MathOverflow will be down for maintenance for approximately 3 hours, starting Monday evening (06/24/2013) at approximately 9:00 PM Eastern time (UTC-4).

2 added 1 characters in body

Does there exist any rubric where provably transcendental real number numbers emerge, in a meaningful way, as rare among all the transcendental numbers?

Here are some of the things I'm worried about:

1) To talk about provably transcendental numbers, it seems only fair to consider them as a subset of some sort of set of definable real numbers (relative to some appropriate language). If the language is countable, that means comparing two countable sets, so measure-theoretic language doesn't seem to help.

2) Some transcendentality proofs naturally apply to all the numbers in a definable uncountable set (which of course contains many undefinable numbers). Small variations of Liouville's famous original construction yield uncountable sets of transcendentals. So a countable language that can only encode a countable number of proofs can still establish the transcendentality of more than countably many numbers.

Perhaps something like this: relative to a fixed language one can define a complexity for definable transcendental reals by the length of their shortest defining formula. Among those of a given complexity, some fraction admit transcendentality proofs. Perhaps this fraction must go to 0 with the complexity for any reasonable theory? (This seems to me a meaningful question despite that attendant undecibilities concerning whether a formula defines a numbers, whether two formulas define the same number, etc.)

1

# Concerning the rarity of provably transcendental real numbers

Does there exist any rubric where provably transcendental real number emerge, in a meaningful way, as rare among all the transcendental numbers?

Here are some of the things I'm worried about:

1) To talk about provably transcendental numbers, it seems only fair to consider them as a subset of some sort of set of definable real numbers (relative to some appropriate language). If the language is countable, that means comparing two countable sets, so measure-theoretic language doesn't seem to help.

2) Some transcendentality proofs naturally apply to all the numbers in a definable uncountable set (which of course contains many undefinable numbers). Small variations of Liouville's famous original construction yield uncountable sets of transcendentals. So a countable language that can only encode a countable number of proofs can still establish the transcendentality of more than countably many numbers.

Perhaps something like this: relative to a fixed language one can define a complexity for definable transcendental reals by the length of their shortest defining formula. Among those of a given complexity, some fraction admit transcendentality proofs. Perhaps this fraction must go to 0 with the complexity for any reasonable theory? (This seems to me a meaningful question despite that attendant undecibilities concerning whether a formula defines a numbers, whether two formulas define the same number, etc.)