Goodstein theorem without transfinite numbers?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Goodstein theorem cannot be proved from the Peano axioms, as established in the discussion. It is suggested that a natural axiom system more powerful than Peano axioms, which includes axioms for exponentiation, may allow for the proof of the Goodstein theorem without transfinite numbers. However, it is confirmed that while the theory PA + "all Goodstein sequences terminate" can prove the theorem, it does not constitute a "natural" axiom system. The discussion concludes that exponentiation is definable within the Peano axioms, allowing Goodstein's theorem to be stated in that framework.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Peano axioms
  • Familiarity with Goodstein's theorem
  • Knowledge of axiomatization of natural numbers
  • Basic concepts of exponentiation in mathematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Peano axioms on number theory
  • Explore the relationship between Goodstein sequences and transfinite numbers
  • Investigate alternative axiom systems for natural numbers
  • Study the definability of operations like exponentiation in formal systems
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, logicians, and students of mathematical logic interested in the foundations of number theory and the limitations of axiomatic systems.

Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
14,694
Reaction score
7,298
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   Reactions: 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
9K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K