Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Topic: Can addition be defined in terms of multiplication?
Replies: 58   Last Post: Aug 23, 2013 3:56 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 David Libert Posts: 826 Registered: 12/12/04
Re: Can addition be defined in terms of multiplication?
Posted: Aug 22, 2013 12:49 PM

Can addition be defined in terms of multiplication?
...................................................

Author: David Libert
Date: 2013-08-22 12:18:08 EDT

.................
2 this is a reply to Peter Percival's Aug 20 article
3 Two stackexchange references from Alan Smaill and Peter
4 Summary of results from second stackexchange reference
5 Discussion of quoted results
5.1 Herbert Enderton A Mathematical Introduction to Logic
5.2 Successor cannot define addition or multiplication
5.3 Multiplication is not definable from successor and +
5.4 Addition IS definable from successor and multiplication
5.5 Decidability or not of arithmetic (sub)theories
5.5.1 Followup about theory of multiplication only
5.5.1.1 Further Handbook reference

........................................................
Dual posting in accordance with policy
http://davesscribbles.wikispaces.com/policyusenetincrwikispaces

http://davesscribbles.wikispaces.com/plusundeffrommult

2 this is a reply to Peter Percival's Aug 20 article
......................................................
[1]
Peter Percival
sci.logic sci.math
Can addition be defined in terms of multiplication?
Tue Aug 20, 2013

3 Two stackexchange references from Alan Smaill and Peter
...........................................................
> > Versions of this use just FOL;
>
> > overview here:
>
> >
>
> > http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/312891/how-is-exponentiation-defined-in-peano-arithmetic
>
>
>
> Which led me to
>

Above, Alan and Peter gave two stackexchange references:

[2]
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/312891/how-is-exponentiation-defined-in-peano-arithmetic

[3]

4 Summary of results from second stackexchange reference
..........................................................
Peter quotes results stated in [3]:

> Actually, more is known. Neither addition nor multiplication is
>
> definable from successor alone; multiplication is not definable from
>
> successor and addition; and addition is not definable from successor and
>
> multiplication. The theory of the natural numbers with multiplication
>
> and addition is undecidable, but the restriction to just addition is
>
> decidable, and the restriction with just multiplication is decidable.

5 Discussion of quoted results
................................

5.1 Herbert Enderton A Mathematical Introduction to Logic
...........................................................
[4]
Herbert Enderton
A Mathematical Introduction to Logic

5.2 Successor cannot define addition or multiplication
........................................................
In [4], section 3.1 pp 178-184, Enderton defines the theory of
successor only on the natural numbers and proves it admits elimination
of quantifiers.

In that section 3.1, exercise 4 on page 184 uses the elimination of
quantifiers above to conclude the sets definable in this theory are
each finite or compliment of finite (cofinite).

From + we can define the set of even numbers, which is neither finite
nor cofinite. From * we can define the set if squares, which is
neither finite nor cofinite.

So neither + nor * are definable.

5.3 Multiplication is not definable from successor and +
..........................................................
This is from Presberger's elimination of quantifiers argument on
successor and + from 1929. [4] states the decidability of this
theory on page 188 and gives the elimination of quantifiers proof
in the following pages. On page 192 [4] states the consequence of
this elimination of quantifiers above that the definable sets are
exactly the eventually periodic ones.

From * we can define the set if squares, which is not eventually
periodic, so * is undefinable from this theory.

5.4 Addition IS definable from successor and multiplication
.............................................................
The quote from [3] above says multiplication is NOT definable from
successor and multiplication, but this seems to be in error.

Robinson:

[5]
Herbert Enderton Tue Dec 10, 2002 sci.logic
"Re: The language of whatever (Was: Definable real numbers)"

5.5 Decidability or not of arithmetic (sub)theories
.....................................................
[3] noted +,* together are undecidable, but + and * are each
individually decidable.

For +,* code Turing machines into +,* and the undecidability of the
halting problem. Such coding can be done with Godel's methods to
code sequences as from [2].

[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)

attributes this:

> The first-order theory of the natural numbers with
> addition, multiplication, and equality, established
> by Tarski and Andrzej Mostowski in 1949.

(Above I edited to break a long line.)

The + decidability is Presberger's Theorem as above.

[7]
Robin Chapman sci.logic sci.math Fri Aug 16, 2013
"Re: Can addition be defined in terms of multiplication?"

noted the Presberger result about + above, and then noted this
should also apply to *.

This sounds right to me though I don't yet see it in detail. The
standard model of * is a finite support product of omega copies of
the standard + model, ie each coordinate copy corresponding to
powers of a distinct prime. Composite numbers appear as finite
support Cartesian products of those copies.

Either repeat Presberger's proof on this more complicated setup
directly. Or maybe some abstract nonsense does a reduction.

If that is correct about * being a decidable theory, that answers
the original question of this thread:

[8]
Peter Percival
sci.logic sci.math
Can addition be defined in terms of multiplication?
Fri Aug 16, 2013

Robin already pointed this out in [7].

