nonstandard analysis computability theory and
play

Nonstandard Analysis, Computability Theory, and metastability Dag - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 17, 2022 •705 likes •1.99k views

Nonstandard Analysis, Computability Theory, and metastability Dag Normann & Sam Sanders CCC17, Nancy, June 2017 Motivation: G odel-Friedman-Tao Motivation: G odel-Friedman-Tao G odels famous incompleteness theorems imply that

  1. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Metastability: Tao, G¨ odel, and a dead horse Classically equivalent definitions behave differently in computable math. The ‘epsilon-delta’ definition of a Cauchy sequence: ( ∀ k 0 )( ∃ M 0 )( ∀ m , n ≥ M )( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (1) is classically equivalent to ‘metastability’ (Tao, G¨ odel, Kreisel, etc): ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 )( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (2) Computational behaviour: (for non-decreasing x ( · ) in [0 , 1]; MCT) For (1), there is NO computable upper bound for ( ∃ M 0 ). For (2), there is a highly uniform and elementary bound θ for ( ∃ N 0 ): ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 ∈ θ ( F , k ))( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (3)

  2. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Metastability: Tao, G¨ odel, and a dead horse Classically equivalent definitions behave differently in computable math. The ‘epsilon-delta’ definition of a Cauchy sequence: ( ∀ k 0 )( ∃ M 0 )( ∀ m , n ≥ M )( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (1) is classically equivalent to ‘metastability’ (Tao, G¨ odel, Kreisel, etc): ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 )( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (2) Computational behaviour: (for non-decreasing x ( · ) in [0 , 1]; MCT) For (1), there is NO computable upper bound for ( ∃ M 0 ). For (2), there is a highly uniform and elementary bound θ for ( ∃ N 0 ): ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 ∈ θ ( F , k ))( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (3) where θ ( k , F ) := � 0 , F (0) , F 2 (0) , . . . , F k +1 (0) � is independent of x ( · ) .

  3. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Metastability: Tao, G¨ odel, and a dead horse Classically equivalent definitions behave differently in computable math. The ‘epsilon-delta’ definition of a Cauchy sequence: ( ∀ k 0 )( ∃ M 0 )( ∀ m , n ≥ M )( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (1) is classically equivalent to ‘metastability’ (Tao, G¨ odel, Kreisel, etc): ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 )( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (2) Computational behaviour: (for non-decreasing x ( · ) in [0 , 1]; MCT) For (1), there is NO computable upper bound for ( ∃ M 0 ). For (2), there is a highly uniform and elementary bound θ for ( ∃ N 0 ): ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 ∈ θ ( F , k ))( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (3) where θ ( k , F ) := � 0 , F (0) , F 2 (0) , . . . , F k +1 (0) � is independent of x ( · ) . Metastability trade-off:finite domain [ N , F ( N )] yields uniform and comp θ

  4. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The metastability trade-off in general Whereas in general noneffective proofs of convergence statements [. . . ] might not provide a (uniform) computable rate of convergence, highly uniform rates of metastability can under very general conditions always be extracted using tools from mathematical logic [. . . ] .

  5. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The metastability trade-off in general Whereas in general noneffective proofs of convergence statements [. . . ] might not provide a (uniform) computable rate of convergence, highly uniform rates of metastability can under very general conditions always be extracted using tools from mathematical logic [. . . ] . Ulrich Kohlenbach and Angeliki Koutsoukou-Argyraki, Rates of convergence and metastability for abstract Cauchy problems generated by accretive operators , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 423 (2015), no. 2,1089-1112.

  6. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The metastability trade-off in general Whereas in general noneffective proofs of convergence statements [. . . ] might not provide a (uniform) computable rate of convergence, highly uniform rates of metastability can under very general conditions always be extracted using tools from mathematical logic [. . . ] . Ulrich Kohlenbach and Angeliki Koutsoukou-Argyraki, Rates of convergence and metastability for abstract Cauchy problems generated by accretive operators , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 423 (2015), no. 2,1089-1112. This talk: How general is the metastability trade-off?

  7. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The metastability trade-off in general Whereas in general noneffective proofs of convergence statements [. . . ] might not provide a (uniform) computable rate of convergence, highly uniform rates of metastability can under very general conditions always be extracted using tools from mathematical logic [. . . ] . Ulrich Kohlenbach and Angeliki Koutsoukou-Argyraki, Rates of convergence and metastability for abstract Cauchy problems generated by accretive operators , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 423 (2015), no. 2,1089-1112. This talk: How general is the metastability trade-off? Can we use it to obtain computable mathematics in general?

  8. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The metastability trade-off in general Whereas in general noneffective proofs of convergence statements [. . . ] might not provide a (uniform) computable rate of convergence, highly uniform rates of metastability can under very general conditions always be extracted using tools from mathematical logic [. . . ] . Ulrich Kohlenbach and Angeliki Koutsoukou-Argyraki, Rates of convergence and metastability for abstract Cauchy problems generated by accretive operators , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 423 (2015), no. 2,1089-1112. This talk: How general is the metastability trade-off? Can we use it to obtain computable mathematics in general? Metastability trade-off: introducing a finite domain yields uniform and computable results .

  9. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability A slight variation of metastability

  10. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability A slight variation of metastability Metastability trade-off: finite domain [ N , F ( N )], but highly uniform θ . ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 ∈ θ ( F , k ))( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (4)

  11. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability A slight variation of metastability Metastability trade-off: finite domain [ N , F ( N )], but highly uniform θ . ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 ∈ θ ( F , k ))( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (4) The ‘epsilon-delta’ definition of limit with a modulus of convergence: ( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 )( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (5)

  12. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability A slight variation of metastability Metastability trade-off: finite domain [ N , F ( N )], but highly uniform θ . ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 ∈ θ ( F , k ))( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (4) The ‘epsilon-delta’ definition of limit with a modulus of convergence: ( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 )( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (5) is classically equivalent to the definition of ‘metastable limit’: ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (6)

  13. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability A slight variation of metastability Metastability trade-off: finite domain [ N , F ( N )], but highly uniform θ . ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 ∈ θ ( F , k ))( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (4) The ‘epsilon-delta’ definition of limit with a modulus of convergence: ( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 )( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (5) is classically equivalent to the definition of ‘metastable limit’: ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (6) Upper bounds for x 1 , g 1 in (5) compute the Halting problem.

