Logical independence: Difference between revisions
new stuffs |
→New Foundations (NF): most of this information doesn't need to be stated here. Also, updating chart |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; width:42%; font-size:85%; margin:0 0 1em 1em;" | |||
! Theory | |||
! BB(n) is independent | |||
|- | |||
| ZF+Berkeley cardinal | |||
| 1399 | |||
|- | |||
| ZF+subtle cardinal | |||
| 493 | |||
|- | |||
| Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory | |||
| 215 | |||
|- | |||
| New Foundations | |||
| 210 | |||
|- | |||
| Peano arithmetic | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| PRA | |||
| — | |||
|- | |||
| EFA | |||
| — | |||
|- | |||
| IΔ₀ | |||
| — | |||
|} | |||
For any recursively enumerable and arithmetically sound axiomatic theory T, there exists an integer <math>N_T</math> such that T cannot prove the values of BB(n) for any <math>n \ge N_T</math>. For [[wikipedia:Zermelo–Fraenkel_set_theory|Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory]] (ZF), this value is known to be in the range: | For any recursively enumerable and arithmetically sound axiomatic theory T, there exists an integer <math>N_T</math> such that T cannot prove the values of BB(n) for any <math>n \ge N_T</math>. For [[wikipedia:Zermelo–Fraenkel_set_theory|Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory]] (ZF), this value is known to be in the range: | ||
| Line 16: | Line 46: | ||
== History == | == History == | ||
In a broad sense, the concept of a mechanical or computable procedure that was equivalent to the consistency of a formal theory was discovered by Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which is notable for a | In a broad sense, the concept of a mechanical or computable procedure that was equivalent to the consistency of a formal theory was discovered by Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which is notable for introducing a meta-mathematical encoding of the statement that "T can prove statement S" (the provability predicate) which is used in all these machines. This was further clarified by Alan Turing and Alonzo Church's work on a formal definition of computability. | ||
Although not a traditional turing machine, in 2012 Merlin Carl and Boris Z. Moroz constructed a [[Diophantine Equation]] which had solutions if and only if NBG (Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory) is inconsistent. NBG is a conservative extension of ZFC, so solving this equation is independent of ZFC.<ref>Carl, M., & Moroz, B. Z. (2012). ''On a Diophantine representation of the predicate of provability.'' Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov POMI, 407, 77-104. (Republished in 2014 in the Journal of Mathematical Sciences) [https://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/serien/e/mpi_mathematik/2006/129.pdf (preprint)]</ref> | Although not a traditional turing machine, in 2012 Merlin Carl and Boris Z. Moroz constructed a [[Diophantine Equation]] which had solutions if and only if NBG (Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory) is inconsistent. NBG is a conservative extension of ZFC, so solving this equation is independent of ZFC.<ref>Carl, M., & Moroz, B. Z. (2012). ''On a Diophantine representation of the predicate of provability.'' Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov POMI, 407, 77-104. (Republished in 2014 in the Journal of Mathematical Sciences) [https://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/serien/e/mpi_mathematik/2006/129.pdf (preprint)]</ref> | ||
There is no one authoritative source on the history of TMs independent of ZF, this is our best understanding of the history of TMs found. | There is no one authoritative source on the history of TMs independent of ZF, this is our best understanding of the history of TMs found. The results before 2026 are taken from Scott Aaronson's blog announcements and Busy Beaver Frontier or self-reported by the individuals who discovered them. The Aaronson-Yedida machine used a compiler called ''Laconic'', which was then updated with NQL or "Not Quite Laconic", while the 432 machines use a compiler built by Andrew J. Wade. Many machines after 2026 have been generated by AI without a formal compiler. | ||
Note that only the results with a linked formal verification are known to have such a verification, with the 7910 machine in particular relying on a result from Harvey Friedman that has no published proof. | Note that only the results with a linked formal verification are known to have such a verification, with the 7910 machine in particular relying on a result from Harvey Friedman that has no published proof. | ||
| Line 109: | Line 139: | ||
|[https://github.com/VladimirReshetnikov/ProveIt/tree/c9dc79323429112c698100f3226a6e4d56c8b782/Computability/BusyBeaver/Research/ZFC/k225-formal/verification/k215 Rocq file] | |[https://github.com/VladimirReshetnikov/ProveIt/tree/c9dc79323429112c698100f3226a6e4d56c8b782/Computability/BusyBeaver/Research/ZFC/k225-formal/verification/k215 Rocq file] | ||
|} | |} | ||
[[File:ZFC Machine 254.png|thumb|The transition table of the machine with 254 states. The initial state is 1.]] | [[File:ZFC Machine 254.png|thumb|The transition table of the ZF machine with 254 states. The initial state is 1.]] | ||
