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

From Machinelearning

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

We need the following:

A1′: For each X, if PA'⊢X then PA'⊢◻X

Since PA' has more axioms than PA, we know that PA' can prove everything that PA can. Thus, compared to A1, both the antecedent and consequent of A1′ are stronger, so A1′ does not necessarily follow from A1.

Suppose we take X in A1′ to be ◻C→C. Then we obtain

If PA'⊢◻C→C then PA'⊢◻(◻C→C)

Other ways we might try to get step 8 to work:

  • PA'⊢X→◻X
  • if X, then PA⊢X