By Jordan Mitchell Barrett, Rodney G. Downey, and Noam Greenberg
Abstract
Cousin’s lemma is a compactness principle that naturally arises when studying the gauge integral, a generalisation of the Lebesgue integral. We study the axiomatic strength of Cousin’s lemma for various classes of functions, using Friedman and Simpson’s reverse mathematics in second-order arithmetic. We prove that, over $\mathsf{RCA}_{0}$:
(i)
Cousin’s lemma for continuous functions is equivalent to $\mathsf{WKL}_{0}$;
(ii)
Cousin’s lemma for Baire class 1 functions is equivalent to $\mathsf{ACA}_{0}$;
(iii)
Cousin’s lemma for Baire class 2 functions, or for Borel functions, is equivalent to $\mathsf{ATR}_{0}$ (modulo some induction).
1. Introduction
For real-valued functions, the most general version of the fundamental theorem of calculus relies on a generalisation of both the Lebesgue and (improper) Riemann integrals, called, among other names, the Denjoy integral Reference Den12Reference Gor94. This integral can integrate all derivatives, which the Riemann and Lebesgue integrals fail to do Reference Gor94.
Denjoy Reference Den12 first defined this integral in 1912, and shortly after, Luzin Reference Luz12 and Perron Reference Per14 gave equivalent characterisations. However, all these definitions were complex and highly non-constructive, making Denjoy’s integral impractical for applications Reference Gor97. In 1957, Kurzweil Reference Kur57 discovered an equivalent, “elementary” definition, in the style of the Riemann integral. This re-formulation is widely known as the gauge integral, or Henstock–Kurzweil integral.
For bounded functions with compact support, the gauge integral coincides with the Lebesgue integral, and hence the gauge integral gives a Riemann-like definition of the Lebesgue integral for a wide class of functions. We also remark that the gauge integral is suitable for integrating classes of highly discontinuous functions, and can be viewed as a mathematically rigorous formalisation of Feynman’s path integral Reference Mul87.
A gauge is simply a function $\delta \colon [0,1]\to \mathbb{R}^+$ from the unit interval to the positive real numbers. A $\delta$-fine partition is a finite tagged partition $0=x_0 \le \xi _0 \le x_1 \le \xi _1 \le \dots \le x_n =1$ for which $\delta (\xi _i)\ge x_{i+1}-x_i$. This generalises the mesh size of a partition: a partition has mesh size $\le \delta$ if it is $\delta$-fine for the constant map with value $\delta$. The gauge integral is defined exactly like the Riemann integral, except that it allows arbitrary gauges rather than only constant ones: the integral $\int _0^1f\,dx$ is $K$ if for every $\varepsilon >0$ there is a gauge $\delta$ such that for every $\delta$-fine partition, the associated Riemann sum is within $\varepsilon$ of $K$. So every Riemann integrable function is gauge integrable, by choosing constant gauges. But also the function $x^{-1/2}$ is gauge integrable on $[0,1]$, by taking, given $\varepsilon >0$, a gauge that approaches 0 sufficiently rapidly so that the contribution of a leftmost interval to a Riemann sum cannot be unbounded. Similarly, Dirichlet’s function (the indicator function of the rationals) is integrable by taking $\delta (q_n) = \varepsilon 2^{-n}$, where ${\left\langle {q_n}\right\rangle }$ lists the rationals in $[0,1]$.
The key fact that enables the theory of the gauge integral is Cousin’s lemmaReference Cou95, which states that for any gauge $\delta$, a $\delta$-fine partition exists. Without Cousin’s lemma, Kurzweil’s definition of the gauge integral would be vacuously satisfied by all functions and all values, trivialising the notion.
The gauge integral and Cousin’s lemma have had metamathematical exploration before; notably in the setting of descriptive set theory by Dougherty and Kechris Reference DK91, Becker Reference Bec92, and Walsh Reference Wal17, for example. Recently, it was also explored in higher-order reverse mathematics by Normann and Sanders Reference NS19Reference NS20. These studies found that the gauge integral requires powerful axioms to prove. For example, working in third-order arithmetic, Normann and Sanders showed that Cousin’s lemma and the existence of the gauge integral were each equivalent to full second-order arithmetic.
