Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:11:58.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Δ3O-determinacy, comprehension and induction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Medyahya Ould Medsalem  and
Kazuyuki Tanaka
Medyahya Ould Medsalem*
Affiliation:
Mathematical Institute, Tohoku University, Sendai, 980-8578, Japan
Kazuyuki Tanaka
Affiliation:
Mathematical Institute, Tohoku University, Sendai, 980-8578, Japan, E-mail: [email protected]
*
Current address: University of Paris-XI, Orsay, LRI, Bat.490, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We show that each of and proves -Det and that neither nor can be dropped. We also show that neither nor proves -Det. Moreover, we prove that none of and is provable in

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 452 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2007

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

REFERENCES

[1]Friedman, H. M., Higher set theory and mathematical practice, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 2 (1971), pp. 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Gerhard, J. and Thomas, S., Bar induction and ω-model reflection. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 97 (1999), pp. 221–230.Google Scholar
[3]Harrington, L. A. and Kechris, A. S., A basis result for sets of reals with an application to minimal covers, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 53 (1975), pp. 445–448.Google Scholar
[4]Heinatsch, C. and Möllerfeld, M., The determinacy strength of -comprehension, preprint, submitted for publication.Google Scholar
[5]Kuratowski, C., Topology, vol. 1, Academic Press, 1966.Google Scholar
[6]Schmerl, J. H. and Simpson, S. G., On the role of Ramsey quantifiers in first order arithmetic, this Journal, vol. 47 (1982), pp. 423–435.Google Scholar
[7]Simpson, S. G., Subsystems of second order arithmetic, Springer, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Steel, J. R., Determinateness and subsystems of analysis, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1977.Google Scholar
[9]Tanaka, K., Descriptive set theory and subsystems of analysis, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1986.Google Scholar
[10]Tanaka, K., Weak axioms of determinacy and subsystems of analysis I: -games, Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 36 (1990), pp. 481–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Tanaka, K., Weak axioms of determinacy and subsystems of analysis II: -games, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 52 (1991), pp. 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Welch, P., Weak systems of determinacy and arithmetical quasi-inductive definitions, a preprint.Google Scholar