Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:14:52.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The independence of Peano's fourth axiom from Martin-Löf's type theory without universes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Jan M. Smith*
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Goteborg/Chalmers, S-412-96 Goteborg, Sweden

Extract

In Hilbert and Ackermann [2] there is a simple proof of the consistency of first order predicate logic by reducing it to propositional logic. Intuitively, the proof is based on interpreting predicate logic in a domain with only one element. Tarski [7] and Gentzen [1] have extended this method to simple type theory by starting with an individual domain consisting of a single element and then interpreting a higher type by the set of truth valued functions on the previous type.

I will use the method of Hilbert and Ackermann on Martin-Löf's type theory without universes to show that ¬Eq(A, a, b) cannot be derived without universes for any type A and any objects a and b of type A. In particular, this proves the conjecture in Martin-Löf [5] that Peano's fourth axiom (∀x ϵ N)¬ Eq(N, 0, succ(x)) cannot be proved in type theory without universes. If by consistency we mean that there is no closed term of the empty type, then the construction will also give a consistency proof by finitary methods of Martin-Löf's type theory without universes. So, without universes, the logic obtained by interpreting propositions as types is surprisingly weak. This is in sharp contrast with type theory as a computational system, since, for instance, the proof that every object of a type can be computed to normal form cannot be formalized in first order arithmetic.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1988

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.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Gentzen, G., Die Widerspruchsfreiheit der Stufenlogik, Mathematische Zeitschrift, vol. 41 (1936), pp. 357366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Hilbert, D. and Ackermann, W., Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1928.Google Scholar
[3]Martin-Löf, P., An intuitive theory of types: predicative part, Logic Colloquium '73, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975, pp. 73118.Google Scholar
[4]Martin-Löf, P., Constructive mathematics and computer programming, Sixth international congress for logic, methodology and philosophy of science, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 153175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Martin-Löf, P., Intuitionistic type theory, Bibliopolis, Naples, 1984.Google Scholar
[6]Smith, J. M., On a nonconstructive type theory and program derivation, Conference on logic and its applications (Bulgaria, 1986), Plenum Press, New York (to appear).Google Scholar
[7]Tarski, A., Einige Betrachtunqen über die Begriffe der ω-Widerspruchsfreiheit und der ω-Vollständigkeit, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, vol. 40 (1933), pp. 279295.Google Scholar