  14. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability A slight variation of metastability Metastability trade-off: finite domain [ N , F ( N )], but highly uniform θ . ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 ∈ θ ( F , k ))( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (4) The ‘epsilon-delta’ definition of limit with a modulus of convergence: ( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 )( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (5) is classically equivalent to the definition of ‘metastable limit’: ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (6) Upper bounds for x 1 , g 1 in (5) compute the Halting problem. In (4), replace ‘metastability’ by ‘metastable limit’ (6) and obtain:

  15. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability A slight variation of metastability Metastability trade-off: finite domain [ N , F ( N )], but highly uniform θ . ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 ∈ θ ( F , k ))( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (4) The ‘epsilon-delta’ definition of limit with a modulus of convergence: ( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 )( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (5) is classically equivalent to the definition of ‘metastable limit’: ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (6) Upper bounds for x 1 , g 1 in (5) compute the Halting problem. In (4), replace ‘metastability’ by ‘metastable limit’ (6) and obtain: ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 ∈ ζ ( G ))( ∀ k , n ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 k )

  16. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability A slight variation of metastability Metastability trade-off: finite domain [ N , F ( N )], but highly uniform θ . ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 ∈ θ ( F , k ))( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (4) The ‘epsilon-delta’ definition of limit with a modulus of convergence: ( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 )( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (5) is classically equivalent to the definition of ‘metastable limit’: ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (6) Upper bounds for x 1 , g 1 in (5) compute the Halting problem. In (4), replace ‘metastability’ by ‘metastable limit’ (6) and obtain: ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 ∈ ζ ( G ))( ∀ k , n ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 k ) (7) Metastability trade-off: finite domain [0 , G ( x , g )], but highly uniform ζ 3 .

  17. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability A slight variation of metastability Metastability trade-off: finite domain [ N , F ( N )], but highly uniform θ . ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 ∈ θ ( F , k ))( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (4) The ‘epsilon-delta’ definition of limit with a modulus of convergence: ( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 )( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (5) is classically equivalent to the definition of ‘metastable limit’: ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (6) Upper bounds for x 1 , g 1 in (5) compute the Halting problem. In (4), replace ‘metastability’ by ‘metastable limit’ (6) and obtain: ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 ∈ ζ ( G ))( ∀ k , n ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 k ) (7) Metastability trade-off: finite domain [0 , G ( x , g )], but highly uniform ζ 3 . MCT meta ( ζ ) is (7) for any non-decreasing x ( · ) in [0 , 1].

  18. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability A slight variation of metastability Metastability trade-off: finite domain [ N , F ( N )], but highly uniform θ . ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 ∈ θ ( F , k ))( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (4) The ‘epsilon-delta’ definition of limit with a modulus of convergence: ( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 )( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (5) is classically equivalent to the definition of ‘metastable limit’: ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (6) Upper bounds for x 1 , g 1 in (5) compute the Halting problem. In (4), replace ‘metastability’ by ‘metastable limit’ (6) and obtain: ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 ∈ ζ ( G ))( ∀ k , n ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 k ) (7) Metastability trade-off: finite domain [0 , G ( x , g )], but highly uniform ζ 3 . MCT meta ( ζ ) is (7) for any non-decreasing x ( · ) in [0 , 1]. How hard is it to (S1-S9) compute ζ as in MCT meta ( ζ )?

  19. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability A slight variation of metastability Metastability trade-off: finite domain [ N , F ( N )], but highly uniform θ . ( ∀ k 0 , F 1 )( ∃ N 0 ∈ θ ( F , k ))( ∀ m , n ∈ [ N , F ( N )])( | x n − x m | < 1 / k ) (4) The ‘epsilon-delta’ definition of limit with a modulus of convergence: ( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 )( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (5) is classically equivalent to the definition of ‘metastable limit’: ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 )( ∀ k 0 , n 0 ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 / k ) (6) Upper bounds for x 1 , g 1 in (5) compute the Halting problem. In (4), replace ‘metastability’ by ‘metastable limit’ (6) and obtain: ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 ∈ ζ ( G ))( ∀ k , n ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | x − x n | < 1 k ) (7) Metastability trade-off: finite domain [0 , G ( x , g )], but highly uniform ζ 3 . MCT meta ( ζ ) is (7) for any non-decreasing x ( · ) in [0 , 1]. How hard is it to (S1-S9) compute ζ as in MCT meta ( ζ )? Full SOA is needed!

  20. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Metastable WKL and MCT Modulo the Halting problem, ζ as in MCT meta ( ζ ) is the the special fan functional; the latter originates as follows.

  21. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Metastable WKL and MCT Modulo the Halting problem, ζ as in MCT meta ( ζ ) is the the special fan functional; the latter originates as follows. Weak K¨ onig’s lemma WKL states that an infinite binary tree has a path: � ( ∀ n 0 )( ∃ β 0 )( | β | = n ∧ β ∈ T ) → ( ∃ α 1 ≤ 1 1)( ∀ n 0 )( α n ∈ T ) � ( ∀ T ≤ 1 1)

  22. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Metastable WKL and MCT Modulo the Halting problem, ζ as in MCT meta ( ζ ) is the the special fan functional; the latter originates as follows. Weak K¨ onig’s lemma WKL states that an infinite binary tree has a path: � ( ∀ n 0 )( ∃ β 0 )( | β | = n ∧ β ∈ T ) → ( ∃ α 1 ≤ 1 1)( ∀ n 0 )( α n ∈ T ) � ( ∀ T ≤ 1 1) Such a path α ≤ 1 1 cannot be computed from the tree T only.

  23. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Metastable WKL and MCT Modulo the Halting problem, ζ as in MCT meta ( ζ ) is the the special fan functional; the latter originates as follows. Weak K¨ onig’s lemma WKL states that an infinite binary tree has a path: � ( ∀ n 0 )( ∃ β 0 )( | β | = n ∧ β ∈ T ) → ( ∃ α 1 ≤ 1 1)( ∀ n 0 )( α n ∈ T ) � ( ∀ T ≤ 1 1) Such a path α ≤ 1 1 cannot be computed from the tree T only. The special fan functional Θ computes a ‘metastable path’: � ( ∀ n 0 )( ∃ β 0 )( | β | = n ∧ β ∈ T ) ( ∀ T ≤ 1 1) (SCF(Θ)) → ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ α 1 ∈ Θ( G ))( ∀ n 0 ≤ G ( α ))( α n ∈ T ) �

  24. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Metastable WKL and MCT Modulo the Halting problem, ζ as in MCT meta ( ζ ) is the the special fan functional; the latter originates as follows. Weak K¨ onig’s lemma WKL states that an infinite binary tree has a path: � ( ∀ n 0 )( ∃ β 0 )( | β | = n ∧ β ∈ T ) → ( ∃ α 1 ≤ 1 1)( ∀ n 0 )( α n ∈ T ) � ( ∀ T ≤ 1 1) Such a path α ≤ 1 1 cannot be computed from the tree T only. The special fan functional Θ computes a ‘metastable path’: � ( ∀ n 0 )( ∃ β 0 )( | β | = n ∧ β ∈ T ) ( ∀ T ≤ 1 1) (SCF(Θ)) → ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ α 1 ∈ Θ( G ))( ∀ n 0 ≤ G ( α ))( α n ∈ T ) � Metastability trade-off: finite domain [0 , G ( α )], but highly uniform Θ 3 .

