Ordinal analysis

In proof theory, ordinal analysis assigns ordinals (often large countable ordinals) to mathematical theories as a measure of their strength. If theories have the same proof-theoretic ordinal they are often equiconsistent, and if one theory has a larger proof-theoretic ordinal than another it can often prove the consistency of the second theory.

In addition to obtaining the proof-theoretic ordinal of a theory, in practice ordinal analysis usually also yields various other pieces of information about the theory being analyzed, for example characterizations of the classes of provably recursive, hyperarithmetical, or $Δ_{2}^{1}$ functions of the theory.

History

The field of ordinal analysis was formed when Gerhard Gentzen in 1934 used cut elimination to prove, in modern terms, that the proof-theoretic ordinal of Peano arithmetic is ε₀. See Gentzen's consistency proof.

Definition

Ordinal analysis concerns true, effective (recursive) theories that can interpret a sufficient portion of arithmetic to make statements about ordinal notations.

The proof-theoretic ordinal of such a theory $T$ is the supremum of the order types of all ordinal notations (necessarily recursive, see next section) that the theory can prove are well founded—the supremum of all ordinals $α$ for which there exists a notation $o$ in Kleene's sense such that $T$ proves that $o$ is an ordinal notation. Equivalently, it is the supremum of all ordinals $α$ such that there exists a recursive relation $R$ on $ω$ (the set of natural numbers) that well-orders it with ordinal $α$ and such that $T$ proves transfinite induction of arithmetical statements for $R$ .

Ordinal notations

Some theories, such as subsystems of second-order arithmetic (Z₂), have no conceptualization or way to make arguments about transfinite ordinals. For example, to formalize what it means for a subsystem $T$ of Z₂ to "prove $α$ well-ordered", we instead construct an ordinal notation $(A, \tilde{<})$ with order type $α$ . $T$ can now work with various transfinite induction principles along $(A, \tilde{<})$ , which substitute for reasoning about set-theoretic ordinals.

However, some pathological notation systems exist that are unexpectedly difficult to work with. For example, Rathjen gives a primitive recursive notation system $(ℕ, <_{T})$ that is well-founded if and only if PA is consistent,^p. 3 despite having order type $ω$ . Including such a notation in the ordinal analysis of PA would result in the false equality $𝖯 𝖳 𝖮 (𝖯 𝖠) = ω$ .

Upper bound

Since an ordinal notation must be recursive, the proof-theoretic ordinal of any theory is less than or equal to the Church–Kleene ordinal $ω_{1}^{C K}$ . In particular, the proof-theoretic ordinal of an inconsistent theory is equal to $ω_{1}^{C K}$ , because an inconsistent theory trivially proves that all ordinal notations are well-founded.

For any theory that's both $Σ_{1}^{1}$ -axiomatizable and $Π_{1}^{1}$ -sound, the existence of a recursive ordering that the theory fails to prove is well-ordered follows from the $Σ_{1}^{1}$ bounding theorem, and said provably well-founded ordinal notations are in fact well-founded by $Π_{1}^{1}$ -soundness. Thus the proof-theoretic ordinal of a $Π_{1}^{1}$ -sound theory that has a $Σ_{1}^{1}$ axiomatization will always be a (countable) recursive ordinal, that is, strictly less than $ω_{1}^{C K}$ .^{Theorem 2.21}

Examples

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ω

Q, Robinson arithmetic (although the definition of the proof-theoretic ordinal for such weak theories has to be tweaked)^{[citation needed]}.
PA^–, the first-order theory of the nonnegative part of a discretely ordered ring.

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ω²

RFA, rudimentary function arithmetic.
IΔ₀, arithmetic with induction on Δ₀-predicates without any axiom asserting that exponentiation is total.

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ω³

EFA, elementary function arithmetic.
IΔ₀ + exp, arithmetic with induction on Δ₀-predicates augmented by an axiom asserting that exponentiation is total.
RCA^*
₀, a second-order form of EFA sometimes used in reverse mathematics.
WKL^*
₀, a second-order form of EFA sometimes used in reverse mathematics.

Friedman's grand conjecture suggests that much "ordinary" mathematics can be proved in weak systems having this as their proof-theoretic ordinal.

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ωⁿ (for n = 2, 3, ... ω)

IΔ₀ or EFA augmented by an axiom ensuring that each element of the n-th level $ℰ^{n}$ of the Grzegorczyk hierarchy is total.

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ω^ω

RCA₀, recursive comprehension.
WKL₀, weak Kőnig's lemma.
PRA, primitive recursive arithmetic.
IΣ₁, arithmetic with induction on Σ₁-predicates.

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal ε₀

PA, Peano arithmetic (shown by Gentzen using cut elimination).
ACA₀, arithmetical comprehension.

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal the Feferman–Schütte ordinal Γ₀

ATR₀, arithmetical transfinite recursion.
Martin-Löf type theory with arbitrarily many finite level universes.

This ordinal is sometimes considered to be the upper limit for "predicative" theories.

Theories with proof-theoretic ordinal the Bachmann–Howard ordinal

ID₁, the first theory of inductive definitions.
KP, Kripke–Platek set theory with the axiom of infinity.
CZF, Aczel's constructive Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory.
EON, a weak variant of the Feferman's explicit mathematics system T₀.

The Kripke–Platek or CZF set theories are weak set theories without axioms for the full powerset given as set of all subsets. Instead, they tend to either have axioms of restricted separation and formation of new sets, or they grant existence of certain function spaces (exponentiation) instead of carving them out from bigger relations.

Theories with larger proof-theoretic ordinals

Unsolved problem in mathematics

What is the proof-theoretic ordinal of full second-order arithmetic?