The point is that Cousin’s lemma is a statement about all functions from $[0,1]$ to $\mathbb{R}^+$; no definability assumptions are involved. It is thus a statement which is not expressible in second-order arithmetic, which only allows quantification over real numbers (but not sets of real numbers). Second-order arithmetic is the study of countable mathematics, including objects which can be coded by countable objects, for instance separable metric spaces, continuous functions, and Borel sets.
Reverse mathematics of second-order arithmetic, as developed by H. Friedman and S. Simpson, is the project of understanding the proof-theoretic strength of the theorems of mathematics in terms of comprehension and induction strength required to prove them. What axioms of mathematics are actually required to prove a particular statement? The aim is to find optimal proofs, ones which require the least “amount” of axioms; and then show that these proofs are indeed the best that can be found, by finding a “reversal”: a proof of the axioms used, starting with the investigated theorem.
The main insight of the project of reverse mathematics is that almost all theorems of mainstream mathematics are equivalent to one of five axiomatic systems, and that these systems are linearly ordered by logical implication; see, for example, Reference Sim09. One advantage of working within second-order arithmetic is that the proof-theoretic strength is often aligned with complexity, as defined using the tools of computability theory. Very informally speaking, a theorem which asserts the existence of complicated objects requires strong axioms to prove, and vice versa. This connection between computability and proof theory has resulted in a rich body of research.
It is thus natural to investigate the strength of Cousin’s lemma within second-order arithmetic, but in order to do so, we must restrict ourselves to classes of countably-coded functions. In this paper we consider Borel functions, and sub-classes of these.
Below we will observe that Cousin’s lemma is a form of a compactness principle. We would thus naturally start by looking at the system $\mathsf{WKL}_{0}$ (weak König’s lemma), which informally is understood to be equivalent to the compactness of the unit interval. But more specifically, it is equivalent to countable compactness, for example, to the statement that any countable open cover of $[0,1]$ has a finite subcover Reference Sim09, Thm.IV.1.2. For continuous functions, Cousin’s lemma should be equivalent to its version for constant functions. Despite the fact that this equivalence seems to use a form of compactness, namely that continuous functions on $[0,1]$ obtain a minimum, we are able to show:
•
Cousin’s lemma for continuous gauges is equivalent to $\mathsf{WKL}_{0}$.
However, once we go up the hierarchy of Borel functions (as measured say by the Baire class of a function), it turns out that this form of uncountable compactness is significantly stronger:
•
Cousin’s lemma for Baire class 1 gauges is equivalent to $\mathsf{ACA}_{0}$.
•
Cousin’s lemma for all Borel gauges is provable in $\mathsf{ATR}_{0}+\Delta ^1_2$-induction.
•
Cousin’s lemma for Baire class 2 gauges implies $\mathsf{ATR}_{0}$.
We leave open the question of whether the extra induction is required. For background on reverse mathematics, and the definitions of these three subsystems of second-order arithmetic, see Reference Sim09.
2. Cousin’s lemma and compactness
Let $\delta \colon [0,1]\to \mathbb{R}^+$ be a gauge. We can view $\delta$ as assigning, to each $x\in [0,1]$, the open interval $(x-\delta (x), x+\delta (x))$. Cousin’s lemma is very close to saying that this open cover of the unit interval has a finite subcover. It will be easier to work with this simplified version, rather than with tagged partitions, partly because this notion can be extended to other compact metric spaces; we will be working with Cantor space as well as the unit interval.
The metamathematical twist is that for our reversals, we will be working over $\mathsf{RCA}_{0}$. Some of the gauges that we will work with may be definable in some models of $\mathsf{RCA}_{0}$, but not have values in these models. For example, we will work with Baire class 1 functions, coded in a model by a sequence of continuous functions, where the values of the functions are Cauchy sequences, which need not converge. Nonetheless, relations such as $f(x)> r$ will be still definable in the model, and this will be enough to formalise Cousin’s lemma.
