Reverse mathematics is a program in mathematical logic that seeks to determine which axioms are required to prove theorems of mathematics. Its defining method can briefly be described as "going backwards from the theorems to the axioms", in contrast to the ordinary mathematical practice of deriving theorems from axioms. The reverse mathematics program was foreshadowed by results in set theory such as the classical theorem that the axiom of choice and Zorn's lemma are equivalent over ZF set theory. The goal of reverse mathematics, however, is to study possible axioms of ordinary theorems of mathematics rather than possible axioms for set theory.
Reverse mathematics is usually carried out using subsystems of secondorder arithmetic, where many of its definitions and methods are inspired by previous work in constructive analysis and proof theory. The use of secondorder arithmetic also allows many techniques from recursion theory to be employed; many results in reverse mathematics have corresponding results in computable analysis.
The program was founded by Harvey Friedman (1975, 1976). A standard reference for the subject is (Simpson 2009).
General principles
In reverse mathematics, one starts with a framework language and a base theory—a core axiom system—that is too weak to prove most of the theorems one might be interested in, but still powerful enough to develop the definitions necessary to state these theorems. For example, to study the theorem “Every bounded sequence of real numbers has a supremum” it is necessary to use a base system which can speak of real numbers and sequences of real numbers.
For each theorem that can be stated in the base system but is not provable in the base system, the goal is to determine the particular axiom system (stronger than the base system) that is necessary to prove that theorem. To show that a system S is required to prove a theorem T, two proofs are required. The first proof shows T is provable from S; this is an ordinary mathematical proof along with a justification that it can be carried out in the system S. The second proof, known as a reversal, shows that T itself implies S; this proof is carried out in the base system. The reversal establishes that no axiom system S′ that extends the base system can be weaker than S while still proving T.
Use of secondorder arithmetic
Most reverse mathematics research focuses on subsystems of secondorder arithmetic. The body of research in reverse mathematics has established that weak subsystems of secondorder arithmetic suffice to formalize almost all undergraduatelevel mathematics. In secondorder arithmetic, all objects must be represented as either natural numbers or sets of natural numbers. For example, in order to prove theorems about real numbers, the real numbers must be represented as Cauchy sequences of rational numbers, each of which can be represented as a set of natural numbers.^{[further explanation needed]}
The axiom systems most often considered in reverse mathematics are defined using axiom schemes called comprehension schemes. Such a scheme states that any set of natural numbers definable by a formula of a given complexity exists. In this context, the complexity of formulas is measured using the arithmetical hierarchy and analytical hierarchy.
The reason that reverse mathematics is not carried out using set theory as a base system is that the language of set theory is too expressive. Extremely complex sets of natural numbers can be defined by simple formulas in the language of set theory (which can quantify over arbitrary sets). In the context of secondorder arithmetic, results such as Post's theorem establish a close link between the complexity of a formula and the (non)computability of the set it defines.
Another effect of using secondorder arithmetic is the need to restrict general mathematical theorems to forms that can be expressed within arithmetic. For example, secondorder arithmetic can express the principle "Every countable vector space has a basis" but it cannot express the principle "Every vector space has a basis". In practical terms, this means that theorems of algebra and combinatorics are restricted to countable structures, while theorems of analysis and topology are restricted to separable spaces. Many principles that imply the axiom of choice in their general form (such as "Every vector space has a basis") become provable in weak subsystems of secondorder arithmetic when they are restricted. For example, "every field has an algebraic closure" is not provable in ZF set theory, but the restricted form "every countable field has an algebraic closure" is provable in RCA_{0}, the weakest system typically employed in reverse mathematics.
The big five subsystems of second order arithmetic
Second order arithmetic is a formal theory of the natural numbers and sets of natural numbers. Many mathematical objects, such as countable rings, groups, and fields, as well as points in effective Polish spaces, can be represented as sets of natural numbers, and modulo this representation can be studied in second order arithmetic.
Reverse mathematics makes use of several subsystems of second order arithmetic. A typical reverse mathematics theorem shows that a particular mathematical theorem T is equivalent to a particular subsystem S of second order arithmetic over a weaker subsystem B. This weaker system B is known as the base system for the result; in order for the reverse mathematics result to have
meaning, this system must not itself be able to prove the mathematical theorem T.
Simpson (2009) describes five particular subsystems of second order arithmetic, which he calls the Big Five, that occur frequently in reverse mathematics. In order of increasing strength, these systems are named by the initialisms RCA_{0}, WKL_{0}, ACA_{0}, ATR_{0}, and
Π^{1}_{1}CA_{0}.
The following table summarizes the "big five" systems Simpson (2009, p.42)
Subsystem

Stands for

Ordinal

Corresponds roughly to

Comments

RCA_{0}

Recursive comprehension axiom

ω^{ω}

Constructive mathematics (Bishop)

The base system for reverse mathematics

WKL_{0}

Weak König's lemma

ω^{ω}

Finitistic reductionism (Hilbert)

Conservative over PRA for Π0 2 sentences. Conservative over RCA_{0} for Π1 1 sentences.

