Show that first order Peano's axioms capture the natural numbers regarding satisfiablity
$begingroup$
Denote be $mathcal P_{MO}$ the set of the monadic second order axioms of Peano. Then as shown by Dedekind any two model are isomorphic to $mathbb N$. Hence for a monadic second order sentence we have
$$
mathbb N models varphi mbox{ iff } mathcal P_{MO} models varphi
$$
i.e., the natural numbers fullfil $varphi$ iff every model that fulfills $mathcal P_{MO}$ also fulfills $varphi$.
Let $mathcal P_{FO}$ be the first order Peano arithmetic where the monadic induction axiom is replaced by a first order induction scheme over arbitrary predicates.
Let $psi$ be some first order sentence, then how to show that $mathcal P_{FO} models psi$ implies $mathbb N models psi$? (the other direction is clear, so I am asking about the relation between satisfiability of the axioms vs satisfiability in the natural numbers).
Similar for other first order axiomatization like Robinson arithmetic? The problem is that as mentioned here, the first order theories are not categorical.
logic arithmetic first-order-logic axioms peano-axioms
edited Dec 5 '18 at 15:10
Bernard
119k639112
asked Dec 5 '18 at 15:06
StefanHStefanH
8,08452264
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Denote be $mathcal P_{MO}$ the set of the monadic second order axioms of Peano. Then as shown by Dedekind any two model are isomorphic to $mathbb N$. Hence for a monadic second order sentence we have
$$
mathbb N models varphi mbox{ iff } mathcal P_{MO} models varphi
$$
i.e., the natural numbers fullfil $varphi$ iff every model that fulfills $mathcal P_{MO}$ also fulfills $varphi$.
Let $mathcal P_{FO}$ be the first order Peano arithmetic where the monadic induction axiom is replaced by a first order induction scheme over arbitrary predicates.
Let $psi$ be some first order sentence, then how to show that $mathcal P_{FO} models psi$ implies $mathbb N models psi$? (the other direction is clear, so I am asking about the relation between satisfiability of the axioms vs satisfiability in the natural numbers).
Similar for other first order axiomatization like Robinson arithmetic? The problem is that as mentioned here, the first order theories are not categorical.
logic arithmetic first-order-logic axioms peano-axioms
edited Dec 5 '18 at 15:10
Bernard
119k639112
asked Dec 5 '18 at 15:06
StefanHStefanH
8,08452264
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
"the other direction is clear" The other direction is false, since first-order PA isn't complete.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 5 '18 at 15:12
$begingroup$
@NoahSchweber This is not the provability-relation which I would denote by $vdash$, the notation $Sigma models varphi$ means that every model that satisifies $Sigma$, also satisfies $varphi$, and as $mathbb N$ satisfies $Sigma = mathcal P_{FO}$ this gives the mentioned direction...
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 5 '18 at 15:14
3
$begingroup$
@StefanH The completeness theorem for first-order logic says that the relations $models$ and $vdash$ (between first-order theories and first-order sentences) are the same. The fact that $mathbb{N}models mathcal{P}_{FO}$ means it's clear that $mathcal{P}_{FO}models psi$ implies $mathbb{N}models psi$, not the other way around. And the converse is false, as Noah said, exactly because $mathcal{P}_{FO}$ is incomplete.
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 5 '18 at 15:31
$begingroup$
Got it! Would anyone like to write up a full anwer....
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 5 '18 at 15:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Denote be $mathcal P_{MO}$ the set of the monadic second order axioms of Peano. Then as shown by Dedekind any two model are isomorphic to $mathbb N$. Hence for a monadic second order sentence we have
$$
mathbb N models varphi mbox{ iff } mathcal P_{MO} models varphi
$$
i.e., the natural numbers fullfil $varphi$ iff every model that fulfills $mathcal P_{MO}$ also fulfills $varphi$.
Let $mathcal P_{FO}$ be the first order Peano arithmetic where the monadic induction axiom is replaced by a first order induction scheme over arbitrary predicates.
