Short Proofs for Slow Consistency

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Abstract

Let Con⁡(T) ⁣↾ ⁣x\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf T)\!\restriction\!x denote the finite consistency statement "there are no proofs of contradiction in T\mathbf T with ≤x\leq x symbols". For a large class of natural theories T\mathbf T, Pudlák has shown that the lengths of the shortest proofs of Con⁡(T) ⁣↾ ⁣n\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf T)\!\restriction\!n in the theory T\mathbf T itself are bounded by a polynomial in nn. At the same time he conjectures that T\mathbf T does not have polynomial proofs of the finite consistency statements Con⁡(T+Con⁡(T)) ⁣↾ ⁣n\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf T+\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf T))\!\restriction\!n. In contrast we show that Peano arithmetic (PA\mathbf{PA}) has polynomial proofs of Con⁡(PA+Con⁡∗(PA)) ⁣↾ ⁣n\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf{PA}+\operatorname{Con}^*(\mathbf{PA}))\!\restriction\!n, where Con⁡∗(PA)\operatorname{Con}^*(\mathbf{PA}) is the slow consistency statement for Peano arithmetic, introduced by S.-D. Friedman, Rathjen and Weiermann. We also obtain a new proof of the result that the usual consistency statement Con⁡(PA)\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf{PA}) is equivalent to ε0\varepsilon_0 iterations of slow consistency. Our argument is proof-theoretic, while previous investigations of slow consistency relied on non-standard models of arithmetic.

Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Reviews 0

Write a reviewWrite

No reviews yet.

Discussion 0

Add a commentWrite

No comments yet.