Generalized Lb's Theorem

Jaykov Foukzon
Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

jaykovfoukzon@list.ru


Abstract. In this article posible generalization of the Lb's theorem is considered.


Introduction

Let
Th
be some fixed, but unspecified, consistent formal theory.
Lb's theorem. [1-3]. If
Th

- JxProv
Th
x, n
n
,
where
x
is the Gdel number
of the proof of the formula with Gdel number
n,
and
n
is the numeral of the Gdel
number of the formula

n
,
then
Th

-
n
.

Taking into account the second Gdel theorem it is easy to be able to prove
JxProv
Th
x, n
n
,
for disprovable (refutable) and undecidable formulas

n
.

Thus summarized, Lb's theorem says that for refutable or undecidable formulas
,

the intuition "if exists proof of

then

" is fails.
Definition 1.Let
M

Th
be an

-model of the
Th.
We said that,
Th
#
is a nice
theory over
Th
or a nice extension of the
Th
iff:
(i)
Th
#
contains
Th;

(ii) Let

be any closed formula, then

Th - Pr
Th

c
&M

Th
=
implies
Th
#
- .

Definition 2.We said that,
Th
#
is a maximally nice theory or a maximally nice
extension of the
Th
iff
Th
#
is consistent and for any consistent nice extension
Th
'

of
the
Th :

De d Th
#
DedTh
'

implies
Ded Th
#
= DedTh
'
.

Theorem 1.(Generalized Lb's theorem). Assume that (i)
ConTh
and (ii )
Th
has
an

-model
M

Th
.Then theory
Th
can be extended to a maximally consistent nice
theory
Th
#
.

I.Preliminaries.
Let Th be some fixed, but unspecified, consistent formal theory. For later convenience, we
assume that the encoding is done in some fixed formal theory S and that Th contains S.We
do not specify S --- it is usually taken to be a formal system of arithmetic, although a weak
set theory is often more convenient. The sense in which S is contained in Th is better
exemplified than explained: If S is a formal system of arithmetic and Th is, say, ZFC ,
then Th contains S in the sense that there is a well-known embedding, or interpretation, of
S in Th.Since encoding is to take place in S, it will have to have a large supply of constants
and closed terms to be used as codes. (E.g. in formal arithmetic, one has 0 , 1 ,... .) S
will also have certain function symbols to be described shortly.To each formula, , of
the language of Th is assigned a closed term,

c
, called the code of

. [N.B. If
x
is a formula with free variable
x,
then
x
c
is a closed term encoding the
formula
x
with x viewed as a syntactic object and not as a parameter.]
Corresponding to the logical connectives and quantifiers are function symbols,
neg
,
imp
, etc., such that, for all formulae

,
+ :

S

-

neg
c
=
c
,

S

-

i mp
c
, +
c

=

+
c
etc. Of particular importance is the substitution
operator, represented by the function symbol
sub,
. For formulae
x
, terms
t

with codes
t
c
:


S - subx
c
, t
c
= t
c
.
1. 1

Iteration of the substitution operator
sub
allows one to define function symbols
sub
3
,

s ub
4
, . . . , s ub
n such that
S - sub
n
x
1
, x
2
, . . . , x
n

c
, t
1

c
, t
2

c
, . . . , t
n

c
= t
1
, t
2
, . . . , t
n

c
.
1. 2

It well known [3] that one can also encode derivations and have a binary relation
Prov
Th
x, y
(read "
x
proves
y
" or "
x
is a proof of
y
") such that for closed
t
1
, t
2
:


S

- Prov
Th
t
1
, t
2

iff
t
1 is the code of a derivation in Th of the formula with code
t
2 . It follows that
Th - iff S - Prov
Th
t,
c
1. 3

for some closed term t. Thus one can define predicate
Pr
Th
y :

Pr
Th
y JxProv
Th
x, y,
1. 4

and therefore one obtain a predicate asserting provability.
Remark 1.1. We note that is not always the case that [1]:

Th - iff S - Pr
Th

c
.
1. 5

It well known [3] that the above encoding can be carried out in such a way that the
following important conditions
D1, D2
and
D3
are met for all sentences [3]:
D1. Th - implies S - Pr
Th

c
,
D2. S - Pr
Th

c
Pr
Th
Pr
Th

c
,
D3. S - Pr
Th

c
/ Pr
Th
+
c
Pr
Th
+
c
.
1. 6

Conditions
D1, D2
and
D3
are called the Derivability Conditions.
Assumption 1.1. We assume now that:
(i) the language of
Th
consists of:
numerals
0
,
1
,...
countable set of the numerical variables:
v
0
, v
1
, . . .

countable set

of the set variables:

= x, y, z, X, Y, Z, 9, . . .

countable set of the
n
-ary function symbols:
f
0
n
, f
1
n
, . . .

countable set of the
n
-ary relation symbols:
R
0
n
, R
1
n
, . . .

connectives:
,

quantifier:
.