Let $psi$ be some first order sentence, then how to show that $mathcal P_{FO} models psi$ implies $mathbb N models psi$? (the other direction is clear, so I am asking about the relation between satisfiability of the axioms vs satisfiability in the natural numbers).
Similar for other first order axiomatization like Robinson arithmetic? The problem is that as mentioned here, the first order theories are not categorical.
logic arithmetic first-order-logic axioms peano-axioms
edited Dec 5 '18 at 15:10
Bernard
119k639112
asked Dec 5 '18 at 15:06
StefanHStefanH
8,08452264
$endgroup$
Denote be $mathcal P_{MO}$ the set of the monadic second order axioms of Peano. Then as shown by Dedekind any two model are isomorphic to $mathbb N$. Hence for a monadic second order sentence we have
$$
mathbb N models varphi mbox{ iff } mathcal P_{MO} models varphi
$$
i.e., the natural numbers fullfil $varphi$ iff every model that fulfills $mathcal P_{MO}$ also fulfills $varphi$.
Let $mathcal P_{FO}$ be the first order Peano arithmetic where the monadic induction axiom is replaced by a first order induction scheme over arbitrary predicates.
Let $psi$ be some first order sentence, then how to show that $mathcal P_{FO} models psi$ implies $mathbb N models psi$? (the other direction is clear, so I am asking about the relation between satisfiability of the axioms vs satisfiability in the natural numbers).
Similar for other first order axiomatization like Robinson arithmetic? The problem is that as mentioned here, the first order theories are not categorical.
logic arithmetic first-order-logic axioms peano-axioms
logic arithmetic first-order-logic axioms peano-axioms
edited Dec 5 '18 at 15:10
Bernard
119k639112
asked Dec 5 '18 at 15:06
StefanHStefanH
8,08452264
edited Dec 5 '18 at 15:10
Bernard
119k639112
asked Dec 5 '18 at 15:06
StefanHStefanH
8,08452264
edited Dec 5 '18 at 15:10
Bernard
119k639112
edited Dec 5 '18 at 15:10
Bernard
119k639112
edited Dec 5 '18 at 15:10
Bernard
119k639112
119k639112
asked Dec 5 '18 at 15:06
StefanHStefanH
8,08452264
asked Dec 5 '18 at 15:06
StefanHStefanH
8,08452264
asked Dec 5 '18 at 15:06
StefanHStefanH
8,08452264
8,08452264
3
$begingroup$
"the other direction is clear" The other direction is false, since first-order PA isn't complete.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 5 '18 at 15:12
$begingroup$
@NoahSchweber This is not the provability-relation which I would denote by $vdash$, the notation $Sigma models varphi$ means that every model that satisifies $Sigma$, also satisfies $varphi$, and as $mathbb N$ satisfies $Sigma = mathcal P_{FO}$ this gives the mentioned direction...
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 5 '18 at 15:14
3
$begingroup$
@StefanH The completeness theorem for first-order logic says that the relations $models$ and $vdash$ (between first-order theories and first-order sentences) are the same. The fact that $mathbb{N}models mathcal{P}_{FO}$ means it's clear that $mathcal{P}_{FO}models psi$ implies $mathbb{N}models psi$, not the other way around. And the converse is false, as Noah said, exactly because $mathcal{P}_{FO}$ is incomplete.
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 5 '18 at 15:31
$begingroup$
Got it! Would anyone like to write up a full anwer....
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 5 '18 at 15:36
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
"the other direction is clear" The other direction is false, since first-order PA isn't complete.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 5 '18 at 15:12
$begingroup$
@NoahSchweber This is not the provability-relation which I would denote by $vdash$, the notation $Sigma models varphi$ means that every model that satisifies $Sigma$, also satisfies $varphi$, and as $mathbb N$ satisfies $Sigma = mathcal P_{FO}$ this gives the mentioned direction...
