User:IssaRice/Computability and logic/Eliezer Yudkowsky's Löb's theorem puzzle: Difference between revisions
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
When translating to logic notation, it becomes obvious that the application of the deduction theorem is illegitimate, because we don't actually have <math>\mathsf{PA} \cup \{\Box C \to C\} \vdash C</math>. This is the initial answer that Larry D'Anna gives in comments. | When translating to logic notation, it becomes obvious that the application of the deduction theorem is illegitimate, because we don't actually have <math>\mathsf{PA} \cup \{\Box C \to C\} \vdash C</math>. This is the initial answer that Larry D'Anna gives in comments. | ||
But now, suppose we define <math>\mathsf{PA}' := \mathsf{PA} \cup \{\Box C \to C\}</math>, and walk through the proof of Löb's theorem for this new theory <math>\mathsf{PA}'</math>. Then we would obtain the following implication: if <math>\mathsf{PA}' \vdash \Box C \to C</math>, then <math>\mathsf{PA}' \vdash C</math>. But clearly, <math>\mathsf{PA}' \vdash \Box C \to C</math> since <math>\Box C \to C</math> is one of the axioms of <math>\mathsf{PA}'</math>. Therefore by modus ponens, we have <math>\mathsf{PA}' \vdash C</math>, i.e. <math>\mathsf{PA}\cup\{\Box C \to C\} \vdash C</math>. Now we can apply the deduction theorem to obtain <math>\mathsf{PA} \vdash (\Box C \to C) \to C</math>. | But now, suppose we define <math>\mathsf{PA}' := \mathsf{PA} \cup \{\Box C \to C\}</math>, and walk through the proof of Löb's theorem for this new theory <math>\mathsf{PA}'</math>. Then we would obtain the following implication: if <math>\mathsf{PA}' \vdash \Box C \to C</math>, then <math>\mathsf{PA}' \vdash C</math>. But clearly, <math>\mathsf{PA}' \vdash \Box C \to C</math> since <math>\Box C \to C</math> is one of the axioms of <math>\mathsf{PA}'</math>. Therefore by modus ponens, we have <math>\mathsf{PA}' \vdash C</math>, i.e. <math>\mathsf{PA}\cup\{\Box C \to C\} \vdash C</math>. Now we can apply the deduction theorem to obtain <math>\mathsf{PA} \vdash (\Box C \to C) \to C</math>. This means that our "Löb's theorem" for <math>\mathsf{PA}'</math> must be incorrect, and somewhere in the ten-step proof is an error. | ||
==Translating the Löb's theorem back to logic== | ==Translating the Löb's theorem back to logic== | ||
Revision as of 03:29, 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 , then .
The deduction theorem says that if , then .
Applying the deduction theorem to Löb's theorem gives us .
When translating to logic notation, it becomes obvious that the application of the deduction theorem is illegitimate, because we don't actually have . This is the initial answer that Larry D'Anna gives in comments.
But now, suppose we define , and walk through the proof of Löb's theorem for this new theory . Then we would obtain the following implication: if , then . But clearly, since is one of the axioms of . Therefore by modus ponens, we have , i.e. . Now we can apply the deduction theorem to obtain . This means that our "Löb's theorem" for must be incorrect, 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: