Menu
Home Explore People Places Arts History Plants & Animals Science Life & Culture Technology
On this page
Peano axioms
Axioms for the natural numbers

In mathematical logic, the Peano axioms, introduced by Giuseppe Peano, are fundamental axioms defining the natural numbers. These axioms underpin the axiomatization of arithmetic, known as Peano arithmetic, and have been crucial for studying the consistency and completeness of number theory. The axioms include statements about successor operations and employ induction, formalizing natural numbers through both first-order and second-order logic. Peano’s work built on earlier developments by Hermann Grassmann, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Richard Dedekind, culminating in his 1889 book Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita.

We don't have any images related to Peano axioms yet.
We don't have any YouTube videos related to Peano axioms yet.
We don't have any PDF documents related to Peano axioms yet.
We don't have any Books related to Peano axioms yet.
We don't have any archived web articles related to Peano axioms yet.

Historical second-order formulation

When Peano formulated his axioms, the language of mathematical logic was in its infancy. The system of logical notation he created to present the axioms did not prove to be popular, although it was the genesis of the modern notation for set membership (∈, which comes from Peano's ε). Peano maintained a clear distinction between mathematical and logical symbols, which was not yet common in mathematics; such a separation had first been introduced in the Begriffsschrift by Gottlob Frege, published in 1879.7 Peano was unaware of Frege's work and independently recreated his logical apparatus based on the work of Boole and Schröder.8

The Peano axioms define the arithmetical properties of natural numbers, usually represented as a set N or N . {\displaystyle \mathbb {N} .} The non-logical symbols for the axioms consist of a constant symbol 0 and a unary function symbol S.

The first axiom states that the constant 0 is a natural number:

  1. 0 is a natural number.

Peano's original formulation of the axioms used 1 instead of 0 as the "first" natural number,9 while the axioms in Formulario mathematico include zero.10

The next four axioms describe the equality relation. Since they are logically valid in first-order logic with equality, they are not considered to be part of "the Peano axioms" in modern treatments.11

  1. For every natural number x, x = x. That is, equality is reflexive.
  2. For all natural numbers x and y, if x = y, then y = x. That is, equality is symmetric.
  3. For all natural numbers x, y and z, if x = y and y = z, then x = z. That is, equality is transitive.
  4. For all a and b, if b is a natural number and a = b, then a is also a natural number. That is, the natural numbers are closed under equality.

The remaining axioms define the arithmetical properties of the natural numbers. The naturals are assumed to be closed under a single-valued "successor" function S.

  1. For every natural number n, S(n) is a natural number. That is, the natural numbers are closed under S.
  2. For all natural numbers m and n, if S(m) = S(n), then m = n. That is, S is an injection.
  3. For every natural number n, S(n) = 0 is false. That is, there is no natural number whose successor is 0.

Axioms 1, 6, 7, 8 define a unary representation of the intuitive notion of natural numbers: the number 1 can be defined as S(0), 2 as S(S(0)), etc. However, considering the notion of natural numbers as being defined by these axioms, axioms 1, 6, 7, 8 do not imply that the successor function generates all the natural numbers different from 0.

The intuitive notion that each natural number can be obtained by applying successor sufficiently many times to zero requires an additional axiom, which is sometimes called the axiom of induction.

  1. If K is a set such that:
    • 0 is in K, and
    • for every natural number n, n being in K implies that S(n) is in K,
    then K contains every natural number.

The induction axiom is sometimes stated in the following form:

  1. If φ is a unary predicate such that:
    • φ(0) is true, and
    • for every natural number n, φ(n) being true implies that φ(S(n)) is true,
    then φ(n) is true for every natural number n.

In Peano's original formulation, the induction axiom is a second-order axiom. It is now common to replace this second-order principle with a weaker first-order induction scheme. There are important differences between the second-order and first-order formulations, as discussed in the section § Peano arithmetic as first-order theory below.

Defining arithmetic operations and relations

If we use the second-order induction axiom, it is possible to define addition, multiplication, and total (linear) ordering on N directly using the axioms. However, with first-order induction, this is not possible and addition and multiplication are often added as axioms. The respective functions and relations are constructed in set theory or second-order logic, and can be shown to be unique using the Peano axioms.

Addition

Addition is a function that maps two natural numbers (two elements of N) to another one. It is defined recursively as:

a + 0 = a , (1) a + S ( b ) = S ( a + b ) . (2) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}a+0&=a,&{\textrm {(1)}}\\a+S(b)&=S(a+b).&{\textrm {(2)}}\end{aligned}}}

