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 have a theory with the following axioms:

  1. $\forall x.(x=x)$

  2. $\forall x\forall y.\left(x=y\rightarrow\left(\varphi\left(x,x\right)\rightarrow\varphi\left(x,y\right)\right)\right)$, where $\varphi$ is any atomic formula.

And any model of these axioms is an equivalence relation, how do I prove that this theory isn't complete?

share|improve this question
    
What is the signature of your model? if it is just "=" as a binary relation, then φ(x,y) (being atomic) can only be x=y, it seems to me. If you allow φ to be any (also non atomic) formula, then your signature has infinite binary relations. Also: the sentence "And any model of these axioms is an equivalence relation" simply means that the "=" theory also has the axioms of an equivalence theory (for ex. x=y and y=z → x=z). Am I correct? –  magma Dec 19 '11 at 9:21
    
I would like to edit my previous comment, but i do not see how.So - in my previous comment - please replace the sentence:"if you allow...." with "If you alllow φ to be any other binary relation (that is different from "=") , then your signature has infinite binary relations, so it is in fact a scheme". –  magma Dec 19 '11 at 13:41
add comment

1 Answer 1

Let $\phi$ be the sentence $\forall x \forall y (x=y)$. Is $\phi$ a theorem? Is $\lnot\phi$ a theorem?

share|improve this answer
    
Well...is it or is it not? Can someone please formally prove that it is unprovable? –  magma Dec 19 '11 at 9:23
    
It is incomplete. The obvious argument is model-theoretic. There is a model with more than $1$ element. So $\phi$ cannot be a theorem. there is a model with $1$ element. So $\lnot\phi$ cannot be a theorem. –  André Nicolas Dec 19 '11 at 10:13
    
I agree with you. Actually, by the same argument, ∀x∀y φ(x,y) is unprovable. Yet I am a bit puzzled...This question looks like a problem from a textbook and it looks like there is more to it then what is described here. Let's see if the OP comes up with a comment –  magma Dec 19 '11 at 17:09
    
@magma: Yes, context is not supplied, and it would be nice to know whether there is something more interesting going on. As you pointed out, it would be nice to have a full conventional quick description of the language. –  André Nicolas Dec 19 '11 at 17:45
    
You seem to be good at model-theory. You might like to take a look at my other question math.stackexchange.com/q/92258/19609 –  magma Dec 19 '11 at 19:07
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.