Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Mar 11, 2017 at 20:20 comment added Noah Schweber @johnmangual I've added a bit more about recursive proofs, I think it makes it clearer why the Shoenfield completeness theorem isn't obvious (and why the height of the proofs is $\omega^2$, not $\omega$) despite the ease of the $\Pi^0_1$ case. This obviously isn't directly relevant to your question, but I think it's useful for providing a full picture; if you disagree, let me know and I'll delete it.
Mar 11, 2017 at 20:19 history edited Noah Schweber CC BY-SA 3.0
added 2023 characters in body
Mar 11, 2017 at 19:16 vote accept john mangual
Mar 11, 2017 at 19:16 comment added john mangual well... it's a good ting I asked.
Mar 11, 2017 at 19:15 history edited Noah Schweber CC BY-SA 3.0
added 86 characters in body
Mar 11, 2017 at 19:12 comment added Noah Schweber @johnmangual I didn't say that everything is provable in PA. It turns out that PA with the recursive $\omega$-rule, though, does prove every true statement in the language of arithmetic, regardless of whether those statements are true in PA; I've edited to clarify that in the $\Pi^0_1$ case specifically. Also, the prime number theorem absolutely is provable in PA, and indeed much less. PA suffices for the vast, vast majority of number theory; indeed FLT is generally believed to be PA-provable.
Mar 11, 2017 at 19:02 comment added john mangual +1 not everything is provable in Peano Arithmetic. the prime number theorem is not. Fermat's Little Theorem and Quadratic Reciprocity certainly are. So it sounds like I could be happy with structures in PA alone.
Mar 11, 2017 at 17:48 history edited Noah Schweber CC BY-SA 3.0
added 73 characters in body
Mar 11, 2017 at 17:41 history answered Noah Schweber CC BY-SA 3.0