Table of ordinal analyses

Table of proof-theoretic ordinals
Ordinal	First-order arithmetic	Second-order arithmetic	Kripke–Platek set theory	Type theory	Constructive set theory	Explicit mathematics
$ω$	$𝖰$ , ${𝖯 𝖠}^{-}$
$ω^{2}$	$𝖱 𝖥 𝖠$ , ${𝖨 Δ}_{0}$
$ω^{3}$	$𝖤 𝖥 𝖠$ , ${𝖨 Δ}_{0}^{+}$ , $𝖡 Σ_{1}$ ^{Theorem 4.1}	${𝖱 𝖢 𝖠}_{0}^{}$ , ${𝖶 𝖪 𝖫}_{0}^{}$
$ω^{n}$	${𝖤 𝖥 𝖠}^{𝗇}$ , ${𝖨 Δ}_{0}^{𝗇 +}$
$ω^{ω}$	$𝖯 𝖱 𝖠$ , ${𝖨 Σ}_{1}$ ^p. 13	${𝖱 𝖢 𝖠}_{0}$ ^p. 13, ${𝖶 𝖪 𝖫}_{0}$ ^p. 13		$𝖢 𝖯 𝖱 𝖢$
$ω^{ω^{ω}}$	$𝖨 Σ_{2}$ ^p. 13
$ω^{ω^{ω^{ω}}}$	$𝖨 Σ_{3}$ ^p. 13	${𝖱 𝖢 𝖠}_{0} + (Π_{2}^{0})^{-} - 𝖨 𝖭 𝖣$ ^: 40
$ω ↑ ↑ (n + 1)$	$𝖨 Σ_{n}$ ^p. 13
$ε_{0}$	$𝖯 𝖠$ ^p. 13	${𝖠 𝖢 𝖠}_{0}$ ^p. 13, $Σ_{1}^{1} {- 𝖠 𝖢}_{0}$ ^p. 13, $R- \hat{𝐄 𝜴}$ ^p. 8, $𝖱 𝖢 𝖠$ ^p. 148, $𝖶 𝖪 𝖫$ ^p. 148, $Δ_{1}^{1} {- 𝖢 𝖠}_{0}$	${K P u}^{r}$			${𝖤 𝖬}_{0}$
$ε_{ω}$		${𝖠 𝖢 𝖠}_{0} + 𝗂 𝖱 𝖳$ , ${𝖱 𝖢 𝖠}_{0} + \forall Y \forall n \exists X (TJ (n, X, Y))$ ^: 8
$ε_{ε_{0}}$		$𝖠 𝖢 𝖠$ ^p. 959
$ζ_{0}$		${𝖠 𝖢 𝖠}_{0} + \forall X \exists Y (TJ (ω, X, Y))$ , $𝗉_{1} ({𝖠 𝖢 𝖠}_{0})$ ,^: 7 ${𝖱 𝖥 𝖭}_{0}$ ^p. 17, ${𝖠 𝖢 𝖠}_{0} + (𝖡 𝖱)$ ^p. 5
$φ (2, ε_{0})$		$𝖱 𝖥 𝖭$ , $𝖠 𝖢 𝖠 + \forall X \exists Y (TJ (ω, X, Y))$ ^p. 52
$φ (ω, 0)$	${𝖨 𝖣}_{1} #$ , ${𝖳 𝖨 𝖣}_{0}$ ^p. 137	$Δ_{1}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖱$ , $Σ_{1}^{1} {- 𝖣 𝖢}_{0}$				${𝖤 𝖬}_{0} + 𝖩 𝖱$
$φ (ε_{0}, 0)$	${\hat{𝖨 𝖣}}_{1}$ , $𝖪 𝖥 𝖫$ ^p. 17, $𝖪 𝖥$ ^p. 17	$Δ_{1}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠$ ^p. 140, $Σ_{1}^{1} - 𝖠 𝖢$ ^p. 140, $Σ_{1}^{1} - 𝖣 𝖢$ ^p. 140, $W- \hat{𝐄 𝜴}$ ^p. 8	${K P u}^{r} + ({I N D}_{N})$	${𝖬 𝖫}_{1}$		${𝖤 𝖬}_{0} + 𝖩$
$φ (ε_{ε_{0}}, 0)$		$\hat{𝐄 𝜴}$ ^p. 27, ${\hat{𝐄 𝐈 𝐃}}_{1}$ ^p. 27
$φ (φ (ω, 0), 0)$	$P R S ω$ ^p. 9
$φ (< Ω, 0)$	$𝖠 𝗎 𝗍 (𝖨 𝖣 #)$
$Γ_{0}$	${\hat{𝖨 𝖣}}_{< ω}$ , $𝖴 (𝖯 𝖠)$ , ${𝐊 𝐅 𝐋}^{}$ ^p. 22, ${𝐊 𝐅}^{}$ ^p. 22, $𝒰 (N F A)$ , ${𝖳 𝖨 𝖣}_{0}^{+}$ ^p. 137	${𝖠 𝖳 𝖱}_{0}$ , $Δ_{1}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠 + 𝖡 𝖱$ , $Δ_{1}^{1} {- C A}_{0} + (S U B)$ , ${F P}_{0}$ ^p. 26	${𝖪 𝖯 𝗂}^{0}$ , ${𝖪 𝖯 𝗎}^{0} + (B R)$	${𝖬 𝖫}_{< ω}$ , $𝖬 𝖫 𝖴$
$Γ_{ω^{ω}}$			${𝖪 𝖯 𝖨}^{0} + ({Σ_{𝟣} - 𝖨}_{ω})$ ^p. 13
$Γ_{ε_{0}}$	${\hat{𝖨 𝖣}}_{ω}$	$𝖠 𝖳 𝖱$	${𝖪 𝖯 𝖨}^{0} {+ 𝖥 - 𝖨}_{ω}$
$φ (1, ω, 0)$	${\hat{𝖨 𝖣}}_{< ω^{ω}}$	${𝖠 𝖳 𝖱}_{0} + (Σ_{1}^{1} - 𝖣 𝖢)$ ^: 7	${𝖪 𝖯 𝗂}^{0} {+ Σ_{𝟣} - 𝖨}_{ω}$
$φ (1, ε_{0}, 0)$	${\hat{𝖨 𝖣}}_{< ε_{0}}$	$𝖠 𝖳 𝖱 + (Σ_{1}^{1} - 𝖣 𝖢)$ ^: 7	${𝖪 𝖯 𝗂}^{0} {+ 𝖥 - 𝖨}_{ω}$
$φ (1, Γ_{0}, 0)$	${\hat{𝖨 𝖣}}_{< Γ_{0}}$			$𝖬 𝖫 𝖲$
$φ (2, 0, 0)$	$𝖠 𝗎 𝗍 (\hat{𝖨 𝖣})$ , ${𝖥 𝖳 𝖱}_{0}$	$A x_{Σ_{1}^{1} - 𝖠 𝖢} {𝖳 𝖱}_{0}$ ^p. 1167, $A x_{𝖠 𝖳 𝖱 + Σ_{1}^{1} - 𝖣 𝖢} {𝖱 𝖥 𝖭}_{0}$ ^p. 1167	${𝖪 𝖯 𝗁}^{0}$	$𝖠 𝗎 𝗍 (𝖬 𝖫)$
$φ (2, 0, ε_{0})$	$𝖥 𝖳 𝖱$	$A x_{Σ_{1}^{1} - 𝖠 𝖢} 𝖳 𝖱$ ^p. 1167, $A x_{𝖠 𝖳 𝖱 + Σ_{1}^{1} - 𝖣 𝖢} 𝖱 𝖥 𝖭$ ^p. 1167
$φ (2, ε_{0}, 0)$			${𝖪 𝖯 𝗁}_{0} + ({𝖥 - 𝖨}_{ω})$ ^: 11
$φ (ω, 0, 0)$		$(Π_{2}^{1} - 𝖱 𝖥 𝖭)_{0}^{Σ_{1}^{1} - 𝖣 𝖢}$ ^p. 233, $Σ_{1}^{1} {- 𝖳 𝖣 𝖢}_{0}$ ^p. 233	${𝖪 𝖯 𝗆}^{0}$ ^p. 276	$𝖤 𝖬 𝖠$ ^p. 276
$φ (ε_{0}, 0, 0)$		$(Π_{2}^{1} - 𝖱 𝖥 𝖭)^{Σ_{1}^{1} - 𝖣 𝖢}$ ^p. 233, $Σ_{1}^{1} - 𝖳 𝖣 𝖢$	${𝖪 𝖯 𝗆}^{0} + (ℒ^{*} {- 𝖨}_{𝖭})$ ^p. 277	$𝖤 𝖬 𝖠 + (𝕃 {- 𝖨}_{𝖭})$ ^p. 277
$φ (1, 0, 0, 0)$		$𝗉_{1} (Σ_{1}^{1} {- 𝖳 𝖣 𝖢}_{0})$ ^: 7
$ψ_{Ω_{1}} (Ω^{Ω^{ω}})$		${𝖱 𝖢 𝖠}_{0}^{*} + Π_{1}^{1} {- 𝖢 𝖠}^{-}$ , $𝗉_{3} ({𝖠 𝖢 𝖠}_{0})$ ^: 7
$ϑ (Ω^{Ω})$	$𝖳 𝖨 𝖣$ , ${𝖳 𝖨 𝖣}_{1}$ ^p. 171	$𝗉_{1} (𝗉_{3} ({𝖠 𝖢 𝖠}_{0}))$ ^: 7		$𝖥 𝖨 𝖳$ ^p. 171
$ψ_{0} (ε_{Ω + 1})$	${𝖨 𝖣}_{1}$	$W- \tilde{𝐄 𝜴}$ ^p. 8	$𝖪 𝖯$ , $𝖪 𝖯 ω$ , $K P u$	${𝖬 𝖫}_{1} 𝖵$	$𝖢 𝖹 𝖥$	$𝖤 𝖮 𝖭$
$ψ (ε_{Ω + ε_{0}})$		$\tilde{𝐄 𝜴}$ ^p. 31, ${\tilde{𝐄 𝐈 𝐃}}_{1}$ ^p. 31, $𝐀 𝐂 𝐀 + (Π_{1}^{1} -CA)^{-}$ ^p. 31
$ψ (ε_{Ω + Ω})$		$({𝖨 𝖣}_{1}^{2})_{0} + 𝖡 𝖱$
$ψ (ε_{ε_{Ω + 1}})$		$𝐄 𝜴$ ^p. 33, ${𝐄 𝐈 𝐃}_{1}$ ^p. 33, $𝐀 𝐂 𝐀 + (Π_{1}^{1} -CA)^{-} + ({B I}_{P R})^{-}$ ^p. 33
$ψ_{0} (Γ_{Ω + 1})$	${𝖴 (𝖨 𝖣}_{1})$ , ${\hat{𝖨 𝖣}}_{< ω}^{∙}$ ^p. 26, $Σ_{1}^{1} {- 𝖣 𝖢}_{0}^{∙} + ({𝖲 𝖴 𝖡}^{∙})$ ^p. 26, ${𝖠 𝖳 𝖱}_{0}^{∙}$ ^p. 26, $Σ_{1}^{1} {- 𝖠 𝖢}_{0}^{∙} + ({𝖲 𝖴 𝖡}^{∙})$ ^p. 26, $𝒰 ({𝖨 𝖣}_{1})$ ^p. 26	${𝖥 𝖯}_{0}^{∙}$ ^p. 26, ${𝖠 𝖳 𝖱}_{0}^{∙}$ ^p. 26
