Cyclic proof theory of positive inductive definitions
Gianluca Curzi, Lukas Melgaard

TL;DR
This paper demonstrates that cyclic proof systems for positive inductive definitions in arithmetic have the same proof-theoretic strength as traditional inductive systems, using formal translations and conservativity within second-order arithmetic.
Contribution
It establishes the equivalence in proof-theoretic strength between cyclic and inductive proof systems for positive inductive definitions in arithmetic, extending the analysis within second-order arithmetic.
Findings
Cyclic and inductive proofs prove the same theorems for $ ext{μ} ext{PA}$.
Translation of cyclic proofs into an annotated variant simplifies soundness proofs.
Formalisation within $ ext{Pi}^1_2$-$ ext{CA}_0$ leverages M"{o}llerfeld's conservativity.
Abstract
We study cyclic proof systems for , an extension of Peano arithmetic by positive inductive definitions that is arithmetically equivalent to the (impredicative) subsystem of second-order arithmetic - by M\"{o}llefeld. The main result of this paper is that cyclic and inductive have the same proof-theoretic strength. First, we translate cyclic proofs into an annotated variant based on Sprenger and Dam's systems for first-order -calculus, whose stronger validity condition allows for a simpler proof of soundness. We then formalise this argument within -, leveraging M\"{o}llerfeld's conservativity properties. To this end, we build on prior work by Curzi and Das on the reverse mathematics of the Knaster-Tarski theorem. As a byproduct of our proof methods we show that, despite the stronger validity condition,…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
