When I left off, we'd seen how to take statements written in the logic of the Principia Mathematica, and convert them into numerical form. What we need to see now is how to get meta-mathematical.

We want to be able to write second-order logical statements. The basic trick to incompleteness is that we're going to use the numerical encoding of statements to say that a predicate or relation is represented by a number. Then we're going to write predicates *about predicates* by defining predicates on the numerical representations of the first-order predicates. That's going to let us create a true statement in the logic that can't be proven with the logic.

To do that, we need to figure out how to take our statements and relations represented as numbers, and express properties of those statements and relations in terms of arithmetic. To do that, we need to define just what it means to express something *arithmetically*. Gödel did that by defining "arithmetically" in terms of a concept called *primitive recursion*.

I learned about primitive recursion when I studied computational complexity. Nowadays, it's seen as part of theoretical computer science. The idea, as we express it in modern terms, is that there are many different classes of computable functions. Primitive recursion is one of the basic complexity classes. You don't need a Turing machine to compute primitive recursive functions - they're a simpler class.

The easiest way to understand primitive recursion is that it's what you get in a programming language with integer arithmetic, and simple for-loops. The only way you can iterate is by repeating things a bounded number of times. Primitive recursion has a lot of interesting properties: the two key ones for our purposes here are: number theoretic proofs are primitive recursive, and every computation of a primitive recursive function is guaranteed to complete within a bounded amount of time.

The formal definition of primitive recursion, the way that Gödel wrote it, is quite a bit more complex than that. But it means the same thing.

We start with what it means to define a *formula* via primitive recursion. (Note the language that I used there: I'm not explaining what it means for a function to *be* primitive recursive; I'm explaining what it means to be *defined via* primitive recursion.) And I'm defining *formulae*, not functions. In Gödel's proof, we're always focused on numerical reasoning, so we're not going to talk about programs or algorithms, we're going to about the definition of formulae.

A formula \(phi(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n)\) is *defined via primitive recursion* if, for some other formulae \(psi\) and \(mu\):

*Base:*\(phi(0, x_2, ..., x_n) = psi(x_2, ..., x_n)\)*Recursive*: \(phi(i+1, x_2, ..., x_n) = mu(i, phi(i, x_2, ..., x_n), x_2, ..., x_n)\).

So, basically, the first parameter is a bound on the number of times that \(phi\) can invoked recursively. When it's 0, you can't invoke \(phi\) any more.

A formula is primitive recursive if it defined from a collection of formulae \(phi_1, ..., phi_n\) where any formula \(phi_i\) is defined via primitive recursion from \(phi_1, ..., phi_{i-1}\), or the primitive *succ* function from Peano arithmetic.

For any formula \(phi_i\) in that sequence, the *degree* of the formula is the number of other primitive recursive formulae used in its definition.

Now, we can define a primitive recursive property: \(R(x_1, ..., x_n)\) is primitive recursive if and only if there exists a primitive recursive function \(phi\) such that \(phi(x_1, ..., x_n) = 0\).

With primitive recursive formulae and relations defined, there's a bunch of theorems about how you can compose primitive recursive formulae and relations:

- Every function or relation that you get by substituting a primitive recursive function for a variable in a primitive recursive function/relation is primitive recursive.
- If R and S are primitive relations, then ¬R, R∧S, R∨S are all primitive recursive.
- If \(phi(x_1, ..., x_n)\) and \(psi(x_1, ..., x_n)\) are primitive recursive functions, then the relation \(R(x_1, ..., x_n) Leftrightarrow (phi(x_1, ..., x_n) = psi(x_1, ..., x_n)\) is also primitive recursive.
- Let \(xv\) and \(zv\) be finite-length tuples of variables. If the function \(phi(xv)\) and the relation \(R(y, zv)\) are primitive recursive, then so are the relations:
- \(S(xv, zv) Leftrightarrow (exists y le phi(xv). R(y, zv))\)
- \(T(xv, zv) Leftrightarrow (forall y le A(xv). R(y, zv))\)

- Let \(xv\) and \(zv\) be finite-length tuples of variables. And let \(text{argmin}[y le f(x).R(x)]\) be the smallest value of \(x\) for which \(y le f(x)\) and \(R(x)\) is true, or 0 if there is no such value. Then if the function \(phi(xv)\) and the relation \(R(y, zv)\) are primitive recursive, then so is the function \(P(xv, zv) = (text{argmin}[y le A(xv). R(y, zv))]\).

By these definitions, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and integer division are all primitive recursive.

Ok. So, now we've got all of that out of the way. It's painful, but it's important. What we've done is come up with a good formal description of what it means for something to be an arithmetic property: if we can write it as a primitive recursive relation or formula, it's arithmetic.

So now, finally, we're ready to get to the really good part! Now that we know what it means to define something arithmetically, we can see how to define *meta-mathematical* properties and formulae arithmetically. Next post, hopefully tomorrow, I'll start showing you arithmetic expressions of meta-math!

When defining a P-R property, do you mean that R(x_1,dots,x_n) if and only if phi(x_1,dots,x_n)=0 ?

Yes.

In the definition of a formula being defined via primitive recursion, what is the condition on the base case, phi_1? It has to be defined only in terms of the successor function. So phi_1(x_1) is a polynomial in terms of x_1 with natural coefficients. Or can it be more than this?

[...] how to numerically encode it as a Gödel numbering. We've start started on the third point in this post, by figuring out just what it means to say that things are encoded arithmetically. Now we can get [...]

[…] Arithmetic Properties: what it means to say that a property can be expressed arithemetically. This set the groundwork for step 2 in the proof sketch. […]