For example:

a + 1 = a + S ( 0 ) by definition = S ( a + 0 ) using (2) = S ( a ) , using (1) a + 2 = a + S ( 1 ) by definition = S ( a + 1 ) using (2) = S ( S ( a ) ) using  a + 1 = S ( a ) a + 3 = a + S ( 2 ) by definition = S ( a + 2 ) using (2) = S ( S ( S ( a ) ) ) using  a + 2 = S ( S ( a ) ) etc. {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}a+1&=a+S(0)&{\mbox{by definition}}\\&=S(a+0)&{\mbox{using (2)}}\\&=S(a),&{\mbox{using (1)}}\\\\a+2&=a+S(1)&{\mbox{by definition}}\\&=S(a+1)&{\mbox{using (2)}}\\&=S(S(a))&{\mbox{using }}a+1=S(a)\\\\a+3&=a+S(2)&{\mbox{by definition}}\\&=S(a+2)&{\mbox{using (2)}}\\&=S(S(S(a)))&{\mbox{using }}a+2=S(S(a))\\{\text{etc.}}&\\\end{aligned}}}

To prove commutativity of addition, first prove 0 + b = b {\displaystyle 0+b=b} and S ( a ) + b = S ( a + b ) {\displaystyle S(a)+b=S(a+b)} , each by induction on b {\displaystyle b} . Using both results, then prove a + b = b + a {\displaystyle a+b=b+a} by induction on b {\displaystyle b} . The structure (N, +) is a commutative monoid with identity element 0. (N, +) is also a cancellative magma, and thus embeddable in a group. The smallest group embedding N is the integers.

Multiplication

Similarly, multiplication is a function mapping two natural numbers to another one. Given addition, it is defined recursively as:

a ⋅ 0 = 0 , a ⋅ S ( b ) = a + ( a ⋅ b ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}a\cdot 0&=0,\\a\cdot S(b)&=a+(a\cdot b).\end{aligned}}}

It is easy to see that S ( 0 ) {\displaystyle S(0)} is the multiplicative right identity:

a ⋅ S ( 0 ) = a + ( a ⋅ 0 ) = a + 0 = a {\displaystyle a\cdot S(0)=a+(a\cdot 0)=a+0=a}

To show that S ( 0 ) {\displaystyle S(0)} is also the multiplicative left identity requires the induction axiom due to the way multiplication is defined:

  • S ( 0 ) {\displaystyle S(0)} is the left identity of 0: S ( 0 ) ⋅ 0 = 0 {\displaystyle S(0)\cdot 0=0} .
  • If S ( 0 ) {\displaystyle S(0)} is the left identity of a {\displaystyle a} (that is S ( 0 ) ⋅ a = a {\displaystyle S(0)\cdot a=a} ), then S ( 0 ) {\displaystyle S(0)} is also the left identity of S ( a ) {\displaystyle S(a)} : S ( 0 ) ⋅ S ( a ) = S ( 0 ) + S ( 0 ) ⋅ a = S ( 0 ) + a = a + S ( 0 ) = S ( a + 0 ) = S ( a ) {\displaystyle S(0)\cdot S(a)=S(0)+S(0)\cdot a=S(0)+a=a+S(0)=S(a+0)=S(a)} , using commutativity of addition.

Therefore, by the induction axiom S ( 0 ) {\displaystyle S(0)} is the multiplicative left identity of all natural numbers. Moreover, it can be shown12 that multiplication is commutative and distributes over addition:

a ⋅ ( b + c ) = ( a ⋅ b ) + ( a ⋅ c ) {\displaystyle a\cdot (b+c)=(a\cdot b)+(a\cdot c)} .

Thus, ( N , + , 0 , ⋅ , S ( 0 ) ) {\displaystyle (\mathbb {N} ,+,0,\cdot ,S(0))} is a commutative semiring.

Inequalities

The usual total order relation ≤ on natural numbers can be defined as follows, assuming 0 is a natural number:

For all a, b ∈ N, a ≤ b if and only if there exists some c ∈ N such that a + c = b.

This relation is stable under addition and multiplication: for a , b , c ∈ N {\displaystyle a,b,c\in \mathbb {N} } , if a ≤ b, then:

  • a + c ≤ b + c, and
  • a · c ≤ b · c.

Thus, the structure (N, +, ·, 1, 0, ≤) is an ordered semiring; because there is no natural number between 0 and 1, it is a discrete ordered semiring.

The axiom of induction is sometimes stated in the following form that uses a stronger hypothesis, making use of the order relation "≤":

For any predicate φ, if
  • φ(0) is true, and
  • for every n ∈ N, if φ(k) is true for every k ∈ N such that k ≤ n, then φ(S(n)) is true,
  • then for every n ∈ N, φ(n) is true.

This form of the induction axiom, called strong induction, is a consequence of the standard formulation, but is often better suited for reasoning about the ≤ order. For example, to show that the naturals are well-ordered—every nonempty subset of N has a least element—one can reason as follows. Let a nonempty X ⊆ N be given and assume X has no least element.

  • Because 0 is the least element of N, it must be that 0 ∉ X.
  • For any n ∈ N, suppose for every k ≤ n, k ∉ X. Then S(n) ∉ X, for otherwise it would be the least element of X.

Thus, by the strong induction principle, for every n ∈ N, n ∉ X. Thus, X ∩ N = ∅, which contradicts X being a nonempty subset of N. Thus X has a least element.

