Symb. Logic 38, 295–298.Google Scholar
Kleene, S. (1952a). Introduction to metamathematics, van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Kleene, S. (1952b). Finite axiomatizability of theories in the predicate calculus using additional predicate symbols, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. 10, 27–66.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1957). Independent recursive axiomatization, J. Symb. Logic 22, 109 (abstract).Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. (1962). On weak completeness of intuitionistic predicate logic, J. Symb. Logic 27, 139–158.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. and Lévy, A. (1968). Reflection principles and their use for establishing the complexity of axiomatic systems, Zeitschr. für math. Logik 14, 97–142.Google Scholar
Kreisel, G. and Wang, H. (1955). Some applications of formalized consistency proofs, Fund. Math. 42, 101–110.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1963). “Flexible” predicates in formal number theory, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 13, 647–650.Google Scholar
Levy, A. (1965). A hierarchy of formulas in set theory, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. 57.Google Scholar
Lindström, P. (1979). Some results on interpretability, in: Proceedings of the 5th Scandinavian Logic Symposium 1979, Aalborg University Press, Aalborg, 329–361.
Lindström, P. (1984a). On partially conservative sentences and interpretability, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 91, 436–443.Google Scholar
Lindström, P. (1984b). On certain lattices of degrees of interpretability, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 25, 127–140.Google Scholar
Lindström, P. (1984c). On faithful interpretability, in: Computation and Proof Theory, Springer Lecture Notes in Math. 1104, 279–288.Google Scholar
Lindström, P. (1988). Partially generic formulas in arithmetic, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 29, 185–192.Google Scholar
Lindström, P. (1993). On Σ1 and П1 sentences and degrees of interpretability, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 61, 175–193.Google Scholar
Lindström, P. (199?). Provability logic, to appear in Theoria.
Löb, M. (1955). Solution of a problem of Leon Henkin, J. Symb. Logic 20, 115–118.Google Scholar
Mendelson, E. (1987). Introduction to Mathematical Logic (3rd ed.), van Nostrand.
Misercque, D. (1982). The non homogeniety of the E-tree–answer to a problem raised by D. Jensen and A. Ehrenfeucht, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 84, 573–575.Google Scholar
Misercque, D. (1983). Answer to a problem by D. Guaspari, in: Open days in Model Theory and Set Theory (eds. Guzicki, W et al.), Poland, 181–183.
Montagna, F. (1982). Relatively precomplete numerations and arithmetic, J. Phil. Logic 11, 419–430.Google Scholar
Montagna, F. (1992). Polynomially and superexponentially shorter proofs in fragments of arithmetic, J. Symb. Logic 57, 844–863.Google Scholar
Montagna, F. and Sorbi, A. (1985). Universal recursion theoretic properties of r.e. preordered structures, J. Symb. Logic 50, 397–406.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1957). Two theorems on relative interpretability, Summer institute for Symbolic Logic, Cornell, 263–264.
Montague, R. (1961). Semantical closure and non–finite axiomatizability I, in: Infinitistic Methods, Warsaw, 45–69.
Montague, R. (1962). Theories incomparable with respect to relative interpretability, J. Sym. Logic 27, 195–211.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1963). Syntactical treatments of modality, with corollaries on reflection principles and finite axiomatizability, in: Proceedings of a Colloquium on Modal and Many-Valued Logics, Acta Philosophica Fennica, Helsinki, 153–167.
Montague, R. and Tarski, A. (1957). Independent recursive axiomatizability, Summer institute for Symbolic Logic, Cornell, 270.
Mostowski, A. (1952a). On models of axiomatic systems, Fund. Math. 39, 133–158.Google Scholar
Mostowski, A. (1952b). Sentences undecidable in formalized arithmetic, North–Holland.