$ψ_{0} (φ (< Ω, 0, Ω + 1))$	$𝖠 𝗎 𝗍 (𝖴 (𝖨 𝖣))$
$ψ_{0} (Ω_{ω})$	${𝖨 𝖣}_{< ω}$ ^p. 28	$Π_{1}^{1} {- 𝖢 𝖠}_{0}$ ^p. 28, $Δ_{2}^{1} {- 𝖢 𝖠}_{0}$		$𝖬 𝖫 𝖶$		$𝖲 𝖴 𝖲 + (𝖲 - 𝖨_{𝖭})$ ^p. 27
$ψ_{0} (Ω_{ω} ω^{ω})$		$Π_{1}^{1} {- 𝖢 𝖠}_{0} + Π_{2}^{1} - 𝖨 𝖭 𝖣$
$ψ_{0} (Ω_{ω} ε_{0})$	${𝖶 - 𝖨 𝖣}_{ω}$	$Π_{1}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠$
$ψ_{0} (Ω_{ω} Ω)$		$Π_{1}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠 + 𝖡 𝖱$
$ψ_{0} (Ω_{ω}^{ω})$		$Π_{1}^{1} {- 𝖢 𝖠}_{0} + Π_{2}^{1} - 𝖡 𝖨$
$ψ_{0} (Ω_{ω}^{ω^{ω}})$		$Π_{1}^{1} {- 𝖢 𝖠}_{0} + Π_{2}^{1} - 𝖡 𝖨 + Π_{3}^{1} - 𝖨 𝖭 𝖣$
$ψ_{0} (ε_{Ω_{ω} + 1})$	${𝖨 𝖣}_{ω}$	$Π_{1}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠 + 𝖡 𝖨$	$𝖪 𝖯 𝖨$
$ψ_{0} (Ω_{ω^{ω}})$	${𝖨 𝖣}_{< ω^{ω}}$	$Δ_{2}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖱$ ^p. 28				$𝖲 𝖴 𝖲 + (𝖭 - 𝖨_{𝖭})$ ^p. 27
$ψ_{0} (Ω_{ε_{0}})$	${𝖨 𝖣}_{< ε_{0}}$	$Δ_{2}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠$ ^p. 28, $Σ_{2}^{1} - 𝖠 𝖢$	$𝖶 - 𝖪 𝖯 𝗂$			$𝖲 𝖴 𝖲 + (L - 𝖨_{𝖭})$ ^p. 27
$ψ_{0} (Ω_{Ω})$	$𝖠 𝗎 𝗍 (𝖨 𝖣)$
$ψ_{Ω_{1}} (ε_{Ω_{Ω} + 1})$	${𝖨 𝖣}_{≺^{}}$ , ${𝖡 𝖨 𝖣}^{2 }$ , ${𝖨 𝖣}^{2 *} + 𝖡 𝖨$		${𝖪 𝖯 𝗅}^{*}$ , ${𝖪 𝖯 𝗅}_{Ω}^{r}$
$ψ_{0} (Φ_{1} (0))$		$Π_{1}^{1} {- 𝖳 𝖱}_{0}$ , $Π_{1}^{1} {- 𝖳 𝖱}_{0} + Δ_{2}^{1} {- 𝖢 𝖠}_{0}$ , $Δ_{2}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠 + 𝖡 𝖨 (𝗂 𝗆 𝗉 𝗅 - Σ_{2}^{1})$ , $Δ_{2}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠 + 𝖡 𝖱 (𝗂 𝗆 𝗉 𝗅 - Σ_{2}^{1})$ , ${𝐀 𝐔 𝐓 - 𝐈 𝐃}_{0}^{p o s}$ , ${𝐀 𝐔 𝐓 - 𝐈 𝐃}_{0}^{m o n}$ ^: 72	${𝖪 𝖯 𝗂}^{w} + 𝖥 𝖮 𝖴 𝖭 𝖣 𝖱 (𝗂 𝗆 𝗉 𝗅 -) Σ)$ ,^: 72 ${𝖪 𝖯 𝗂}^{w} + 𝖥 𝖮 𝖴 𝖭 𝖣 (𝗂 𝗆 𝗉 𝗅 -) Σ)$ ,^: 72 ${𝐀 𝐔 𝐓 - 𝐊 𝐏 𝐥}^{r}$ , ${𝐀 𝐔 𝐓 - 𝐊 𝐏 𝐥}^{r} + {𝐊 𝐏 𝐢}^{r}$ ^: 72
$ψ_{0} (Φ_{1} (0) ε_{0})$		$Π_{1}^{1} - 𝖳 𝖱$ , ${𝐀 𝐔 𝐓 - 𝐈 𝐃}^{p o s}$ , ${𝐀 𝐔 𝐓 - 𝐈 𝐃}^{m o n}$ ^: 72	${𝐀 𝐔 𝐓 - 𝐊 𝐏 𝐥}^{w}$ ^: 72
$ψ_{0} (ε_{Φ_{1} (0) + 1})$		$Π_{1}^{1} - 𝖳 𝖱 + (𝖡 𝖨)$ , ${𝐀 𝐔 𝐓 - 𝐈 𝐃}_{2}^{p o s}$ , ${𝐀 𝐔 𝐓 - 𝐈 𝐃}_{2}^{m o n}$ ^: 72	$𝐀 𝐔 𝐓 - 𝐊 𝐏 𝐥$ ^: 72
$ψ_{0} (Φ_{1} (ε_{0}))$		$Π_{1}^{1} - 𝖳 𝖱 + Δ_{2}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠$ , $Π_{1}^{1} - 𝖳 𝖱 + Σ_{2}^{1} - 𝖠 𝖢$ ^: 72	${𝐀 𝐔 𝐓 - 𝐊 𝐏 𝐥}^{w} + {𝐊 𝐏 𝐢}^{w}$ ^: 72
$ψ_{0} (Φ_{ω} (0))$		$Δ_{2}^{1} {- 𝖳 𝖱}_{0}$ , $Σ_{2}^{1} {- 𝖳 𝖱 𝖣 𝖢}_{0}$ , $Δ_{2}^{1} {- 𝖢 𝖠}_{0} + (Σ_{2}^{1} - 𝖡 𝖨)$ ^: 72	${𝐊 𝐏 𝐢}^{r} + (Σ - 𝖥 𝖮 𝖴 𝖭 𝖣)$ , ${𝐊 𝐏 𝐢}^{r} + (Σ - 𝖱 𝖤 𝖢)$ ^: 72
$ψ_{0} (Φ_{ε_{0}} (0))$		$Δ_{2}^{1} - 𝖳 𝖱$ , $Σ_{2}^{1} - 𝖳 𝖱 𝖣 𝖢$ , $Δ_{2}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠 + (Σ_{2}^{1} - 𝖡 𝖨)$ ^: 72	${𝐊 𝐏 𝐢}^{w} + (Σ - 𝖥 𝖮 𝖴 𝖭 𝖣)$ , ${𝐊 𝐏 𝐢}^{w} + (Σ - 𝖱 𝖤 𝖢)$ ^: 72
$ψ (ε_{I + 1})$		$Δ_{2}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠 + 𝖡 𝖨$ ^p. 28, $Σ_{2}^{1} - 𝖠 𝖢 + 𝖡 𝖨$	$𝖪 𝖯 𝗂$		$𝖢 𝖹 𝖥 + 𝖱 𝖤 𝖠$	$𝖳_{0}$
$ψ (Ω_{I + ω})$				${𝖬 𝖫}_{1} 𝖶$ ^: 38
$ψ (Ω_{L})$			$𝖪 𝖯 𝗁$	${𝖬 𝖫}_{< ω} 𝖶$
$ψ (Ω_{L^{*}})$				$𝖠 𝗎 𝗍 (𝖬 𝖫 𝖶)$
$ψ_{Ω} (χ_{ε_{M + 1}} (0))$		$Δ_{2}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠 + 𝖡 𝖨 + (𝖬)$	$𝖪 𝖯 𝖬$		$𝖢 𝖹 𝖥 𝖬$
$ψ (Ω_{M + ω})$			${𝖪 𝖯 𝖬}^{+}$	$𝖳 𝖳 𝖬$
$Ψ_{Ω}^{0} (ε_{K + 1})$			${𝖪 𝖯 + Π}_{3} - 𝖱 𝖾 𝖿$
$Ψ_{(ω^{+}; P_{0}, ϵ, ϵ, 0)}^{ε_{Ξ + 1}}$			${𝖪 𝖯 + Π}_{ω} - 𝖱 𝖾 𝖿$
$Ψ_{(ω^{+}; P_{0}, ϵ, ϵ, 0)}^{ε_{Υ + 1}}$			$𝖲 𝗍 𝖺 𝖻 𝗂 𝗅 𝗂 𝗍 𝗒$
$ψ_{ω_{1}^{C K}} (ε_{𝕊^{+} + 1})$			$𝖪 𝖯 ω + Π_{1}^{1} - 𝖱 𝖾 𝖿$ , $𝖪 𝖯 ω + (M ≺_{Σ_{1}} V)$
$ψ_{ω_{1}^{C K}} (ε_{𝕀 + 1})$		$Σ_{3}^{1} - 𝖣 𝖢 + 𝖡 𝖨$ , $Σ_{3}^{1} - 𝖠 𝖢 + 𝖡 𝖨$	$𝖪 𝖯 ω + Π_{1} - 𝖢 𝗈 𝗅 𝗅 𝖾 𝖼 𝗍 𝗂 𝗈 𝗇 + (V = L)$
$ψ_{ω_{1}^{C K}} (ε_{𝕀_{N} + 1})$		$Σ_{N + 2}^{1} - 𝖣 𝖢 + 𝖡 𝖨$ , $Σ_{N + 2}^{1} - 𝖠 𝖢 + 𝖡 𝖨$	$𝖪 𝖯 ω + Π_{N} - 𝖢 𝗈 𝗅 𝗅 𝖾 𝖼 𝗍 𝗂 𝗈 𝗇 + (V = L)$
$ψ_{ω_{1}^{C K}} (𝕀_{ω})$	$𝖯 𝖠 + ⋃_{N < ω} 𝖳 𝖨 [Π_{0}^{1 -}, ψ_{ω_{1}^{C K}} (ε_{𝕀_{N} + 1})]$	$𝐙_{2}$ , $Π_{\infty}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠$ , Bar	$𝖪 𝖯 + Π_{ω}^{set} - 𝖲 𝖾 𝗉 𝖺 𝗋 𝖺 𝗍 𝗂 𝗈 𝗇$	$λ 2$	$𝖢 𝖹 𝖥 + 𝖲 𝖾 𝗉$