Models

A model of the Peano axioms is a triple (N, 0, S), where N is a (necessarily infinite) set, 0 ∈ N and S: N → N satisfies the axioms above. Dedekind proved in his 1888 book, The Nature and Meaning of Numbers (German: Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen?, i.e., "What are the numbers and what are they good for?") that any two models of the Peano axioms (including the second-order induction axiom) are isomorphic. In particular, given two models (NA, 0A, SA) and (NB, 0B, SB) of the Peano axioms, there is a unique homomorphism f : NA → NB satisfying

f ( 0 A ) = 0 B f ( S A ( n ) ) = S B ( f ( n ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}f(0_{A})&=0_{B}\\f(S_{A}(n))&=S_{B}(f(n))\end{aligned}}}

and it is a bijection. This means that the second-order Peano axioms are categorical. (This is not the case with any first-order reformulation of the Peano axioms, below.)

Set-theoretic models

Main article: Set-theoretic definition of natural numbers

The Peano axioms can be derived from set theoretic constructions of the natural numbers and axioms of set theory such as ZF.13 The standard construction of the naturals, due to John von Neumann, starts from a definition of 0 as the empty set, ∅, and an operator s on sets defined as:

s ( a ) = a ∪ { a } {\displaystyle s(a)=a\cup \{a\}}

The set of natural numbers N is defined as the intersection of all sets closed under s that contain the empty set. Each natural number is equal (as a set) to the set of natural numbers less than it:

0 = ∅ 1 = s ( 0 ) = s ( ∅ ) = ∅ ∪ { ∅ } = { ∅ } = { 0 } 2 = s ( 1 ) = s ( { 0 } ) = { 0 } ∪ { { 0 } } = { 0 , { 0 } } = { 0 , 1 } 3 = s ( 2 ) = s ( { 0 , 1 } ) = { 0 , 1 } ∪ { { 0 , 1 } } = { 0 , 1 , { 0 , 1 } } = { 0 , 1 , 2 } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}0&=\emptyset \\1&=s(0)=s(\emptyset )=\emptyset \cup \{\emptyset \}=\{\emptyset \}=\{0\}\\2&=s(1)=s(\{0\})=\{0\}\cup \{\{0\}\}=\{0,\{0\}\}=\{0,1\}\\3&=s(2)=s(\{0,1\})=\{0,1\}\cup \{\{0,1\}\}=\{0,1,\{0,1\}\}=\{0,1,2\}\end{aligned}}}

and so on. The set N together with 0 and the successor function s : N → N satisfies the Peano axioms.

Peano arithmetic is equiconsistent with several weak systems of set theory.14 One such system is ZFC with the axiom of infinity replaced by its negation. Another such system consists of general set theory (extensionality, existence of the empty set, and the axiom of adjunction), augmented by an axiom schema stating that a property that holds for the empty set and holds of an adjunction whenever it holds of the adjunct must hold for all sets.

Interpretation in category theory

The Peano axioms can also be understood using category theory. Let C be a category with terminal object 1C, and define the category of pointed unary systems, US1(C) as follows:

  • The objects of US1(C) are triples (X, 0X, SX) where X is an object of C, and 0X : 1C → X and SX : X → X are C-morphisms.
  • A morphism φ : (X, 0X, SX) → (Y, 0Y, SY) is a C-morphism φ : X → Y with φ 0X = 0Y and φ SX = SY φ.

Then C is said to satisfy the Dedekind–Peano axioms if US1(C) has an initial object; this initial object is known as a natural number object in C. If (N, 0, S) is this initial object, and (X, 0X, SX) is any other object, then the unique map u : (N, 0, S) → (X, 0X, SX) is such that

u ( 0 ) = 0 X , u ( S x ) = S X ( u x ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}u(0)&=0_{X},\\u(Sx)&=S_{X}(ux).\end{aligned}}}

This is precisely the recursive definition of 0X and SX.

Consistency

Further information: Hilbert's second problem and Consistency

When the Peano axioms were first proposed, Bertrand Russell and others agreed that these axioms implicitly defined what we mean by a "natural number".15 Henri Poincaré was more cautious, saying they only defined natural numbers if they were consistent; if there is a proof that starts from just these axioms and derives a contradiction such as 0 = 1, then the axioms are inconsistent, and don't define anything.16 In 1900, David Hilbert posed the problem of proving their consistency using only finitistic methods as the second of his twenty-three problems.17 In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved his second incompleteness theorem, which shows that such a consistency proof cannot be formalized within Peano arithmetic itself, if Peano arithmetic is consistent.18