ACA_{0}

Arithmetical comprehension axiom

ε_{0}

Predicativism (Weyl, Feferman)

Conservative over Peano arithmetic for arithmetical sentences

ATR_{0}

Arithmetical transfinite recursion

Γ_{0}

Predicative reductionism (Friedman, Simpson)

Conservative over Feferman's system IR for Π1 1 sentences

Π1 1CA_{0}

Π1 1 comprehension axiom

Ψ_{0}(Ω_{ω})

Impredicativism


The subscript _{0} in these names means that the induction scheme has been restricted from the full secondorder induction scheme (Simpson 2009, p. 6). For example, ACA_{0} includes the induction axiom (0∈X ∧ ∀n(n∈X → n+1∈X)) → ∀n n∈X. This together with the full comprehension axiom of second order arithmetic implies the full secondorder induction scheme given by the universal closure of (φ(0) ∧ ∀n(φ(n) → φ(n+1))) → ∀n φ(n) for any second order formula φ. However ACA_{0} does not have the full comprehension axiom, and the subscript _{0} is a reminder that it does not have the full secondorder induction scheme either. This restriction is important: systems with restricted induction have significantly lower prooftheoretical ordinals than systems with the full secondorder induction scheme.
The base system RCA_{0}
RCA_{0} is the fragment of secondorder arithmetic whose axioms are the axioms of Robinson arithmetic, induction for Σ0
1 formulas, and comprehension for Δ0
1 formulas.
The subsystem RCA_{0} is the one most commonly used as a base system for reverse mathematics. The initials "RCA" stand for "recursive comprehension axiom", where "recursive" means "computable", as in recursive function. This name is used because RCA_{0} corresponds informally to "computable mathematics". In particular, any set of natural numbers that can be proven to exist in RCA_{0} is computable, and thus any theorem which implies that noncomputable sets exist is not provable in RCA_{0}. To this extent, RCA_{0} is a constructive system, although it does not meet the requirements of the program of constructivism because it is a theory in classical logic including the excluded middle.
Despite its seeming weakness (of not proving any noncomputable sets exist), RCA_{0} is sufficient to prove a number of classical theorems which, therefore, require only minimal logical strength. These theorems are, in a sense, below the reach of the reverse mathematics enterprise because they are already provable in the base system. The classical theorems provable in RCA_{0} include:
The firstorder part of RCA_{0} (the theorems of the system that do not involve any set variables) is the set of theorems of firstorder Peano arithmetic with induction limited to Σ^{0}_{1} formulas. It is provably consistent, as is RCA_{0}, in full firstorder Peano arithmetic.
Weak König's lemma WKL_{0}
The subsystem WKL_{0} consists of RCA_{0} plus a weak form of König's lemma, namely the statement that every infinite subtree of the full binary tree (the tree of all finite sequences of 0's and 1's) has an infinite path. This proposition, which is known as weak König's lemma, is easy to state in the language of secondorder arithmetic. WKL_{0} can also be defined as the principle of Σ^{0}_{1} separation (given two Σ^{0}_{1} formulas of a free variable n which are exclusive, there is a class containing all n satisfying the one and no n satisfying the other).
The following remark on terminology is in order. The term “weak König's lemma” refers to the sentence which says that any infinite subtree of the binary tree has an infinite path. When this axiom is added to RCA_{0}, the resulting subsystem is called WKL_{0}. A similar distinction between particular axioms, on the one hand, and subsystems including the basic axioms and induction, on the other hand, is made for the stronger subsystems described below.
In a sense, weak König's lemma is a form of the axiom of choice (although, as stated, it can be proven in classical Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of choice). It is not constructively valid in some senses of the word constructive.
To show that WKL_{0} is actually stronger than (not provable in) RCA_{0}, it is sufficient to exhibit a theorem of WKL_{0} which implies that noncomputable sets exist. This is not difficult; WKL_{0} implies the existence of separating sets for effectively inseparable recursively enumerable sets.
It turns out that RCA_{0} and WKL_{0} have the same firstorder part, meaning that they prove the same firstorder sentences. WKL_{0} can prove a good number of classical mathematical results which do not follow from RCA_{0}, however. These results are not expressible as first order statements but can be expressed as secondorder statements.
