The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.research

Topic: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
Replies: 29   Last Post: Aug 24, 2006 9:00 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu

Posts: 446
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
Posted: Jul 29, 2006 12:30 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <ead71n$etf$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>, <tchow@lsa.umich.edu> wrote:

>In article <ea83ig$qmq$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
>John Baez <baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu> wrote:


>>Logicians [...] know a lot about how much induction
>>up to different ordinals buys you. And apparently, induction up to
>>Gamma_0 lets us prove the consistency of a system called "predicative
>>analysis". I don't understand this, nor do I understand the claim
>>I've seen that Gamma_0 is the first ordinal that cannot be defined
>>predicatively - i.e., can't be defined without reference to itself.
>>Sure, saying Gamma_0 is the first solution of
>>
>>phi_x(0) = x
>>
>>is non-predicative. But what about saying that Gamma_0 is the union
>>of all ordinals in the Veblen hierarchy? What's non-predicative
>>about that?


>The situation is somewhat akin to the situation with the Church-Turing
>thesis, in that one is tentatively equating an informal notion
>(predicativity or computability) with a precise mathematical notion.
>Therefore there is no definitive answer to your question, and Feferman
>himself has articulated potential objections to the "standard view"
>that Gamma_0 marks the boundary of predicativity.


There's also someone named Nik Weaver who has debated Feferman
on this subject:

http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2006-April/010472.html
http://www.math.wustl.edu/~nweaver/conceptualism.html

He seems to claim that Gamma_0 and even larger ordinals have predicative
definitions. However, I'm too ignorant to follow this debate.
Usually in physics I have a sense for when people are being reasonable
even if I don't follow the details. In this debate I can't even
do that.

>Having said that, I'll also say that one of the reasons for the standard
>view is that Gamma_0 marks the boundary of "autonomous progressions" of
>arithmetical theories. The book by Torkel Franzen that you cited is
>probably the most accessible introduction to this subject.


This summer I'm in Shanghai without any academic affiliation, so it's
hard to get that book. When I return to Riverside in the fall I'll
try to read it. But my curiosity is burning right now, so I'll take
the liberty of asking some more questions.

>Roughly
>speaking, the idea is that if anyone fully accepts first-order Peano
>arithmetic PA, then implicitly he accepts its consistency Con(PA), as
>well as Con(PA+Con(PA)), etc.


I assume that by "etcetera" you mean there's one theory like this
per ordinal. I browsed a paper by Franzen where he was trying
to explicate how these theories actually let you prove interesting
new stuff.

It's a bit mysterious: I imagine a guy sitting there thinking
"Peano arithmetic is true, so I know it's consistent, and I know
*that's* consistent too, and I know *that's* consistent...", and
so on - and after pondering this way for an transfinite amount of time,
all of a sudden he can do new stuff like prove that Goodstein
sequences approach zero!

I think Franzen was trying to dispel this naive conception.
He said the real action happens at limit ordinals, where
the interpretation of everything changes in some sneaky way.

But, my understanding of his comments like an impressionist
painting of a surreal painting - Dali's "Sacrament of the Last
Supper" as reworked by Monet.

(Hey, I managed to sneak a docahedron into the discussion!)

>If one tries to articulate exactly what
>is "implicitly" involved in accepting PA in this sense, then one can
>make a plausibility argument that Gamma_0 is a natural stopping point.


It would be really great if you could say more about this
plausibility argument.

>I think you have a better shot at grasping the underlying intuition via
>this approach than by staring at Gamma_0 itself and trying to figure out
>what is non-predicative about its definition.


Okay, I won't try to do that.




Date Subject Author
7/26/06
Read This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu
7/27/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
david.corfield@tuebingen.mpg.de
7/29/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu
7/30/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
david.corfield@tuebingen.mpg.de
8/1/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
john baez
7/28/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
Jim Heckman
7/29/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu
7/31/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
Jim Heckman
8/1/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
Tom Leinster
8/2/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
john baez
7/28/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
tchow@lsa.umich.edu
7/29/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu
7/30/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
tchow@lsa.umich.edu
8/2/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
john baez
8/7/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
Keith Ramsay
8/8/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
john baez
8/8/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
tchow@lsa.umich.edu
8/24/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
Nik Weaver
7/28/06
Read Re: Order-preserving embeddings of ordinals in the real numbers
David Madore
7/28/06
Read Re: Order-preserving embeddings of ordinals in the real numbers
G. A. Edgar
7/29/06
Read Re: Order-preserving embeddings of ordinals in the real numbers
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu
7/30/06
Read graphical representation of epsilon_0 (was: Re: Order-preserving embeddings of ordinals in the real numbers)
David Madore
8/1/06
Read Pictures of infinity
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu
8/2/06
Read Re: Pictures of infinity
tony@mantis.co.uk
8/2/06
Read Re: Pictures of infinity
Alec Edgington
8/3/06
Read Re: Pictures of infinity
Dave L. Renfro
7/28/06
Read Re: Order-preserving embeddings of ordinals in the real numbers
Ian A. Mason
7/28/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
Kevin Buzzard
7/29/06
Read Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.