(ii)
Th
contains
Th
-
=ZFC + J
-model of
ZFC.

(iii) Th has an -model M

Th
.
Theorem 1.1.[1]. (Lb's Theorem). Let be (1)
ConTh
and (2)

be closed. Then

Th - Pr
Th

c
iff Th - .
1. 7



II.Generalized Lb's Theorem.
Definition 2.1. An
Th
-wff

(well-formed formula

) is closed - i.e.

is a
Th
-sentence- if it has no free variables; a wff is open if it has free variables.We'll use
the slang `
k
-place open wff ' to mean a wff with
k
distinct free variables.
Given a model
M
Th
of the
Th
and a
Th
-sentence
,
we assume known the
meaning
of
M =
- i.e.

is true in
M
Th
, (see for example [4]-[6]).
Definition 2.2. Let
M

Th
be an

-model of the
Th.
We said that,
Th
#
is a nice
theory over
Th
or a nice extension of the
Th
iff:
(i)
Th
#
contains
Th;

(ii) Let

be any closed formula, then

Th - Pr
Th

c
&M

Th
=
implies
Th
#
- .

Definition 2.3.We said that,
Th
#
is a maximally nice theory over
Th
or a maximally
nice extension of the
Th
iff
Th
#
is consistent and for any consistent nice extension
Th
'

of the
Th :

De d Th
#
DedTh
'

implies
Ded Th
#
= DedTh
'
.

Lemma 2.1. Assume that: (i)
ConTh
and (ii)
Th - Pr
Th

c
,
where

is a
closed
formula.Then
Th Pr
Th

c
.

Proof. Let
Con
Th

be the formula
Con
Th
= t
1
t
2
Prov
Th
t
1
,
c
/ Prov
Th
t
2
, neg
c

Jt
1
Jt
2
Prov
Th
t
1
,
c
/ Prov
Th
t
2
, neg
c
.
2. 1

where
t
1
, t
2 is a closed term. We note that
Th+ConTh - Con
Th

for any closed

.
Suppose that
Th - Pr
Th

c
,
then (ii) gives

Th - Pr
Th

c
/ Pr
Th

c
.
2. 2

From (2.1) and (2.2) we obtain

Jt
1
Jt
2
Prov
Th
t
1
,
c
/ Prov
Th
t
2
, neg
c
.
2. 3

But the formula (2.3) contradicts the formula (2.1). Therefore
Th Pr
Th

c
.

Lemma 2.2. Assume that: (i)
ConTh
and (ii)
Th - Pr
Th

c
,
where

is a
closed
formula.Then
Th Pr
Th

c
.

Theorem 2.1.[7-8]. (Generalized Lb's Theorem) Assume that
ConTh.
Then theory

Th
can be extended to a maximally consistent nice theory
Th
#
over
Th.

Proof. Let

1
. . .

i
. . .
be an enumeration of all wff's of the theory
Th
(this can be
achieved if the set of propositional variables can be enumerated). Define a chain
, = Th
i
|i , Th
1
= Th
of consistent theories inductively as follows: assume that
theory
Th
i is defined.
(i) Suppose that a statement (2.4) is satisfied
Th - Pr
Th

c
and Th
i

i
&M

Th
=
i
. 2. 4

Then we define theory
Th
i+1 as follows
Th
i+1
= Th
i

i
.

(ii) Suppose that a statement (2.5) is satisfied
Th - Pr
Th

c
and Th
i

i
&M

Th
=
i
. 2. 5

Then we define theory
Th
i+1 as follows:
Th
i+1
= Th
i

i
.

(iii) Suppose that a statement (2.6) is satisfied
Th - Pr
Th

c
and Th
i
-
i
.
2. 6

Then we define theory
Th
i+1 as follows:
Th
i+1
= Th
i

i
.

(iv) Suppose that a statement (2.7) is satisfied
Th - Pr
Th

c
and Th -
i
.
2. 7

Then we define theory
Th
i+1 as follows:
Th
i+1
= Th
i
.
We define now theory
Th
#
as
follows:
Th
#
=
i
Th
i
.
2. 8

First, notice that each
Th
i is consistent. This is done by induction on
i
and by
Lemmas 2.1-2.2. By assumption, the case is true when
i = 1.
Now, suppose
Th
i is
consistent. Then its deductive closure
DedTh
i

is also consistent. If a statement (2.6) is

satisfied,i.e.
Th - Pr
Th

and
Th -
i
,
then clearly
Th
i+1
= Th
i

i

is
consistent since it is a subset of closure
DedTh
i
.
If a statement (2.7) is satisfied,i.e.
Th - Pr
Th

and
Th -
i
,
then clearly
Th
i+1
= Th
i

i

is consistent
since it is a subset of closure
DedTh
i
.

