You have 3 free guides left 😟
Unlock your guides
You have 3 free guides left 😟
Unlock your guides

12.2 Representability and Expressibility

2 min readjuly 25, 2024

Formal systems are mathematical frameworks with precise rules for manipulating symbols. They're crucial for studying logic and foundations of math. and are key concepts, showing how these systems can encode functions and describe concepts.

Proving representability involves constructing formulas that capture specific functions or relations. However, formal systems have limitations in what they can express, as revealed by famous theorems like and .

Formal Systems and Metamathematics

Representability vs expressibility in formal systems

Top images from around the web for Representability vs expressibility in formal systems
Top images from around the web for Representability vs expressibility in formal systems
  • Representability encodes functions or relations within through formulas corresponding to given function or relation
  • Expressibility describes concepts within formal system language articulating properties or relationships
  • Key differences: representability encodes specific functions/relations while expressibility relates to descriptive power of system's language (, Gödel's incompleteness theorems)

Proving representability in formal arithmetic

  • Primitive recursive functions always representable in formal arithmetic systems like proved by on function complexity
  • Basic arithmetic operations representable:
    • Addition: ϕ+(x,y,z)z=x+y\phi_+(x, y, z) \equiv z = x + y
    • Multiplication: ϕ×(x,y,z)z=x×y\phi_×(x, y, z) \equiv z = x × y
  • Relations representable:
    • Less than: ϕ<(x,y)z(z0x+z=y)\phi_<(x, y) \equiv \exists z(z \neq 0 \land x + z = y)
    • Equality: ϕ=(x,y)x=y\phi_=(x, y) \equiv x = y
  • Proof techniques construct formula capturing function/relation, show formula satisfies representability definition, use induction for complex functions

Limitations of formal system expressibility

  • Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems reveal limitations on and , systems cannot prove own consistency
  • Tarski's Undefinability Theorem demonstrates arithmetic truth not arithmetically definable, limiting expressibility of semantic concepts
  • shows limitations on cardinality expressibility in first-order logic
  • relates computability limits to formal system expressibility
  • Implications: not all intuitively true statements provable within system, some concepts require stronger/different formal systems to express

Representability for metamathematical statements

  • encodes metamathematical statements as numbers allowing formal systems to "talk about" own properties
  • used in self-reference proofs crucial for many metamathematical results
  • represents provability concept within formal system used to formulate statements about system's proving capabilities
  • Expressibility of metamathematical concepts includes consistency, completeness, and statements
  • Computer science applications: relates to expressibility, demonstrates limitations on program analysis
© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.
AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.


© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.
AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.
AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.
Glossary
Glossary