Remarks on Barr's theorem: Proofs in geometric theories

Michael Rathjen

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1603.03374

Remarks on Barr's theorem: Proofs in geometric theories

Michael Rathjen

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A theorem, usually attributed to Barr, yields that (A) geometric implications deduced in classical L_{\infty\omega} logic from geometric theories also have intuitionistic proofs. Barr's theorem is of a topos-theoretic nature and its proof is non-constructive. In the literature one also finds mysterious comments about the capacity of this theorem to remove the axiom of choice from derivations. This article investigates the proof-theoretic side of Barr's theorem and also aims to shed some light on the axiom of choice part. More concretely, a constructive proof of the Hauptsatz for L_{\infty\omega} is given and is put to use to arrive at a simple proof of (A) that is formalizable in constructive set theory and Martin-Loef type theory.

Explore related subjects

math.LO

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Michael Rathjen. 2016-03-10. Remarks on Barr's theorem: Proofs in geometric theories. https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.03374

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

There is no maximal $K$-degree

The Kolmogorov complexity of a string characterize how complex it is to describe the string. If every prefix of a real $x$ is more complex to describe than every prefix (of the same length) of real $y$, then it is seen as $x$ is more complex to describe than $y$. It is wondered if there is a real $x$ so that no other reals are strictly more complex (to describe) than $x$. The behavior of Kolmogorov complexity functions generated by reals (namely $n\mapsto$ the minimal description length of the real) is quite chaos. Therefore, it is widely believed that there are many reals that are maximally complex to describe. For instance, it is conjectured that all random enough reals have maximal $K$-degree. In this paper, it is shown that there is no real with maximal $K$-degree. Actually, for almost all real $x$, we can uniformly computably find another real whose $K$-degree is strictly above $x$.

math.LO↗

arXiv2026

Quadruples and cubes

We prove, in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, that the $\lambda$-terraced cube relation fails whenever $\lambda$ is an uncountable cardinal. The corresponding terraced relation for quadruples fails for every $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is $\aleph_0$ then the pretinent terraced relation has consistency strength of at least one Woodin cardinal. We prove positive polarized relations at a successor and a double successor from wondrous ideals. We show, however, that there are no such ideals over two consecutive cardinals simultaneously.

math.LO↗

arXiv2026

Possibilistic Logic over a Logic of Formal Inconsistency

In this article, we have introduced a new possibilistic logic on a logic of formal inconsistency with the aim of developing a possibility theoretic framework to deal with uncertainty and inconsistency meaningfully without leading to a system collapse. We have discussed the syntax and semantics for this logic and have proved the soundness and completeness theorems. A set of new measures of consistency, contradictoriness, and triviality of a set of formulas have been defined. These have then been put to use in an example to show that this framework can provide better means of machine reasoning.

math.LO↗