TaMoS, Mathematics Masters Project Part

Truth and Provability in Formalized Number Theory

Academic year 2014-2015
Nirankar Singh
nirankar@kth.se

July 29, 2015

1.
Find formulas expressing the following claims. Terminology: for the purposes of
exercise (d), let us agree that a prime divisor of a number n is a prime number
that n is a multiple of.
(a) x is not a square number.
(b) If x < x0 then x00 = x0 .
(c) x = max(x0 , x00 ).
(d) x has a prime divisor that is greater than every prime divisor of x0 .
Solution
a)
If we begin with the statement that x is a square number:
For some x0 such that x can be expressed as the square of x0
x0 such that x can be expressed as the square of x0
x0 x can be expressed as x0 multiplied with x0
x0 x = (x0 x0 )

Now we have expressed a formula for that x is a square number, by denying

that x is a square number and asserting that x is not a square number, we
simply tack a negation sign into it to obtain that x is not a square number:
x0 x = (x0 x0 )
and by removing the double negation we obtain
x0 x = (x0 x0 )
b)
If x < x0 then x00 = x0
This statement can partially be written with help of page 14 equation (5) in [1]
as, for any x000 , x is not the same as x000 + x0 , this will be rendered as,
[x000 x = (x000 + x0 )] then x00 = x0
and finally we get
[x000 x = (x000 + x0 )]x00 = x0

c)
x = max(x0 , x00 ).
We have to reformulate the statement. There is three cases that must be considered, if x0 > x00 then x = x0 , if x00 > x0 then x = x00 , if x0 = x00 then x = x0 .
From page 14 in [1] we learn that x < x0 is rendered as x00 x = (x0 + x00 )), by
applying this to our case we get,
If x0 > x00 then x = x0 [x000 x00 = (x00 + x000 )]x = x0 ,
If x00 > x0 then x = x00 [x000 0 x0 = (x0 + x000 0 )]x = x00 ,
If x0 = x00 then x = x0 [x0 = x00 ]x = x0 .
We will now combine these three cases with help of the logical concept and.
From page 17 in [1], the construction [...] ... is used to capture the logical
concept and, and removal of a double negation will never affects the meaning
of a formula. Employing this we get (we have to split the formula over several
lines in order to fit on the page)
[[x000 x00 = (x00 + x000 )]x = x0 ] [[x000 0 x0 = (x0 + x000 0 )]x = x00 ]
[x0 = x00 ]x = x0

d)
x has a prime divisor that is greater than every prime divisor of x0 .

A prime divisor of a number n is a prime number that n is a multiple of. We

begin with the formula for x is a prime, given in equation 23 on page 17 in [1]
x is a prime
[x0 x00 x = (SSx0 SSx00 )] x0 x = SSx0
Now that we have a formula for that x is a prime, we can construct the formula
for the original claim. Let x00 donate the prime divisor of x , and x000 donate the
prime divisor of x0 .
With the knowledge of how the < relation is rendered and with the formula
for x is a prime, we can with the and statement construct the original formula.
let
A=x00 is a prime

B=x00 divides x
C=x000 is a prime
D=x000 divides x0
E=x00 > x00


x00 x000 [ [A] B][C] D E
x00 is a prime and x00 divides x and x000 is a prime and x000 divides x0 such that
x00 is greater than every x000 .

x00 x000 [ [ [ [x000 0 x000 00 x00 = (SSx000 0 SSx000 00 )]x000 0 x00 = SSx000 0 ]
[ x000 000 x = x00 x000 000 ]]
[ [x000 000 0 x000 000 00 x000 = (SSx000 000 0 SSx000 000 00 )]x000 000 0 x000 = SSx000 000 00 ]
[ x000 000 000 x0 = x000 x000 000 000 ]x000 000 000 0 x000 = x00 + x000 000 000 0

2.
Using results 4.3.5, 4.3.7 and 4.3.8 from the course notes, show that every sentence of the from
vn[s = t][r = s]t = r
v1 ...
is formally provable.
Solution
vn be the modifier sequence M0 . With theorem 4.3.8, Every sentence
Let v1 ...
of the form M[] is formally provable.
If we let M be M0 and be s = tt, we get
M0[s = t]s = t
which is formally provable according to 4.3.8 and in similar fashion let M be
M0[s = t] and be r = ss, we get
M0[s = t][r = s]r = s
Which is formally provable.
From theorem 4.3.5(a), If M is provable, then M[[v]] is provable provided that
it is closed. Applying this result by letting M be M0[s = t] and letting v be r = s
and be s = t, we will get
M0[s = t][r = s]s = t
which is formally provable.
Next, if we use theorem 4.3.7(i) If Mr = s and Ms = t are provable then so is
Mr = t. If we now let M be M0[s = t][r = s]
s], by the light of this theorem, since
we get that M0[s = t][r = s]r = s and M0[s = t][r = s]s = t are formally provable,
then so is
M0[s = t][r = s]r = t
formally provable.
Finally using theorem 4.3.7(h) that if Ms = t is provable then so is Mt = s and
with the modifier sequence M as M0[s = t][r = s]
s], it follows that,
if M0[s = t][r = s]r = t is formally provable then so is
M0[s = t][r = s]t = r
formally provable, thus
vn[s = t][r = s]t = r
v1 ...
is formally provable.
4

3.
Let be the sentence
x0 [xx00 ((SS0 x) + x0 ) = (SSSS0 x00 )]x00 ((SS0 x00 ) + x0 ) = (SSSS0 x00 )

(a) Is an axiom according to Definition 7?