Wade's 432-state champion also omits the [[wikipedia:Axiom_of_regularity|axiom of regularity]], as ZF-regularity is also equiconsistent with ZF. | Wade's 432-state champion also omits the [[wikipedia:Axiom_of_regularity|axiom of regularity]], as ZF-regularity is also equiconsistent with ZF. | ||
For Peano Arithmetic, the ZF independent machines are | === New Foundations (NF) === | ||
''New Foundations'' is a formal theory created by W.V.O. Quine in 1937, based around the principle of stratified comprehension of sets. It is known to be stronger than Peano Arithmetic and second-order arithmetic, but weaker than ZF. | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|+History of New Foundations (NF) independent TMs | |||
!States | |||
!Date | |||
!Discoverer | |||
!Source | |||
!Verification | |||
|- | |||
|210 | |||
|8 November 2026 | |||
|@wlad-svennik | |||
| | |||
|[https://github.com/wlad-svennik/notes/tree/main/nf-bb210] | |||
|} | |||
The formalized proof for this machine's NF-undecidability is formalized as an ''external'' Lean metatheorem rather than a completed PA-internal derivation. As of this publication, a fresh independent clean build and community review have not been reported. | |||
=== Peano Arithmetic (PA) === | |||
For Peano Arithmetic, the ZF and NF independent machines are upper bounds. In general, a machine that is independent of a theory will also be independent of any theory with strictly lower [[wikipedia:Equiconsistency#Consistency_strength|consistency strength]]. For the theories in this article, Con(ZFC+Subtle)->Con(ZFC)->Con(NF)->Con(PA). | |||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
| Line 128: | Line 179: | ||
| | | | ||
|} | |} | ||
This machine takes Wade's ZF champion and replaces the set theory axioms with one axiom schema of "adjunction + separation", which has been shown to interpret PA.<ref>https://mathoverflow.net/questions/508137/interpreting-pa-with-only-adjunction-separation/508161</ref> | This machine takes Wade's ZF champion and replaces the set theory axioms with one axiom schema of "adjunction + separation", which has been shown to interpret PA.<ref>https://mathoverflow.net/questions/508137/interpreting-pa-with-only-adjunction-separation/508161</ref> | ||
=== Large cardinals === | === Large cardinals === | ||
Latest revision as of 04:57, 9 November 2026
| Theory | BB(n) is independent |
|---|---|
| ZF+Berkeley cardinal | 1399 |
| ZF+subtle cardinal | 493 |
| Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory | 215 |
| New Foundations | 210 |
| Peano arithmetic | |
| PRA | — |
| EFA | — |
| IΔ₀ | — |
For any recursively enumerable and arithmetically sound axiomatic theory T, there exists an integer such that T cannot prove the values of BB(n) for any . For Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZF), this value is known to be in the range:
This lower bound comes from the fact that BB(5) has been proven in Rocq.[footnote 1] The upper bound comes from an explicit TM which enumerates all possible proofs in ZF and halts if it finds a proof 0 = 1. Assuming ZF is consistent and sound, then it cannot prove whether or not it is consistent, hence it cannot prove whether or not this specific TM halts.
Harvey Friedman spoke of embedding consistency statements within turing machines in a 2004 posting on the "Foundations of Mathematics" mailing list. Scott Aaronson conjectured in his Busy Beaver Frontier survey that and , where refers to the theory of Peano Arithmetic. Scott also mentioned (crediting Oscar Cunningham for the observation) that if there is an n-state machine that halts if and only if T is inconsistent, then + “BB(n) = b” can prove the consistency of T, where b is the true value of BB(n).[1]
Axiom of Choice
Due to Shoenfield's absoluteness theorem, it is known that any TM proven non-halting in ZFC can also be proven non-halting in ZF (and the converse is trivially true), therefore
Therefore we refer to ZF and throughout this article since adding the Axiom of Choice does not have any effect on Turing machine decidability.
History
In a broad sense, the concept of a mechanical or computable procedure that was equivalent to the consistency of a formal theory was discovered by Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which is notable for introducing a meta-mathematical encoding of the statement that "T can prove statement S" (the provability predicate) which is used in all these machines. This was further clarified by Alan Turing and Alonzo Church's work on a formal definition of computability.
Although not a traditional turing machine, in 2012 Merlin Carl and Boris Z. Moroz constructed a Diophantine Equation which had solutions if and only if NBG (Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory) is inconsistent. NBG is a conservative extension of ZFC, so solving this equation is independent of ZFC.[2]
There is no one authoritative source on the history of TMs independent of ZF, this is our best understanding of the history of TMs found. The results before 2026 are taken from Scott Aaronson's blog announcements and Busy Beaver Frontier or self-reported by the individuals who discovered them. The Aaronson-Yedida machine used a compiler called Laconic, which was then updated with NQL or "Not Quite Laconic", while the 432 machines use a compiler built by Andrew J. Wade. Many machines after 2026 have been generated by AI without a formal compiler.
