Goodstein's theorem#Hereditary base-n notation

{{short description|Theorem about natural numbers}}

In mathematical logic, Goodstein's theorem is a statement about the natural numbers, proved by Reuben Goodstein in 1944, which states that every Goodstein sequence (as defined below) eventually terminates at 0. Laurence Kirby and Jeff Paris{{sfn|Kirby|Paris|1982}} showed that it is unprovable in Peano arithmetic (but it can be proven in stronger systems, such as second-order arithmetic or Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory). This was the third example of a true statement about natural numbers that is unprovable in Peano arithmetic, after the examples provided by Gödel's incompleteness theorem and Gerhard Gentzen's 1943 direct proof of the unprovability of ε0-induction in Peano arithmetic. The Paris–Harrington theorem gave another example.

Kirby and Paris introduced a graph-theoretic hydra game with behavior similar to that of Goodstein sequences: the "Hydra" (named for the mythological multi-headed Hydra of Lerna) is a rooted tree, and a move consists of cutting off one of its "heads" (a branch of the tree), to which the hydra responds by growing a finite number of new heads according to certain rules. Kirby and Paris proved that the Hydra will eventually be killed, regardless of the strategy that Hercules uses to chop off its heads, though this may take a very long time. Just like for Goodstein sequences, Kirby and Paris showed that it cannot be proven in Peano arithmetic alone.{{sfn|Kirby|Paris|1982}}

Hereditary base-''n'' notation

Goodstein sequences are defined in terms of a concept called "hereditary base-n notation". This notation is very similar to usual base-n positional notation, but the usual notation does not suffice for the purposes of Goodstein's theorem.

To achieve the ordinary base-n notation, where n is a natural number greater than 1, an arbitrary natural number m is written as a sum of multiples of powers of n:

:m = a_k n^k + a_{k-1} n^{k-1} + \cdots + a_0,

where each coefficient ai satisfies {{nowrap|0 ≤ ai < n}}, and {{nowrap|ak ≠ 0}}. For example, to achieve the base 2 notation, one writes

:35 = 32 + 2 + 1 = 2^5 + 2^1 + 2^0.

Thus the base-2 representation of 35 is 100011, which means {{nowrap|25 + 2 + 1}}. Similarly, 100 represented in base-3 is 10201:

:100 = 81 + 18 + 1 = 3^4 + 2 \cdot 3^2 + 3^0.

Note that the exponents themselves are not written in base-n notation. For example, the expressions above include 25 and 34, and 5 > 2, 4 > 3.

To convert a base-n notation (which is a step in achieving base-n representation) to a hereditary base-n notation, first rewrite all of the exponents as a sum of powers of n (with the limitation on the coefficients {{nowrap|0 ≤ ai < n}}). Then rewrite any exponent inside the exponents in base-n notation (with the same limitation on the coefficients), and continue in this way until every number appearing in the expression (except the bases themselves) is written in base-n notation.

For example, while 35 in ordinary base-2 notation is {{nowrap|25 + 2 + 1}}, it is written in hereditary base-2 notation as

:35 = 2^{2^{2^1}+1}+2^1+1,

using the fact that {{nowrap|1=5 = 221 + 1.}} Similarly, 100 in hereditary base-3 notation is

:100 = 3^{3^1+1} + 2 \cdot 3^2 + 1.

Goodstein sequences

The Goodstein sequence G_m of a number m is a sequence of natural numbers. The first element in the sequence G_m is m itself. To get the second, G_m (2), write m in hereditary base-2 notation, change all the 2s to 3s, and then subtract 1 from the result. In general, the {{nowrap|1 + nth}} term, G_m (n+1), of the Goodstein sequence of m is as follows:

  • Take the hereditary base-{{nowrap|n + 1}} representation of G_m (n).
  • Replace each occurrence of the base-{{nowrap|n + 1}} with {{nowrap|n + 2}}.
  • Subtract one. (Note that the next term depends both on the previous term and on the index n.)
  • Continue until the result is zero, at which point the sequence terminates.