The following results are equivalent to weak König's lemma and thus to WKL_{0} over RCA_{0}:
 The Heine–Borel theorem for the closed unit real interval, in the following sense: every covering by a sequence of open intervals has a finite subcovering.
 The Heine–Borel theorem for complete totally bounded separable metric spaces (where covering is by a sequence of open balls).
 A continuous real function on the closed unit interval (or on any compact separable metric space, as above) is bounded (or: bounded and reaches its bounds).
 A continuous real function on the closed unit interval can be uniformly approximated by polynomials (with rational coefficients).
 A continuous real function on the closed unit interval is uniformly continuous.
 A continuous real function on the closed unit interval is Riemann integrable.
 The Brouwer fixed point theorem (for continuous functions on a finite product of copies of the closed unit interval).
 The separable Hahn–Banach theorem in the form: a bounded linear form on a subspace of a separable Banach space extends to a bounded linear form on the whole space.
 The Jordan curve theorem
 Gödel's completeness theorem (for a countable language).
 Determinacy for open (or even clopen) games on {0,1} of length ω.
 Every countable commutative ring has a prime ideal.
 Every countable formally real field is orderable.
 Uniqueness of algebraic closure (for a countable field).
Arithmetical comprehension ACA_{0}
ACA_{0} is RCA_{0} plus the comprehension scheme for arithmetical formulas (which is sometimes called the "arithmetical comprehension axiom"). That is, ACA_{0} allows us to form the set of natural numbers satisfying an arbitrary arithmetical formula (one with no bound set variables, although possibly containing set parameters). Actually, it suffices to add to RCA_{0} the comprehension scheme for Σ_{1} formulas in order to obtain full arithmetical comprehension.
The firstorder part of ACA_{0} is exactly firstorder Peano arithmetic; ACA_{0} is a conservative extension of firstorder Peano arithmetic. The two systems are provably (in a weak system) equiconsistent. ACA_{0} can be thought of as a framework of predicative mathematics, although there are predicatively provable theorems that are not provable in ACA_{0}. Most of the fundamental results about the natural numbers, and many other mathematical theorems, can be proven in this system.
One way of seeing that ACA_{0} is stronger than WKL_{0} is to exhibit a model of WKL_{0} that doesn't contain all arithmetical sets. In fact, it is possible to build a model of WKL_{0} consisting entirely of low sets using the low basis theorem, since low sets relative to low sets are low.
The following assertions are equivalent to ACA_{0}
over RCA_{0}:
 The sequential completeness of the real numbers (every bounded increasing sequence of real numbers has a limit).
 The Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem.
 Ascoli's theorem: every bounded equicontinuous sequence of real functions on the unit interval has a uniformly convergent subsequence.
 Every countable commutative ring has a maximal ideal.
 Every countable vector space over the rationals (or over any countable field) has a basis.
 Every countable field has a transcendence basis.
 König's lemma (for arbitrary finitely branching trees, as opposed to the weak version described above).
 Various theorems in combinatorics, such as certain forms of Ramsey's theorem.
Arithmetical transfinite recursion ATR_{0}
The system ATR_{0} adds to ACA_{0} an axiom which states, informally, that any arithmetical functional (meaning any arithmetical formula with a free number variable n and a free class variable X, seen as the operator taking X to the set of n satisfying the formula) can be iterated transfinitely along any countable well ordering starting with any set. ATR_{0} is equivalent over ACA_{0} to the principle of Σ^{1}_{1} separation. ATR_{0} is impredicative, and has the prooftheoretic ordinal $\backslash Gamma\_0$, the supremum of that of predicative systems.
ATR_{0} proves the consistency of ACA_{0}, and thus by Gödel's theorem it is strictly stronger.
The following assertions are equivalent to
ATR_{0} over RCA_{0}:
 Any two countable well orderings are comparable. That is, they are isomorphic or one is isomorphic to a proper initial segment of the other.
 Ulm's theorem for countable reduced Abelian groups.
 The perfect set theorem, which states that every uncountable closed subset of a complete separable metric space contains a perfect closed set.
 Lusin's separation theorem (essentially Σ^{1}_{1} separation).