(b) Is true according to Definition 10?
(c) Should your answers to questions (a) and (b) be seen as an indication that
there is something wrong with the course notes selection of axioms?
Solution
a) According to Definition 7, is an axiom if is one of the sentences listed on
page 33 in [1]. At a first glance on the listed sentences, we see some similarity
between the sentence (S4) and the given sentence .
vn[
v1 ...
[v]]||vt
For brevity, set
= x00 ((SS0 x) + x0 ) = (SSSS0 x00 )
with the substitution we get
|x00 ((SS0 x) + x0 ) = (SSSS0 x00 )|xx00
but according to definition 6, is undefined since x and x00 is free in .
So is not an axiom according to Definition 7.

b) Let be the formula

xx00 ((SS0 x) + x0 ) = (SSSS0 x00 )

(1)

and let be the formula

x00 ((SS0 x00 ) + x0 ) = (SSSS0 x00 )
0

(2)

We want to investigate whether |[]|xS n 0 is true or not for every n, i.e according
to Definition 10, is true for every n iff either
xx00 ((SS0 x) + S n 0) = (SSSS0 x00 )
is false or
x00 ((SS0 x00) + S n0) = (SSSS0 x00)

is true.
We start with checking every even number and let n be n = 2k,
and starting with that (1) is false iff

k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4...

((SS0 S a 0) + S n 0) = (SSSS0 S b 0)
is false for every numbers a and b and iff
((SS0 S a 0) + S n 0) = (SSSS0 S b 0)
is true for every numbers a and b.
If we let a = b = k and with n = 2k we get that
((SS0 S k 0) + S 2k 0) = (SSSS0 S k 0)
which is the same as 2 k + 2k = 4 k which holds for every k giving that
xx00 ((SS0 x) + x0 ) = (SSSS0 x00 )

(1)

is false and hence that is true for every even number n.

What if n is a odd number? Well, we can check whether is true or not if n is
a odd number as n = 2k + 1 where k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4... we have that is true for
every odd n iff either
xx00 ((SS0 x) + S n 0) = (SSSS0 x00 )
is false or
x00 ((SS0 x00 ) + S n 0) = (SSSS0 x00 )
is true.
Checking whether (2) is true.
x00 ((SS0 x00 ) + S n 0) = (SSSS0 x00 )
is true iff
((SS0 S c 0) + S n 0) = (SSSS0 S c 0)
is true for any number c iff
((SS0 S c 0) + S n 0) = (SSSS0 S c 0)
is false for every number c.
We can see that if c is even then even + odd 6= even number and if c is odd then
odd + odd 6= odd number hence that
((SS0 S c 0) + S n 0) = (SSSS0 S c 0)
6

is false and yielding that is also true for every odd number n.
c) There is nothing wrong with the course note regarding the section selection
of axioms. We have just discovered that is a true sentence but not an axiom.
A sentence must not be an axiom just because its a true sentence.

4.
As explained in Section 5, the deductive system PA is incomplete in the sense
that not all true sentences are formally provable in it. This seems like a shortcoming: ideally, one would like a system to enable one to prove all true sentences.
Suppose we tried to fix the system by redefining the expres- sion aimmediately
formally derivable
a, rewriting Definition 8(a) as follows (leaving the rest of Definition 8 unchanged).
Where , and are sentences, is immediately formally derivable from
and just in case the sentence [] [] is true.
In what sense would this modification solve the problem, and in what sense
would it not?

Solution
The deductive system PA is indeed incomplete in the sense that not all true
sentences are formally provable in it.
By modifying Definition 8, any sequence of formulas each of which is immediately formally derivable from earlier sentences will be formally provable. The
shortcoming is that G
odels first incompleteness theorem says that there exist
no formal proof system satisfying all of the following conditions,
(i). There is an algorithm for telling whether or not a given sequence of sentences constitutes a formal proof of a given sentence.
(ii). Every true sentence is formally provable.
(iii). Every formally provable sentence is true.
We have managed to give an exact content to the expression true sentence
with the modification of Definition 8. This modification fulfills just the conditions (i)-(iii) stated in G
odels first incompleteness theorem if we have a specific
sentence of the specified form given in the modified Definition 8
Where , and are sentences, is immediately formally derivable from
and just in case the sentence [ ]][ ]] is true.
On the other hand, according to Godels first incompleteness theorem, there
exists no such proof system so this will after all not solve the problem anyway i.e
If we do not have the specified form, we will not fulfill Godels first incompleteness
theorem and we will get a inconsistent system i.e A proof system that satisfy
(i) and (ii) has the property that false sentences are formally provable. Since
all sentences are formally provable by (ii) and also that some false sentences
are provable then there exists some sentences, that both the sentence and the
negation of the sentence is provable.

References
[1] Truth and Provability in Formalized Number Theory by Tor Sandqvist October 1. 2014 Course notes for TaMoS, Poject Part, Masters Program in Mathematics, tor.sandqvist@abe.kth.se