Proof Lengths for Instances of the Paris-Harrington Principle
Abstract
As Paris and Harrington have famously shown, Peano Arithmetic does not prove that for all numbers $k,m,n$ there is an $N$ which satisfies the statement $\operatorname{PH}(k,m,n,N)$: For any $k$-colouring of its $n$-element subsets the set $\{0,\dots,N-1\}$ has a large homogeneous subset of size $\geq m$. At the same time very weak theories can establish the $\Sigma_1$-statement $\exists_N\operatorname{PH}(\overline k,\overline m,\overline n,N)$ for any fixed parameters $k,m,n$. Which theory, then, does it take to formalize natural proofs of these instances? It is known that $\forall_m\exists_N\operatorname{PH}(\overline k,m,\overline n,N)$ has a natural and short proof (relative to $n$ and $k$) by $\Sigma_{n-1}$-induction. In contrast, we show that there is an elementary function $e$ such that any proof of $\exists_N\operatorname{PH}(\overline{e(n)},\overline{n+1},\overline n,N)$ by $\Sigma_{n-2}$-induction is ridiculously long. In order to establish this result on proof lengths we give a computational analysis of slow provability, a notion introduced by Sy-David Friedman, Rathjen and Weiermann. We will see that slow uniform $\Sigma_1$-reflection is related to a function that has a considerably lower growth rate than $F_{\varepsilon_0}$ but dominates all functions $F_\alpha$ with $\alpha<\varepsilon_0$ in the fast-growing hierarchy.
- Publication:
-
arXiv e-prints
- Pub Date:
- January 2016
- DOI:
- 10.48550/arXiv.1601.08185
- arXiv:
- arXiv:1601.08185
- Bibcode:
- 2016arXiv160108185F
- Keywords:
-
- Mathematics - Logic;
- 03F30;
- 03F20;
- 03D20;
- 03F40
- E-Print:
- This version has been accepted for publication in the Annals of Pure and Applied Logic. As compared with the first version, Section 3 of the paper has been changed considerably (cf. in particular Theorem 3.10)