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 5 '18 at 15:14
3
$begingroup$
@StefanH The completeness theorem for first-order logic says that the relations $models$ and $vdash$ (between first-order theories and first-order sentences) are the same. The fact that $mathbb{N}models mathcal{P}_{FO}$ means it's clear that $mathcal{P}_{FO}models psi$ implies $mathbb{N}models psi$, not the other way around. And the converse is false, as Noah said, exactly because $mathcal{P}_{FO}$ is incomplete.
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 5 '18 at 15:31
$begingroup$
Got it! Would anyone like to write up a full anwer....
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 5 '18 at 15:36
3
3
$begingroup$
"the other direction is clear" The other direction is false, since first-order PA isn't complete.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 5 '18 at 15:12
$begingroup$
"the other direction is clear" The other direction is false, since first-order PA isn't complete.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 5 '18 at 15:12
$begingroup$
@NoahSchweber This is not the provability-relation which I would denote by $vdash$, the notation $Sigma models varphi$ means that every model that satisifies $Sigma$, also satisfies $varphi$, and as $mathbb N$ satisfies $Sigma = mathcal P_{FO}$ this gives the mentioned direction...
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 5 '18 at 15:14
$begingroup$
@NoahSchweber This is not the provability-relation which I would denote by $vdash$, the notation $Sigma models varphi$ means that every model that satisifies $Sigma$, also satisfies $varphi$, and as $mathbb N$ satisfies $Sigma = mathcal P_{FO}$ this gives the mentioned direction...
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 5 '18 at 15:14
3
3
$begingroup$
@StefanH The completeness theorem for first-order logic says that the relations $models$ and $vdash$ (between first-order theories and first-order sentences) are the same. The fact that $mathbb{N}models mathcal{P}_{FO}$ means it's clear that $mathcal{P}_{FO}models psi$ implies $mathbb{N}models psi$, not the other way around. And the converse is false, as Noah said, exactly because $mathcal{P}_{FO}$ is incomplete.
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 5 '18 at 15:31
$begingroup$
@StefanH The completeness theorem for first-order logic says that the relations $models$ and $vdash$ (between first-order theories and first-order sentences) are the same. The fact that $mathbb{N}models mathcal{P}_{FO}$ means it's clear that $mathcal{P}_{FO}models psi$ implies $mathbb{N}models psi$, not the other way around. And the converse is false, as Noah said, exactly because $mathcal{P}_{FO}$ is incomplete.
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 5 '18 at 15:31
$begingroup$
Got it! Would anyone like to write up a full anwer....
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 5 '18 at 15:36
$begingroup$
Got it! Would anyone like to write up a full anwer....
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 5 '18 at 15:36
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3027175%2fshow-that-first-order-peanos-axioms-capture-the-natural-numbers-regarding-satis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3027175%2fshow-that-first-order-peanos-axioms-capture-the-natural-numbers-regarding-satis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
"the other direction is clear" The other direction is false, since first-order PA isn't complete.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 5 '18 at 15:12
$begingroup$
@NoahSchweber This is not the provability-relation which I would denote by $vdash$, the notation $Sigma models varphi$ means that every model that satisifies $Sigma$, also satisfies $varphi$, and as $mathbb N$ satisfies $Sigma = mathcal P_{FO}$ this gives the mentioned direction...
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 5 '18 at 15:14
3
$begingroup$
@StefanH The completeness theorem for first-order logic says that the relations $models$ and $vdash$ (between first-order theories and first-order sentences) are the same. The fact that $mathbb{N}models mathcal{P}_{FO}$ means it's clear that $mathcal{P}_{FO}models psi$ implies $mathbb{N}models psi$, not the other way around. And the converse is false, as Noah said, exactly because $mathcal{P}_{FO}$ is incomplete.
$endgroup$
– Alex Kruckman
Dec 5 '18 at 15:31
$begingroup$
Got it! Would anyone like to write up a full anwer....
$endgroup$
– StefanH
Dec 5 '18 at 15:36