In light of this, it is important to note that a $\delta$-fine tagged partition $0= x_0 \le \xi _0 \le x_1 \le \xi _1 \le \dots \le x_{n-1}\le \xi _{n-1}\le x_n = 1$, with $x_{i+1}-x_i \le \delta (\xi _i)$, gives us not only the finite set of points $\xi _i$ giving us a cover, say $[0,1]\subseteq \bigcup _i (\xi _i-2\delta (\xi _i), \xi _i + 2\delta (\xi _i))$, but also the distances $x_{i+1}-x_i$, bounded by $\delta (\xi _i)$; and while $\delta (\xi _i)$ may not be in the model, the value $x_{i+1}-x_i$ is. Thus we define:
Assuming that $\delta$ is a function coded in the model for which the relations $\delta (x)\in B$ (for an open or closed ball $B$) are defined, we have:
If not stated otherwise, we work with $X = [0,1]$. For many of our arguments, though, it will be more convenient to work in Cantor space, under the metric $d(x,y) = 2^{-n}$ for the largest $n$ satisfying $x\,\upharpoonright \,n = y\,\upharpoonright \,n$. We state one connection between Cousin’s lemma on Cantor space and on the unit interval informally. Once we work with particular classes of functions, we will see that the following argument, in each particular case, can be made to hold in $\mathsf{RCA}_{0}$.
3. The Borel case
The “classical” proof of Cousin’s lemma can be carried out in the system of $\mathsf{ATR}_{0}+\Delta ^1_2$-induction. Note that while we can formalise Borel codes and functions in $\mathsf{RCA}_{0}$, in the system $\mathsf{ATR}_{0}$ we can prove that for every Borel function $f$ and every $x$, there is a point $f(x)$ (this follows from Reference Sim09, Lem.V.3.7).
We need the following:
4. The continuous case
In this section we show that over the base system $\mathsf{RCA}_{0}$ of recursive comprehension, Cousin’s lemma for continuous functions is equivalent to weak König’s lemma $\mathsf{WKL}_{0}$. If $\delta$ is continuous then for all $x$,$\delta (x)$ exists, and so for a $\delta$-fine cover $(P,\bar{r}_p)$, we can always choose $r_p = \delta (p)$.
In one direction, the argument is quick.
Note that the argument works for Cantor space as well.
In the other direction, we could argue directly by coding a $\Pi ^0_1$ class by an effectively closed subset of $[0,1]$; but the argument is combinatorially simpler by passing via the Heine-Borel theorem.
5. Baire class 1
A function is Baire class 1 if it is the pointwise limit of continuous functions. The Baire classes were introduced by Baire in his PhD thesis Reference Bai99, as a natural generalisation of the continuous functions. One motivation for Baire functions is that many functions arising in analysis are not continuous, such as step functions Reference Hea93, Walsh functions Reference Wal23, or Dirichlet’s function Reference Dir29. However, all such “natural” functions generally have low Baire class; for example, the derivative of any differentiable function is Baire class 1, as are functions arising from Fourier series Reference KL90.
The Baire classes have previously been studied with respect to computability Reference KT14Reference PDD17. In particular, Kuyper and Terwijn showed that a real number $x$ is 1-generic if and only if every effective Baire 1 function is continuous at $x$Reference KT14. Indeed, the Turing jump function is in some sense a universal Baire class 1 function on Baire space.
In second-order arithmetic, we can formalise this notion as follows:
Note that we do not require the limit of this Cauchy sequence to exist; this would follow from arithmetic comprehension, but the definition still makes sense in $\mathsf{RCA}_{0}$. If ${\left\langle {f_n}\right\rangle }$ is a code in the model for a Baire class 1 function $f$, the relation “$f(x)\in B$” for an open or closed ball $B$ is definable, even if $f(x)$ is not an object in the model; for example, we say that $f(x)\in B(y,r)$ if for some $s<r$, for all but finitely many $n$,$f_n(x)\in B(y,s)$. Thus, it is meaningful to say that ${\left\langle {f_n}\right\rangle }$ is a code for a gauge.