 Determinacy for open sets in the Baire space.
Π^{1}_{1} comprehension Π^{1}_{1}CA_{0}
Π^{1}_{1}CA_{0} is stronger than arithmetical transfinite recursion and is fully impredicative. It consists of RCA_{0} plus the comprehension scheme for Π^{1}_{1} formulas.
In a sense, Π^{1}_{1}CA_{0} comprehension is to arithmetical transfinite recursion (Σ^{1}_{1} separation) as ACA_{0} is to weak König's lemma (Σ^{0}_{1} separation). It is equivalent to several statements of descriptive set theory whose proofs make use of strongly impredicative arguments; this equivalence shows that these impredicative arguments cannot be removed.
The following theorems are equivalent to Π^{1}_{1}CA_{0} over RCA_{0}:
 The Cantor–Bendixson theorem (every closed set of reals is the union of a perfect set and a countable set).
 Every countable abelian group is the direct sum of a divisible group and a reduced group.
Additional systems
 Weaker systems than recursive comprehension can be defined. The weak system RCA*
0 consists of elementary function arithmetic EFA (the basic axioms plus Δ^{0}_{0} induction in the enriched language with an exponential operation) plus Δ^{0}_{1} comprehension. Over RCA*
0, recursive comprehension as defined earlier (that is, with Σ^{0}_{1} induction) is equivalent to the statement that a polynomial (over a countable field) has only finitely many roots and to the classification theorem for finitely generated Abelian groups. The system RCA*
0 has the same proof theoretic ordinal ω^{3} as EFA and is conservative over EFA for Π0
2 sentences.
 Weak Weak König's Lemma is the statement that a subtree of the infinite binary tree having no infinite paths has an asymptotically vanishing proportion of the leaves at length n (with a uniform estimate as to how many leaves of length n exist). An equivalent formulation is that any subset of Cantor space that has positive measure is nonempty (this is not provable in RCA_{0}). WWKL_{0} is obtained by adjoining this axiom to RCA_{0}. It is equivalent to the statement that if the unit real interval is covered by a sequence of intervals then the sum of their lengths is at least one. The model theory of WWKL_{0} is closely connected to the theory of algorithmically random sequences. In particular, an ωmodel of RCA_{0} satisfies weak weak König's lemma if and only if for every set X there is a set Y which is 1random relative to X.
 DNR (short for "diagonally nonrecursive") adds to RCA_{0} an axiom asserting the existence of a diagonally nonrecursive function relative to every set. That is, DNR states that, for any set A, there exists a total function f such that for all e the eth partial recursive function with oracle A is not equal to f. DNR is strictly weaker than WWKL (Lempp et al., 2004).
 Δ^{1}_{1}comprehension is in certain ways analogous to arithmetical transfinite recursion as recursive comprehension is to weak König's lemma. It has the hyperarithmetical sets as minimal ωmodel. Arithmetical transfinite recursion proves Δ^{1}_{1}comprehension but not the other way around.
 Σ^{1}_{1}choice is the statement that if η(n,X) is a Σ^{1}_{1} formula such that for each n there exists an X satisfying η then there is a sequence of sets X_{n} such that η(n,X_{n}) holds for each n. Σ^{1}_{1}choice also has the hyperarithmetical sets as minimal ωmodel. Arithmetical transfinite recursion proves Σ^{1}_{1}choice but not the other way around.
ωmodels and βmodels
The ω in ωmodel stands for the set of nonnegative integers (or finite ordinals). An ωmodel is a model for a fragment of secondorder arithmetic whose firstorder part is the standard model of Peano arithmetic, but whose secondorder part may be nonstandard. More precisely, an ωmodel is given by a choice S⊆2^{ω} of subsets of ω. The first order variables are interpreted in the usual way as elements of ω, and +, × have their usual meanings, while second order variables are interpreted as elements of S. There is a standard ω model where one just takes S to consist of all subsets of the integers. However there are also other ωmodels; for example, RCA_{0} has a minimal ωmodel where S consists of the recursive subsets of ω.
A β model is an ω model that is equivalent to the standard ωmodel for Π1
1 and Σ1
1 sentences (with parameters).
Nonω models are also useful, especially in the proofs of conservation theorems.
References
External links
 Harvey Friedman's home page
 Stephen G. Simpson's home page
This article was sourced from Creative Commons AttributionShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, EGovernment Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a nonprofit organization.