Early Goodstein sequences terminate quickly. For example, G_3 terminates at the 6th step:

class="wikitable" border="1"
BaseHereditary notationValueNotes
2 2^1 + 1 3Write 3 in base-2 notation
3 3^1 + 1 - 1 = 3^1 3Switch the 2 to a 3, then subtract 1
4 4^1 - 1 = 3 3Switch the 3 to a 4, then subtract 1. Now there are no more 4's left
5 3 - 1 = 2 2No 4's left to switch to 5's. Just subtract 1
6 2 - 1 = 1 1No 5's left to switch to 6's. Just subtract 1
7 1 - 1 = 0 0No 6's left to switch to 7's. Just subtract 1

Later Goodstein sequences increase for a very large number of steps. For example, G_4 {{OEIS2C|id=A056193}} starts as follows:

class="wikitable" border="1"
BaseHereditary notationValue
2 2^{2^1} 4
3 3^{3^1} - 1 = 2 \cdot 3^2 + 2 \cdot 3 + 2 26
4 2 \cdot 4^2 + 2 \cdot 4 + 1 41
5 2 \cdot 5^2 + 2 \cdot 5 60
6 2 \cdot 6^2 + 2 \cdot 6 - 1 = 2 \cdot 6^2 + 6 + 5 83
7 2 \cdot 7^2 + 7 + 4 109
align=center

| \vdots

\vdots \vdots
11 2 \cdot 11^2 + 11 253
12 2 \cdot 12^2 + 12 - 1 = 2 \cdot 12^2 + 11 299
align=center

| \vdots

\vdots \vdots
24 2 \cdot 24^2 - 1 = 24^2 + 23 \cdot 24 + 23 1151
align=center

| \vdots

\vdots \vdots
B = 3 \cdot 2^{402\,653\,209} - 1 2 \cdot B^1 3 \cdot 2^{402\,653\,210} - 2
B = 3 \cdot 2^{402\,653\,209} 2 \cdot B^1 - 1 = B^1 + (B-1) 3 \cdot 2^{402\,653\,210} - 1
align=center

| \vdots

\vdots \vdots

Elements of G_4 continue to increase for a while, but at base 3 \cdot 2^{402\,653\,209},

they reach the maximum of 3 \cdot 2^{402\,653\,210} - 1, stay there for the next 3 \cdot 2^{402\,653\,209} steps, and then begin their descent.

However, even G_4 doesn't give a good idea of just how quickly the elements of a Goodstein sequence can increase.

G_{19} increases much more rapidly and starts as follows:

class="wikitable" border="1"
Hereditary notationValue
2^{2^2} + 2 + 1 19
3^{3^3} + 3 {{val|7,625,597,484,990}}
4^{4^4} + 3 \approx 1.3 \times 10^{154}
5^{5^5} + 2 \approx 1.8 \times 10^{2\,184}
6^{6^6} + 1 \approx 2.6 \times 10^{36\,305}
7^{7^7} \approx 3.8 \times 10^{695\,974}
8^{8^8} - 1 = 7 \cdot 8^{7 \cdot 8^7 + 7 \cdot 8^6 + 7 \cdot 8^5 + 7 \cdot 8^4 + 7 \cdot 8^3 + 7 \cdot 8^2 + 7 \cdot 8 + 7}

{}+ 7 \cdot 8^{7 \cdot 8^7 + 7 \cdot 8^6 + 7 \cdot 8^5 + 7 \cdot 8^4 + 7 \cdot 8^3 + 7 \cdot 8^2 + 7 \cdot 8 + 6} + \cdots

{}+ 7 \cdot 8^{8+2} + 7 \cdot 8^{8+1} + 7 \cdot 8^8

{}+ 7 \cdot 8^7 + 7 \cdot 8^6 + 7 \cdot 8^5 + 7 \cdot 8^4

{}+ 7 \cdot 8^3 + 7 \cdot 8^2 + 7 \cdot 8 + 7

| \approx 6.0 \times 10^{15\,151\,335}

7 \cdot 9^{7 \cdot 9^7 + 7 \cdot 9^6 + 7 \cdot 9^5 + 7 \cdot 9^4 + 7 \cdot 9^3 + 7 \cdot 9^2 + 7 \cdot 9 + 7}