Although it is widely claimed that Gödel's theorem rules out the possibility of a finitistic consistency proof for Peano arithmetic, this depends on exactly what one means by a finitistic proof. Gödel himself pointed out the possibility of giving a finitistic consistency proof of Peano arithmetic or stronger systems by using finitistic methods that are not formalizable in Peano arithmetic, and in 1958, Gödel published a method for proving the consistency of arithmetic using type theory.19 In 1936, Gerhard Gentzen gave a proof of the consistency of Peano's axioms, using transfinite induction up to an ordinal called ε0.20 Gentzen explained: "The aim of the present paper is to prove the consistency of elementary number theory or, rather, to reduce the question of consistency to certain fundamental principles". Gentzen's proof is arguably finitistic, since the transfinite ordinal ε0 can be encoded in terms of finite objects (for example, as a Turing machine describing a suitable order on the integers, or more abstractly as consisting of the finite trees, suitably linearly ordered). Whether or not Gentzen's proof meets the requirements Hilbert envisioned is unclear: there is no generally accepted definition of exactly what is meant by a finitistic proof, and Hilbert himself never gave a precise definition.

The vast majority of contemporary mathematicians believe that Peano's axioms are consistent, relying either on intuition or the acceptance of a consistency proof such as Gentzen's proof. A small number of philosophers and mathematicians, some of whom also advocate ultrafinitism, reject Peano's axioms because accepting the axioms amounts to accepting the infinite collection of natural numbers. In particular, addition (including the successor function) and multiplication are assumed to be total. Curiously, there are self-verifying theories that are similar to PA but have subtraction and division instead of addition and multiplication, which are axiomatized in such a way to avoid proving sentences that correspond to the totality of addition and multiplication, but which are still able to prove all true Π 1 {\displaystyle \Pi _{1}} theorems of PA, and yet can be extended to a consistent theory that proves its own consistency (stated as the non-existence of a Hilbert-style proof of "0=1").21

Peano arithmetic as first-order theory

All of the Peano axioms except the ninth axiom (the induction axiom) are statements in first-order logic.22 The arithmetical operations of addition and multiplication and the order relation can also be defined using first-order axioms. The axiom of induction above is second-order, since it quantifies over predicates (equivalently, sets of natural numbers rather than natural numbers). As an alternative one can consider a first-order axiom schema of induction. Such a schema includes one axiom per predicate definable in the first-order language of Peano arithmetic, making it weaker than the second-order axiom.23 The reason that it is weaker is that the number of predicates in first-order language is countable, whereas the number of sets of natural numbers is uncountable. Thus, there exist sets that cannot be described in first-order language (in fact, most sets have this property).

First-order axiomatizations of Peano arithmetic have another technical limitation. In second-order logic, it is possible to define the addition and multiplication operations from the successor operation, but this cannot be done in the more restrictive setting of first-order logic. Therefore, the addition and multiplication operations are directly included in the signature of Peano arithmetic, and axioms are included that relate the three operations to each other.

The following list of axioms (along with the usual axioms of equality), which contains six of the seven axioms of Robinson arithmetic, is sufficient for this purpose:24

  • ∀ x   ( 0 ≠ S ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \forall x\ (0\neq S(x))}
  • ∀ x , y   ( S ( x ) = S ( y ) ⇒ x = y ) {\displaystyle \forall x,y\ (S(x)=S(y)\Rightarrow x=y)}
  • ∀ x   ( x + 0 = x ) {\displaystyle \forall x\ (x+0=x)}
  • ∀ x , y   ( x + S ( y ) = S ( x + y ) ) {\displaystyle \forall x,y\ (x+S(y)=S(x+y))}
  • ∀ x   ( x ⋅ 0 = 0 ) {\displaystyle \forall x\ (x\cdot 0=0)}
  • ∀ x , y   ( x ⋅ S ( y ) = x ⋅ y + x ) {\displaystyle \forall x,y\ (x\cdot S(y)=x\cdot y+x)}

In addition to this list of numerical axioms, Peano arithmetic contains the induction schema, which consists of a recursively enumerable and even decidable set of axioms. For each formula φ(x, y1, ..., yk) in the language of Peano arithmetic, the first-order induction axiom for φ is the sentence

∀ y ¯ ( ( ϕ ( 0 , y ¯ ) ∧ ∀ x ( ϕ ( x , y ¯ ) ⇒ ϕ ( S ( x ) , y ¯ ) ) ) ⇒ ∀ x ϕ ( x , y ¯ ) ) {\displaystyle \forall {\bar {y}}{\Bigg (}{\bigg (}\phi (0,{\bar {y}})\land \forall x{\Big (}\phi (x,{\bar {y}})\Rightarrow \phi (S(x),{\bar {y}}){\Big )}{\bigg )}\Rightarrow \forall x\phi (x,{\bar {y}}){\Bigg )}}

where y ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}} is an abbreviation for y1,...,yk. The first-order induction schema includes every instance of the first-order induction axiom; that is, it includes the induction axiom for every formula φ.