In this section we show that Cousin’s lemma for Baire class 1 functions is equivalent to $\mathsf{ACA}_{0}$. We start with:
In the other direction:
The idea of the proof is as follows. Suppose we have a Cauchy sequence ${\left\langle {z_n}\right\rangle }$ with no limit. The sequence of functions $x \mapsto {\left\lvert x-z_n \right\rvert }$ determines a Baire class 1 function $\delta$, which is a gauge since ${\left\langle {z_n}\right\rangle }$ has no limit. But there cannot be any $\delta$-fine partition, since no such partition $P$ can cover the gap where $\lim z_n$ should be. Here are the details.
6. Higher Baire classes
Baire class 1 functions aren’t closed under taking pointwise limits. Indeed, by iterating the operation of taking pointwise limits, we obtain a transfinite hierarchy of functions, which exhausts all Borel functions.
In second-order arithmetic, recall that in $\mathsf{RCA}_{0}$, for a Baire class 1 function $f$, the relation $f(x)\in B$ for open or closed balls $B$ is definable even if $f(x)$ does not exist. We can therefore iterate. By (external) induction on standard $n$ we define:
Of course by taking constant sequences, we see that every Baire class $n$ function is also Baire class $n+1$, so the classes are increasing.
$\mathsf{ACA}_{0}$ implies, for each $n$, that if $f$ is Baire class $n$ then $f(x)$ exists for all $x$. Similarly to Theorem 5.2, the inverse images of open sets by Baire class $n$ functions are $\Sigma ^0_{1+n}$. We can further extend the definition to Baire class $\alpha$ functions for ordinals $\alpha$; a code in this case is an $\alpha$-ranked well-founded tree, where each non-leaf has full splitting, the leaves are labeled by continuous functions, and each non-leaf node represents the pointwise limit of the functions represented by its children. The relation $f(x)\in U$ is then defined by transfinite recursion on the rank of a node, and so it makes most sense to use $\mathsf{ATR}_{0}$ as a base system for this kind of development; we do not pursue it here. We remark that $\mathsf{ATR}_{0}$ implies that every Borel function is Baire class $\alpha$ for some $\alpha$.Footnote1
1
This follows from the fact that every well-founded tree is ranked; see Reference Hir00.
Now the proof of Theorem 5.4 cannot be replicated for Baire class $n$ functions for any for $n>1$. While $\mathsf{ACA}_{0}$ suffices to determine if a given $\Sigma ^0_2$ subset of Cantor space is empty or not, it is $\Pi ^1_1$-complete to determine whether a given $\Pi ^0_2$ set is empty.Footnote2 And indeed we show that Cousin’s lemma for Baire class 2 functions is much stronger than $\mathsf{ACA}_{0}$: it implies $\mathsf{ATR}_{0}$.
2
Every $\Sigma ^1_1$ set is the projection of a $\Pi ^0_2$ set in Cantor space (see for example Reference Sac90, Thm.I.1.5), and the question of whether a $\Sigma ^1_1$ set is empty or not is equivalent to a question about well-foundedness of a tree, which is $\Pi ^1_1$-complete.
It would again be more convenient to work in Cantor space, and so we need a converse of Theorem 2.4.
Of course there is nothing special for the case $n=2$, the lemma holds for all Baire classes.
Before we give the reversal, we motivate our technique by showing something weaker: that $\mathsf{ACA}_{0}$ does not imply Cousin’s lemma for Baire class 2 functions. We will show that every $\omega$-model of $\mathsf{RCA}_{0}+$Cousin’s lemma for Baire class 2 functions must contain $0^{(\omega )}$ (in fact $0^{(\alpha )}$ for any computable ordinal $\alpha$), in particular Cousin’s lemma for Baire class 2 functions fails in the model consisting of the arithmetic sets.
