Return-Path: <john.harrison-request@uk.ac.cam.cl>
Delivery-Date: 
Received: from ted.cs.uidaho.edu (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk 
          with SMTP (PP-6.4) outside ac.uk; Sat, 13 Feb 1993 12:36:01 +0000
Received: by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA07507;
          Sat, 13 Feb 93 04:28:21 -0800
Sender: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted
Errors-To: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted
Precedence: bulk
Received: from moa.pmms.cam.ac.uk by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA07502;
          Sat, 13 Feb 93 04:28:15 -0800
Received: by moa.pmms.cam.ac.uk (UK-Smail 3.1.25.1/1); Sat, 13 Feb 93 12:26 GMT
Message-Id: <m0nNLxC-0000aWC@moa.pmms.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 12:26 GMT
From: Thomas Forster <T.Forster@uk.ac.cam.pmms>
To: R.B.Jones@uk.co.icl.wins.win0109, info-hol@edu.uidaho.cs.ted
Subject: Re: A definition of Proof Theoretic strength

The interpretation should really be pretty simple!  One usually insists
that it should be recursive: it's not a lot of use o/w.
                Thomas