Equivalent axiomatizations

The above axiomatization of Peano arithmetic uses a signature that only has symbols for zero as well as the successor, addition, and multiplications operations. There are many other different, but equivalent, axiomatizations. One such alternative25 uses an order relation symbol instead of the successor operation and the language of discretely ordered semirings (axioms 1-7 for semirings, 8-10 on order, 11-13 regarding compatibility, and 14-15 for discreteness):

  1. ∀ x , y , z   ( ( x + y ) + z = x + ( y + z ) ) {\displaystyle \forall x,y,z\ ((x+y)+z=x+(y+z))} , i.e., addition is associative.
  2. ∀ x , y   ( x + y = y + x ) {\displaystyle \forall x,y\ (x+y=y+x)} , i.e., addition is commutative.
  3. ∀ x , y , z   ( ( x ⋅ y ) ⋅ z = x ⋅ ( y ⋅ z ) ) {\displaystyle \forall x,y,z\ ((x\cdot y)\cdot z=x\cdot (y\cdot z))} , i.e., multiplication is associative.
  4. ∀ x , y   ( x ⋅ y = y ⋅ x ) {\displaystyle \forall x,y\ (x\cdot y=y\cdot x)} , i.e., multiplication is commutative.
  5. ∀ x , y , z   ( x ⋅ ( y + z ) = ( x ⋅ y ) + ( x ⋅ z ) ) {\displaystyle \forall x,y,z\ (x\cdot (y+z)=(x\cdot y)+(x\cdot z))} , i.e., multiplication distributes over addition.
  6. ∀ x   ( x + 0 = x ∧ x ⋅ 0 = 0 ) {\displaystyle \forall x\ (x+0=x\land x\cdot 0=0)} , i.e., zero is an identity for addition, and an absorbing element for multiplication (actually superfluous26).
  7. ∀ x   ( x ⋅ 1 = x ) {\displaystyle \forall x\ (x\cdot 1=x)} , i.e., one is an identity for multiplication.
  8. ∀ x , y , z   ( x < y ∧ y < z ⇒ x < z ) {\displaystyle \forall x,y,z\ (x<y\land y<z\Rightarrow x<z)} , i.e., the '<' operator is transitive.
  9. ∀ x   ( ¬ ( x < x ) ) {\displaystyle \forall x\ (\neg (x<x))} , i.e., the '<' operator is irreflexive.
  10. ∀ x , y   ( x < y ∨ x = y ∨ y < x ) {\displaystyle \forall x,y\ (x<y\lor x=y\lor y<x)} , i.e., the ordering satisfies trichotomy.
  11. ∀ x , y , z   ( x < y ⇒ x + z < y + z ) {\displaystyle \forall x,y,z\ (x<y\Rightarrow x+z<y+z)} , i.e. the ordering is preserved under addition of the same element.
  12. ∀ x , y , z   ( 0 < z ∧ x < y ⇒ x ⋅ z < y ⋅ z ) {\displaystyle \forall x,y,z\ (0<z\land x<y\Rightarrow x\cdot z<y\cdot z)} , i.e. the ordering is preserved under multiplication by the same positive element.
  13. ∀ x , y   ( x < y ⇒ ∃ z   ( x + z = y ) ) {\displaystyle \forall x,y\ (x<y\Rightarrow \exists z\ (x+z=y))} , i.e. given any two distinct elements, the larger is the smaller plus another element.
  14. 0 < 1 ∧ ∀ x   ( x > 0 ⇒ x ≥ 1 ) {\displaystyle 0<1\land \forall x\ (x>0\Rightarrow x\geq 1)} , i.e. zero and one are distinct and there is no element between them. In other words, 0 is covered by 1, which suggests that these numbers are discrete.
  15. ∀ x   ( x ≥ 0 ) {\displaystyle \forall x\ (x\geq 0)} , i.e. zero is the minimum element.

The theory defined by these axioms is known as PA−. It is also incomplete and one of its important properties is that any structure M {\displaystyle M} satisfying this theory has an initial segment (ordered by ≤ {\displaystyle \leq } ) isomorphic to N {\displaystyle \mathbb {N} } . Elements in that segment are called standard elements, while other elements are called nonstandard elements.

Finally, Peano arithmetic PA is obtained by adding the first-order induction schema.

Undecidability and incompleteness

According to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, the theory of PA (if consistent) is incomplete. Consequently, there are sentences of first-order logic (FOL) that are true in the standard model of PA but are not a consequence of the FOL axiomatization. Essential incompleteness already arises for theories with weaker axioms, such as Robinson arithmetic.

Closely related to the above incompleteness result (via Gödel's completeness theorem for FOL) it follows that there is no algorithm for deciding whether a given FOL sentence is a consequence of a first-order axiomatization of Peano arithmetic or not. Hence, PA is an example of an undecidable theory. Undecidability arises already for the existential sentences of PA, due to the negative answer to Hilbert's tenth problem, whose proof implies that all computably enumerable sets are diophantine sets, and thus definable by existentially quantified formulas (with free variables) of PA. Formulas of PA with higher quantifier rank (more quantifier alternations) than existential formulas are more expressive, and define sets in the higher levels of the arithmetical hierarchy.