  25. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Metastable WKL and MCT Modulo the Halting problem, ζ as in MCT meta ( ζ ) is the the special fan functional; the latter originates as follows. Weak K¨ onig’s lemma WKL states that an infinite binary tree has a path: � ( ∀ n 0 )( ∃ β 0 )( | β | = n ∧ β ∈ T ) → ( ∃ α 1 ≤ 1 1)( ∀ n 0 )( α n ∈ T ) � ( ∀ T ≤ 1 1) Such a path α ≤ 1 1 cannot be computed from the tree T only. The special fan functional Θ computes a ‘metastable path’: � ( ∀ n 0 )( ∃ β 0 )( | β | = n ∧ β ∈ T ) ( ∀ T ≤ 1 1) (SCF(Θ)) → ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ α 1 ∈ Θ( G ))( ∀ n 0 ≤ G ( α ))( α n ∈ T ) � Metastability trade-off: finite domain [0 , G ( α )], but highly uniform Θ 3 . Modulo the Halting problem, Θ computes ζ from MCT meta and vice versa

  26. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The higher-order picture

  27. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The higher-order picture ✻ Π 1 ∞ -CA 0 Π 1 1 -CA 0 ATR 0 ACA 0 WKL 0 RCA 0

  28. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The higher-order picture ✻ � � Π 1 ∞ -CA 0 ( E 2 ) : ( ∃E 3 )( ∀ ϕ 2 ) ( ∃ f 1 )( ϕ ( f ) = 0) ↔ E ( ϕ ) = 0 Π 1 1 -CA 0 ATR 0 ACA 0 WKL 0 RCA 0

  29. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The higher-order picture ✻ � � Π 1 ∞ -CA 0 ( E 2 ) : ( ∃E 3 )( ∀ ϕ 2 ) ( ∃ f 1 )( ϕ ( f ) = 0) ↔ E ( ϕ ) = 0 � � Π 1 ( S 2 ) : ( ∃ S 2 )( ∀ f 1 ) ( ∃ g 1 )( ∀ n 0 )( f ( gn ) = 0) ↔ S ( f ) = 0 1 -CA 0 ATR 0 ACA 0 WKL 0 RCA 0

  30. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The higher-order picture ✻ � � Π 1 ∞ -CA 0 ( E 2 ) : ( ∃E 3 )( ∀ ϕ 2 ) ( ∃ f 1 )( ϕ ( f ) = 0) ↔ E ( ϕ ) = 0 � � Π 1 ( S 2 ) : ( ∃ S 2 )( ∀ f 1 ) ( ∃ g 1 )( ∀ n 0 )( f ( gn ) = 0) ↔ S ( f ) = 0 1 -CA 0 ATR 0 UATR 0 : ‘there is a realiser for transfinite recursion’ ACA 0 WKL 0 RCA 0

  31. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The higher-order picture ✻ � � Π 1 ∞ -CA 0 ( E 2 ) : ( ∃E 3 )( ∀ ϕ 2 ) ( ∃ f 1 )( ϕ ( f ) = 0) ↔ E ( ϕ ) = 0 � � Π 1 ( S 2 ) : ( ∃ S 2 )( ∀ f 1 ) ( ∃ g 1 )( ∀ n 0 )( f ( gn ) = 0) ↔ S ( f ) = 0 1 -CA 0 ATR 0 UATR 0 : ‘there is a realiser for transfinite recursion’ � � ( µ 2 ) : ( ∃ µ 2 )( ∀ f 1 ) ( ∃ n 0 )( f ( n ) = 0) → f ( µ ( f )) = 0 ACA 0 WKL 0 RCA 0

  32. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The higher-order picture ✻ � � Π 1 ∞ -CA 0 ( E 2 ) : ( ∃E 3 )( ∀ ϕ 2 ) ( ∃ f 1 )( ϕ ( f ) = 0) ↔ E ( ϕ ) = 0 � � Π 1 ( S 2 ) : ( ∃ S 2 )( ∀ f 1 ) ( ∃ g 1 )( ∀ n 0 )( f ( gn ) = 0) ↔ S ( f ) = 0 1 -CA 0 ATR 0 UATR 0 : ‘there is a realiser for transfinite recursion’ � � ( µ 2 ) : ( ∃ µ 2 )( ∀ f 1 ) ( ∃ n 0 )( f ( n ) = 0) → f ( µ ( f )) = 0 ACA 0 MUC : ( ∃ Ω 3 )( ∀ Y 2 )( ∀ f 1 , g 1 ≤ 1 1) WKL 0 ( f Ω( Y ) = g Ω( Y ) → Y ( f ) = Y ( g )) RCA 0

  33. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The higher-order picture ✻ � � Π 1 ∞ -CA 0 ( E 2 ) : ( ∃E 3 )( ∀ ϕ 2 ) ( ∃ f 1 )( ϕ ( f ) = 0) ↔ E ( ϕ ) = 0 � � Π 1 ( S 2 ) : ( ∃ S 2 )( ∀ f 1 ) ( ∃ g 1 )( ∀ n 0 )( f ( gn ) = 0) ↔ S ( f ) = 0 1 -CA 0 ATR 0 UATR 0 : ‘there is a realiser for transfinite recursion’ � � ( µ 2 ) : ( ∃ µ 2 )( ∀ f 1 ) ( ∃ n 0 )( f ( n ) = 0) → f ( µ ( f )) = 0 ACA 0 MUC : ( ∃ Ω 3 )( ∀ Y 2 )( ∀ f 1 , g 1 ≤ 1 1) WKL 0 ( f Ω( Y ) = g Ω( Y ) → Y ( f ) = Y ( g )) The special fan functional Θ RCA 0