We review some definitions. The Turing jump $x'$ of $x\in 2^\omega$ is the complete $\Sigma ^0_1(x)$ set, identified with an element of $2^\omega$. As mentioned above, the function $x\mapsto x'$ is Baire class 1, but more importantly, its graph (the relation $y = x'$) is $\Pi ^0_2$. We will use the following well-known fact, which is provable in $\mathsf{ACA}_{0}$:
As a result we get:
Recall the definition of a transfinite iteration of the Turing jump. Suppose that $\alpha$ is a linear ordering of a subset of $\mathbb{N}$, which will usually be well-founded. An iteration of the Turing jump along $\alpha$ is a set $H\subseteq \alpha \times \mathbb{N}$ satisfying, for all $\beta <\alpha$,
where $H^{[\beta ]} = \left\{ k \,:\, (\beta ,k)\in H \right\}$ and $H^{[<\beta ]} = \left\{ (\gamma ,k)\in H \,:\, \gamma <\beta \right\}$. Again note that we view the domain of $\alpha$ as a subset of $\mathbb{N}$, so both $H^{[\beta ]}$ and $H^{[<\beta ]}$ are identified with elements of Cantor space, and so taking the Turing jump makes sense.
If $\alpha$ is indeed an ordinal (is well-founded), then $\mathsf{ACA}_{0}$ implies there is at most one iteration of the Turing jump along $\alpha$, and if $H$ is such, we write $H = 0^{(\alpha )}$. When this is relativised to an oracle $x$, we write $H = x^{(\alpha )}$. The relation “$H$ is an iteration of the Turing jump along $\alpha$” is $\Pi ^0_2$.$\mathsf{ATR}_{0}$ is equivalent to the statement that for all ordinals $\alpha$ and all $x$,$x^{(\alpha )}$ exists Reference Sim09, Thm.VIII.3.15.
Now let $\mathcal{M}$ be an $\omega$-model of $\mathsf{ACA}_{0}$, let $\alpha$ be a computable ordinal, and suppose that $0^{(\omega )}\notin \mathcal{M}$; we show that Cousin’s lemma for Baire class 2 functions fails in $\mathcal{M}$. Let $X\in 2^\omega$. If $X\ne 0^{(\omega )}$, there is some $n<\omega$ such that
let $n(X)$ be the least such $n$. The function $X\mapsto n(X)$ (as well as its domain) is $\Delta ^0_3$. Further, for such $X$, we let $k(X)$ be the least $k$ such that
Since $0^{(\omega )}\notin \mathcal{M}$,$f$ is total on $2^\omega \cap \mathcal{M}$, and since $\mathcal{M}$ is an $\omega$-model, the same $\Delta ^0_3$ definition holds in $\mathcal{M}$, so $\mathcal{M}$ believes that $f$ is a Baire class 2 gauge on Cantor space. Let $P\subset 2^\omega \cap \mathcal{M}$ be finite. Since $0^{(\omega )}\notin P$, we have
But since $P$ is finite, the latter fact is absolute for $\mathcal{M}$ (the set $\bigcup _{X\in P} [X\,\upharpoonright \,f(X)]$ is a clopen set and so its complement is a non-empty clopen set; $\mathcal{M}$ contains an element of any non-empty clopen set). Hence Theorem 6.4 fails in $\mathcal{M}$.
Exactly the same argument shows that for any computable ordinal $\alpha$,$0^{(\alpha )}$ is an element of every $\omega$-model of Cousin’s lemma for Baire class 2 functions. The more general argument below builds on this technique. In the meantime, we note that this argument gives a purely computability-theoretic result:
René-Louis Baire, Sur les fonctions de variables réelles, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 3 (1899), no. 1, 1–123.
[Bar20]
Jordan Mitchell Barrett, The reverse mathematics of Cousin’s lemma, Honours Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 2020.
