Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

If I am not wrong, every $\Sigma_n$ (or $\Pi_n$ ) statement $\phi$ is equivalent to a statement that says that a given Turing machine halts (or doesn't halt) on input $C$ using a $\Sigma_{n-1}$-oracle. Then, because we do not have oracles, we shouldn't be able to prove any such statement with $n\geq 2$ within PA, even if $\phi$ is true in the standard N.

If the answer to the question is yes, does that mean that any theory stronger than PA that proves a $\phi$ true in N (but independent of PA) equivalent to introducing axioms about oracles? Are then math theories (or formal systems) stronger than PA ontologically equivalent to educated guesses about oracles?

Bonus question: Is the CH or any other axiom of set theory and beyond equivalent to some kind of transfinite halting question using some kind of "super" oracle?

More distilled question: I agree that even if ϕ is independent from PA, ϕ∨¬ϕ is not, because it is a tautology. Then, for instance, if ϕ∨¬ϕ is Σ3, then ϕ∨¬ϕ is equivalent to state that a given Turing machine halts on input C using a Σ2-oracle (and that will be true). Now, does the fact that we were able to prove ϕ∨¬ϕ mean that the oracle is not necessary? or stating it in a different way, doest it mean that, even if ϕ∨¬ϕ is Σ3, and because it can be proved, it is also equivalent to state that the same Turing machine will halt on input C even without an oracle?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote accepted

The statement about oracles is known as Post's theorem.

You can certainly prove statements in PA of arbitrarily high quantifier complexity. For example, every instance of $\phi \lor \lnot \phi$ is provable in PA, regardless of the quantifier structure of $\phi$. Similarly, the induction scheme in PA contains formulas that are arbitrarily high in the arithmetical hierarchy.

The continuum hypothesis is (equivalent to) a $\Sigma^2_1$ formula. Thus you can indeed view it as solved by the "super oracle" that is able to decide this kind of type 2 quantification, namely existential quantifiers over functions from $\omega^\omega$ to $\omega$ applied to formulas of second-order arithmetic with variables for such functions. But at that level we are very, very far from "computability" in the usual sense.

share|improve this answer
    
I am confused now (I mean, more than before): if we can prove $\phi \lor \lnot \phi$ for any $\phi$ (which I agree) what is the meaning Post's theorem? I mean, does it mean that there are oracles that we can "know", I mean solve a non-computable halting problem? –  julian fernandez Nov 13 '12 at 19:27
    
Just because we can prove $\phi \lor \lnot \phi$ does not mean in general that we can prove $\phi$ nor that we can prove $\lnot \phi$. Post's theorem shows, among other things, that if we just look at the formulas that are $\Sigma^0_n$ for some $n$ then the oracle $\emptyset^{(n)}$ is able to compute the set of such formulas that are true in the standard model. But there is no way to compute that oracle by just searching through proofs. –  Carl Mummert Nov 13 '12 at 20:16
    
Indeed for an independent $\Sigma^0_1$ sentence $\psi$, we will be able to prove $\psi \lor \lnot \psi$ but not able to prove $\psi$ itself nor prove its negation. So whether this sentence is true in the standard model - which is what the oracle $\emptyset'$ can tell us - we cannot discover it by searching through all the proofs. –  Carl Mummert Nov 13 '12 at 20:19
    
I think I understand what you said, but I have a more specific question, which is too long for a comment, so I added it at the end of the original question. –  julian fernandez Nov 13 '12 at 23:08
2  
An example of a nontrivial statement provable in PA is this finite version of Ramsey's theorem: for every $k$ and $M$ there is an $N$ such that for every $k$-coloring of the natural numbers from $1$ to $N$ there are at least $M$ numbers in that range which receive the same color. That statement takes some work to express as a formula in the language of arithmetic, but just looking at the quantifiers in English shows it is at least $\Pi^0_4$. –  Carl Mummert Nov 15 '12 at 16:18
show 2 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.