User:IssaRice/Computability and logic/Eliezer Yudkowsky's Löb's theorem puzzle: Difference between revisions

From Machinelearning
Line 44: Line 44:
# <math>\mathsf{PA}' \vdash \Box L \to C</math>
# <math>\mathsf{PA}' \vdash \Box L \to C</math>


So far, everything is fine. But can we assert <math>\mathsf{PA}' \vdash \Box(\Box L \to C)</math>?
So far, everything is fine. But can we assert <math>\mathsf{PA}' \vdash \Box(\Box L \to C)</math>? For <math>\mathsf{PA}</math>, we had the following:
 
:A1: For each <math>X</math>, if <math>\mathsf{PA}\vdash X</math> then <math>\mathsf{PA} \vdash \Box X</math>

Revision as of 03:39, 10 February 2019

original link: https://web.archive.org/web/20160319050228/http://lesswrong.com/lw/t6/the_cartoon_guide_to_l%C3%B6bs_theorem/

current LW link: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ALCnqX6Xx8bpFMZq3/the-cartoon-guide-to-loeb-s-theorem

Translating the puzzle using logic notation

Löb's theorem shows that if PA⊢◻C→C, then PA⊢C.

The deduction theorem says that if PA∪{H}⊢F, then PA⊢H→F.

Applying the deduction theorem to Löb's theorem gives us PA⊢(◻C→C)→C.

When translating to logic notation, it becomes obvious that the application of the deduction theorem is illegitimate, because we don't actually have PA∪{◻C→C}⊢C. This is the initial answer that Larry D'Anna gives in comments.

But now, suppose we define PA':=PA∪{◻C→C}, and walk through the proof of Löb's theorem for this new theory PA'. Then we would obtain the following implication: if PA'⊢◻C→C, then PA'⊢C. But clearly, PA'⊢◻C→C since ◻C→C is one of the axioms of PA'. Therefore by modus ponens, we have PA'⊢C, i.e. PA∪{◻C→C}⊢C. Now we can apply the deduction theorem to obtain PA⊢(◻C→C)→C. This means that our "Löb's theorem" for PA' must be incorrect (note: the proof is correct for PA, which is why Löb's theorem is a theorem; it's just incorrect for PA'), and somewhere in the ten-step proof is an error.

Translating the Löb's theorem back to logic

http://yudkowsky.net/assets/44/LobsTheorem.pdf

Since the solution to the puzzle refers back to the proof of Löb's theorem, we first translate the proof from the cartoon version back to logic:

  1. PA⊢◻L↔◻(◻L→C)
  2. PA⊢◻C→C
  3. PA⊢◻(◻L→C)→(◻◻L→◻C)
  4. PA⊢◻L→(◻◻L→◻C)
  5. PA⊢◻L→◻◻L
  6. PA⊢◻L→◻C
  7. PA⊢◻L→C
  8. PA⊢◻(◻L→C)
  9. PA⊢◻L
  10. PA⊢C

Repeating the proof of Löb's theorem for modified theory

We now repeat the proof of Löb's theorem for PA':=PA∪{◻C→C} to see where the error is.

  1. PA'⊢◻L↔◻(◻L→C) by definition of L
  2. PA'⊢◻C→C because ◻C→C is one of the axioms of PA'
  3. PA'⊢◻(◻L→C)→(◻◻L→◻C)
  4. PA'⊢◻L→(◻◻L→◻C)
  5. PA'⊢◻L→◻◻L
  6. PA'⊢◻L→◻C
  7. PA'⊢◻L→C

So far, everything is fine. But can we assert PA'⊢◻(◻L→C)? For PA, we had the following:

A1: For each X, if PA⊢X then PA⊢◻X