Solovay’s Completeness Without Fixed Points

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10388)

Abstract

In this paper we present a new proof of Solovay’s theorem on arithmetical completeness of Gödel-Löb provability logic \(\mathsf {GL}\). Originally, completeness of \(\mathsf {GL}\) with respect to interpretation of \(\Box \) as provability in \(\mathsf {PA}\) was proved by Solovay in 1976. The key part of Solovay’s proof was his construction of an arithmetical evaluation for a given modal formula that made the formula unprovable in \(\mathsf {PA}\) if it were unprovable in \(\mathsf {GL}\). The arithmetical sentences for the evaluations were constructed using certain arithmetical fixed points. The method developed by Solovay have been used for establishing similar semantics for many other logics. In our proof we develop new more explicit construction of required evaluations that doesn’t use any fixed points in their definitions. To our knowledge, it is the first alternative proof of the theorem that is essentially different from Solovay’s proof in this key part.

References

  1. [Ber90]
    Berarducci, A.: The interpretability logic of Peano arithmetic. J. Symbolic Logic 55(3), 1059–1089 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [Boo95]
    Boolos, G.: The Logic of Provability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  3. [BV06]
    Beklemishev, L., Visser, A.: Problems in the logic of provability. In: Gabbay, D.M., Goncharov, S.S., Zakharyaschev, M. (eds.) Mathematical Problems from Applied Logic I. International Mathematical Series, pp. 77–136. Springer, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  4. [CK90]
    Chang, C.C., Keisler, H.J.: Model Theory, vol. 73. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1990)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [dJJM91]
    de Jongh, D., Jumelet, M., Montagna, F.: On the proof of Solovay’s theorem. Studia Logica: Int. J. Symbolic Logic 50(1), 51–69 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [Gö33]
    Gödel, K.: Ein Interpretation des intuitionistischen Aussagenkalküls. In Ergebnisse eines mathematischen Kolloquiums, vol. 4, pp. 39–40. Oxford (1933). Reprinted: An Interpretation of the Intuitionistic Propositional Calculus, Feferman, S, ed. Gödel Collected Works I publications, 1929–1936Google Scholar
  7. [Há84]
    Hájek, P.: On a new notion of partial conservativity. In: Börger, E., Oberschelp, W., Richter, M.M., Schinzel, B., Thomas, W. (eds.) Computation and Proof Theory. LNM, vol. 1104, pp. 217–232. Springer, Heidelberg (1984). doi:10.1007/BFb0099487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [HSS09]
    Hirschfeldt, D., Shore, R., Slaman, T.: The atomic model theorem and type omitting. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 361(11), 5805–5837 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [Jap86]
    Japaridze, G.K.: The modal logical means of investigation of provability. Thesis in Philosophy, in Russian, Moscow (1986)Google Scholar
  10. [Kot96]
    Kotlarski, H.: An addition to Rosser’s theorem. J. Symbolic Logic 61(1), 285–292 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [KP89]
    Krajíček, J., Pudlák, P.: On the structure of initial segments of models of arithmetic. Arch. Math. Logic 28(2), 91–98 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [Lö55]
    Löb, M.H.: Solution of a problem of Leon Henkin. J. Symbolic Logic 20(02), 115–118 (1955)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [Pak16]
    Pakhomov, F.: Semi-provability predicates and extensions of \(\sf GL\). In: 11th International Conference on Advances in Modal Logic, Short Presentations, pp. 110–115 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. [Pud86]
    Pudlák, P.: On the length of proofs of finitistic consistency statements in first order theories. In: Logic Colloquium, vol. 84, pp. 165–196. Amsterdam, North-Holland (1986)Google Scholar
  15. [Seg71]
    Segerberg, K.: An essay in classical modal logic. Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala:: Filosofiska Föreningen och Filosofiska Institutionen vid Uppsala Universitet (1971)Google Scholar
  16. [Sha88]
    Shavrukov, V.Y.: The logic of relative interpretability over Peano arithmetic. Technical report, (5) (1988). Moscow: Steklov Mathematical Institute (in Russian)Google Scholar
  17. [Shi09]
    Shipman, J.: Only one proof, 2009. FOM mailing list. http://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2009-August/013994.html
  18. [Sim09]
    Simpson, S.G.: Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [Smi63]
    Smiley, T.J.: The logical basis of ethics. Acta Philosophica Fennica 16, 237–246 (1963)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. [Sol76]
    Solovay, R.M.: Provability interpretations of modal logic. Israel J. Math. 25, 287–304 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [Sol86]
    Solovay, R.M.: 12 May 1986. Letter by R. Solovay to E. NelsonGoogle Scholar
  22. [Sol89]
    Solovay, R.M.: Injecting inconsistencies into models of PA. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 44(1–2), 101–132 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. [VV94]
    Verbrugge, R., Visser, A.: A small reflection principle for bounded arithmetic. J. Symbolic Logic 59(03), 785–812 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. [WP89]
    Wilkie, A., Paris, J.: On the existence of end extensions of models of bounded induction. Stud. Logic Found. Math. 126, 143–161 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Steklov Mathematical Institute of Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations