Logical independence: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Citation needed |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
This lower bound comes from the fact that [[BB(5)]] has been proven in Rocq.<ref group="footnote">The fact that this theorem has been proven in Rocq technically does not mean that the theorem is 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.</ref> 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. | This lower bound comes from the fact that [[BB(5)]] has been proven in Rocq.<ref group="footnote">The fact that this theorem has been proven in Rocq technically does not mean that the theorem is 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.</ref> 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 [https://fomarchive.ugent.be/2004-March/008003.html 2004 posting] on the "Foundations of Mathematics" mailing list. Scott Aaronson conjectured in his [[Busy Beaver Frontier]] survey<ref name=":0">Scott Aaronson. 2020. [https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/bb.pdf The Busy Beaver Frontier]. SIGACT News 51, 3 (August 2020), 32–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/3427361.3427369</ref> that <math>N_{ZF} \le 20</math> and <math>N_{PA} \le 10</math>, where <math>PA</math> refers to the theory of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano%20axioms Peano Arithmetic]. Aaronson also mentioned how if BB(n) is independent of some formal theory T for a value n, the theory <math>PA</math> + “BB(n) = b” can prove the consistency of T, where b is the true value of BB(n). | Harvey Friedman spoke of embedding consistency statements within turing machines in a [https://fomarchive.ugent.be/2004-March/008003.html 2004 posting] on the "Foundations of Mathematics" mailing list. Scott Aaronson conjectured in his [[Busy Beaver Frontier]] survey<ref name=":0">Scott Aaronson. 2020. [https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/bb.pdf The Busy Beaver Frontier]. SIGACT News 51, 3 (August 2020), 32–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/3427361.3427369</ref> that <math>N_{ZF} \le 20</math> and <math>N_{PA} \le 10</math>, where <math>PA</math> refers to the theory of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano%20axioms Peano Arithmetic]. Aaronson also mentioned how if BB(n) is independent of some formal theory T for a value n, the theory <math>PA</math> + “BB(n) = b” can prove the consistency of T, where b is the true value of BB(n).{{Citation needed}} | ||
== Axiom of Choice == | == Axiom of Choice == | ||
Revision as of 06:01, 27 February 2026

For any computable 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[1] that and , where refers to the theory of Peano Arithmetic. Aaronson also mentioned how if BB(n) is independent of some formal theory T for a value n, the theory + “BB(n) = b” can prove the consistency of T, where b is the true value of BB(n).[citation needed]
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
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. Mostly these 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 current champion machines use a compiler built by Andrew J. Wade.
Note that these results also have not undergone formal 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[2] | |
| 748 | May 2016 | Stefan O’Rear | Github NQL file, Busy Beaver Frontier[1] | |
| 745 | July 2023 | Johannes Riebel | Riebel 2023 Bachelor Thesis[3] | |
| 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 |
For Peano Arithmetic, the ZF independent machines are an upper bound. 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(PA).
| States | Date | Discoverer | Source | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 372 | 11 February 2026 | @LegionMammal978 | Github |
Large cardinals
These tables are for theories stronger than ZFC.
| States | Date | Discoverer | Source | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 493 | 25 February 2026 | @LegionMammal978 | Github |
For reference, this theory is between the strength of "strongly unfoldable" and "0# 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. 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 "0# exists" on the large cardinal hierarchy.[4] However, the theory used by the BB(493) machine is also independent of this theory.
Footnotes
- ↑ The fact that this theorem has been proven in Rocq technically does not mean that the theorem is 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 Scott Aaronson. 2020. The Busy Beaver Frontier. SIGACT News 51, 3 (August 2020), 32–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/3427361.3427369
- ↑ 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/508364/what-is-the-consistency-strength-of-srp-stationary-ramsey-property