Reference [Bec92]
Howard Becker, Descriptive set-theoretic phenomena in analysis and topology, Set theory of the continuum (Berkeley, CA, 1989), Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., vol. 26, Springer, New York, 1992, pp. 1–25, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4613-9754-0_1. MR1233807, Show rawAMSref\bib{Bec92}{article}{
label={Bec92},
author={Becker, Howard},
title={Descriptive set-theoretic phenomena in analysis and topology},
conference={ title={Set theory of the continuum}, address={Berkeley, CA}, date={1989}, },
book={ series={Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ.}, volume={26}, publisher={Springer, New York}, },
date={1992},
pages={1--25},
review={\MR {1233807}},
doi={10.1007/978-1-4613-9754-0\_1},
}
Reference [Cou95]
Pierre Cousin, Sur les fonctions de $n$ variables complexes(French), Acta Math. 19 (1895), no. 1, 1–61, DOI 10.1007/BF02402869. MR1554861, Show rawAMSref\bib{cousinFonctionsVariablesComplexes1895}{article}{
label={Cou95},
author={Cousin, Pierre},
title={Sur les fonctions de $n$ variables complexes},
language={French},
journal={Acta Math.},
volume={19},
date={1895},
number={1},
pages={1--61},
issn={0001-5962},
review={\MR {1554861}},
doi={10.1007/BF02402869},
}
Reference [Den12]
Arnaud Denjoy, Une extension de l’intégrale de M. Lebesgue, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 154 (1912), 859–862.
Reference [Dir29]
G. Lejeune Dirichlet, Sur la convergence des séries trigonométriques qui servent à représenter une fonction arbitraire entre des limites données(French), J. Reine Angew. Math. 4 (1829), 157–169, DOI 10.1515/crll.1829.4.157. MR1577724, Show rawAMSref\bib{dirichletConvergenceSeriesTrigonometriques1829}{article}{
label={Dir29},
author={Lejeune Dirichlet, G.},
title={Sur la convergence des s\'{e}ries trigonom\'{e}triques qui servent \`a repr\'{e}senter une fonction arbitraire entre des limites donn\'{e}es},
language={French},
journal={J. Reine Angew. Math.},
volume={4},
date={1829},
pages={157--169},
issn={0075-4102},
review={\MR {1577724}},
doi={10.1515/crll.1829.4.157},
}
Reference [DK91]
Randall Dougherty and Alexander S. Kechris, The complexity of antidifferentiation, Adv. Math. 88 (1991), no. 2, 145–169, DOI 10.1016/0001-8708(91)90006-S. MR1120611, Show rawAMSref\bib{DK91}{article}{
label={DK91},
author={Dougherty, Randall},
author={Kechris, Alexander S.},
title={The complexity of antidifferentiation},
journal={Adv. Math.},
volume={88},
date={1991},
number={2},
pages={145--169},
issn={0001-8708},
review={\MR {1120611}},
doi={10.1016/0001-8708(91)90006-S},
}
Reference [Gor94]
Russell A. Gordon, The integrals of Lebesgue, Denjoy, Perron, and Henstock, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 4, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1994, DOI 10.1090/gsm/004. MR1288751, Show rawAMSref\bib{gordonIntegralsLebesgueDenjoy1994}{book}{
label={Gor94},
author={Gordon, Russell A.},
title={The integrals of Lebesgue, Denjoy, Perron, and Henstock},
series={Graduate Studies in Mathematics},
volume={4},
publisher={American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI},
date={1994},
pages={xii+395},
isbn={0-8218-3805-9},
review={\MR {1288751}},
doi={10.1090/gsm/004},
}
Reference [Gor97]
Russell A. Gordon, Is nonabsolute integration worth doing?, Real Anal. Exchange 22 (1996/97), no. 1, 23–33. Summer Symposium in Real Analysis, XX (Windsor, ON, 1996). MR1433598, Show rawAMSref\bib{gordonNonabsoluteIntegrationWorth1996}{article}{
label={Gor97},
author={Gordon, Russell A.},
title={Is nonabsolute integration worth doing?},
note={Summer Symposium in Real Analysis, XX (Windsor, ON, 1996)},
journal={Real Anal. Exchange},
volume={22},
date={1996/97},
number={1},
pages={23--33},
issn={0147-1937},
review={\MR {1433598}},
}
Reference [Hea93]
Oliver Heaviside, Electromagnetic Theory, volume 1. The Electrician Printing and Publishing Company, London, 1893.