Key

This is a list of symbols used in this table:

ψ represents various ordinal collapsing functions as defined in their respective citations.
Ψ represents either Rathjen's or Stegert's Psi.
φ represents Veblen's function.
ω represents the first transfinite ordinal.
ε_α represents the epsilon numbers.
Γ_α represents the gamma numbers (Γ₀ is the Feferman–Schütte ordinal)
Ω_α represent the uncountable ordinals (Ω₁, abbreviated Ω, is ω₁). All proof-theoretic ordinals are countable.
$𝕊$ is an ordinal term denoting a stable ordinal, and $𝕊^{+}$ the least admissible ordinal above $𝕊$ .
$𝕀_{N}$ is an ordinal term denoting an ordinal such that $L_{𝕀_{N}} ⊨ 𝖪 𝖯 ω + Π_{N} - 𝖢 𝗈 𝗅 𝗅 𝖾 𝖼 𝗍 𝗂 𝗈 𝗇 + (V = L)$ ; N is a variable that defines a series of ordinal analyses of the results of $Π_{N} - 𝖢 𝗈 𝗅 𝗅 𝖾 𝖼 𝗍 𝗂 𝗈 𝗇$ forall $1 \leq N < ω$ . when N=1, $ψ_{ω_{1}^{C K}} (ε_{𝕀_{1} + 1}) = ψ_{ω_{1}^{C K}} (ε_{𝕀 + 1})$
Additional symbols can be found in the notes.