{}+ 7 \cdot 9^{7 \cdot 9^7 + 7 \cdot 9^6 + 7 \cdot 9^5 + 7 \cdot 9^4 + 7 \cdot 9^3 + 7 \cdot 9^2 + 7 \cdot 9 + 6} + \cdots

{}+ 7 \cdot 9^{9+2} + 7 \cdot 9^{9+1}+ 7 \cdot 9^9

{}+ 7 \cdot 9^7 + 7 \cdot 9^6 + 7 \cdot 9^5 + 7 \cdot 9^4

{}+ 7 \cdot 9^3 + 7 \cdot 9^2 + 7 \cdot 9 + 6

| \approx 5.6 \times 10^{35\,942\,384}

align=center

| \vdots

\vdots

In spite of this rapid growth, Goodstein's theorem states that every Goodstein sequence eventually terminates at 0, no matter what the starting value is.

Proof of Goodstein's theorem

Goodstein's theorem can be proved (using techniques outside Peano arithmetic, see below) as follows: Given a Goodstein sequence G_m, we construct a parallel sequence P_m of ordinal numbers in Cantor normal form which is strictly decreasing and terminates. A common misunderstanding of this proof is to believe that G_m goes to 0 because it is dominated by P_m. Actually, the fact that P_m dominates G_m plays no role at all. The important point is: G_m(k) exists if and only if P_m(k) exists (parallelism), and comparison between two members of G_m is preserved when comparing corresponding entries of P_m.{{sfn|Rathjen|2014|loc=lemma 2.2}} Then if P_m terminates, so does G_m. By infinite regress, G_m must reach 0, which guarantees termination.

We define a function f=f(u,k) which computes the hereditary base k representation of u and then replaces each occurrence of the base k with the first infinite ordinal number \omega. For example, f(100,3)=f(3^{3^1+1}+2\cdot3^2+1,3)=\omega^{\omega^1+1} + \omega^2\cdot2 + 1 = \omega^{\omega+1} + \omega^2\cdot2 + 1.

Each term P_m(n) of the sequence P_m is then defined as f(G_m(n),n+1). For example, G_3(1) = 3 = 2^1 + 2^0 and P_3(1) = f(2^1 + 2^0,2) = \omega^1 + \omega^0 = \omega + 1. Addition, multiplication and exponentiation of ordinal numbers are well defined.

We claim that f(G_m(n),n+1) > f(G_m(n+1),n+2):

Let G'_m(n) be G_m(n) after applying the first,

base-changing operation in generating the next element of the Goodstein sequence,

but before the second minus 1 operation in this generation.

Observe that G_m(n+1)= G'_m(n)-1.

Then f(G_m(n),n+1) = f(G'_m(n),n+2). Now we apply the minus 1 operation, and f(G'_m(n),n+2) > f(G_m(n+1),n+2), as G'_m(n) = G_m(n+1)+1.

For example, G_4(1)=2^2 and G_4(2)=2\cdot 3^2 + 2\cdot 3+2, so f(2^2,2)=\omega^\omega and f(2\cdot 3^2 + 2\cdot 3+2,3)=

\omega^2\cdot2+\omega\cdot2+2, which is strictly smaller. Note that in order to calculate f(G_m(n),n+1), we first need to write

G_m(n) in hereditary base n+1 notation, as for instance the expression \omega^\omega-1 is not an ordinal.

Thus the sequence P_m is strictly decreasing. As the standard order < on ordinals is well-founded, an infinite strictly decreasing sequence cannot exist, or equivalently, every strictly decreasing sequence of ordinals terminates (and cannot be infinite). But P_m(n) is calculated directly from G_m(n). Hence the sequence G_m must terminate as well, meaning that it must reach 0.

While this proof of Goodstein's theorem is fairly easy, the Kirby–Paris theorem,{{sfn|Kirby|Paris|1982}} which shows that Goodstein's theorem is not a theorem of Peano arithmetic, is technical and considerably more difficult. It makes use of countable nonstandard models of Peano arithmetic.

= Extended Goodstein's theorem =

The above proof still works if the definition of the Goodstein sequence is changed so that the base-changing operation replaces each occurrence of the base b with b+2 instead of b+1.

More generally, let b_1, b_2, b_3, \ldots be any non-decreasing sequence of integers with b_1 \geq 2.

