Goodstein theorem without transfinite numbers?

Click For Summary
The Goodstein theorem, which cannot be proven using Peano axioms alone, requires a stronger axiom system that includes transfinite numbers for its proof. The discussion raises the possibility of proving the theorem using a natural axiom system more powerful than Peano axioms but without transfinite numbers. It suggests that adding axioms for powers could potentially allow for the proof of the Goodstein theorem. However, it is noted that exponentiation can be defined in terms of addition and multiplication within Peano arithmetic, meaning that such axioms would not enable proofs beyond those already provable in Peano axioms. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the definability of exponentiation in the context of Goodstein's theorem within Peano arithmetic.
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
14,608
Reaction score
7,217
It is known that the Goodstein theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodstein's_theorem
which is a theorem about natural numbers, cannot be proved from the standard axioms of natural numbers, that is Peano axioms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms .

It is also known that Goodstein theorem can be proved from a more powerful axiom system which includes transfinite numbers.

My question is: Can Goodstein theorem be proved from a natural axiom system more powerful than Peano axioms, but without transfinite numbers?

I expect that it can. More precisely, I suspect that Peano axioms cannot prove the Goodstein theorem because these axioms do not contain an axiomatization of powers (but only of addition and multiplication). If one would add appropriate natural axioms for powers (similar to those for addition and multiplication), I expect that then one could prove the Goodstein theorem without transfinite numbers.

Can someone confirm or reject my expectations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure. Certainly the theory PA + "all Goodstein sequences terminate" proves Goodstein's theorem without mentioning transfinite numbers, but it's probably not what you would consider a "natural" axiom system. I can state with certainty that adding axioms for exponents would not enable you to prove anything not already provable in PA, because exponentiation can be defined in terms of addition and multiplication, and its basic properties are provable theorems. Indeed, were this not the case, it would be impossible to even state Goodstein's theorem in the language of PA.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
Thanks for a convincing answer. I thought that exponentiation might not be definable in PA in terms of multiplication in the same sense in which, in Presburger arithmetic, multiplication is not definable in terms of addition. But as you said, Goodstein theorem can be stated in PA, which means that exponentiation must be definable.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
495
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K