Otherwise:
(i) if a statement (2.4) is satisfied,i.e.
Th - Pr
Th

and
Th
i

i then clearly
Th
i+1
= Th
i

i

is consistent by Lemma 2.1 and by one of the standard properties of

consistency:
A A
is consistent iff
A A;

(ii) if a statement (2.5) is satisfied,i.e.
Th - Pr
Th

and
Th
i

i then clearly
Th
i+1
= Th
i

i

is consistent by Lemma 2.2 and by one of the standard properties of

consistency:
A A
is consistent iff
A A.

Next, notice
Ded Th
#
is maximally consistent nice extension of the
DedTh.

De d Th
#
is consistent because, by the standard Lemma 2.3 belov, it is the union of a
chain of consistent sets. To see that
Ded Th
#
is maximal, pick any wff
.
Then

is some

i in the enumerated list of all wff's. Therefore for any

such that
Th - Pr
Th

or
Th - Pr
Th

, either
Th
#
or
Th
#
.
Since
DedTh
i+1
Ded Th
#
,
we have
Ded Th
#
or
Ded Th
#
,
which
implies that
Ded Th
#
is maximally consistent nice extension of the
DedTh.

Lemma 2.3. The union of a chain
, =
i
|i
of consistent sets

i , ordered by
,
is consistent.
Definition 2.4. Assume that
Th
has an

-model
M

Th
and

is an
Th

-sentence. Let
be a Th -sentence with all quantifiers relativised to
-model M

Th
.
Definition 2.5. Assume that Th has an -model M

Th
. Let Th
be a theory Th
relativised to M

Th
- i.e. any Th
-sentence has the form
for some Th
-sentence .
Definition 2.6.Given a model M

Th
of the Th and any Th
-sentence

, we
define
M

Th

such that
M

Th

iff Th

.
2. 9

Theorem 2.2. (Strong Reflection Principle) Assume that: (i)
ConTh,
(ii)
Th
has an

-model
M

Th
and (iii)
M

Th
Th

.
Then

Th

- Pr
Th

c
iff Th

.
2. 10

Proof. The one direction is obvious. For the other, assume that:
Th

- Pr
Th

c
,
2. 11

Th

and
Th

.
Then
Th

- Pr
Th

c
.
2. 12

Note that (i)+(ii) implies
ConTh

.
Let
Con
Th
be the formula
Con
Th

=
t
1
t
2
t
3
t
3
=

c
Prov
Th

t
1
,

c
/ Prov
Th

t
2
, neg

Jt
1
Jt
2
Jt
3
t
3
=

c
Prov
Th

t
1
,

c
/ Prov
Th

t
2
, neg

c
.
2. 13

where
t
1
, t
2
, t
3 is a closed term. Note that in any

-model
M

Th
by the canonical
observation one obtain equivalence
ConTh

Con
Th

,
(see [9] chapter 3.5).But the
formulae (2.11)-(2.12) contradicts the formula (2.13). Therefore
Th

and
Th Pr
Th

c
.
Then theory
Th

'
= Th

+
is consistent and from the above
observation one obtain that
ConTh

'
Con
Th

' ,
where
Con
Th

'
Jt
1
Jt
2
Jt
3
t
3
=

c
Prov
Th

' t
1
,

c
/ Prov
Th

' t
2
, neg

c
.
2. 14
On the other hand one obtain
Th

'
- Pr
Th

'

c
, Th

'
- Pr
Th

'

c
. 2. 15
But the formulae (2.15) contradicts the formula (2.14). This contradiction completed the
proof.

References.

[1] M.H.Lb, Solution of a Problem of Leon Henkin. The Journal of Symbolic
Logic 20 (2): 115-118.(1955)
[2] C.Smorynski, Handbook of mathematical logic,
Edited by J. Barwise.North-Holland Publishing Company, 1977
[3] T. Drucker,Perspectives on the History of Mathematical Logic.
Boston : Birkhauser,2008.
[4] A. Marcja, C.Toffalori, A guide to classical and modern model theory.
Springer, 2003, 371 p. Series: Trends in Logic, Vol.19.
[5] F. W. Lawvere, C. Maurer, G. C. Wraith, Model theory and topoi.
ISBN: 978-3-540-07164-8
[6] D.Marker,Model theory: an introduction.(Graduate Texts in Mathematics,
Vol. 217). Springer 2002.
[7] J. Foukzon,Generalized Lb's Theorem.http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5340
[8] J. Foukzon, An posible generalization of the Lb's theorem. AMS Sectional
Meeting AMS Special Session.Spring Western Sectional Meeting
University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO April 13-14, 2013. Meeting #1089
http://www.ams.org/amsmtgs/2210_abstracts/1089-03-60.pdf
[9] E. Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Edition: 4th,1997.
ISBN-10: 0412808307