Then let the (n+1)st

term G_m(n+1) of the extended Goodstein sequence of m be as

follows:

  • Take the hereditary base b_n representation of G_m(n).
  • Replace each occurrence of the base b_n with b_{n+1}.
  • Subtract one.

A simple modification of the above proof shows that this sequence still terminates. For example, if b_n = 4 and if b_{n+1} = 9,

then f(3 \cdot 4^{4^4} + 4, 4) = 3 \omega^{\omega^\omega} + \omega= f(3

\cdot 9^{9^9} + 9, 9), hence the ordinal f(3 \cdot 4^{4^4} +

4, 4) is strictly greater than the ordinal f\big((3 \cdot

9^{9^9} + 9) - 1, 9\big).

The extended version is in fact the one considered in Goodstein's original paper,{{sfn|Goodstein|1944}} where Goodstein proved that it is equivalent to the restricted ordinal theorem (i.e. the claim that transfinite induction below ε0 is valid), and gave a finitist proof for the case where m \le b_1^{b_1^{b_1}} (equivalent to transfinite induction up to \omega^{\omega^\omega}).

The extended Goodstein's theorem without any restriction on the sequence bn is not formalizable in Peano arithmetic (PA), since such an arbitrary infinite sequence cannot be represented in PA. This seems to be what kept Goodstein from claiming back in 1944 that the extended Goodstein's theorem is unprovable in PA due to Gödel's second incompleteness theorem and Gentzen's proof of the consistency of PA using ε0-induction.{{sfn|Rathjen|2014}} However, inspection of Gentzen's proof shows that it only needs the fact that there is no primitive recursive strictly decreasing infinite sequence of ordinals, so limiting bn to primitive recursive sequences would have allowed Goodstein to prove an unprovability result.{{sfn|Rathjen|2014}} Furthermore, with the relatively elementary technique of the Grzegorczyk hierarchy, it can be shown that every primitive recursive strictly decreasing infinite sequence of ordinals

can be "slowed down" so that it can be transformed to a Goodstein sequence where b_n = n+1, thus giving an alternative proof to the same result Kirby and Paris proved.{{sfn|Rathjen|2014}}

Sequence length as a function of the starting value

The Goodstein function, \mathcal{G}: \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N} , is defined such that \mathcal{G}(n) is the length of the Goodstein sequence that starts with n. (This is a total function since every Goodstein sequence terminates.) The extremely high growth rate of \mathcal{G} can be calibrated by relating it to various standard ordinal-indexed hierarchies of functions, such as the functions H_\alpha in the Hardy hierarchy, and the functions f_\alpha in the fast-growing hierarchy of Löb and Wainer:

  • Kirby and Paris (1982) proved that

:\mathcal{G} has approximately the same growth-rate as H_{\epsilon_0} (which is the same as that of f_{\epsilon_0}); more precisely, \mathcal{G} dominates H_\alpha for every \alpha < \epsilon_0, and H_{\epsilon_0} dominates \mathcal{G}\,\!.

:(For any two functions f, g: \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N} , f is said to dominate g if f(n) > g(n) for all sufficiently large n.)

  • Cichon (1983) showed that

: \mathcal{G}(n) = H_{R_2^\omega(n+1)}(1) - 1,

:where R_2^\omega(n) is the result of putting n in hereditary base-2 notation and then replacing all 2s with ω (as was done in the proof of Goodstein's theorem).

  • Caicedo (2007) showed that if n = 2^{m_1} + 2^{m_2} + \cdots + 2^{m_k} with m_1 > m_2 > \cdots > m_k, then

: \mathcal{G}(n) = f_{R_2^\omega(m_1)}(f_{R_2^\omega(m_2)}(\cdots(f_{R_2^\omega(m_k)}(3))\cdots)) - 2.

