Logblog: Richard Zach's Logic Blog

University of Calgary

UofC Navigation

You are looking at an archived page. The website has moved to richardzach.org.

Submitted by Richard Zach on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 3:16am

Today I taught Ch. 13 of Peter Smith's book. We showed that every ?_{1} function can be written as a composition of two ?_{0} functions (p. 108). In his proof of this, Peter's following Boolos Burgess & Jeffrey (Lemma 16.12 on p. 206 of the 4th & 5th ed.; it's not in the 3rd so I'm guessing it's due to John Burgess). Until today I really didn't understand why (as opposed to that) this works or how you'd come up with it. Peter calls it "clever trickery." But standing up there at the blackboard I realized that there's a way to think of it which makes it completely straight-forward—and which results (maybe?) in a simpler solution.

Suppose f is ?_{1}, i.e., there is a formula ?z F(x, y, z) so that f(x) = y iff ?z F(x, y, z) (in N). How close to ?_{0} can you get? [NB: I'm using F instead of Peter's R, and different variables, but I think it's clearer this way.]

Note first of all that if f is total (as all functions are in Peter's book), then for any x, there will be exactly one y so that ?z F(x, y, z).

The ?z is the problem, you want to put a bound on that. How far do you have to go to find z so that F(x, y, z) when y is the value of f(x), i.e., there is a z so that F(x, y, z)? Trivially, as far as

the least u so that ?z?u F(x, y, z).

But that function still depends on y; obviously you can't really bound z by it. You'd like the bound to be a function of x only. Well, we can put in a quantifier to get rid of the free y. Naturally you want a bounded quantifier and the obvious bound is u:

g(x) = the least u so that ?y?u?z?u F(x, y, z)

If f is total, then for any x, there is such a u, so g is total.

g(x) might be further than you have to go to find a witness for the ?z, but that's ok. And it's a ?_{0 function }since

g(x) = u iff ?y?u?z?u F(x, y, z) ? ?v?u (?y?v?z?v F(x, y, z) ? u = v)

So f(x) = y iff ?z?g(x) F(x, y, z). Let's see if the formula we get by removing the g(x) defines a function:

h(x, u) = y iff ?z?u F(x, y, z)

For any pair x, u, there's at most one y with ?z?u F(x, y, z), since for any x there's at most one y with ?z F(x, y, z). Hence, h is functional. It might not be total, since for some pairs x, u (in particular u less than g(x)) there might not be a z?u with F(x, y, z). So let's fix that:

h(x, u) = y iff ?z?u F(x, y, z) ? (¬?z?u F(x, y, z) ? y = 0)

Now we have that f(x) = h(x, g(x)) since the only cases where h(x, u) might be different from f(x) are those where h(x, u) = 0 because u is less than g(x).

My definition of h is a bit simpler than John and Peter's: they have "the least y ? u" where I just have "the y". Did I overlook some subtlety?

- Richard Zach's blog
- Log in to post comments

- Open Logic Project
- The LogBlog is Moving!
- Academic Genealogy Graphed
- CfP: Hilbert’s Epsilon and Tau in Logic, Informatics and Linguistics
- In Memoriam: Grigori Mints
- Previously Unknown Turing Manuscript Going to Auction
- Carnap (and Goodman and Quine) and Linguistics (Guest post by Darin Flynn)
- Carnap on "Syntax" vs "Semantics"