Note that only the results with a linked formal verification are known to have such a verification, with the 7910 machine in particular relying on a result from Harvey Friedman that has no published proof.
| States | Date | Discoverer | Source | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7910 | May 2016 | Adam Yedidia and Scott Aaronson | Yedidia and Aaronson 2016[3] | |
| 1919 | 15 May 2016 | Stefan O'Rear | Github NQL file, Metamath Group Announcement | |
| 748 | May 2016 | Stefan O’Rear | Github NQL, Busy Beaver Frontier[1] | |
| 745 | July 2023 | Johannes Riebel | Riebel 2023 Bachelor Thesis[4] | |
| 643 | July 2024 | Rohan Ridenour | Github NQL, Aaronson Announcement | |
| 636 | 31 August 2024 | Rohan Ridenour | Github NQL (commit) | |
| 588 | 12 July 2025 | Andrew J. Wade | Github NQL (commit) | |
| 549 | 16 July 2025 | Andrew J. Wade | Github NQL (commit) | |
| 432 | 19 Aug 2025 | Andrew J. Wade | git commit | |
| 335 | 11 Oct 2026 | Jeff Ketchersid | discord message | |
| 254 | 13 Oct 2026 | Mira with use of ChatGPT, formalized by Jeff Ketchersid with Claude | Github | Rocq file |
| 230 | 19 Oct 2026 | Elliot Glazer with use of ChatGPT, formalized with GPT and Claude | Github | Rocq file |
| 215 | 21 Oct 2026 | Vladimir Reshetnikov formalized with Claude | Github | Rocq file |

Wade's 432-state champion also omits the axiom of regularity, as ZF-regularity is also equiconsistent with ZF.
New Foundations (NF)
New Foundations is a formal theory created by W.V.O. Quine in 1937, based around the principle of stratified comprehension of sets. It is known to be stronger than Peano Arithmetic and second-order arithmetic, but weaker than ZF.
| States | Date | Discoverer | Source | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 210 | 8 November 2026 | @wlad-svennik | [1] |
The formalized proof for this machine's NF-undecidability is formalized as an external Lean metatheorem rather than a completed PA-internal derivation. As of this publication, a fresh independent clean build and community review have not been reported.
Peano Arithmetic (PA)
For Peano Arithmetic, the ZF and NF independent machines are upper bounds. In general, a machine that is independent of a theory will also be independent of any theory with strictly lower consistency strength. For the theories in this article, Con(ZFC+Subtle)->Con(ZFC)->Con(NF)->Con(PA).
| States | Date | Discoverer | Source | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 372 | 11 February 2026 | @LegionMammal978 (Matthew House) | Github |
This machine takes Wade's ZF champion and replaces the set theory axioms with one axiom schema of "adjunction + separation", which has been shown to interpret PA.[5]
Large cardinals
These tables are for theories stronger than ZFC.
| States | Date | Discoverer | Source | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 493 | 25 February 2026 | @LegionMammal978 | Github |
This machine takes Wade's ZF champion and adds the axiom of Choice and a statement from Harvey Friedman (Proposition 4.3 of "Primitive Independence Results")[6] which Friedman showed to be equivalent to "There exist arbitrarily large subtle cardinals" over ZFC.
For reference, this theory is between the strength of "strongly unfoldable" and " exists" on the large cardinal hierarchy on Wikipedia.
Note: The initial machine produced in 2016 by Yedidia and Aaronson is designed to halt iff a certain statement created by Harvey Friedman is true.[1] According to Friedman (without a published proof), this statement is independent of the theory "Stationary Ramsey Property" or SRP, which is equiconsistent with the theory which is also between the strength of "strongly unfoldable" and " exists" on the large cardinal hierarchy.[7] However, the theory used by the BB(493) machine is also independent of this theory.
| States | Date | Discoverer | Source | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1399 | 8 November 2026 | @Meganeuridae | Github | Rocq file |
Berkeley cardinals are perhaps the strongest family of large cardinals considered, initially proposed by Hugh Woodin at a lecture at UC Berkeley as an axiom that was "obviously inconsistent".[citation needed] However, no inconsistency has been found and many people now believe it may be consistent. Berkeley cardinals are known to be inconsistent with the axiom of choice.
Footnotes
- ↑ The fact that this theorem has been proven in Rocq technically does not imply that the theorem must be provable in ZF, because the consistency strength of Rocq is actually higher than that of ZF. However, the BB(5) proof does not use any techniques that could not be formalized within ZF.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Scott Aaronson. 2020. The Busy Beaver Frontier. SIGACT News 51, 3 (August 2020), 32–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/3427361.3427369
- ↑ Carl, M., & Moroz, B. Z. (2012). On a Diophantine representation of the predicate of provability. Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov POMI, 407, 77-104. (Republished in 2014 in the Journal of Mathematical Sciences) (preprint)
- ↑ A. Yedidia and S. Aaronson. A relatively small Turing machine whose behavior is independent of set theory. Complex Systems, (25):4, 2016. https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04343
- ↑ Riebel, Johannes (March 2023). The Undecidability of BB(748): Understanding Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems (PDF) (Bachelor's thesis). University of Augsburg.
- ↑ https://mathoverflow.net/questions/508137/interpreting-pa-with-only-adjunction-separation/508161
- ↑ H. Friedman, "Primitive Independence Results" (2002). Accessed February 2026.
- ↑ tlonuqbar, "What is the consistency strength of SRP (Stationary Ramsey Property)?" (2026). MathOverflow post, accessed February 2026.