Mostowski, A. (1961). A generalization of the incompleteness theorem, Fund. Math. 49, 205–232.Google Scholar
Orey, S. (1961). Relative interpretations, Zeitschr. für math. Logik 7, 146–153.Google Scholar
di Paola, R. (1975). A theorem on shortening the length of proof in formal systems of arithmetic, J. Symb. Logic 40, 398–400.Google Scholar
Parikh, R. (1971). Existence and feasibility in arithmetic, J. Symb. Logic 36, 494–508.Google Scholar
Pour-El, M. (1968). Independent axiomatization and its relation to the hypersimple set, Zeitschr. für math. Logik 14, 449–456.Google Scholar
Pour–El, M. and Kripke, S. (1967). Deduction preserving recursive isomorphisms between theories, Fund. Math. 61, 141–163.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. and Smullyan, R. (1960). Exact separation of recursively enumerable sets within theories, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 11, 574–577.Google Scholar
Quinsey, J. (1980). Some problems in logic, Thesis, Oxford University.
Quinsey, J. (1981). Sets of Σk–conservative sentences are Π0 2 complete, J. Symb. Logic 46, 442 (abstract).Google Scholar
Rabin, M. (1961). Non-standard models and independence of the induction axiom, in: Essays on the Foundations of Mathematics, Jerusalem, 287–299.
Rosser, B. (1936). Extensions of some theorems of Gödel and Church, J. Symb. Logic 1, 87–91 (reprinted in Davis (1965)).Google Scholar
Ryll-Nardzewski, C. (1952). The role of the axiom of induction in elementary arithmetic, Fund. Math. 39, 239–263.Google Scholar
Sambin, G. (1976). An effective fixed point theorem in intuitionistic diagonalizable algebras, Studia Logica 35, 345–361.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (1962). Algebras of sets binumerable in complete extensions of arithmetic, in: Recursive Function Theory (ed. Dekker, J.), Providence, 117–121.Google Scholar
Shavrukov, V. (1988). The logic of relative interpretability over Peano arithmetic, Steklov Mathematical Institute, Moscow. (Russian)
Shavrukov, V. (1993). Subalgebras of diagonalizable algebras of theories containing arithmetic, Dissertationes Mathematicae CCCXXIII, Warsaw.
Shepherdson, J. (1960). Representability of recursively enumerable sets in formal theories, Arch. Math. Logic 5, 119–127.Google Scholar
Simmons, H. (1988). Large discrete parts of the E-tree, J. Symb. Logic 53, 980–984.Google Scholar
Smoryński, C. (1980). Calculating self-referential statements, Fund. Math. 109, 189–210.Google Scholar
Smoryński, C. (1981a). Calculating self-referential statements: Guaspari sentences of the first kind, J. Symb. Logic 46, 329–344.Google Scholar
Smoryński, C. (1981b). Fifty years of self-reference in arithmetic, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 22, 357–374.Google Scholar
Smoryński, C. (1985). Self-Reference and Modal Logic, Springer–Verlag.
Soare, R. (1987). Recursively enumerable sets and degrees, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer–Verlag.
Solovay, R. (1985). Infinite fixed-point algebras, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics 42, Providence, 473–486.Google Scholar
Strannegård, C. (1997). Arithmetical realizations of modal formulas, Thesis, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Göteborg.
Švejdar, V. (1978). Degrees of interpretability, Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 19, 789–813.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1933). Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen, Studia Philosophica 1, 261–405.Google Scholar
Tarski, A., Mostowski, A. and Robinson, R. (1953). Undecidable Theories, North–Holland, Amsterdam.
Verbrugge, L. C. (1992). Feasible interpretability, in: Arithmetic, Proof Theory and Computational Complexity (eds. Clote, P. and Krajίcek, J.), Oxford Univ. Press, 387–428.
Verbrugge, L. C. (1994). The complexity of feasible interpretability, in: Feasible Mathematics II (eds. Clote, P. and Remmel, J.), Birkhäuser, Boston, 429–447.
Wang, H. (1951). Arithmetical models of formal systems, Methodos 3, 217–232.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Per Lindström, Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden
  • Book: Aspects of Incompleteness
  • Online publication: 24 March 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316716854.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Per Lindström, Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden
  • Book: Aspects of Incompleteness
  • Online publication: 24 March 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316716854.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Per Lindström, Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden
  • Book: Aspects of Incompleteness
  • Online publication: 24 March 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316716854.011
Available formats
×