This is a list of the abbreviations used in this table:

First-order arithmetic
- $𝖰$ is Robinson arithmetic
- ${𝖯 𝖠}^{-}$ is the first-order theory of the nonnegative part of a discretely ordered ring.
- $𝖱 𝖥 𝖠$ is rudimentary function arithmetic.
- ${𝖨 Δ}_{0}$ is arithmetic with induction restricted to Δ₀-predicates without any axiom asserting that exponentiation is total.
- $𝖤 𝖥 𝖠$ is elementary function arithmetic.
- ${𝖨 Δ}_{0}^{+}$ is arithmetic with induction restricted to Δ₀-predicates augmented by an axiom asserting that exponentiation is total.
- ${𝖤 𝖥 𝖠}^{𝗇}$ is elementary function arithmetic augmented by an axiom ensuring that each element of the n-th level $ℰ^{n}$ of the Grzegorczyk hierarchy is total.
- ${𝖨 Δ}_{0}^{𝗇 +}$ is ${𝖨 Δ}_{0}^{+}$ augmented by an axiom ensuring that each element of the n-th level $ℰ^{n}$ of the Grzegorczyk hierarchy is total.
- $𝖯 𝖱 𝖠$ is primitive recursive arithmetic.
- ${𝖨 Σ}_{1}$ is arithmetic with induction restricted to Σ₁-predicates.
- $𝖯 𝖠$ is Peano arithmetic.
- ${𝖨 𝖣}_{ν} #$ is ${\hat{𝖨 𝖣}}_{ν}$ but with induction only for positive formulas.
- ${\hat{𝖨 𝖣}}_{ν}$ extends PA by ν iterated fixed points of monotone operators.
- $𝖴 (𝖯 𝖠)$ is not exactly a first-order arithmetic system, but captures what one can get by predicative reasoning based on the natural numbers.
- $𝖠 𝗎 𝗍 (\hat{𝖨 𝖣})$ is autonomously iterated ${\hat{𝖨 𝖣}}_{ν}$ (in other words, once an ordinal is defined, it can be used to index a new series of definitions.)
- ${𝖨 𝖣}_{ν}$ extends PA by ν iterated least fixed points of monotone operators.
- ${𝖴 (𝖨 𝖣}_{ν})$ is not exactly a first-order arithmetic system, but captures what one can get by predicative reasoning based on ν-times iterated generalized inductive definitions.
- $𝖠 𝗎 𝗍 (𝖴 (𝖨 𝖣))$ is autonomously iterated ${𝖴 (𝖨 𝖣}_{ν})$ .
- ${𝖶 - 𝖨 𝖣}_{ν}$ is a weakened version of ${𝖨 𝖣}_{ν}$ based on W-types.
- $𝖳 𝖨 [Π_{0}^{1 -}, α]$ is a transfinite induction of length α no more than $Π_{0}^{1}$ -formulas. It happens to be the representation of the ordinal notation when used in first-order arithmetic.
Second-order arithmetic

In general, a subscript 0 means that the induction scheme is restricted to a single set induction axiom.

- ${𝖱 𝖢 𝖠}_{0}^{*}$ is a second order form of $𝖤 𝖥 𝖠$ sometimes used in reverse mathematics.
- ${𝖶 𝖪 𝖫}_{0}^{*}$ is a second order form of $𝖤 𝖥 𝖠$ sometimes used in reverse mathematics.
- ${𝖱 𝖢 𝖠}_{0}$ is recursive comprehension.
- ${𝖶 𝖪 𝖫}_{0}$ is weak Kőnig's lemma.
- ${𝖠 𝖢 𝖠}_{0}$ is arithmetical comprehension.
- $𝖠 𝖢 𝖠$ is ${𝖠 𝖢 𝖠}_{0}$ plus the full second-order induction scheme.
- $𝖳 𝖩 (n, X, Y)$ is the predicate "the nth Turing jump of X is Y".
- ${𝖠 𝖳 𝖱}_{0}$ is arithmetical transfinite recursion.
- $𝖠 𝖳 𝖱$ is ${𝖠 𝖳 𝖱}_{0}$ plus the full second-order induction scheme.
- $𝖡 𝖨$ is the bar induction axiom.
- $Δ_{2}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠 + 𝖡 𝖨 + (𝖬)$ is $Δ_{2}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠 + 𝖡 𝖨$ plus the assertion "every true $Π_{3}^{1}$ -sentence with parameters holds in a (countable coded) $β$ -model of $Δ_{2}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠$ ".
Kripke–Platek set theory
- $𝖪 𝖯$ is Kripke–Platek set theory with the axiom of infinity.
- $𝖪 𝖯 ω$ is Kripke–Platek set theory, whose universe is an admissible set containing $ω$ .
- $𝖶 - 𝖪 𝖯 𝖨$ is a weakened version of $𝖪 𝖯 𝖨$ based on W-types.
- $𝖪 𝖯 𝖨$ asserts that the universe is a limit of admissible sets.
- $𝖶 - 𝖪 𝖯 𝗂$ is a weakened version of $𝖪 𝖯 𝗂$ based on W-types.
- $𝖪 𝖯 𝗂$ asserts that the universe is inaccessible sets.
- $𝖪 𝖯 𝗁$ asserts that the universe is hyperinaccessible: an inaccessible set and a limit of inaccessible sets.
- $𝖪 𝖯 𝖬$ asserts that the universe is a Mahlo set.
- ${𝖪 𝖯 + Π}_{𝗇} - 𝖱 𝖾 𝖿$ is $𝖪 𝖯$ augmented by a certain first-order reflection scheme.
- $𝖲 𝗍 𝖺 𝖻 𝗂 𝗅 𝗂 𝗍 𝗒$ is KPi augmented by the axiom $\forall α \exists κ \geq α (L_{κ} ⪯_{1} L_{κ + α})$ .
- ${𝖪 𝖯 𝖬}^{+}$ is KPI augmented by the assertion "at least one recursively Mahlo ordinal exists".
- $𝖪 𝖯 ω + (M ≺_{Σ_{1}} V)$ is $𝖪 𝖯 ω$ with an axiom stating that 'there exists a non-empty and transitive set M such that $M ≺_{Σ_{1}} V$ '.

A superscript zero indicates that $\in$ -induction is removed (making the theory significantly weaker).

Type theory
- $𝖢 𝖯 𝖱 𝖢$ is the Herbelin-Patey Calculus of Primitive Recursive Constructions.
- ${𝖬 𝖫}_{𝗇}$ is type theory without W-types and with $n$ universes.
- ${𝖬 𝖫}_{< ω}$ is type theory without W-types and with finitely many universes.
- $𝖬 𝖫 𝖴$ is type theory with a next universe operator.
- $𝖬 𝖫 𝖲$ is type theory without W-types and with a superuniverse.
- $𝖠 𝗎 𝗍 (𝖬 𝖫)$ is type theory without W-types and with autonomously iterated universes.
- ${𝖬 𝖫}_{1} 𝖵$ is type theory with one universe and Aczel's type of iterative sets.
- $𝖬 𝖫 𝖶$ is type theory with indexed W-Types.
- ${𝖬 𝖫}_{1} 𝖶$ is type theory with W-types and one universe.
- ${𝖬 𝖫}_{< ω} 𝖶$ is type theory with W-types and finitely many universes.
- $𝖠 𝗎 𝗍 (𝖬 𝖫 𝖶)$ is type theory with W-types and with autonomously iterated universes.
- $𝖳 𝖳 𝖬$ is type theory with a Mahlo universe.
- $λ 2$ is System F, also polymorphic lambda calculus or second-order lambda calculus.
Constructive set theory
- $𝖢 𝖹 𝖥$ is Aczel's constructive set theory.
- $𝖢 𝖹 𝖥 + 𝖱 𝖤 𝖠$ is $𝖢 𝖹 𝖥$ plus the regular extension axiom.
- ${𝖢 𝖹 𝖥 + 𝖱 𝖤 𝖠 + 𝖥 𝖹}_{2}$ is $𝖢 𝖹 𝖥 + 𝖱 𝖤 𝖠$ plus the full-second order induction scheme.
- $𝖢 𝖹 𝖥 𝖬$ is $𝖢 𝖹 𝖥$ with a Mahlo universe.
Explicit mathematics
- ${𝖤 𝖬}_{0}$ is basic explicit mathematics plus elementary comprehension
- ${𝖤 𝖬}_{0} + 𝖩 𝖱$ is ${𝖤 𝖬}_{0}$ plus join rule
- ${𝖤 𝖬}_{0} + 𝖩$ is ${𝖤 𝖬}_{0}$ plus join axioms
- $𝖤 𝖮 𝖭$ is a weak variant of the Feferman's $𝖳_{0}$ .
- $𝖳_{0}$ is ${𝖤 𝖬}_{0} + 𝖩 + 𝖨 𝖦$ , where $𝖨 𝖦$ is inductive generation.
- $𝖳$ is ${𝖤 𝖬}_{0} {+ 𝖩 + 𝖨 𝖦 + 𝖥 𝖹}_{2}$ , where ${𝖥 𝖹}_{2}$ is the full second-order induction scheme.

