Studying the Atlas of all possible polynomial equations with quantifier-prefixes

Studying the Atlas of all possible
polynomial equations with quantifier-prefixes
Andrey Bovykin and Michiel De Smet
This version 3.0 is dated December 23, 2010 and will expire on January 10, 2011
This draft is not for distribution (yet).
Abstract
A prefixed polynomial equation (or a polynomial expression with a quantifier-prefix) is an equation
P (x1 , x2 , . . . xn ) = 0, where P is a polynomial whose variables x1 , x2 , . . . xn range over natural numbers, that
is preceded by some quantifiers over some or all of its variables x1 , x2 , . . . , xn . Here is a typical generic example
of such an expression, :
me N ab cd A X xy BCF f ghijklnrpq
x (y + f x) (A + m + f y) [(A + f d)2 + (dg + g c + A)2 + (B + h dx)2 + (dxi + i c + B)2 +
+(C + j dy)2 + (dyk + k c + C)2 + (B + I + 1 C)2 + (C + n N )2 + (F + r b(B + C 2 ))2 +
+(bp(B + C 2 ) + p a + F )2 + ((F X)2 qe)2 ] = 0.
In this note we study the collection of all possible such expressions (the Atlas), with the important equivalence relation of being EFA-provably equivalent on its members. (EFA stands for exponential function
arithmetic and is, simply speaking, a theory where all usual concrete mathematics that does not rely on the
uses of genuinely countably unapproximable mathematical notions takes place.) So, members of the same class
are prefixed polynomial expressions that are EFA-provably equivalent to each other. The Atlas is partially
ordered by the following relation: the class of an expression A is smaller than the class of an expression B if
EFA proves that B implies A. Here is the first, abstract picture of the Atlas to have in mind:
on this picture, we emphasise the partial ordering by strength
Notice that the set of prefixed polynomial equations is arithmetically complete (i.e. every first-order arithmetical formula is EFA-equivalent to a prefixed polynomial expression). In this sense, the Atlas is just another
way of talking about first-order arithmetical statements.
First we fix a way of counting the length of prefixed polynomial expressions and notice how deep this prefixed
polynomial equations template is: there are relatively short members in many non-trivial equivalence classes:
we give a series of examples, producing elements of the following classes: 1-consistency of I1 (the expression
at the beginning of this abstract), 1-consistency of I2 , 1-consistency of full Peano Arithmetic, 1-consistency
of predicative mathematics ATR0 , 1-consistency of ZFC + {there exists an n-Mahlo cardinal}n . So far we
have only aimed for very rough polynomial expressions, but we hope that later drafts will include more beautiful examples than what we have so far. The abundance of examples shows that these equivalence classes
occur surprisingly early in our next picture:
(on this picture, we emphasise lengths of polynomial expressions, the distribution of equivalence classes of a given length and show seeds)
Then we study an example of a phase transition phenomenon. We produce a polynomial expression that has
two free variables m and n such that if m
n is smaller or equal to Weiermanns constant w 0.6395781750 . . .,
then the expression is EFA-provable, otherwise it is unprovable even by methods of predicative mathematics, for
instance in the theory ATR0 (i.e. this is a phase transition between EFA-provability and ATR0 -unprovability).
Also, we produce an example of a polynomial equation with quantifiers that is equivalent to the Graph Minor
Theorem and hence has strength at least 1-consistency of 11 -CA0 , but its exact equivalence class is unknown.
In the process of building a point that belongs to the equivalence class of 1-consistency of ZFC + {there exists
an n-Mahlo cardinal}n , we produce important technical by-products that will serve as building blocks of
many future results: a polynomial expression that knows all values of all polynomials and a polynomial expression that knows all values of all BAF-terms (terms in the language {+, , 2x , , log, 0, 1}).
Then we study a phenomenon of hopping between classes, where a prefixed polynomial expression p(n) that
has a free natural number parameter n, visits many equivalence classes of the Atlas as the parameter n varies.
(In 1975, J.P.Jones [8] introduced a first example of such an expression that visits all equivalence classes that
contain a point ConT for some recursively axiomatized theory T .) We start with a presentation of a slightly
enhanced version of Joness theorem (with a slightly better polynomial), and proceed to ...........
About magic polynomials.
A seed is a prefixed polynomial equation that is of minimal length in its EFA-provable equivalence class. We
raise the first sequence of open questions about seeds. (See seeds on picture 2.)
We discuss the role of the Atlas and its possible partial implementation as a database that would map all
provable equivalence classes of all possible prefixed polynomial expressions of small sizes, and its impact on
mathematical logic. We discuss Arithmetical Splitting (the research programme to find statements whose
negation is as good as the statement, without preference), logically inaccessible equivalence classes (first-order
arithmetical phenomena that we cant easily access via any axiomatisation), and the question of classifying unprovable statements (do all unprovable statements have to be equivalent to consistencies or n-consistencies?).
In the potential partial implementation of a fragment of the Atlas, the most important problem at the moment
is to find a good normal form to store.
This note is divided into two parts. Part I will contain all results and the full discussion and is intended for
reading. Part II, the Appendix, will contain all proofs and can be omitted by most readers.
This incomplete draft is dated December 23, 2010, and contains, perhaps, about one third of the future material that will be included in the final version. We hope that the final version should be ready by the end of
spring 2011.
This note is intended for the audience of logicians: mathematicians, computer scientists and philosophers alike,
as well as thinkers of other backgrounds interested in unprovability. We shall insert a reminder of the basics
of Unprovability Theory at the end of this note.
Andrey Bovykin: indiscernibles@googlemail.com