Nonstandard models

Main article: Non-standard model of arithmetic

Although the usual natural numbers satisfy the axioms of PA, there are other models as well (called "non-standard models"); the compactness theorem implies that the existence of nonstandard elements cannot be excluded in first-order logic.27 The upward Löwenheim–Skolem theorem shows that there are nonstandard models of PA of all infinite cardinalities. This is not the case for the original (second-order) Peano axioms, which have only one model, up to isomorphism.28 This illustrates one way the first-order system PA is weaker than the second-order Peano axioms.

When interpreted as a proof within a first-order set theory, such as ZFC, Dedekind's categoricity proof for PA shows that each model of set theory has a unique model of the Peano axioms, up to isomorphism, that embeds as an initial segment of all other models of PA contained within that model of set theory. In the standard model of set theory, this smallest model of PA is the standard model of PA; however, in a nonstandard model of set theory, it may be a nonstandard model of PA. This situation cannot be avoided with any first-order formalization of set theory.

It is natural to ask whether a countable nonstandard model can be explicitly constructed. The answer is affirmative as Skolem in 1933 provided an explicit construction of such a nonstandard model. On the other hand, Tennenbaum's theorem, proved in 1959, shows that there is no countable nonstandard model of PA in which either the addition or multiplication operation is computable.29 This result shows it is difficult to be completely explicit in describing the addition and multiplication operations of a countable nonstandard model of PA. There is only one possible order type of a countable nonstandard model. Letting ω be the order type of the natural numbers, ζ be the order type of the integers, and η be the order type of the rationals, the order type of any countable nonstandard model of PA is ω + ζ·η, which can be visualized as a copy of the natural numbers followed by a dense linear ordering of copies of the integers.

Overspill

A cut in a nonstandard model M is a nonempty subset C of M so that C is downward closed (x < y and y ∈ C ⇒ x ∈ C) and C is closed under successor. A proper cut is a cut that is a proper subset of M. Each nonstandard model has many proper cuts, including one that corresponds to the standard natural numbers. However, the induction scheme in Peano arithmetic prevents any proper cut from being definable. The overspill lemma, first proved by Abraham Robinson, formalizes this fact.

Overspill lemma30—Let M be a nonstandard model of PA and let C be a proper cut of M. Suppose that a ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {a}}} is a tuple of elements of M and ϕ ( x , a ¯ ) {\displaystyle \phi (x,{\bar {a}})} is a formula in the language of arithmetic so that

M ⊨ ϕ ( b , a ¯ ) {\displaystyle M\vDash \phi (b,{\bar {a}})} for all b ∈ C.

Then there is a c in M that is greater than every element of C such that

M ⊨ ϕ ( c , a ¯ ) . {\displaystyle M\vDash \phi (c,{\bar {a}}).}

See also

  • Philosophy portal
  • Mathematics portal

Notes

Citations

Sources

  • Hermes, Hans (1973). Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Hochschultext. Springer. ISBN 3-540-05819-2. ISSN 1431-4657.
  • Hilbert, David (1902). "Mathematische Probleme" [Mathematical Problems]. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. 8 (10). Translated by Winton, Maby: 437–479. doi:10.1090/s0002-9904-1902-00923-3 (inactive 3 March 2025).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of March 2025 (link)
  • Mendelson, Elliott (December 1997) [December 1979]. Introduction to Mathematical Logic (Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications) (4th ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-0-412-80830-2.
  • Meseguer, José; Goguen, Joseph A. (Dec 1986). "Initiality, induction, and computability". In Maurice Nivat and John C. Reynolds (ed.). Algebraic Methods in Semantics (PDF). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 459–541. ISBN 978-0-521-26793-9.
  • Van Heijenoort, Jean (1967). From Frege to Godel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-32449-7.
    • Contains translations of the following two papers, with valuable commentary:
      • Dedekind, Richard (1890). Letter to Keferstein. On p. 100, he restates and defends his axioms of 1888. pp. 98–103.
      • Peano, Giuseppe (1889). Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita [The principles of arithmetic, presented by a new method]. An excerpt of the treatise where Peano first presented his axioms, and recursively defined arithmetical operations. Fratres Bocca. pp. 83–97.

Further reading

  • Buss, Samuel R. (1998). "Chapter II: First-Order Proof Theory of Arithmetic". In Buss, Samuel R. (ed.). Handbook of Proof Theory. New York: Elsevier Science. ISBN 978-0-444-89840-1.
  • Mendelson, Elliott (June 2015) [December 1979]. Introduction to Mathematical Logic (Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications) (6th ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC. ISBN 978-1-4822-3772-6.
  • Takeuti, Gaisi (2013). Proof theory (Second ed.). Mineola, New York. ISBN 978-0-486-49073-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

This article incorporates material from PA on PlanetMath, which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.

