Posted by: Alexandre Borovik | May 27, 2011

Non-standard models of Peano Arithmetic

From FOM Digest, Vol 101, Issue 34,a post by Walt Read:

… the result of the work on non-standard (non-Euclidean) models of geometry was a recognition of the other models as equally valid. Eventually it was considered reasonable that even “the” universe might better be modeled by one of the non-standard models. Do we see N the same way? Is there a unique thing denoted by “the natural numbers”, accessible to us through intuition or however, with the non-standard models of PA being essentially artifacts of the formalization process? Or do the non-standard models have equal claim as models of “the natural numbers”? Might we at some time in the future see one of the non-standard models as better suited to our understanding as we learn more about natural numbers?

[Links and tags are mine]

About these ads

Responses

  1. Dana Scott remarked in the FOM Digest:

    Let us recall:

    TENNENBAUM’S THEOREM: There is no recursive non-standard model of {PA}.

    FEFERMAN’S THEOREM: There is no arithmetically definable non-standard model
    of all true sentences of arithmetic.

    In other words, there are no models just lying around in the closet
    waiting to be used. The situation is so much different in Geometry.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers

%d bloggers like this: