2021
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2111.15328
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fast Goodstein Walks

Abstract: We define a variant of the Goodstein process based on fast-growing functions and show that it terminates, but this fact is not provable in Kripke-Platek set theory or other theories of strength the Bachmann-Howard ordinal. We moreover show that this Goodstein process is of maximal length, so that any alternative Goodstein process based on the same fast-growing functions will also terminate.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 6 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For notation systems based on the Ackermann function [1], normal forms are already quite cumbersome, so normal form-free Goodstein principles would lead to substantially more accessible independent statements. We have already applied base-change maximality to fast-growing hierarchies [7], where once again normal forms can be quite complex. We believe that, going forward, the analysis of norm-minimality and, especially, base-change maximality will become an essential ingredient in the study of new and ever-more-powerful Goodstein principles.…”
Section: Proof We Use Transfinite Induction Belowmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For notation systems based on the Ackermann function [1], normal forms are already quite cumbersome, so normal form-free Goodstein principles would lead to substantially more accessible independent statements. We have already applied base-change maximality to fast-growing hierarchies [7], where once again normal forms can be quite complex. We believe that, going forward, the analysis of norm-minimality and, especially, base-change maximality will become an essential ingredient in the study of new and ever-more-powerful Goodstein principles.…”
Section: Proof We Use Transfinite Induction Belowmentioning
confidence: 99%