Some examples:

class="wikitable" border="1"
colspan=3 | n

! colspan=3 | \mathcal{G}(n)

1

| 2^0

| 2 - 1

| H_\omega(1) - 1

| f_0(3) - 2

| 2

2

| 2^1

| 2^1 + 1 - 1

| H_{\omega + 1}(1) - 1

| f_1(3) - 2

| 4

3

| 2^1 + 2^0

| 2^2 - 1

| H_{\omega^\omega}(1) - 1

| f_1(f_0(3)) - 2

| 6

4

| 2^2

| 2^2 + 1 - 1

| H_{\omega^\omega + 1}(1) - 1

| f_\omega(3) - 2

| 3·2402653211 − 2 ≈ 6.895080803×10121210694

5

| 2^2 + 2^0

| 2^2 + 2 - 1

| H_{\omega^\omega + \omega}(1) - 1

| f_\omega(f_0(3)) - 2

| > A(4,4) > 10101019727

6

| 2^2 + 2^1

| 2^2 + 2 + 1 - 1

| H_{\omega^\omega + \omega + 1}(1) - 1

| f_\omega(f_1(3)) - 2

| > A(6,6)

7

| 2^2 + 2^1 + 2^0

| 2^{2 + 1} - 1

| H_{\omega^{\omega + 1}}(1) - 1

| f_\omega(f_1(f_0(3))) - 2

| > A(8,8)

8

| 2^{2 + 1}

| 2^{2 + 1} + 1 - 1

| H_{\omega^{\omega + 1} + 1}(1) - 1

| f_{\omega + 1}(3) - 2

| > A3(3,3) = A(A(61, 61), A(61, 61))

colspan=6 align=center | \vdots
12

| 2^{2 + 1} + 2^2

| 2^{2 + 1} + 2^2 + 1 - 1

| H_{\omega^{\omega + 1} + \omega^\omega + 1}(1) - 1

| f_{\omega + 1}(f_\omega(3)) - 2

| > fω+1(64) > Graham's number

colspan=6 align=center | \vdots
19

| 2^{2^2} + 2^1 + 2^0

| 2^{2^2} + 2^2 - 1

| H_{\omega^{\omega^\omega} + \omega^\omega}(1) - 1

| f_{\omega^\omega}(f_1(f_0(3))) - 2

|

(For Ackermann function and Graham's number bounds see fast-growing hierarchy#Functions in fast-growing hierarchies.)

Application to computable functions

Goodstein's theorem can be used to construct a total computable function that Peano arithmetic cannot prove to be total. The Goodstein sequence of a number can be effectively enumerated by a Turing machine; thus the function which maps n to the number of steps required for the Goodstein sequence of n to terminate is computable by a particular Turing machine. This machine merely enumerates the Goodstein sequence of n and, when the sequence reaches 0, returns the length of the sequence. Because every Goodstein sequence eventually terminates, this function is total. But because Peano arithmetic does not prove that every Goodstein sequence terminates, Peano arithmetic does not prove that this Turing machine computes a total function.

See also

References

{{Reflist}}

Bibliography

  • {{Cite journal | doi = 10.1112/blms/14.4.285| title = Accessible Independence Results for Peano Arithmetic| journal = Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society| volume = 14| issue = 4| pages = 285| year = 1982| url = http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~nachumd/term/Kirbyparis.pdf| last1 = Kirby | first1 = L.| last2 = Paris | first2 = J.| author-link2 = Jeff Paris (mathematician)| citeseerx = 10.1.1.107.3303}}
  • {{Cite arXiv | eprint=1405.4484| last1=Rathjen| first1=Michael| title=Goodstein revisited| date=2014| class=math.LO}}
  • {{Citation |last=Goodstein |first=R. |s2cid=235597 |author-link=Reuben Goodstein |jstor=2268019 |title= On the restricted ordinal theorem |journal=Journal of Symbolic Logic |volume=9 |issue=2 |year=1944 |pages=33–41 |doi=10.2307/2268019}}.
  • {{Citation |last=Cichon |first=E. |title=A Short Proof of Two Recently Discovered Independence Results Using Recursive Theoretic Methods |jstor=2043364 |journal=Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society |volume=87 |issue=4 |year=1983 |pages=704–706 |doi=10.2307/2043364|doi-access=free }}.
  • {{Citation |last=Caicedo |first=A. |title=Goodstein's function |url=http://andrescaicedo.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/goodstein.pdf |journal=Revista Colombiana de Matemáticas |volume=41 |issue=2 |year=2007 |pages=381–391 }}.