  34. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The higher-order picture ✻ � � Π 1 ∞ -CA 0 ( E 2 ) : ( ∃E 3 )( ∀ ϕ 2 ) ( ∃ f 1 )( ϕ ( f ) = 0) ↔ E ( ϕ ) = 0 � � Π 1 ( S 2 ) : ( ∃ S 2 )( ∀ f 1 ) ( ∃ g 1 )( ∀ n 0 )( f ( gn ) = 0) ↔ S ( f ) = 0 1 -CA 0 ATR 0 UATR 0 : ‘there is a realiser for transfinite recursion’ ❅ � � ( µ 2 ) : ( ∃ µ 2 )( ∀ f 1 ) ( ∃ n 0 )( f ( n ) = 0) → f ( µ ( f )) = 0 ACA 0 ❅ MUC : ( ∃ Ω 3 )( ∀ Y 2 )( ∀ f 1 , g 1 ≤ 1 1) WKL 0 ( f Ω( Y ) = g Ω( Y ) → Y ( f ) = Y ( g )) ❄ ❄ ❄ ❄ The special fan functional Θ RCA 0 Red arrows denote relative (non-)computability (Kleene S1-S9)

  35. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability The higher-order picture ✻ � � Π 1 ∞ -CA 0 ( E 2 ) : ( ∃E 3 )( ∀ ϕ 2 ) ( ∃ f 1 )( ϕ ( f ) = 0) ↔ E ( ϕ ) = 0 � � Π 1 ( S 2 ) : ( ∃ S 2 )( ∀ f 1 ) ( ∃ g 1 )( ∀ n 0 )( f ( gn ) = 0) ↔ S ( f ) = 0 1 -CA 0 ATR 0 UATR 0 : ‘there is a realiser for transfinite recursion’ ❅ � � ( µ 2 ) : ( ∃ µ 2 )( ∀ f 1 ) ( ∃ n 0 )( f ( n ) = 0) → f ( µ ( f )) = 0 ACA 0 ❅ MUC : ( ∃ Ω 3 )( ∀ Y 2 )( ∀ f 1 , g 1 ≤ 1 1) WKL 0 ( f Ω( Y ) = g Ω( Y ) → Y ( f ) = Y ( g )) ❄ ❄ ❄ ❄ The special fan functional Θ RCA 0 Red arrows denote relative (non-)computability (Kleene S1-S9) NO type two functional computes Θ (Same for ζ as in MCT meta ( ζ ))

  36. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Some strange Reverse Mathematics By itself, the special fan functional Θ is finitistically reducible:

  37. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Some strange Reverse Mathematics By itself, the special fan functional Θ is finitistically reducible: RCA ω 0 + ( ∃ Θ)SCF(Θ) is conservative over WKL 0

  38. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Some strange Reverse Mathematics By itself, the special fan functional Θ is finitistically reducible: RCA ω 0 + ( ∃ Θ)SCF(Θ) is conservative over WKL 0 Together with ( µ 2 ) or ( S 2 ) (which imply WKL 0 ), Θ is powerful: 0 + ( ∃ Θ)SCF(Θ) + ( µ 2 ) proves ATR 0 RCA ω

  39. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Some strange Reverse Mathematics By itself, the special fan functional Θ is finitistically reducible: RCA ω 0 + ( ∃ Θ)SCF(Θ) is conservative over WKL 0 Together with ( µ 2 ) or ( S 2 ) (which imply WKL 0 ), Θ is powerful: 0 + ( ∃ Θ)SCF(Θ) + ( µ 2 ) proves ATR 0 RCA ω 0 + ( ∃ Θ)SCF(Θ) + ( S 2 ) proves Π 1 RCA ω 2 -CA 0

  40. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Some strange Reverse Mathematics By itself, the special fan functional Θ is finitistically reducible: RCA ω 0 + ( ∃ Θ)SCF(Θ) is conservative over WKL 0 Together with ( µ 2 ) or ( S 2 ) (which imply WKL 0 ), Θ is powerful: 0 + ( ∃ Θ)SCF(Θ) + ( µ 2 ) proves ATR 0 RCA ω 0 + ( ∃ Θ)SCF(Θ) + ( S 2 ) proves Π 1 RCA ω 2 -CA 0 And some strange Reverse Mathematics: 0 + ( ∃ Θ)SCF(Θ) proves [( µ 2 ) ↔ UATR 0 ] RCA ω

  41. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Some strange Reverse Mathematics By itself, the special fan functional Θ is finitistically reducible: RCA ω 0 + ( ∃ Θ)SCF(Θ) is conservative over WKL 0 Together with ( µ 2 ) or ( S 2 ) (which imply WKL 0 ), Θ is powerful: 0 + ( ∃ Θ)SCF(Θ) + ( µ 2 ) proves ATR 0 RCA ω 0 + ( ∃ Θ)SCF(Θ) + ( S 2 ) proves Π 1 RCA ω 2 -CA 0 And some strange Reverse Mathematics: 0 + ( ∃ Θ)SCF(Θ) proves [( µ 2 ) ↔ UATR 0 ] RCA ω but WKL 0 cannot prove this equivalence!

  42. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Θ is everywhere: metastable IVT The intermediate value theorem IVT is the prototypical non-constructive theorem.

  43. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Θ is everywhere: metastable IVT The intermediate value theorem IVT is the prototypical non-constructive theorem. Constructive versions of IVT involve ‘approximate’ intermediate values like ( ∀ k 0 )( ∃ q 0 ∈ I )( | f ( q ) | < 1 k ).

  44. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Θ is everywhere: metastable IVT The intermediate value theorem IVT is the prototypical non-constructive theorem. Constructive versions of IVT involve ‘approximate’ intermediate values like ( ∀ k 0 )( ∃ q 0 ∈ I )( | f ( q ) | < 1 k ). What about a metastable zero? ( ∃ x ∈ I )( f ( x ) = R 0) ↔ ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x ∈ I )( | f ( x ) | < 1 G ( x ) ) (8)

  45. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Θ is everywhere: metastable IVT The intermediate value theorem IVT is the prototypical non-constructive theorem. Constructive versions of IVT involve ‘approximate’ intermediate values like ( ∀ k 0 )( ∃ q 0 ∈ I )( | f ( q ) | < 1 k ). What about a metastable zero? ( ∃ x ∈ I )( f ( x ) = R 0) ↔ ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x ∈ I )( | f ( x ) | < 1 G ( x ) ) (8) Equivalence in (8) only holds classically; constructively, we still have:

  46. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Θ is everywhere: metastable IVT The intermediate value theorem IVT is the prototypical non-constructive theorem. Constructive versions of IVT involve ‘approximate’ intermediate values like ( ∀ k 0 )( ∃ q 0 ∈ I )( | f ( q ) | < 1 k ). What about a metastable zero? ( ∃ x ∈ I )( f ( x ) = R 0) ↔ ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x ∈ I )( | f ( x ) | < 1 G ( x ) ) (8) Equivalence in (8) only holds classically; constructively, we still have: ( ∃ x ∈ I )( f ( x ) = 0) → ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x ∈ I )( | f ( x ) | < 1 G ( x ) ) → ( ∀ k 0 )( ∃ q 0 ∈ I )( | f ( q ) | < 1 k ) . (9)

  47. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Θ is everywhere: metastable IVT The intermediate value theorem IVT is the prototypical non-constructive theorem. Constructive versions of IVT involve ‘approximate’ intermediate values like ( ∀ k 0 )( ∃ q 0 ∈ I )( | f ( q ) | < 1 k ). What about a metastable zero? ( ∃ x ∈ I )( f ( x ) = R 0) ↔ ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x ∈ I )( | f ( x ) | < 1 G ( x ) ) (8) Equivalence in (8) only holds classically; constructively, we still have: ( ∃ x ∈ I )( f ( x ) = 0) → ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x ∈ I )( | f ( x ) | < 1 G ( x ) ) → ( ∀ k 0 )( ∃ q 0 ∈ I )( | f ( q ) | < 1 k ) . (9) Principle (IVT meta ) There is Ψ 2 → 1 ∗ such that for f : [0 , 1] → R with modulus of continuity � � H 2 and f (0) f (1) < 0 , ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x ∈ Ψ( G , H )) 1 x ∈ I ∧ | f ( x ) | < . G ( x )

  48. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Θ is everywhere: metastable IVT The intermediate value theorem IVT is the prototypical non-constructive theorem. Constructive versions of IVT involve ‘approximate’ intermediate values like ( ∀ k 0 )( ∃ q 0 ∈ I )( | f ( q ) | < 1 k ). What about a metastable zero? ( ∃ x ∈ I )( f ( x ) = R 0) ↔ ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x ∈ I )( | f ( x ) | < 1 G ( x ) ) (8) Equivalence in (8) only holds classically; constructively, we still have: ( ∃ x ∈ I )( f ( x ) = 0) → ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x ∈ I )( | f ( x ) | < 1 G ( x ) ) → ( ∀ k 0 )( ∃ q 0 ∈ I )( | f ( q ) | < 1 k ) . (9) Principle (IVT meta ) There is Ψ 2 → 1 ∗ such that for f : [0 , 1] → R with modulus of continuity � � H 2 and f (0) f (1) < 0 , ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x ∈ Ψ( G , H )) 1 x ∈ I ∧ | f ( x ) | < . G ( x ) Metastability trade-off: finite domain yields uniform results, i.e. Ψ is independent of f like for (9).

  49. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Θ is everywhere: metastable IVT The intermediate value theorem IVT is the prototypical non-constructive theorem. Constructive versions of IVT involve ‘approximate’ intermediate values like ( ∀ k 0 )( ∃ q 0 ∈ I )( | f ( q ) | < 1 k ). What about a metastable zero? ( ∃ x ∈ I )( f ( x ) = R 0) ↔ ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x ∈ I )( | f ( x ) | < 1 G ( x ) ) (8) Equivalence in (8) only holds classically; constructively, we still have: ( ∃ x ∈ I )( f ( x ) = 0) → ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x ∈ I )( | f ( x ) | < 1 G ( x ) ) → ( ∀ k 0 )( ∃ q 0 ∈ I )( | f ( q ) | < 1 k ) . (9) Principle (IVT meta ) There is Ψ 2 → 1 ∗ such that for f : [0 , 1] → R with modulus of continuity � � H 2 and f (0) f (1) < 0 , ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x ∈ Ψ( G , H )) 1 x ∈ I ∧ | f ( x ) | < . G ( x ) Metastability trade-off: finite domain yields uniform results, i.e. Ψ is independent of f like for (9). However: Ψ computes Θ, and vice versa.

  50. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Θ is everywhere: metastable theorems Metastable versions of the following theorems give rise to Θ.

  51. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Θ is everywhere: metastable theorems Metastable versions of the following theorems give rise to Θ. BD-N, extreme value theorem, Riemann permutation theorem, . . .

  52. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Θ is everywhere: metastable theorems Metastable versions of the following theorems give rise to Θ. BD-N, extreme value theorem, Riemann permutation theorem, . . . But constructive theorems also give rise to Θ:

  53. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Θ is everywhere: metastable theorems Metastable versions of the following theorems give rise to Θ. BD-N, extreme value theorem, Riemann permutation theorem, . . . But constructive theorems also give rise to Θ: Theorem (Metastable Riemann integration) There is Ψ such that for f : [0 , 1] → R with modulus of uniform continuity h, and S n ( f ) := � 2 n 2 n ) 1 i =0 f ( i 2 n , we have ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 ∈ Ψ( G , h ))( ∀ k , n ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | S n ( f ) − x | < 1 k ) .

  54. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Θ is everywhere: metastable theorems Metastable versions of the following theorems give rise to Θ. BD-N, extreme value theorem, Riemann permutation theorem, . . . But constructive theorems also give rise to Θ: Theorem (Metastable Riemann integration) There is Ψ such that for f : [0 , 1] → R with modulus of uniform continuity h, and S n ( f ) := � 2 n 2 n ) 1 i =0 f ( i 2 n , we have ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 ∈ Ψ( G , h ))( ∀ k , n ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | S n ( f ) − x | < 1 k ) . Metastability trade-off: finite domain yields uniform results, i.e. Ψ is independent of f .

  55. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Θ is everywhere: metastable theorems Metastable versions of the following theorems give rise to Θ. BD-N, extreme value theorem, Riemann permutation theorem, . . . But constructive theorems also give rise to Θ: Theorem (Metastable Riemann integration) There is Ψ such that for f : [0 , 1] → R with modulus of uniform continuity h, and S n ( f ) := � 2 n 2 n ) 1 i =0 f ( i 2 n , we have ( ∀ G 2 )( ∃ x 1 , g 1 ∈ Ψ( G , h ))( ∀ k , n ≤ G ( x , g ))( n ≥ g ( k ) → | S n ( f ) − x | < 1 k ) . Metastability trade-off: finite domain yields uniform results, i.e. Ψ is independent of f . However: Ψ computes Θ, and vice versa.

  56. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Normann-Sanders I Many more results in https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.06556 : E 2 Z 2 S 2 Π 1 1 -CA 0 µ 2 + Θ ATR 0 µ 2 + Λ µ 2 ACA 0 Θ 3 WKL 0 Λ 3 WWKL 0

  57. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Normann-Sanders I Many more results in https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.06556 : E 2 Z 2 S 2 Π 1 1 -CA 0 µ 2 + Θ ATR 0 µ 2 + Λ µ 2 ACA 0 Θ 3 WKL 0 Λ 3 WWKL 0 Λ is the functional from ‘metastable WWKL’, where the latter is weak weak K¨ onig’s lemma.

