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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $T$ be a theory and let $\phi,\psi$ be statements that are independent of $T$. Say that $\psi$ is a $T$-weakening of $\phi$ if $T$ proves $\phi \Rightarrow \psi$ but cannot prove $\psi \Rightarrow \phi$, and say that $\phi$ is $T$-basic if there is no $T$-weakening of $\phi$.

If $T$ is at least as strong as Peano arithmetic, do $T$-basic sentences always exist? Is $\phi$ $T$-basic when $T$ is ZFC minus infinity and $\phi$ is the axiom of infinity?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 7 down vote accepted

For any theory which is essentially incomplete -- meaning there is no effective complete theory extending it -- there are no basic sentences. Because if $\phi$ is independent, so is $\lnot \phi$, and if $\phi$ has no weakening over $T$ then $\lnot \phi$ has no consistent strengthening over $T$, so $T + \lnot \phi$ is a complete extension of $T$.

The more technical way to say this is that the Lindenbaum algebra of an essentially incomplete theory is always atomless. Any theory which interprets Peano arithmetic (or even interprets some weaker arithmetical theory) is essentially incomplete.

share|cite|improve this answer
Comment, part 1 :Why is it that if $\phi$ has no weakening over $T$ then $\lnot \phi$ has no consistent strengthening over $T$ ? – Ewan Delanoy Oct 2 '11 at 14:03
Comment, part 2 :I suppose this follows from the contraposite, so that if $\lnot\phi$ has a consistent strenthening over $T$, which means that there is a $\psi$ that is independent from $T+\lnot\phi$, then we should be able to construct a $T$-weakening of $\phi$ from $\psi$. – Ewan Delanoy Oct 2 '11 at 14:03
Comment, part 3 : All we know is that $T$ cannot prove $\lnot\phi \Rightarrow \psi$ or $\lnot\phi \Rightarrow \lnot\psi$. By contraposition, we see that $T$ cannot prove $\lnot\psi \Rightarrow \phi$ or $\psi \Rightarrow \phi$. So $\psi$ and $\not\psi$ are candidates for the weakening we are looking for, but we are not done yet : it is unclear (at least to me) if $\phi \Rightarrow \psi$ or $\phi \Rightarrow \lnot\psi$. – Ewan Delanoy Oct 2 '11 at 14:06
A strengthening $\psi$ of $\lnot \phi$ would have the properties that $T \vdash \psi \to \lnot \phi$ and $T \not \vdash \lnot \phi \to \psi$. Take contrapositives of both: $T \vdash \phi \to \lnot \psi$ and $T \not \vdash \lnot \psi \to \phi$. So $\lnot \psi$ is a weakening of $\phi$. (This is really just the fact that, in a Boolean algebra, $a < b$ if and only if $b^c < a^c$.) Also $T \vdash \lnot \psi$ if and only if $T + \psi$ is inconsistent. – Carl Mummert Oct 2 '11 at 16:05

Your Answer


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.