Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:26:33.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOW MUCH PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC SUFFICES FOR ROSSER’S ESSENTIAL UNDECIDABILITY THEOREM?

Part of: General logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2020

GUILLERMO BADIA ,
PETR CINTULA ,
PETR HÁJEK  and
ANDREW TEDDER
GUILLERMO BADIA
Affiliation:
SCHOOL OF HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLANDST LUCIAQLD4072, AUSTRALIAE-mail: [email protected]
PETR CINTULA
Affiliation:
INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER SCIENCE OF THE CZECH ACADEMY OF SCIENCESPRAGUE 8, 182 00, CZECH REPUBLICE-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]
PETR HÁJEK
Affiliation:
INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER SCIENCE OF THE CZECH ACADEMY OF SCIENCESPRAGUE 8, 182 00, CZECH REPUBLICE-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]
ANDREW TEDDER
Affiliation:
INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER SCIENCE OF THE CZECH ACADEMY OF SCIENCESPRAGUE 8, 182 00, CZECH REPUBLICE-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we explore the following question: how weak can a logic be for Rosser’s essential undecidability result to be provable for a weak arithmetical theory? It is well known that Robinson’s Q is essentially undecidable in intuitionistic logic, and P. Hájek proved it in the fuzzy logic BL for Grzegorczyk’s variant of Q which interprets the arithmetic operations as nontotal nonfunctional relations. We present a proof of essential undecidability in a much weaker substructural logic and for a much weaker arithmetic theory, a version of Robinson’s R (with arithmetic operations also interpreted as mere relations). Our result is based on a structural version of the undecidability argument introduced by Kleene and we show that it goes well beyond the scope of the Boolean, intuitionistic, or fuzzy logic.

Keywords

undecidabilitysubstructural logicRobinson arithmetic

MSC classification

Primary: 03B25: Decidability of theories and sets of sentences
Secondary: 03B47: Substructural logics (including relevance, entailment, linear logic, Lambek calculus, BCK and BCI logics) 03B52: Fuzzy logic; logic of vagueness
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 487 - 504
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Association for Symbolic Logic

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper is an extension and generalisation of work started by Cintula and Hájek before the unfortunate death of the latter in 2016. Hájek is included among the authors in recognition of his work on this topic, and with the blessing of his family, but it should be noted that he was not able to contribute directly to the final version of this paper.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Běhounek, L., Petr, C., & Petr, H. (2011). Introduction to mathematical fuzzy logic. In Cintula, P., Hájek, P., & Noguera, C., editors. Handbook of Mathematical Fuzzy Logic, Vol. 1. London: College Publications, pp. 1–101.Google Scholar
Dershowitz, N. & Manna, Z. (1979). Proving termination with multiset orderings. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 22, 465–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galatos, N., Jipsen, P., Kowalski, T., Ono, H. (2007). Residuated Lattices: An Algebraic Glimpse at Substructural Logics. Studies in Logic and the Foundation of Mathematics, Vol. 151. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Grzegorczyk, A. (2006). Computable Relations and the Essential Undecidability of a Very Weak Arithmetic of Natural Numbers. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Hájek, P. (2007). Mathematical fuzzy logic and natural numbers. Fundamenta Informaticae, 81, 155–163,Google Scholar
Hájek, P. & Pudlák, P. (1993). Metamathematics of First-Order Arithmetic. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. P. & Shepherdson, J. C. (1983). Variants of Robinson’s essentially undecidable theory R $^{*}$ . Archive for Mathematical Logik, 23, 61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleene, S. C. (1950). A symmetric form of Gödel’s theorem. Indagationes Mathematicae, 12, 244–246.Google Scholar
Kleene, S. C (1952). Introduction to Metamathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing,Google Scholar
Lindström, P. (1997). Aspects of Incompleteness. Lecture Notes in Logic, Vol. 10. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monk, J. D. (1976). Mathematical Logic. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 37. New York, NY/Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. & Smullyan, R. M. (1960). Exact separation of recursively enumerable sets within theories. Proceedings of the AMS, 11(4), 574–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, R. M. (1950). An essentially undecidable axiom system. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematics 1950. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, pp. 729–730.Google Scholar
Rosser, B. (1936). Extensions of some theorems of Gödel and Church. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1, 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Routley, R. (1982). Relevant Logics and Their Rivals, Vol. 1. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Smullyan, R. M. (1961). Theory of Formal Systems. Annals of Mathematics Studies, Vol. 47. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Švejdar, V. (2007). An interpretation of Robinson arithmetic in its Grzegorczyk’s weaker variant. Fundamenta Informaticae, 81(1–3), 347–354.Google Scholar
Švejdar, V (2008). Weak theories and essential incompleteness. In Peliš, M., editor. The Logica Yearbook 2007. Czech Republic: Philosophia Praha Prague, pp. 213–224.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1949). On essential undecidability. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 14, 75–76.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1953). Undecidable Theories. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
Vaught, R. L.(1962). On a theorem of Cobham concerning undecidable theories. In Nagel, E., Suppes, P., & Tarski, A., editors. Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 14–25.Google Scholar
Visser, A. (2014). Why the theory R is special. In Tennant, N., editor. Foundational Adventures—Essays in Honour of Harvey M. Friedman. London: College Publications, pp. 7–24.Google Scholar