  58. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Normann-Sanders I Many more results in https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.06556 : E 2 Z 2 S 2 Π 1 1 -CA 0 µ 2 + Θ ATR 0 µ 2 + Λ µ 2 ACA 0 Θ 3 WKL 0 Λ 3 WWKL 0 Λ is the functional from ‘metastable WWKL’, where the latter is weak weak K¨ onig’s lemma. Where do Θ and Λ come from?

  59. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Nonstandard Analysis: it all started with . . .

  60. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Nonstandard Analysis: it all started with . . . Archimedes, Euler, Newton, Stevin, Leibniz, etc informally used infinitely small quantities (fluxions/infinitesimals) to obtain Weierstraß-style limit results avant la lettre ,

  61. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Nonstandard Analysis: it all started with . . . Archimedes, Euler, Newton, Stevin, Leibniz, etc informally used infinitely small quantities (fluxions/infinitesimals) to obtain Weierstraß-style limit results avant la lettre , and the same for modern physics.

  62. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Nonstandard Analysis: it all started with . . . Archimedes, Euler, Newton, Stevin, Leibniz, etc informally used infinitely small quantities (fluxions/infinitesimals) to obtain Weierstraß-style limit results avant la lettre , and the same for modern physics.

  63. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Nonstandard Analysis: it all started with . . . Archimedes, Euler, Newton, Stevin, Leibniz, etc informally used infinitely small quantities (fluxions/infinitesimals) to obtain Weierstraß-style limit results avant la lettre , and the same for modern physics. Robinson: Non-standard Analysis (1965): Formalisation of the intuitive infinitesimal calculus via nonstandard models.

  64. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Nonstandard Analysis: it all started with . . . Archimedes, Euler, Newton, Stevin, Leibniz, etc informally used infinitely small quantities (fluxions/infinitesimals) to obtain Weierstraß-style limit results avant la lettre , and the same for modern physics. Robinson: Non-standard Analysis (1965): Formalisation of the intuitive infinitesimal calculus via nonstandard models. Nelson: Internal Set Theory (1977): well-known axiomatic approach to Nonstandard Analysis based on ZFC set theory.

  65. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965):

  66. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965): For a given structure M , build ∗ M � M , a nonstandard model of M (using free ultrafilter).

  67. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965): For a given structure M , build ∗ M � M , a nonstandard model of M (using free ultrafilter). ∗ M M

  68. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965): For a given structure M , build ∗ M � M , a nonstandard model of M (using free ultrafilter). ∗ M M N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . }

  69. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965): For a given structure M , build ∗ M � M , a nonstandard model of M (using free ultrafilter). ∗ M ∗ N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . . . . , ω, ω + 1 , . . . } M N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . }

  70. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965): For a given structure M , build ∗ M � M , a nonstandard model of M (using free ultrafilter). ∗ M ∗ N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . . . . , ω, ω + 1 , ω + 2 , ω + 3 , . . . } � �� � nonstandard objects not in N M N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . }

  71. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965): For a given structure M , build ∗ M � M , a nonstandard model of M (using free ultrafilter). ∗ M ∗ N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . . . . , ω, ω + 1 , ω + 2 , ω + 3 , . . . } � �� � nonstandard objects not in N M ✲ X ∈ M ∗ X ∈ ∗ M N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . }

  72. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965): For a given structure M , build ∗ M � M , a nonstandard model of M (using free ultrafilter). ∗ M ∗ N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . . . . , ω, ω + 1 , ω + 2 , ω + 3 , . . . } � �� � nonstandard objects not in N M star morphism ✲ X ∈ M ∗ X ∈ ∗ M N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . }

  73. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965): For a given structure M , build ∗ M � M , a nonstandard model of M (using free ultrafilter). ∗ M ∗ N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . . . . , ω, ω + 1 , ω + 2 , ω + 3 , . . . } � �� � nonstandard objects not in N M star morphism ✲ X ∈ M ∗ X ∈ ∗ M X contains the standard objects N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . }

  74. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965): For a given structure M , build ∗ M � M , a nonstandard model of M (using free ultrafilter). ∗ M ∗ N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . . . . , ω, ω + 1 , ω + 2 , ω + 3 , . . . } � �� � nonstandard objects not in N M star morphism ✲ X ∈ M ∗ X ∈ ∗ M X contains the standard objects ∗ X \ X contains the nonstandard objects N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . }

  75. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965): For a given structure M , build ∗ M � M , a nonstandard model of M (using free ultrafilter). ∗ M ∗ N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . . . . , ω, ω + 1 , ω + 2 , ω + 3 , . . . } � �� � nonstandard objects not in N M star morphism ✲ X ∈ M ∗ X ∈ ∗ M X contains the standard objects ∗ X \ X contains the nonstandard objects N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . } Three important properties connecting M and ∗ M :

  76. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965): For a given structure M , build ∗ M � M , a nonstandard model of M (using free ultrafilter). ∗ M ∗ N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . . . . , ω, ω + 1 , ω + 2 , ω + 3 , . . . } � �� � nonstandard objects not in N M star morphism ✲ X ∈ M ∗ X ∈ ∗ M X contains the standard objects ∗ X \ X contains the nonstandard objects N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . } Three important properties connecting M and ∗ M : 1) Transfer M � ϕ ↔ ∗ M � ∗ ϕ ( ϕ ∈ L ZFC )

  77. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965): For a given structure M , build ∗ M � M , a nonstandard model of M (using free ultrafilter). ∗ M ∗ N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . . . . , ω, ω + 1 , ω + 2 , ω + 3 , . . . } � �� � nonstandard objects not in N M star morphism ✲ X ∈ M ∗ X ∈ ∗ M X contains the standard objects ∗ X \ X contains the nonstandard objects N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . } Three important properties connecting M and ∗ M : 1) Transfer M � ϕ ↔ ∗ M � ∗ ϕ ( ϕ ∈ L ZFC ) 2) Standard Part ( ∀ x ∈ ∗ M )( ∃ y ∈ M )( ∀ z ∈ M )( z ∈ x ↔ z ∈ y )

