Goodstein’s principle is arguably the first purely number-theoretic statement known to be independent of Peano arithmetic. It involves sequences of natural numbers which at first appear to diverge, but eventually decrease to zero. These sequences are defined relative to a notation system based on exponentiation for the natural numbers. In this article, we provide a self-contained and modern analysis of Goodstein’s principle, obtaining some variations and improvements. We explore notions of optimality for notation systems and apply them to the classical Goodstein process and to a weaker variant based on multiplication rather than exponentiation. In particular, we introduce the notion of base-change maximality, and show how it leads to far-reaching extensions of Goodstein’s result. We moreover show that by varying the initial base of the Goodstein process, one readily obtains independence results for each of the fragments $\mathsf {I}\Sigma _n$ of Peano arithmetic.

Given a sound first-order p-time theory T capable of formalizing syntax of first-order logic we define a p-time function $g_T$ that stretches all inputs by one bit and we use its properties to show that T must be incomplete. We leave it as an open problem whether for some T the range of $g_T$ intersects all infinite ${\mbox {NP}}$ sets (i.e., whether it is a proof complexity generator hard for all proof systems).

A propositional version of the construction shows that at least one of the following three statements is true:

1. 1. There is no p-optimal propositional proof system (this is equivalent to the non-existence of a time-optimal propositional proof search algorithm).

2. 2. $E \not \subseteq P/poly$.

3. 3. There exists function h that stretches all inputs by one bit, is computable in sub-exponential time, and its range $Rng(h)$ intersects all infinite ${\text {NP}}$ sets.

We systematically study several versions of the disjunction and the existence properties in modal arithmetic. First, we newly introduce three classes $\mathrm {B}$, $\Delta (\mathrm {B})$, and $\Sigma (\mathrm {B})$ of formulas of modal arithmetic and study basic properties of them. Then, we prove several implications between the properties. In particular, among other things, we prove that for any consistent recursively enumerable extension T of $\mathbf {PA}(\mathbf {K})$ with $T \nvdash \Box \bot $, the $\Sigma (\mathrm {B})$-disjunction property, the $\Sigma (\mathrm {B})$-existence property, and the $\mathrm {B}$-existence property are pairwise equivalent. Moreover, we introduce the notion of the $\Sigma (\mathrm {B})$-soundness of theories and prove that for any consistent recursively enumerable extension of $\mathbf {PA}(\mathbf {K4})$, the modal disjunction property is equivalent to the $\Sigma (\mathrm {B})$-soundness.

We present an analogue of Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem for systems of second-order arithmetic. Whereas Gödel showed that sufficiently strong theories that are $\Pi ^0_1$-sound and $\Sigma ^0_1$-definable do not prove their own $\Pi ^0_1$-soundness, we prove that sufficiently strong theories that are $\Pi ^1_1$-sound and $\Sigma ^1_1$-definable do not prove their own $\Pi ^1_1$-soundness. Our proof does not involve the construction of a self-referential sentence but rather relies on ordinal analysis.

In [20] Krajíček and Pudlák discovered connections between problems in computational complexity and the lengths of first-order proofs of finite consistency statements. Later Pudlák [25] studied more statements that connect provability with computational complexity and conjectured that they are true. All these conjectures are at least as strong as $\mathsf {P}\neq \mathsf {NP}$ [23–25].One of the problems concerning these conjectures is to find out how tightly they are connected with statements about computational complexity classes. Results of this kind had been proved in [20, 22].In this paper, we generalize and strengthen these results. Another question that we address concerns the dependence between these conjectures. We construct two oracles that enable us to answer questions about relativized separations asked in [19, 25] (i.e., for the pairs of conjectures mentioned in the questions, we construct oracles such that one conjecture from the pair is true in the relativized world and the other is false and vice versa). We also show several new connections between the studied conjectures. In particular, we show that the relation between the finite reflection principle and proof systems for existentially quantified Boolean formulas is similar to the one for finite consistency statements and proof systems for non-quantified propositional tautologies.

In this paper we examine various requirements on the formalisation choices under which self-reference can be adequately formalised in arithmetic. In particular, we study self-referential numberings, which immediately provide a strong notion of self-reference even for expressively weak languages. The results of this paper suggest that the question whether truly self-referential reasoning can be formalised in arithmetic is more sensitive to the underlying coding apparatus than usually believed. As a case study, we show how this sensitivity affects the formal study of certain principles of self-referential truth.

There has been a recent interest in hierarchical generalizations of classic incompleteness results. This paper provides evidence that such generalizations are readily obtainable from suitably formulated hierarchical versions of the principles used in the original proofs. By collecting such principles, we prove hierarchical versions of Mostowski’s theorem on independent formulae, Kripke’s theorem on flexible formulae, Woodin’s theorem on the universal algorithm, and a few related results. As a corollary, we obtain the expected result that the formula expressing “ $\mathrm {T}$ is $\Sigma _n$ -ill” is a canonical example of a $\Sigma _{n+1}$ formula that is $\Pi _{n+1}$ -conservative over $\mathrm {T}$ .