5.5.1 Followup about theory of multiplication only
...................................................
Above is as far as I got on my own.

Since writing that I Googled and found some more. Not proofs I know
but literature references. So I am adding this as a separate
comments were from a less informed background so are still easier to
understand.

I Googled "theory of multiplication only decidable" and that led
me to the references I will give and discuss below.

[9]
On Direct Products of Theories
Andrzej Mostowski
Source: J. Symbolic Logic Volume 17, Issue 1 (1952), 1-31.
http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=euclid.jsl/1183731313

[10]
Research web page of Alexis BÃ¨s University of Paris
http://lacl.fr/bes/recherche.html

[11]
A.BÃ¨s
Definability and decidability results related
to the elementary theory of ordinal multiplication
Fund.Math.171, 197-211 (2002).
http://lacl.fr/bes/publi/ordimult.ps
http://lacl.fr/bes/publi/errataordimult.ps

[11] page 1 notes that the decidability of theory of multiplication
only on omega was announced by Skolem in 1930 and proved by
Mostowski in [9]. [11] notes that proof in [9] was a direct
consequence of Mostowski's results on direct products of structures
and Presberger's result on decidability of the theory of + on omega.
So it seems this was along the lines I was noting in the section

[11] notes as above about Skolem and [9]. [11] also references two
other papers proving that decidability of the theory of
multiplication on omega.

[11] also states and proves its main new theorem: the elementary
theory of usual ordinal multiplication on an ordinal alpha
(ie von Neumann's definition: considering ordinal alpha to be the set
of all smaller ordinals, and hence the universe of a structure) is
decidable <-> a < omega^omega.

[11] includes further technical results about definability from
multiplication on an ordinal.

Those are the basic references I found. So this is further support
for the stackexchange [3] about theory of multiplication being
decidable. As Robin noted in [7] and I noted in the section above,
this is enough to answer the original [8] question: multiplication

There is the Feferman Vaught theorem, along the lines of decidability
of theory of a product structure of factors having decidable
theories. Possibly related to the Mostowski [9].

Googling "feferman vaught" I found a reference on this sort of
thing, though scanning I didn't notice the names Feferman Vaught:

[12]
http://theory.stanford.edu/~tingz/talks/quals.pdf

[12] page 34 is specifically about decidability of multiplication on
natural numbers.

5.5.1.1 Further Handbook reference
...................................
Since writing the above I found an additional reference:

[13]
Handbook of Mathematical Logic
Edited by Jon Barwise
North-Holland Publishing Company
4th printing 1985

[14]
Decidable Theories
Michael O. Rabin
[13] pp 595-629

[15] in [14] section 2.5 Further results pp 611-612
page 612

[15] notes properties of product structures was initiated by
Mostowski and developed by Feferman and Vaught. Rabin notes
this applies to show the theory of multiplication on omega is
decidable, applying these product results to the decidability of
the theory of + on omega. Namely by this general theory getting
the decidability of the direct sum of omega many copies of + on
omega. This as I wrote earlier about finite support.

Rabin mentions this decidability of * as due to Skolem and Mostowski.

Date Subject Author
8/16/13 Peter Percival
8/16/13 William Elliot
8/16/13 Peter Percival
8/16/13 David C. Ullrich
8/16/13 namducnguyen
8/17/13 Peter Percival
8/17/13 namducnguyen
8/17/13 fom
8/23/13 tommy1729_
8/16/13 Peter Percival
8/16/13 Robin Chapman
8/16/13 Helmut Richter
8/16/13 Rotwang
8/16/13 Virgil
8/22/13 Rock Brentwood
8/16/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
8/17/13 Helmut Richter
8/16/13 Jim Burns
8/16/13 fom
8/17/13 Robin Chapman
8/17/13 fom
8/17/13 Peter Percival
8/17/13 fom
8/17/13 Peter Percival
8/17/13 Peter Percival
8/18/13 William Elliot
8/18/13 Peter Percival
8/18/13 William Elliot
8/18/13 Peter Percival
8/18/13 Graham Cooper
8/18/13 David C. Ullrich
8/18/13 David C. Ullrich
8/17/13 Graham Cooper
8/18/13 David Bernier
8/18/13 Ben Bacarisse
8/18/13 Peter Percival
8/18/13 Jim Burns
8/18/13 fom
8/18/13 Ben Bacarisse
8/18/13 Graham Cooper
8/18/13 Graham Cooper
8/18/13 Graham Cooper
8/18/13 Graham Cooper
8/19/13 Graham Cooper
8/19/13 Alan Smaill
8/19/13 fom
8/19/13 Alan Smaill
8/20/13 Alan Smaill
8/20/13 Peter Percival
8/20/13 Graham Cooper
8/20/13 Graham Cooper
8/22/13 David Libert
8/22/13 Peter Percival
8/20/13 fom