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.

Edward Nelson has started writing out the details of a proof of the inconsistency of a version of arithmetic. I'm an undergraduate trying to read through this slowly and carefully.

I've run into a problem, however, with one of his arguments on page 11. It's a proof that "there is a specific number that is not a finite number", which he attributes to Simon Kochen. I did a little digging, and found he had written up a better version of the argument on page 74 of his 1986 book "Predicative Arithmetic" (available on his website). For your convenience, here are just the relevant pages:

page 73 from Predicative Arithmetic page 74 from Predicative Arithmetic

My problem is specifically these two sentences:

Let $D$ be the unary formula $C[n] \rightarrow \forall n C[n]$. Then $\exists n D[n]$ is provable, since it is equivalent to the tautology $\forall n C[n] \rightarrow \forall n C[n]$.

How in God's name is $\exists n D[n]$ equivalent to $\forall n C[n] \rightarrow \forall n C[n]$?

share|improve this question
    
Proving Peano arithmetic inconsistent is an ambitious goal indeed. Possibly that enterprise would be more convincing if it resulted in a machine-readable formal proof of $1=0$ rather than in English prose ... but that's probably not your fault. –  Henning Makholm Sep 30 '11 at 5:54
5  
There's a discussion about his project at golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2011/09/…. –  Hans Lundmark Sep 30 '11 at 6:01
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 10 down vote accepted

$$\exists n.(C[n]\to\forall n.C[n])$$ $$\exists n.(C[n]\to\forall m.C[m])$$ $$\exists n.(\neg C[n] \lor \forall m.C[m])$$ $$(\exists n.\neg C[n]) \lor (\exists n.\forall m.C[m])$$ $$(\neg\forall n.C[n]) \lor (\forall m.C[m])$$ $$(\forall n.C[n]) \to (\forall m.C[m])$$ $$(\forall n.C[n]) \to (\forall n.C[n])$$ because $(A\to B)\leftrightarrow (\neg A\lor B)$ and $A\leftrightarrow \exists x.A$ when $A$ does not contain $x$.

share|improve this answer
1  
Ah, perfect! I was using the heuristic translation "There exists a man such that if he is bald, all men are bald." I see now I was missing the obvious! If there is a non-bald man, Joe, then it's trivially true that "If Joe is bald, all men are bald".If all men are bald, then it's also trivially true. –  James Moody Sep 30 '11 at 6:02
1  
Well, it is at least somewhat non-intuitive -- enough that the intuitionistic movement in the early 1900s denied that this reasoning is valid. –  Henning Makholm Sep 30 '11 at 6:55
1  
@James Raymond Smullyan presents this confusing bit of reasoning in the following form: "There exists a person $P$ such that, if $P$ drinks, then everybody drinks." For if $P$ is a nondrinker, the claim is vacuously true, and if there is no such $P$, then indeed everybody drinks. –  MJD May 24 '12 at 4:28
add comment

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.