Cointerpretability
Open-knowledge reference entry

In mathematical logic, cointerpretability is a binary relation on formal theories: a formal theory T is cointerpretable in another such theory S when the language of S can be translated into the language of T in such a way that S proves every formula whose translation is a theorem of T. The "translation" here is required to preserve the logical structure of formulas.
This concept, in a sense dual to interpretability, was introduced by Japaridze (1993), who also proved that, for theories of Peano arithmetic and any stronger theories with computable axiomatizations, cointerpretability is equivalent to
Σ
1
{\displaystyle \Sigma _{1}}
-conservativity.
See also
Cotolerance
Interpretability logic
Tolerance (in logic)
References
Japaridze, Giorgi (1993), "A generalized notion of weak interpretability and the corresponding modal logic", Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 61 (1–2): 113–160, doi:10.1016/0168-0072(93)90201-N, MR 1218658.
Japaridze, Giorgi; de Jongh, Dick (1998), "The logic of provability", in Buss, Samuel R. (ed.), Handbook of Proof Theory, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 137, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 475–546, doi:10.1016/S0049-237X(98)80022-0, MR 1640331.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Cointerpretability” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Cointerpretability, Open-knowledge and entry, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 22, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5141644. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1993, 1016 and 1998.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Cointerpretability”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Cointerpretability primary sources, Cointerpretability archive and Cointerpretability research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Cointerpretability”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Cointerpretability” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.