FOM: Infinity

[Richard G. Heck, Jr.]

Just as a point of information (for me). As I learned GB, it's basically 
ZF, with the background logic extended to predicative second-order logic; 
so we have comprehension just for first-order formulae (with second-order 
parameters). ACA_0, conceived one way, stands to PA in this relation; hence 
Ferreira's remark. (Hi, Fernando!) So I take it that the sensible finite 
axiomatization of GB to which Shipman alludes below isn't the one I know, 
since that isn't any more finite than the first-blush axiomatization of 
ACA_0. What is it, then? And how is it that it gets to be so much nicer?

Richard

At 09:40 AM 9/28/2001, you wrote:
>Ferreira:
><<ACA_0 is a well-known conservative extension of PA, and it is finitely 
>axiomatizable. It has two sorts of variables, but it can be reformulated 
>with only one sort of variables (at the cost of introducing new predicates).>>
>Shipman:
>The problem is that this finite axiomatization is extremely complicated, 
>at least as it is done in Simpson's book "Subsystems of Second-Order 
>Arithmetic". [snip]
>
>The system of Godel-Bernays conservatively extends ZFC and the axioms are 
>easy to write down and intuitively understandable, though not at all 
>elegant. [snip]



----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Heck
Professor of Philosophy
208 Emerson Hall
Harvard University
Cambridge MA 02138

E-mail: heck at fas.harvard.edu
Web: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~heck
Department Web: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~phildept
PGP Public Key: 
http://pgp.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=0x724466BD