We present a new manifestation of Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem and discuss its foundational significance, in particular with respect to Hilbert’s program. Specifically, we consider a proper extension of Peano arithmetic ($\mathbf {PA}$) by a mathematically meaningful axiom scheme that consists of $\Sigma ^0_2$-sentences. These sentences assert that each computably enumerable ($\Sigma ^0_1$-definable without parameters) property of finite binary trees has a finite basis. Since this fact entails the existence of polynomial time algorithms, it is relevant for computer science. On a technical level, our axiom scheme is a variant of an independence result due to Harvey Friedman. At the same time, the meta-mathematical properties of our axiom scheme distinguish it from most known independence results: Due to its logical complexity, our axiom scheme does not add computational strength. The only known method to establish its independence relies on Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem. In contrast, Gödel’s theorem is not needed for typical examples of $\Pi ^0_2$-independence (such as the Paris–Harrington principle), since computational strength provides an extensional invariant on the level of $\Pi ^0_2$-sentences.

We give a survey of current research on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems from the following three aspects: classifications of different proofs of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, the limit of the applicability of Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem, and the limit of the applicability of Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem.

In this paper, we examine the limit of applicability of Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem ($\textsf {G1}$ for short). We first define the notion “$\textsf {G1}$ holds for the theory $T$”. This paper is motivated by the following question: can we find a theory with a minimal degree of interpretation for which $\textsf {G1}$ holds. To approach this question, we first examine the following question: is there a theory T such that Robinson’s $\mathbf {R}$ interprets T but T does not interpret $\mathbf {R}$ (i.e., T is weaker than $\mathbf {R}$ w.r.t. interpretation) and $\textsf {G1}$ holds for T? In this paper, we show that there are many such theories based on Jeřábek’s work using some model theory. We prove that for each recursively inseparable pair $\langle A,B\rangle $, we can construct a r.e. theory $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$ such that $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$ is weaker than $\mathbf {R}$ w.r.t. interpretation and $\textsf {G1}$ holds for $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$. As a corollary, we answer a question from Albert Visser. Moreover, we prove that for any Turing degree $\mathbf {0}< \mathbf {d}<\mathbf {0}^{\prime }$, there is a theory T with Turing degree $\mathbf {d}$ such that $\textsf {G1}$ holds for T and T is weaker than $\mathbf {R}$ w.r.t. Turing reducibility. As a corollary, based on Shoenfield’s work using some recursion theory, we show that there is no theory with a minimal degree of Turing reducibility for which $\textsf {G1}$ holds.

We investigate relationships between versions of derivability conditions for provability predicates. We show several implications and non-implications between the conditions, and we discuss unprovability of consistency statements induced by derivability conditions. First, we classify already known versions of the second incompleteness theorem, and exhibit some new sets of conditions which are sufficient for unprovability of Hilbert–Bernays’ consistency statement. Secondly, we improve Buchholz’s schematic proof of provable $\Sigma_1$ -completeness. Then among other things, we show that Hilbert–Bernays’ conditions and Löb’s conditions are mutually incomparable. We also show that neither Hilbert–Bernays’ conditions nor Löb’s conditions accomplish Gödel’s original statement of the second incompleteness theorem.

The prevalent interpretation of Gödel’s Second Theorem states that a sufficiently adequate and consistent theory does not prove its consistency. It is however not entirely clear how to justify this informal reading, as the formulation of the underlying mathematical theorem depends on several arbitrary formalisation choices. In this paper I examine the theorem’s dependency regarding Gödel numberings. I introduce deviant numberings, yielding provability predicates satisfying Löb’s conditions, which result in provable consistency sentences. According to the main result of this paper however, these “counterexamples” do not refute the theorem’s prevalent interpretation, since once a natural class of admissible numberings is singled out, invariance is maintained.

The proofs of Gödel (1931), Rosser (1936), Kleene (first 1936 and second 1950), Chaitin (1970), and Boolos (1989) for the first incompleteness theorem are compared with each other, especially from the viewpoint of the second incompleteness theorem. It is shown that Gödel’s (first incompleteness theorem) and Kleene’s first theorems are equivalent with the second incompleteness theorem, Rosser’s and Kleene’s second theorems do deliver the second incompleteness theorem, and Boolos’ theorem is derived from the second incompleteness theorem in the standard way. It is also shown that none of Rosser’s, Kleene’s second, or Boolos’ theorems is equivalent with the second incompleteness theorem, and Chaitin’s incompleteness theorem neither delivers nor is derived from the second incompleteness theorem. We compare (the strength of) these six proofs with one another.

A cornerstone of modern mathematical logic is the diagonal lemma of Gödel and Carnap. It is used in, for example, the classical proofs of the theorems of Gödel, Rosser, and Tarski. From its first explication in 1934, just essentially one proof has appeared for the diagonal lemma in the literature; a proof that is so tricky and hard to relate that many authors have tried to avoid the lemma altogether. As a result, some so-called diagonal-free proofs have been given for the above-mentioned fundamental theorems of logic. In this paper, we provide new proofs for the semantic formulation of the diagonal lemma, and for a weak version of the syntactic formulation of it.