References

  1. "Peano". Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/peano ↩

  2. Grassmann 1861. - Grassmann, Hermann Günther (1861). Lehrbuch der Arithmetik für höhere Lehranstalten. Verlag von Theod. Chr. Fr. Enslin. https://books.google.com/books?id=jdQ2AAAAMAAJ ↩

  3. Wang 1957, pp. 145, 147, "It is rather well-known, through Peano's own acknowledgement, that Peano […] made extensive use of Grassmann's work in his development of the axioms. It is not so well-known that Grassmann had essentially the characterization of the set of all integers, now customary in texts of modern algebra, that it forms an ordered integral domain in wihich each set of positive elements has a least member. […] [Grassmann's book] was probably the first serious and rather successful attempt to put numbers on a more or less axiomatic basis.". - Wang, Hao (June 1957). "The Axiomatization of Arithmetic". The Journal of Symbolic Logic. 22 (2). Association for Symbolic Logic: 145–158. doi:10.2307/2964176. JSTOR 2964176. S2CID 26896458. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2964176 ↩

  4. Peirce 1881. - Peirce, C. S. (1881). "On the Logic of Number". American Journal of Mathematics. 4 (1): 85–95. doi:10.2307/2369151. JSTOR 2369151. MR 1507856. https://archive.org/details/jstor-2369151 ↩

  5. Shields 1997. - Shields, Paul (1997). "3. Peirce's Axiomatization of Arithmetic". In Houser, Nathan; Roberts, Don D.; Van Evra, James (eds.). Studies in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Indiana University Press. pp. 43–52. ISBN 0-253-33020-3. https://books.google.com/books?id=pWjOg-zbtMAC&pg=PA43 ↩

  6. Van Heijenoort 1967, p. 94. - Van Heijenoort, Jean (1967). From Frege to Godel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-32449-7. ↩

  7. Van Heijenoort 1967, p. 2. - Van Heijenoort, Jean (1967). From Frege to Godel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-32449-7. ↩

  8. Van Heijenoort 1967, p. 83. - Van Heijenoort, Jean (1967). From Frege to Godel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-32449-7. ↩

  9. Peano 1889, p. 1. - Peano, Giuseppe (1889). Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita [The principles of arithmetic, presented by a new method]. An excerpt of the treatise where Peano first presented his axioms, and recursively defined arithmetical operations. Fratres Bocca. pp. 83–97. https://archive.org/details/arithmeticespri00peangoog ↩

  10. Peano 1908, p. 27. - Peano, Giuseppe (1908). Formulario Mathematico (V ed.). Turin, Bocca frères, Ch. Clausen. p. 27. https://archive.org/details/formulairedemat04peangoog ↩

  11. Van Heijenoort 1967, p. 83. - Van Heijenoort, Jean (1967). From Frege to Godel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-32449-7. ↩

  12. For formal proofs, see e.g. File:Inductive proofs of properties of add, mult from recursive definitions.pdf. /wiki/File:Inductive_proofs_of_properties_of_add,_mult_from_recursive_definitions.pdf ↩

  13. Suppes 1960, Hatcher 2014 - Suppes, Patrick (1960). Axiomatic Set Theory. Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-61630-4. https://archive.org/details/axiomaticsettheo00supp_0 ↩

  14. Tarski & Givant 1987, Section 7.6. - Tarski, Alfred; Givant, Steven (1987). A Formalization of Set Theory without Variables. AMS Colloquium Publications. Vol. 41. American Mathematical Society. ISBN 978-0-8218-1041-5. https://archive.org/details/formalizationofs0000tars ↩

  15. Fritz 1952, p. 137An illustration of 'interpretation' is Russell's own definition of 'cardinal number'. The uninterpreted system in this case is Peano's axioms for the number system, whose three primitive ideas and five axioms, Peano believed, were sufficient to enable one to derive all the properties of the system of natural numbers. Actually, Russell maintains, Peano's axioms define any progression of the form x 0 , x 1 , x 2 , … , x n , … {\displaystyle x_{0},x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},\ldots } of which the series of the natural numbers is one instance. - Fritz, Charles A. Jr. (1952). Bertrand Russell's construction of the external world. New York, Humanities Press. https://archive.org/details/bertrandrussells0000frit ↩

  16. Gray 2013, p. 133So Poincaré turned to see whether logicism could generate arithmetic, more precisely, the arithmetic of ordinals. Couturat, said Poincaré, had accepted the Peano axioms as a definition of a number. But this will not do. The axioms cannot be shown to be free of contradiction by finding examples of them, and any attempt to show that they were contradiction-free by examining the totality of their implications would require the very principle of mathematical induction Couturat believed they implied. For (in a further passage dropped from S&M) either one assumed the principle in order to prove it, which would only prove that if it is true it is not self-contradictory, which says nothing; or one used the principle in another form than the one stated, in which case one must show that the number of steps in one's reasoning was an integer according to the new definition, but this could not be done (1905c, 834). - Gray, Jeremy (2013). "The Essayist". Henri Poincaré: A scientific biography. Princeton University Press. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-691-15271-4. https://books.google.com/books?id=w2Tya9gOKqEC&pg=PA133 ↩