Notes

1.^For

1 < n \leq ω

2.^The Veblen function

φ

with countably infinitely iterated least fixed points.^{[clarification needed]}

3.^Can also be commonly written as

ψ (ε_{Ω + 1})

in Madore's ψ.

4.^Uses Madore's ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.

5.^Can also be commonly written as

ψ (ε_{Ω_{ω} + 1})

in Madore's ψ.

6.^

K

represents the first recursively weakly compact ordinal. Uses Arai's ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.

7.^Also the proof-theoretic ordinal of

𝖠 𝗎 𝗍 (𝖶 - 𝖨 𝖣)

, as the amount of weakening given by the W-types is not enough.

8.^

I

represents the first inaccessible cardinal. Uses Jäger's ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.

9.^

L

represents the limit of the

ω

-inaccessible cardinals. Uses (presumably) Jäger's ψ.

10.^

L^{*}

represents the limit of the

Ω

-inaccessible cardinals. Uses (presumably) Jäger's ψ.

11.^

M

represents the first Mahlo cardinal. Uses Rathjen's ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.

12.^

K

represents the first weakly compact cardinal. Uses Rathjen's Ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.

13.^

Ξ

represents the first

Π_{0}^{2}

-indescribable cardinal. Uses Stegert's Ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.

14.^

Y

is the smallest

α

such that

\forall θ < Y \exists κ < Y (

'

κ

is

θ

-indescribable') and

\forall θ < Y \forall κ < Y (

'

κ

is

θ

-indescribable

\to θ < κ

'). Uses Stegert's Ψ rather than Buchholz's ψ.

15.^

M

represents the first Mahlo cardinal. Uses (presumably) Rathjen's ψ.

16.^For

n \in ℕ, n \geq 1

.

ω ↑ ↑ n (n \in ℕ)

represents tetration (denoted as

ω_{n}

in the source)

Citations

↑ M. Rathjen, "Admissible Proof Theory and Beyond". In Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 134 (1995), pp.123--147.
1 2 3 Rathjen, The Realm of Ordinal Analysis. Accessed 2021 September 29.
↑ Krajíček (1995), pp. 18–20, defines the rudimentary sets and rudimentary functions, and proves them equivalent to the Δ₀-predicates on the naturals. An ordinal analysis of the system can be found in Rose (1984).
1 2 3 4 5 6 M. Rathjen, Proof Theory: From Arithmetic to Set Theory (p.28). Accessed 14 August 2022.
↑ Rathjen (2006), p. 13.
↑ Setzer (2004).
↑ D. Madore, A Zoo of Ordinals (2017, p.2). Accessed 12 August 2022.
↑ Rathjen (1990).
1 2 3 4 Stegert (2010).
↑ "Proof-Theoretic Ordinal of ZFC or Consistent ZFC Extensions?". MathOverflow. Retrieved 2026-01-23.
↑ Arai, Toshiyasu (2023). "Lectures on Ordinal Analysis". arXiv:2511.11196v1 [math.LO].
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 J. Avigad, R. Sommer, "A Model-Theoretic Approach to Ordinal Analysis" (1997).
↑ M. Rathjen, W. Carnielli, "Hydrae and subsystems of arithmetic" (1991)
↑ Jeroen Van der Meeren; Rathjen, Michael; Weiermann, Andreas (2014). "An order-theoretic characterization of the Howard-Bachmann-hierarchy". arXiv:1411.4481 [math.LO].
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "Second order theories with ordinals and elementary comprehension". Archive for Mathematical Logic vol. 34 (1995).
1 2 H. M. Friedman, S. G. Simpson, R. L. Smith, "Countable algebra and set existence axioms". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic vol. 25, iss. 2 (1983).
↑ Simpson (2009), theorem IX. 4. 4.
1 2 Jäger (1984), p. 869.
↑ B. Afshari, M. Rathjen, "Ordinal Analysis and the Infinite Ramsey Theorem". In Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 7318 (2012)
1 2 Marcone, Alberto; Montalbán, Antonio (2011). "The Veblen functions for computability theorists". The Journal of Symbolic Logic. 76 (2): 575–602. arXiv:0910.5442. doi:10.2178/jsl/1305810765. S2CID 675632.
↑ S. Feferman, "Theories of finite type related to mathematical practice". In Handbook of Mathematical Logic, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 90 (1977), ed. J. Barwise, pub. North Holland.
1 2 3 4 M. Heissenbüttel, "Theories of ordinal strength $φ 20$ and $φ 2 ε_{0}$ " (2001)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D. Probst, "A modular ordinal analysis of metapredicative subsystems of second-order arithmetic" (2017)
1 2 3 4 F. Ranzi, From a Flexible Type System to Metapredicative Wellordering Proofs. Doctoral thesis, University of Bern, 2015.
↑ A. Cantini, "On the relation between choice and comprehension principles in second order arithmetic", Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 51 (1986), pp. 360--373.
1 2 3 4 Fischer, Martin; Nicolai, Carlo; Pablo Dopico Fernandez (2020). "Nonclassical truth with classical strength. A proof-theoretic analysis of compositional truth over HYPE". arXiv:2007.07188 [math.LO].
1 2 3 S. G. Simpson, "Friedman's Research on Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic". In Harvey Friedman's Research on the Foundations of Mathematics, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 117 (1985), ed. L. Harrington, M. Morley, A. Šcedrov, S. G. Simpson, pub. North-Holland.
↑ Jäger (1984), p. 870.
↑ J. Avigad, "An ordinal analysis of admissible set theory using recursion on ordinal notations". Journal of Mathematical Logic vol. 2, no. 1, pp.91--112 (2002).
↑ S. Feferman, "Iterated inductive fixed-point theories: application fo Hancock's conjecture". In Patras Logic Symposion, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 109 (1982).
↑ S. Feferman, T. Strahm, "The unfolding of non-finitist arithmetic", Annals of Pure and Applied Logic vol. 104, no.1--3 (2000), pp.75--96.
↑ S. Feferman, G. Jäger, "Choice principles, the bar rule and autonomously iterated comprehension schemes in analysis", Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 48, no. (1983), pp.63--70.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 U. Buchholtz, G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "Theories of proof-theoretic strength $ψ (Γ_{Ω + 1})$ ". In Concepts of Proof in Mathematics, Philosophy, and Computer Science (2016), ed. D. Probst, P. Schuster. DOI 10.1515/9781501502620-007.
1 2 Jäger (1984), p. 878.
↑ T. Strahm, "Autonomous fixed point progressions and fixed point transfinite recursion" (2000). In Logic Colloquium '98, ed. S. R. Buss, P. Hájek, and P. Pudlák . DOI 10.1017/9781316756140.031
↑ G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "Fixed point theories and dependent choice". Archive for Mathematical Logic vol. 39 (2000), pp.493--508.
1 2 3 T. Strahm, "Autonomous fixed point progressions and fixed point transfinite recursion" (2000)
1 2 3 4 C. Rüede, "Transfinite dependent choice and ω-model reflection". Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 67, no. 3 (2002).
1 2 3 C. Rüede, "The proof-theoretic analysis of Σ¹₁ transfinite dependent choice". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic vol. 122 (2003).
1 2 3 4 T. Strahm, "Wellordering Proofs for Metapredicative Mahlo". Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 67, no. 1 (2002)
↑ F. Ranzi, T. Strahm, "A flexible type system for the small Veblen ordinal" (2019). Archive for Mathematical Logic 58: 711–751.
↑ K. Fujimoto, "Notes on some second-order systems of iterated inductive definitions and $Π_{1}^{1}$ -comprehensions and relevant subsystems of set theory". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 166 (2015), pp. 409--463.
1 2 3 G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "The proof-theoretic analysis of the Suslin operator in applicative theories". In Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics: Essays in Honor of Solomon Feferman (2002).
1 2 3 Krombholz, Martin; Rathjen, Michael (2019). "Upper bounds on the graph minor theorem". arXiv:1907.00412 [math.LO].
↑ Buchholz et al. (1981), p. 14.
↑ W. Buchholz, Proof Theory of Impredicative Subsystems of Analysis (Studies in Proof Theory, Monographs, Vol 2 (1988)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 M. Rathjen, "Investigations of Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic and Set Theory in Strength between $Π_{1}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠$ and $Δ_{2}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠 + 𝖡 𝖨$ : Part I". Archived 7 December 2023.
↑ M. Rathjen, "The Strength of Some Martin-Löf Type Theories"
↑ See conservativity result in Rathjen (1996), "The Recursively Mahlo Property in Second Order Arithmetic", Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 42: 59–66, doi:10.1002/malq.19960420106 giving same ordinal as $𝖪 𝖯 𝖬$
1 2 A. Setzer, "A Model for a type theory with Mahlo universe" (1996).
↑ Rathjen (1994).
1 2 3 Arai, Toshiyasu (2023-04-01). "Lectures on Ordinal Analysis". arXiv:2304.00246 [math.LO].
↑ Arai, Toshiyasu (2023-04-07). "Well-foundedness proof for $Π_{1}^{1}$ -reflection". arXiv:2304.03851 [math.LO].
1 2 3 Arai, Toshiyasu (2024-02-12). "An ordinal analysis of $Π_{N}$ -Collection". arXiv:2311.12459 [math.LO].
↑ Blot, Valentin (2022-08-02). "A direct computational interpretation of second-order arithmetic via update recursion". Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. ACM. pp. 1–11. doi:10.1145/3531130.3532458. ISBN 978-1-4503-9351-5.
↑ Lubarsky (2011).

