4
$\begingroup$

This question is inspired by this previous question.

It is not too hard - although a bit subtle - to show that if $F_1, F_2$ are two theories in the language of arithmetic which

  • are recursively axiomatizable,

  • extend PA, and

  • $(\dagger)$ PA proves that $F_1, F_2$ each extend PA,

then if $F_1\vdash Con(F_2)$ and $F_2\vdash Con(F_1)$ we have $F_1, F_2$ are inconsistent.

These hypotheses can be weakened in a few ways; my question is whether the third can be done away with completely:

Are there recursively axiomatizable theories $F_1, F_2$ extending $PA$ which are consistent, but which prove each others' consistency?


A brief word on why $(\dagger)$ appears necessary: the idea is to argue that if $F_1$ is inconsistent, then $F_2$ knows this, and moreover $F_1$ knows that. To do this, however, we need to argue that $F_1$ knows that $F_2$ proves every true $\Sigma_1$ sentence. Of course, if $F_2$ contains $PA$ then that is correct, but why should $F_1$ know it without $(\dagger)$?


EDIT: Let me clarify how there can be recursively axiomatizable theories which contain $PA$, but don't satisfy $(\dagger)$. First, note that the statement "$Prov_{PA}(\varphi)\implies Prov_T(\varphi)$ (in English, "$T$ contains $PA$") is not $\Sigma_1$, but rather $\Sigma_1\vee\Pi_1$; so while $PA$ does prove every true $\Sigma_1$ sentence, that doesn't help us here.

That said, how can we construct an example of a theory containing $PA$ but not "visibly"?

Fix an effective enumeration $\{\varphi_n: n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ of $PA$, and let $$T=\{\varphi_n: \mbox{there is no contradiction in $PA+Con(PA)$ of length $<n$}\}$$ (here it doesn't matter exactly how we define the length of a proof, so long as it is effective and there are only finitely many proofs of each length). Now, clearly (:P) this contains $PA$. But consider the theory $S=PA+Con(PA)+\neg Con(PA+Con(PA))$:

  • $S$ contains $PA$, obviously.

  • $S$ is consistent, as long as we assume some basic niceness (e.g. that $PA$ is true) - apply Goedel's Second to $PA+Con(PA)$.

  • $S$ proves that $T$ is finite (since for some $n$ we find a contradiction in the theory $PA+Con(PA)$ of length $n$.

  • $S$ proves that $PA$ is consistent.

  • And, finally, $S$ proves that $PA$ is not finitely axiomatizable (this is a neat fact - if $PA$ is consistent, then it is not finitely axiomatizable, and $PA$ knows this).

So $S$ is a consistent extension of $PA$ which proves that $T$ is strictly weaker than $PA$; but then this means that $PA$ does not prove that $T$ is not strictly weaker than $PA$. So $T$ "invisibly" contains $PA$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ To head off a couple attempts at a trivial solution: there are weak theories which do prove their own consistency, as well as strong arithmetically definable theories which prove their own consistency. Being strong, and recursively axiomatizable, makes things tricky. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Jan 2 '17 at 17:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just when I think I am out, they pull me back in. $\endgroup$ – Rene Schipperus Jan 2 '17 at 18:19
  • $\begingroup$ @ReneSchipperus Hehehe. I don't know how to construct a counterexample here - both theories would have to contain PA in a cruddy way, so that kills off every natural example I know. And I don't know how to beef up e.g. Willard's theories to get them above PA without tripping over Goedel . . . $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Jan 2 '17 at 18:21
  • $\begingroup$ It seems to me that if $PA\subseteq S\subseteq T$ recursively axiomatizable then $PA\vdash Pr_S(\sigma)\rightarrow Pr_T(\sigma)$. Is this not what you are asking ? $\endgroup$ – Rene Schipperus Jan 2 '17 at 18:26
  • $\begingroup$ Just a thought but doesn't PA prove that PA is $\Sigma_n$ consistent ? So PA will know that each $\Sigma_n$ part is in $S$. Don't know yet if this gives enough to finish the argument. $\endgroup$ – Rene Schipperus Jan 2 '17 at 18:44
3
$\begingroup$

Aha! Rene Schipperus and I figured it out (see the comment thread above).

The answer is no: the requirement $(\dagger)$ that $F_1, F_2$ "visibly" contain $PA$ is unnecessary.

Here is why: the only time $(\dagger)$ was used in this answer was to show

$F_i$ proves that $F_j$ proves every true $\Sigma_1$ sentence

for $i, j\in\{1, 2\}$. But for this, it's enough for $F_i$ to prove that $F_j$ contains Robinson's Q, a much weaker theory than $PA$, since $PA$ (which $F_i$ contains) proves that $Q$ proves every true $\Sigma_1$ sentence.

So the real question is, "Can a theory invisibly contain $Q$?"

The answer to this is no, for a simple reason: $Q$ is finitely axiomatizable! This means that the statement "$F$ contains $Q$" is $\Sigma_1$ - by contrast, note that if we replace "$Q$" with a non-finitely-axioatizable theory $R$ (like, say, the weak arithmetic $R$ :P), the statement "$F$ contains $R$" is $\Pi_2$.

Why does this difference matter? Well, since $F_i$ contains $PA$, $F_i$ proves "any theory containing $Q$ proves any true $\Sigma_1$ sentence." And since $F_j$ contains $Q$, $F_i$ proves "$F_j$ contains $Q$" by the above paragraph. So we don't need any visibility assumption at all.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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