  17. Hilbert 1902. - Hilbert, David (1902). "Mathematische Probleme" [Mathematical Problems]. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. 8 (10). Translated by Winton, Maby: 437–479. doi:10.1090/s0002-9904-1902-00923-3 (inactive 3 March 2025). https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1902-08-10/S0002-9904-1902-00923-3/home.html ↩

  18. Gödel 1931. - Gödel, Kurt (1931). "Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, I" (PDF). Monatshefte für Mathematik. 38. See On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems for details on English translations.: 173–198. doi:10.1007/bf01700692. S2CID 197663120. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-04-11. Retrieved 2013-10-31. https://web.archive.org/web/20180411113347/http://www.w-k-essler.de/pdfs/goedel.pdf ↩

  19. Gödel 1958 - Gödel, Kurt (1958). "Über eine bisher noch nicht benützte Erweiterung des finiten Standpunktes". Dialectica. 12 (3–4). Reprinted in English translation in 1990. Gödel's Collected Works, Vol II. Solomon Feferman et al., eds. Oxford University Press: 280–287. doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.1958.tb01464.x. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1746-8361.1958.tb01464.x ↩

  20. Gentzen 1936 - Gentzen, Gerhard (1936). "Die Widerspruchsfreiheit der reinen Zahlentheorie". Mathematische Annalen. 112. Reprinted in English translation in his 1969 Collected works, M. E. Szabo, ed.: 132–213. doi:10.1007/bf01565428. S2CID 122719892. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf01565428 ↩

  21. Willard 2001. - Willard, Dan E. (2001). "Self-verifying axiom systems, the incompleteness theorem and related reflection principles" (PDF). The Journal of Symbolic Logic. 66 (2): 536–596. doi:10.2307/2695030. JSTOR 2695030. MR 1833464. S2CID 2822314. https://www.cs.albany.edu/~dew/m/jsl1.pdf ↩

  22. Partee, Ter Meulen & Wall 2012, p. 215. - Partee, Barbara; Ter Meulen, Alice; Wall, Robert (2012). Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Springer. ISBN 978-94-009-2213-6. https://books.google.com/books?id=d5xrCQAAQBAJ ↩

  23. Harsanyi (1983). - Harsanyi, John C. (1983). "Mathematics, the Empirical Facts, and Logical Necessity". In Hempel, Carl G.; Putnam, Hilary; Essler, Wilhelm K. (eds.). Methodology, Epistemology, and Philosophy of Science. pp. 167–192. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-7676-5_8. ISBN 978-90-481-8389-0. S2CID 121297669. https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-94-015-7676-5_8 ↩

  24. Mendelson 1997, p. 155. - Mendelson, Elliott (December 1997) [December 1979]. Introduction to Mathematical Logic (Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications) (4th ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-0-412-80830-2. ↩

  25. Kaye 1991, pp. 16–18. - Kaye, Richard (1991). Models of Peano arithmetic. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-853213-X. ↩

  26. " ∀ x   ( x ⋅ 0 = 0 ) {\displaystyle \forall x\ (x\cdot 0=0)} " can be proven from the other axioms (in first-order logic) as follows. Firstly, x ⋅ 0 + x ⋅ 0 = x ⋅ ( 0 + 0 ) = x ⋅ 0 = x ⋅ 0 + 0 {\displaystyle x\cdot 0+x\cdot 0=x\cdot (0+0)=x\cdot 0=x\cdot 0+0} by distributivity and additive identity. Secondly, x ⋅ 0 = 0 ∨ x ⋅ 0 > 0 {\displaystyle x\cdot 0=0\lor x\cdot 0>0} by Axiom 15. If x ⋅ 0 > 0 {\displaystyle x\cdot 0>0} then x ⋅ 0 + x ⋅ 0 > x ⋅ 0 + 0 {\displaystyle x\cdot 0+x\cdot 0>x\cdot 0+0} by addition of the same element and commutativity, and hence x ⋅ 0 + 0 > x ⋅ 0 + 0 {\displaystyle x\cdot 0+0>x\cdot 0+0} by substitution, contradicting irreflexivity. Therefore it must be that x ⋅ 0 = 0 {\displaystyle x\cdot 0=0} . ↩

  27. Hermes 1973, VI.4.3, presenting a theorem of Thoralf Skolem - Hermes, Hans (1973). Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Hochschultext. Springer. ISBN 3-540-05819-2. ISSN 1431-4657. https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1431-4657 ↩

  28. Hermes 1973, VI.3.1. - Hermes, Hans (1973). Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Hochschultext. Springer. ISBN 3-540-05819-2. ISSN 1431-4657. https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1431-4657 ↩

  29. Kaye 1991, Section 11.3. - Kaye, Richard (1991). Models of Peano arithmetic. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-853213-X. ↩

  30. Kaye 1991, pp. 70ff.. - Kaye, Richard (1991). Models of Peano arithmetic. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-853213-X. ↩