References

Buchholz, W.; Feferman, S.; Pohlers, W.; Sieg, W. (1981). Iterated Inductive Definitions and Subsystems of Analysis: Recent Proof-Theoretical Studies. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Vol. 897. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-11170-2.

Jäger, Gerhard (1984). "The strength of admissibility without foundation". Journal of Symbolic Logic. 49 (3): 867–879. JSTOR 2274140.

Krajíček, Jan (1995). Bounded Arithmetic, Propositional Logic, and Complexity Theory. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications. Vol. 60. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-45205-2.

Lubarsky, Robert (2011). "The Veblen functions for computability theorists". Journal of Symbolic Logic. 76 (2): 575–602. arXiv:0910.5442. doi:10.2178/jsl/1305810765.

Pohlers, Wolfram (1989). Proof Theory. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Vol. 1407. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-51842-6. MR 1026933.

Pohlers, Wolfram (1998). "Subsystems of set theory and second order number theory". In Buss, Samuel R. (ed.). Handbook of Proof Theory. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. Vol. 137. Amsterdam: North-Holland. pp. 209–335. doi:10.1016/S0049-237X(98)80019-0. ISBN 0-444-89840-9. MR 1640328.

Rathjen, Michael (1990). "Ordinal notations based on a weakly Mahlo cardinal". Archive for Mathematical Logic. 29 (4): 249–263. doi:10.1007/BF01651328. MR 1062729.

Rathjen, Michael (1994). "Proof theory of reflection". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic. 68 (2): 181–224. doi:10.1016/0168-0072(94)90074-4.

Rathjen, Michael (2006). "The art of ordinal analysis". In Sanz-Solé, Marta; Soria, Javier; Varona, Juan L.; Verdera, Joan (eds.). Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (Madrid, Spain, August 22–30, 2006). Vol. II: Invited lectures. Zürich: European Mathematical Society. pp. 45–69. doi:10.4171/022-2/3. ISBN 978-3-03719-022-7. MR 2275588. Zbl 1101.03035.

Rose, H. E. (1984). Subrecursion: Functions and Hierarchies. Oxford Logic Guides. Vol. 9. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-198-53189-0.

Schütte, K. (1977). Proof Theory. A Series of Comprehensive Studies in Mathematics. Vol. 225. Translated by Crossley, J. N. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. ISBN 3-540-07911-4. MR 0505313.

Setzer, Anton (2004). "Proof theory of Martin-Löf type theory. An overview". Mathématiques et Sciences Humaines (165): 59–99. Zbl 1127.03320.

Simpson, Stephen G. (2009) [1999]. Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic. Perspectives in Logic (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-88439-6.

Stegert, Jan-Carl (2010). Ordinal Proof Theory of Kripke-Platek Set Theory Augmented by Strong Reflection Principles (PhD thesis). University of Münster.

Takeuti, Gaisi (1987) [1975]. Proof Theory. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. Vol. 81 (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: North-Holland. ISBN 0-444-87943-9. MR 0882549.

[1] M. Rathjen, "Admissible Proof Theory and Beyond". In Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 134 (1995), pp.123--147.

[Realm-2] 1 2 3 Rathjen, The Realm of Ordinal Analysis. Accessed 2021 September 29.

[Krajicek-3] Krajíček (1995), pp. 18–20, defines the rudimentary sets and rudimentary functions, and proves them equivalent to the Δ₀-predicates on the naturals. An ordinal analysis of the system can be found in Rose (1984).

[RathjenFromArithmetic-4] 1 2 3 4 5 6 M. Rathjen, Proof Theory: From Arithmetic to Set Theory (p.28). Accessed 14 August 2022.

[FOOTNOTERathjen200613-5] Rathjen (2006), p. 13.

[FOOTNOTESetzer2004-6] Setzer (2004).

[7] D. Madore, A Zoo of Ordinals (2017, p.2). Accessed 12 August 2022.

[FOOTNOTERathjen1990-8] Rathjen (1990).

[FOOTNOTEStegert2010-9] 1 2 3 4 Stegert (2010).

[10] "Proof-Theoretic Ordinal of ZFC or Consistent ZFC Extensions?". MathOverflow. Retrieved 2026-01-23.

[11] Arai, Toshiyasu (2023). "Lectures on Ordinal Analysis". arXiv:2511.11196v1 [math.LO].

[AvigadSommer97-12] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 J. Avigad, R. Sommer, "A Model-Theoretic Approach to Ordinal Analysis" (1997).