Reference [Hir00]
Jeffry L. Hirst, Reverse mathematics and rank functions for directed graphs, Arch. Math. Logic 39 (2000), no. 8, 569–579, DOI 10.1007/s001530050165. MR1797809, Show rawAMSref\bib{Hirst}{article}{
label={Hir00},
author={Hirst, Jeffry L.},
title={Reverse mathematics and rank functions for directed graphs},
journal={Arch. Math. Logic},
volume={39},
date={2000},
number={8},
pages={569--579},
issn={0933-5846},
review={\MR {1797809}},
doi={10.1007/s001530050165},
}
Reference [KL90]
A. S. Kechris and A. Louveau, A classification of Baire class $1$ functions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 318 (1990), no. 1, 209–236, DOI 10.2307/2001236. MR946424, Show rawAMSref\bib{kechrisClassificationBaireClass1990}{article}{
label={KL90},
author={Kechris, A. S.},
author={Louveau, A.},
title={A classification of Baire class $1$ functions},
journal={Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.},
volume={318},
date={1990},
number={1},
pages={209--236},
issn={0002-9947},
review={\MR {946424}},
doi={10.2307/2001236},
}
Reference [KT14]
Rutger Kuyper and Sebastiaan A. Terwijn, Effective genericity and differentiability, J. Log. Anal. 6 (2014), Paper 4, 14, DOI 10.4115/jla.2014.6.4. MR3257036, Show rawAMSref\bib{kuyperEffectiveGenericityDifferentiability2014}{article}{
label={KT14},
author={Kuyper, Rutger},
author={Terwijn, Sebastiaan A.},
title={Effective genericity and differentiability},
journal={J. Log. Anal.},
volume={6},
date={2014},
pages={Paper 4, 14},
review={\MR {3257036}},
doi={10.4115/jla.2014.6.4},
}
Reference [Kur57]
Jaroslav Kurzweil, Generalized ordinary differential equations and continuous dependence on a parameter(Russian), Czechoslovak Math. J. 7(82) (1957), 418–449. MR111875, Show rawAMSref\bib{kurzweilGeneralizedOrdinaryDifferential1}{article}{
label={Kur57},
author={Kurzweil, Jaroslav},
title={Generalized ordinary differential equations and continuous dependence on a parameter},
language={Russian},
journal={Czechoslovak Math. J.},
volume={7(82)},
date={1957},
pages={418--449},
issn={0011-4642},
review={\MR {111875}},
}
Reference [Luz12]
Nikolai N. Luzin, Sur les propriétés de l’intégrale de M. Denjoy, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 155 (1912), 1475–1478.
Reference [Mul87]
P. Muldowney, A general theory of integration in function spaces, including Wiener and Feynman integration, Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics Series, vol. 153, Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow; John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1987. MR887535, Show rawAMSref\bib{muldowney}{book}{
label={Mul87},
author={Muldowney, P.},
title={A general theory of integration in function spaces, including Wiener and Feynman integration},
series={Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics Series},
volume={153},
publisher={Longman Scientific \& Technical, Harlow; John Wiley \& Sons, Inc., New York},
date={1987},
pages={viii+115},
isbn={0-582-99465-9},
review={\MR {887535}},
}
Reference [NS19]
Dag Normann and Sam Sanders, On the mathematical and foundational significance of the uncountable, J. Math. Log. 19 (2019), no. 1, 1950001, 40, DOI 10.1142/S0219061319500016. MR3960896, Show rawAMSref\bib{sandersNormannCousin}{article}{
label={NS19},
author={Normann, Dag},
author={Sanders, Sam},
title={On the mathematical and foundational significance of the uncountable},
journal={J. Math. Log.},
volume={19},
date={2019},
number={1},
pages={1950001, 40},
issn={0219-0613},
review={\MR {3960896}},
doi={10.1142/S0219061319500016},
}
Reference [NS20]
Dag Normann and Sam Sanders, Open sets in computability theory and reverse mathematics, J. Logic Comput. 30 (2020), no. 8, 1639–1679, DOI 10.1093/logcom/exaa049. MR4182786, Show rawAMSref\bib{MR4182786}{article}{
label={NS20},
author={Normann, Dag},
author={Sanders, Sam},
title={Open sets in computability theory and reverse mathematics},
journal={J. Logic Comput.},
volume={30},
date={2020},
number={8},
pages={1639--1679},
issn={0955-792X},
review={\MR {4182786}},
doi={10.1093/logcom/exaa049},
}
Reference [PDD17]
Michelle Porter, Adam Day, and Rodney Downey, Notes on computable analysis, Theory Comput. Syst. 60 (2017), no. 1, 53–111, DOI 10.1007/s00224-016-9732-y. MR3596781, Show rawAMSref\bib{porterNotesComputableAnalysis2017}{article}{
label={PDD17},
author={Porter, Michelle},
author={Day, Adam},
author={Downey, Rodney},
title={Notes on computable analysis},
journal={Theory Comput. Syst.},
volume={60},
date={2017},
number={1},
pages={53--111},
issn={1432-4350},
review={\MR {3596781}},
doi={10.1007/s00224-016-9732-y},
}
Reference [Per14]
Oskar Perron, Über den Integralbegriff, Sitzungsberichte, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1914.