  78. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965): For a given structure M , build ∗ M � M , a nonstandard model of M (using free ultrafilter). ∗ M ∗ N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . . . . , ω, ω + 1 , ω + 2 , ω + 3 , . . . } � �� � nonstandard objects not in N M star morphism ✲ X ∈ M ∗ X ∈ ∗ M X contains the standard objects ∗ X \ X contains the nonstandard objects N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . } Three important properties connecting M and ∗ M : 1) Transfer M � ϕ ↔ ∗ M � ∗ ϕ ( ϕ ∈ L ZFC ) 2) Standard Part ( ∀ x ∈ ∗ M )( ∃ y ∈ M )( ∀ z ∈ M )( z ∈ x ↔ z ∈ y ) (reverse of ∗ )

  79. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Robinson’s semantic approach (1965): For a given structure M , build ∗ M � M , a nonstandard model of M (using free ultrafilter). ∗ M ∗ N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . . . . , ω, ω + 1 , ω + 2 , ω + 3 , . . . } � �� � nonstandard objects not in N M star morphism ✲ X ∈ M ∗ X ∈ ∗ M X contains the standard objects ∗ X \ X contains the nonstandard objects N = { 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . } Three important properties connecting M and ∗ M : 1) Transfer M � ϕ ↔ ∗ M � ∗ ϕ ( ϕ ∈ L ZFC ) 2) Standard Part ( ∀ x ∈ ∗ M )( ∃ y ∈ M )( ∀ z ∈ M )( z ∈ x ↔ z ∈ y ) (reverse of ∗ ) 3) Idealization/Saturation . . .

  80. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Nelson’s Internal Set Theory (IST) is a syntactic approach to Nonstandard Analysis based on ZFC set theory.

  81. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Nelson’s Internal Set Theory (IST) is a syntactic approach to Nonstandard Analysis based on ZFC set theory. Add a new predicate st( x ) read x is standard to L ZFC .

  82. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Nelson’s Internal Set Theory (IST) is a syntactic approach to Nonstandard Analysis based on ZFC set theory. Add a new predicate st( x ) read x is standard to L ZFC . We write ( ∃ st x ) and ( ∀ st y ) for ( ∃ x )(st( x ) ∧ . . . ) and ( ∀ y )(st( y ) → . . . ).

  83. Introduction Metastability and the special fan functional Nonstandard Analysis and metastability Introducing Nonstandard Analysis Nelson’s Internal Set Theory (IST) is a syntactic approach to Nonstandard Analysis based on ZFC set theory. Add a new predicate st( x ) read x is standard to L ZFC . We write ( ∃ st x ) and ( ∀ st y ) for ( ∃ x )(st( x ) ∧ . . . ) and ( ∀ y )(st( y ) → . . . ). A formula is internal if it does not contain st; external otherwise

Recommend

Nonstandard Analysis: a new way to compute Sam Sanders 1 Model Theory and Proof Theory of

Nonstandard Analysis: a new way to compute Sam Sanders 1 Model Theory and Proof Theory of

Nonstandard Analysis: a new way to compute Sam Sanders 1 Model Theory and Proof Theory of Arithmetic A Memorial Conference in Honour of H. Kotlarski and Z. Ratajczyk July 25, 2012 1 This research is generously supported by the John Templeton

2.11k views • 188 slides
The unreasonable effectiveness of Nonstandard Analysis Sam Sanders CCC, Kochel, Sept. 2015

The unreasonable effectiveness of Nonstandard Analysis Sam Sanders CCC, Kochel, Sept. 2015

The unreasonable effectiveness of Nonstandard Analysis Sam Sanders CCC, Kochel, Sept. 2015 Introduction: NSA 101 Mining NSA Additional results Aim and motivation Aim: To show that proofs of theorems of PURE Nonstandard Analysis can be mined

1.43k views • 129 slides
The Foundations of Borut Robi Computability Theory University of Ljubljana Slovenia, 2015 1

The Foundations of Borut Robi Computability Theory University of Ljubljana Slovenia, 2015 1

The Foundations of Borut Robi Computability Theory University of Ljubljana Slovenia, 2015 1 Forward About Computability Theory Rules of the game Exams 2 Contents Part I. THE ROOTS OF COMPUTABILITY THEORY Ch 1

1.64k views • 139 slides
What can be computed What is a computation? by a computer? computability theory What

What can be computed What is a computation? by a computer? computability theory What

Theory of Computer Science April 18, 2016 D1. Turing-Computability Theory of Computer Science D1.1 Computations D1. Turing-Computability D1.2 Reminder: Turing Machines Malte Helmert D1.3 Turing-Computable Functions University of Basel

354 views • 7 slides
Interactions of Computability, Complexity and Group theory Computability from the Point of View of

Interactions of Computability, Complexity and Group theory Computability from the Point of View of

Interactions of Computability, Complexity and Group theory Computability from the Point of View of Geometric Group Theory Paul Schupp University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign December, 2014 Shanghai Jiao Tong University Paul Schupp (UIUC)

795 views • 78 slides
On the interpretation of HPC in the Kreisel-Goodman Theory of Constructions Computability Theory

On the interpretation of HPC in the Kreisel-Goodman Theory of Constructions Computability Theory

On the interpretation of HPC in the Kreisel-Goodman Theory of Constructions Computability Theory and Foundations of Mathematics Tokyo Institute of Technology 9 September 2015 Hidenori Kurokawa Dept. of Information Science Kobe University

568 views • 30 slides
Nonstandard Methods in Analysis An elementary approach to Stochastic Differential Equations Vieri

Nonstandard Methods in Analysis An elementary approach to Stochastic Differential Equations Vieri

Nonstandard Methods in Analysis An elementary approach to Stochastic Differential Equations Vieri Benci Dipartimento di Matematica Applicata June 2008 Vieri Benci (DMA-Pisa) Nonstandard Methods 03/06 1 / 42 The aim of this talk is to make

1.1k views • 76 slides
Reuniting the Antipodes: Bringing together Nonstandard and Constructive Analysis Sam Sanders 1

Reuniting the Antipodes: Bringing together Nonstandard and Constructive Analysis Sam Sanders 1

Reuniting the Antipodes: Bringing together Nonstandard and Constructive Analysis Sam Sanders 1 Madison, WI, April 2, 2012 1 This research is generously supported by the John Templeton Foundation. Introduction NSA and Constructive Analysis

2.08k views • 181 slides
Theory of Computer Science D3. GOTO-Computability Malte Helmert University of Basel April 25,

Theory of Computer Science D3. GOTO-Computability Malte Helmert University of Basel April 25,

Theory of Computer Science D3. GOTO-Computability Malte Helmert University of Basel April 25, 2016 WHILE vs. Turing GOTO Programs GOTO vs. WHILE Turing vs. GOTO Summary Overview: Computability Theory Computability Theory imperative

1.09k views • 32 slides
Real Parameterized and 2 Order Complexity Theory: Order Complexity Theory: From Computability in