[13] M. Rathjen, W. Carnielli, "Hydrae and subsystems of arithmetic" (1991)

[14] Jeroen Van der Meeren; Rathjen, Michael; Weiermann, Andreas (2014). "An order-theoretic characterization of the Howard-Bachmann-hierarchy". arXiv:1411.4481 [math.LO].

[JagerStrahm95-15] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "Second order theories with ordinals and elementary comprehension". Archive for Mathematical Logic vol. 34 (1995).

[FSS83-16] 1 2 H. M. Friedman, S. G. Simpson, R. L. Smith, "Countable algebra and set existence axioms". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic vol. 25, iss. 2 (1983).

[FOOTNOTESimpson2009theorem_IX._4._4-17] Simpson (2009), theorem IX. 4. 4.

[FOOTNOTEJäger1984869-18] 1 2 Jäger (1984), p. 869.

[19] B. Afshari, M. Rathjen, "Ordinal Analysis and the Infinite Ramsey Theorem". In Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 7318 (2012)

[MarconeMontalbán2010-20] 1 2 Marcone, Alberto; Montalbán, Antonio (2011). "The Veblen functions for computability theorists". The Journal of Symbolic Logic. 76 (2): 575–602. arXiv:0910.5442. doi:10.2178/jsl/1305810765. S2CID 675632.

[21] S. Feferman, "Theories of finite type related to mathematical practice". In Handbook of Mathematical Logic, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 90 (1977), ed. J. Barwise, pub. North Holland.

[Heissenbüttel2001-22] 1 2 3 4 M. Heissenbüttel, "Theories of ordinal strength $φ 20$ and $φ 2 ε_{0}$ " (2001)

[Probst2017-23] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D. Probst, "A modular ordinal analysis of metapredicative subsystems of second-order arithmetic" (2017)

[Ranzi15-24] 1 2 3 4 F. Ranzi, From a Flexible Type System to Metapredicative Wellordering Proofs. Doctoral thesis, University of Bern, 2015.

[25] A. Cantini, "On the relation between choice and comprehension principles in second order arithmetic", Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 51 (1986), pp. 360--373.

[FNF20-26] 1 2 3 4 Fischer, Martin; Nicolai, Carlo; Pablo Dopico Fernandez (2020). "Nonclassical truth with classical strength. A proof-theoretic analysis of compositional truth over HYPE". arXiv:2007.07188 [math.LO].

[Simpson85-27] 1 2 3 S. G. Simpson, "Friedman's Research on Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic". In Harvey Friedman's Research on the Foundations of Mathematics, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 117 (1985), ed. L. Harrington, M. Morley, A. Šcedrov, S. G. Simpson, pub. North-Holland.

[FOOTNOTEJäger1984870-28] Jäger (1984), p. 870.

[29] J. Avigad, "An ordinal analysis of admissible set theory using recursion on ordinal notations". Journal of Mathematical Logic vol. 2, no. 1, pp.91--112 (2002).

[30] S. Feferman, "Iterated inductive fixed-point theories: application fo Hancock's conjecture". In Patras Logic Symposion, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 109 (1982).

[31] S. Feferman, T. Strahm, "The unfolding of non-finitist arithmetic", Annals of Pure and Applied Logic vol. 104, no.1--3 (2000), pp.75--96.

[FJ83-32] S. Feferman, G. Jäger, "Choice principles, the bar rule and autonomously iterated comprehension schemes in analysis", Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 48, no. (1983), pp.63--70.

[BJS16-33] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 U. Buchholtz, G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "Theories of proof-theoretic strength $ψ (Γ_{Ω + 1})$ ". In Concepts of Proof in Mathematics, Philosophy, and Computer Science (2016), ed. D. Probst, P. Schuster. DOI 10.1515/9781501502620-007.

[FOOTNOTEJäger1984878-34] 1 2 Jäger (1984), p. 878.

[35] T. Strahm, "Autonomous fixed point progressions and fixed point transfinite recursion" (2000). In Logic Colloquium '98, ed. S. R. Buss, P. Hájek, and P. Pudlák . DOI 10.1017/9781316756140.031

[36] G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "Fixed point theories and dependent choice". Archive for Mathematical Logic vol. 39 (2000), pp.493--508.

[Strahm2000-37] 1 2 3 T. Strahm, "Autonomous fixed point progressions and fixed point transfinite recursion" (2000)

[Ruede2002-38] 1 2 3 4 C. Rüede, "Transfinite dependent choice and ω-model reflection". Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 67, no. 3 (2002).

[Ruede2003-39] 1 2 3 C. Rüede, "The proof-theoretic analysis of Σ¹₁ transfinite dependent choice". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic vol. 122 (2003).

[StrahmMahlo2002-40] 1 2 3 4 T. Strahm, "Wellordering Proofs for Metapredicative Mahlo". Journal of Symbolic Logic vol. 67, no. 1 (2002)

[41] F. Ranzi, T. Strahm, "A flexible type system for the small Veblen ordinal" (2019). Archive for Mathematical Logic 58: 711–751.

[42] K. Fujimoto, "Notes on some second-order systems of iterated inductive definitions and $Π_{1}^{1}$ -comprehensions and relevant subsystems of set theory". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 166 (2015), pp. 409--463.

[JagerStrahm02-43] 1 2 3 G. Jäger, T. Strahm, "The proof-theoretic analysis of the Suslin operator in applicative theories". In Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics: Essays in Honor of Solomon Feferman (2002).

[RathjenKrombholz2019-44] 1 2 3 Krombholz, Martin; Rathjen, Michael (2019). "Upper bounds on the graph minor theorem". arXiv:1907.00412 [math.LO].

[FOOTNOTEBuchholzFefermanPohlersSieg198114-45] Buchholz et al. (1981), p. 14.

[46] W. Buchholz, Proof Theory of Impredicative Subsystems of Analysis (Studies in Proof Theory, Monographs, Vol 2 (1988)

[RathjenInvestigations-47] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 M. Rathjen, "Investigations of Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic and Set Theory in Strength between $Π_{1}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠$ and $Δ_{2}^{1} - 𝖢 𝖠 + 𝖡 𝖨$ : Part I". Archived 7 December 2023.

[48] M. Rathjen, "The Strength of Some Martin-Löf Type Theories"

[49] See conservativity result in Rathjen (1996), "The Recursively Mahlo Property in Second Order Arithmetic", Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 42: 59–66, doi:10.1002/malq.19960420106 giving same ordinal as $𝖪 𝖯 𝖬$

[Setzer96-50] 1 2 A. Setzer, "A Model for a type theory with Mahlo universe" (1996).

[FOOTNOTERathjen1994-51] Rathjen (1994).

[Arai23A-52] 1 2 3 Arai, Toshiyasu (2023-04-01). "Lectures on Ordinal Analysis". arXiv:2304.00246 [math.LO].

[Arai23B-53] Arai, Toshiyasu (2023-04-07). "Well-foundedness proof for $Π_{1}^{1}$ -reflection". arXiv:2304.03851 [math.LO].

[Arai24-54] 1 2 3 Arai, Toshiyasu (2024-02-12). "An ordinal analysis of $Π_{N}$ -Collection". arXiv:2311.12459 [math.LO].

[55] Blot, Valentin (2022-08-02). "A direct computational interpretation of second-order arithmetic via update recursion". Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. ACM. pp. 1–11. doi:10.1145/3531130.3532458. ISBN 978-1-4503-9351-5.

[FOOTNOTELubarsky2011-56] Lubarsky (2011).