Reference [Sac90]
Gerald E. Sacks, Higher recursion theory, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990, DOI 10.1007/BFb0086109. MR1080970, Show rawAMSref\bib{Sacks}{book}{
label={Sac90},
author={Sacks, Gerald E.},
title={Higher recursion theory},
series={Perspectives in Mathematical Logic},
publisher={Springer-Verlag, Berlin},
date={1990},
pages={xvi+344},
isbn={3-540-19305-7},
review={\MR {1080970}},
doi={10.1007/BFb0086109},
}
Reference [Sim09]
Stephen G. Simpson, Subsystems of second order arithmetic, 2nd ed., Perspectives in Logic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; Association for Symbolic Logic, Poughkeepsie, NY, 2009, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511581007. MR2517689, Show rawAMSref\bib{simpsonSubsystemsSecondOrder2009}{book}{
label={Sim09},
author={Simpson, Stephen G.},
title={Subsystems of second order arithmetic},
series={Perspectives in Logic},
edition={2},
publisher={Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; Association for Symbolic Logic, Poughkeepsie, NY},
date={2009},
pages={xvi+444},
isbn={978-0-521-88439-6},
review={\MR {2517689}},
doi={10.1017/CBO9780511581007},
}
Reference [Soa87]
Robert I. Soare, Recursively enumerable sets and degrees, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987. A study of computable functions and computably generated sets, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-02460-7. MR882921, Show rawAMSref\bib{Soare}{book}{
label={Soa87},
author={Soare, Robert I.},
title={Recursively enumerable sets and degrees},
series={Perspectives in Mathematical Logic},
note={A study of computable functions and computably generated sets},
publisher={Springer-Verlag, Berlin},
date={1987},
pages={xviii+437},
isbn={3-540-15299-7},
review={\MR {882921}},
doi={10.1007/978-3-662-02460-7},
}
Reference [Wal23]
J. L. Walsh, A closed set of normal orthogonal functions, Amer. J. Math. 45 (1923), no. 1, 5–24, DOI 10.2307/2387224. MR1506485, Show rawAMSref\bib{walshClosedSetNormal1923}{article}{
label={Wal23},
author={Walsh, J. L.},
title={A closed set of normal orthogonal functions},
journal={Amer. J. Math.},
volume={45},
date={1923},
number={1},
pages={5--24},
issn={0002-9327},
review={\MR {1506485}},
doi={10.2307/2387224},
}
Reference [Wal17]
Sean Walsh, Definability aspects of the Denjoy integral, Fund. Math. 237 (2017), no. 1, 1–29, DOI 10.4064/fm773-9-2016. MR3606396, Show rawAMSref\bib{WalshDefin}{article}{
label={Wal17},
author={Walsh, Sean},
title={Definability aspects of the Denjoy integral},
journal={Fund. Math.},
volume={237},
date={2017},
number={1},
pages={1--29},
issn={0016-2736},
review={\MR {3606396}},
doi={10.4064/fm773-9-2016},
}
The second and third authors were partially supported by the Marsden Fund of New Zealand. Many of the results in this paper are also contained in Barrett’s honours thesis.
Note. To explore an equation, focus it (e.g., by clicking on it) and use the arrow keys to navigate its structure. Screenreader users should be advised that enabling speech synthesis will lead to duplicate aural rendering.