Real Parameterized and 2 Order Complexity Theory: Order Complexity Theory: From Computability in

Real Parameterized and 2 nd nd Real Parameterized and 2 Order Complexity Theory: Order Complexity Theory: From Computability in Analysis From Computability in Analysis to Numerical Practice to Numerical Practice Martin Ziegler Martin

414 views • 20 slides
Theory of Computer Science D2. LOOP- and WHILE-Computability Gabriele R oger University of

Theory of Computer Science D2. LOOP- and WHILE-Computability Gabriele R oger University of

Theory of Computer Science D2. LOOP- and WHILE-Computability Gabriele R oger University of Basel April 16, 2018 Introduction LOOP Programs Syntactic Sugar WHILE Programs Ackermann Function Summary Overview: Computability Theory

834 views • 54 slides
An applications of computability theory: arithmetic and G odels theorem Introduction to

An applications of computability theory: arithmetic and G odels theorem Introduction to

An applications of computability theory: arithmetic and G odels theorem Introduction to Computability Class 12 The problem of foundations: some background In the beginning of the 20th century, there was much turmoil concerning the

670 views • 53 slides
First Steps in Synthetic Computability Constructive Math Basic Computability Theory Theorems

First Steps in Synthetic Computability Constructive Math Basic Computability Theory Theorems

First Steps in Synthetic Computability Andrej Bauer Introduction First Steps in Synthetic Computability Constructive Math Basic Computability Theory Theorems for Free Andrej Bauer Enumerability Axiom Markov Principle Injectivity Axiom

1.26k views • 105 slides
Theory of Computer Science D5. Primitive/ -Recursion vs. LOOP-/WHILE-Computability Malte

Theory of Computer Science D5. Primitive/ -Recursion vs. LOOP-/WHILE-Computability Malte

Theory of Computer Science D5. Primitive/ -Recursion vs. LOOP-/WHILE-Computability Malte Helmert University of Basel May 2, 2016 Introduction PRF vs. LOOP RF vs. WHILE LOOP vs. PRF WHILE vs. RF Summary Overview: Computability Theory

632 views • 36 slides
Automatic continuity of nonstandard measures David A. Ross Department of Mathematics University

Automatic continuity of nonstandard measures David A. Ross Department of Mathematics University

Automatic continuity of nonstandard measures David A. Ross Department of Mathematics University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu, HI 96822 USA June 2, 2008 1 What does Nonstandard Analysis give you for free? Quantifier simplification

446 views • 12 slides
Theory of Computer Science D2. LOOP- and WHILE-Computability Malte Helmert University of Basel

Theory of Computer Science D2. LOOP- and WHILE-Computability Malte Helmert University of Basel

Theory of Computer Science D2. LOOP- and WHILE-Computability Malte Helmert University of Basel April 20, 2016 Introduction LOOP Programs Syntactic Sugar WHILE Programs Ackermann Function Summary Overview: Computability Theory

590 views • 54 slides
Nonstandard Methods in Combinatorics of Numbers: a few examples Mauro Di Nasso Universit` a di

Nonstandard Methods in Combinatorics of Numbers: a few examples Mauro Di Nasso Universit` a di

Introduction Nonstandard analysis, hyper-quickly Applications: a few examples Conclusions Nonstandard Methods in Combinatorics of Numbers: a few examples Mauro Di Nasso Universit` a di Pisa, Italy RaTLoCC 2011 Bertinoro, May 27, 2011

614 views • 48 slides
Computability theory vs. complexity theory I In Chapter 3 we showed that various TMs are

Computability theory vs. complexity theory I In Chapter 3 we showed that various TMs are

Computability theory vs. complexity theory I In Chapter 3 we showed that various TMs are equivalent For example, single-tape and multi-tape TMs are equivalent However, their time complexities are different November 2, 2020 1 / 10

383 views • 10 slides
Computability Theory and Asymptotic Density Denis R. Hirschfeldt University of Chicago Groups

Computability Theory and Asymptotic Density Denis R. Hirschfeldt University of Chicago Groups

Computability Theory and Asymptotic Density Denis R. Hirschfeldt University of Chicago Groups and Computation: In Honor of Paul Schupps 80th Birthday Cantor space and relative computability We work in the space 2 of infinite binary

1.24k views • 97 slides
Foundations of infinitesimal calculus: surreal numbers and nonstandard analysis Vladimir Kanovei 1

Foundations of infinitesimal calculus: surreal numbers and nonstandard analysis Vladimir Kanovei 1

Foundations of infinitesimal calculus: surreal numbers and nonstandard analysis Vladimir Kanovei 1 1 IITP RAS and MIIT, Moscow, Russia, kanovei@googlemail.com Sy David Friedmans 60th-Birthday Conference 08 12 July 2013 Kurt Gdel

2.17k views • 159 slides
A Computability Theory of Real Numbers Xizhong Zheng Department of Mathematics and Computer

A Computability Theory of Real Numbers Xizhong Zheng Department of Mathematics and Computer

A Computability Theory of Real Numbers Xizhong Zheng Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Arcadia University Glenside, PA 19038, USA zhengx@arcadia.edu July 20-24, 2020 WDCM-2020, Novosibirsk, Russia. 1 Classical Computability

1.98k views • 180 slides
Is there always an algorithm? An introduction to computability theory. Computer Science

Is there always an algorithm? An introduction to computability theory. Computer Science

Is there always an algorithm? An introduction to computability theory. Computer Science Department Seminar 9th October 2009 Rick Thomas 1 Equations If we want to solve the quadratic equation ax 2 + bx + c = 0 , we know that the solutions are

796 views • 41 slides
Probabilistic algorithms in computability theory Laurent Bienvenu (Laboratoire J-V Poncelet,

Probabilistic algorithms in computability theory Laurent Bienvenu (Laboratoire J-V Poncelet,

Probabilistic algorithms in computability theory Laurent Bienvenu (Laboratoire J-V Poncelet, Moscow) Computability, Complexity and Randomness Moscow, September 2013 1. Introduction Motivation . 1. Introduction 3/32 If we additionally have

932 views • 71 slides
Reverse Mathematics &amp; Nonstandard Analysis: Making sense of infinite computations. Sam Sanders

Reverse Mathematics &amp; Nonstandard Analysis: Making sense of infinite computations. Sam Sanders

Reverse Mathematics &amp; Nonstandard Analysis: Making sense of infinite computations. Sam Sanders 1 Tohoku University &amp; Ghent University CiE, June 29, 2011, Sofia 1 This research is generously supported by the John Templeton Foundation.

1.27k views • 122 slides

More recommend