Article · Wikipedia archive · Last revised Jun 19, 2026

Conservative extension

In mathematical logic, a conservative extension is a supertheory of a theory which is often convenient for proving theorems, but proves no new theorems about the language of the original theory. Similarly, a non-conservative extension, or proper extension, is a supertheory which is not conservative, and can prove more theorems than the original.

Last revised
Jun 19, 2026
Read time
≈ 4 min
Length
859 w
Citations
6
Source

In mathematical logic, a conservative extension is a supertheory of a theory which is often convenient for proving theorems, but proves no new theorems about the language of the original theory. Similarly, a non-conservative extension, or proper extension, is a supertheory which is not conservative, and can prove more theorems than the original.

More formally stated, a theory T 2 {\displaystyle T_{2}} is a (proof theoretic) conservative extension of a theory T 1 {\displaystyle T_{1}} if every theorem of T 1 {\displaystyle T_{1}} is a theorem of T 2 {\displaystyle T_{2}} , and any theorem of T 2 {\displaystyle T_{2}} in the language of T 1 {\displaystyle T_{1}} is already a theorem of T 1 {\displaystyle T_{1}} .

More generally, if Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } is a set of formulas in the common language of T 1 {\displaystyle T_{1}} and T 2 {\displaystyle T_{2}} , then T 2 {\displaystyle T_{2}} is Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } -conservative over T 1 {\displaystyle T_{1}} if every formula from Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } provable in T 2 {\displaystyle T_{2}} is also provable in T 1 {\displaystyle T_{1}} .

Note that a conservative extension of a consistent theory is consistent. If it were not, then by the principle of explosion, every formula in the language of T 2 {\displaystyle T_{2}} would be a theorem of T 2 {\displaystyle T_{2}} , so every formula in the language of T 1 {\displaystyle T_{1}} would be a theorem of T 1 {\displaystyle T_{1}} , so T 1 {\displaystyle T_{1}} would not be consistent. Hence, conservative extensions do not bear the risk of introducing new inconsistencies. This can also be seen as a methodology for writing and structuring large theories: start with a theory, T 0 {\displaystyle T_{0}} , that is known (or assumed) to be consistent, and successively build conservative extensions T 1 {\displaystyle T_{1}} , T 2 {\displaystyle T_{2}} , ... of it.

Recently, conservative extensions have been used for defining a notion of module for ontologies: if an ontology is formalized as a logical theory, a subtheory is a module if the whole ontology is a conservative extension of the subtheory.

Examples

Model-theoretic conservative extension

With model-theoretic means, a stronger notion is obtained: an extension T 2 {\displaystyle T_{2}} of a theory T 1 {\displaystyle T_{1}} is model-theoretically conservative if T 1 T 2 {\displaystyle T_{1}\subseteq T_{2}} and every model of T 1 {\displaystyle T_{1}} can be expanded to a model of T 2 {\displaystyle T_{2}} . Each model-theoretic conservative extension also is a (proof-theoretic) conservative extension in the above sense.5 The model theoretic notion has the advantage over the proof theoretic one that it does not depend so much on the language at hand; on the other hand, it is usually harder to establish model theoretic conservativity.

See also

See also

References

References

  1. S. G. Simpson, R. L. Smith, "Factorization of polynomials and Σ 1 0 {\displaystyle \Sigma _{1}^{0}} -induction" (1986). Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 31 (p.305)
  2. Fernando Ferreira, A Simple Proof of Parsons' Theorem. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, Vol.46, No.1, 2005.
  3. Michael Rathjen, Power Kripke-Platek set theory and the axiom of choice. Journal of Logic and Computation, Vol.30, No.1, 2018.
  4. Richard Platek, Eliminating the continuum hypothesis. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol.36, No.1, 1969.
  5. Hodges, Wilfrid (1997). A shorter model theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 58 exercise 8. ISBN 978-0-521-58713-6.
External links