Michiel De Smet: mmdesmet@cage.ugent.be
The first author would like to thank the John Templeton Foundation for financial support, and for its interest
in Unprovability.
Contents
I
Results and discussion
1 Introduction
1.1 Five main definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Three possible polynomial templates: over N, Z, Q . . . . . .
1.3 Diophantine equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Arithmetical completeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5 On the choice of our background theory EFA . . . . . . . . .
1.6 Why this study is now possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.7 The language of logic (an extra explanation for non-logicians)
1.8 Examples of equivalence classes and why we care . . . . . . .
1.9 How to imagine the Atlas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
2
2
3
3
6
6
7
8
2 First three examples to guide us

2.1 Unprovability by primitive recursive means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Unprovability in two-quantifier-induction arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Unprovability in full Peano Arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
9
10
10
3 Going beyond predicative mathematics is not that difficult after all

3.1 A coarse polynomial expression equivalent to the Finite Kruskal Theorem . . . . . . .
3.2 A phase transition polynomial between EFA-provability and predicative unprovability
3.3 Graph Minor Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Phase transition polynomial equivalent to the planar graph minor threshold . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
12
12
13
14
14
4 Magic polynomials
4.1 Pell equation as a rudimentary example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Superexponentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Ackermannianness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
15
15
15
5 Universality and hopping between equivalence

5.1 Jones 1978 theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Dyson-Jones-Shepherdson results . . . . . . . .
5.3 More hopping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
16
16
16
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
classes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 Polynomials for Nash-Williams theory and Banach spaces

7 Values of polynomials and BAF-terms
7.1 A prefixed polynomial equation that knows values of all polynomials on all inputs
7.2 An exp-polynomial expression that knows values of all polynomials on all inputs .
7.3 The polynomial expression for values of BAF-terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.4 A poly-exp-log expression that knows values of all BAF-terms on all inputs . . . .
7.5 Arbitrary programming languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.6 About Katies project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
18
19
19
21
21
22
8 Polynomial expressions that cant be tackled by ZFC and stronger theories

8.1 Friedmans Proposition E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2 An intermediate poly-exp-log-expression equivalent to 1-Con(ZFC+ Mahlo cardinals)
8.3 A polynomial expression that is equivalent to 1-Con(ZFC+Mahlo cardinals) . . . . .
8.4 What will be the final length after some optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.5 A short poly-exp-log expression equivalent to 1-Con(ZFC+ Mahlo cardinals) . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9 Subtle cardinals
10 Seeds
10.1 Provable and refutable cases . . . . . .
10.2 Some short known open problems . . .
10.3 What are seeds . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.4 Quantifier complexity of seeds . . . . .
10.5 Reckless conjectures . . . . . . . . . .
10.6 No reason to expect that our examples
10.7 Magic polynomials versus seeds . . . .
10.8 Seeds in the poly-exp set-up . . . . . .
10.9 Counting what grows from seeds . . .
23
23
24
25
27
27
28
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
11 What use could a fragment of the Atlas be

11.1 The Atlas as a knowledge database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.2 Building some fragment of the Atlas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.3 Seed-size as a new invariant to measure simplicity of logical equivalence classes .
11.4 Canonical equivalence classes not easily accessible to humans via axiomatisation
11.5 The role of the Atlas in the search for Arithmetical Splitting . . . . . . . . . . .
11.6 Atlas in three languages: polynomials, poly-exp-log and Rich Language . . . . .
11.7 Almost all arithmetical statements are unprovable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.8 The story of Arithmetical Bifurcation formulated in terms of polynomials . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
32
34
34
34
34
35
35
35
12 How to build a fragment of the Atlas

12.1 Feasibility matters: the question of normal form . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.2 Automatic transformations of polynomial expressions . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.3 Proofs get translated into mechanical transformations of polynomials . . .
12.4 Three calculi of polynomial transformations: I0 , EFA, richer language
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
36
36
36
37
13 Incomparable consistency strengths

13.1 Proofs by Montague, Shelah, Solovay and Solovay-Shavrukov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13.2 A priority argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13.3 An infinite splitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
38
38
38
14 Finding unusual equivalence classes (like 2-Con(NF))
39
15 Final remarks
15.1 Meaninglessnessization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15.2 Meaningfulnessization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
40
40
II
Appendix
Bibliography
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
are
. .
. .
. .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
anywhere
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
near seeds
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
61
Part I
Results and discussion
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1
Five main definitions
Definition 1.
A prefixed polynomial equation (or a polynomial expression with a quantifier-prefix, or, occasionally, simply a polynomial expression) is an expression of the form
Q1 x1 Q2 x2 . . . Qn xn P (x1 , x2 , . . . xn ) = 0,
where P is a polynomial with integer coefficients whose variables x1 , x2 , . . . xn range over natural numbers, that
is preceded by a block of quantifiers Q1 , Q2 , . . . , Qn over its variables x1 , x2 , . . . , xn . We shall allow Latin and
Greek, capital and low-case letters with any subscripts to serve as our variables. It is important to interpret
subtraction correctly (our statement is evaluated over natural number inputs, and outputs are also natural
numbers).
Definition 2. Atlas
The set of all possible polynomial expressions with quantifiers with quantifiers is called the Atlas.
We shall often refer to this Atlas as a template in the sense1 that it is the set of all substitution instances
of a concrete polynomial P and a quantifier-block into one fixed pattern.
Definition 3. Equivalence
We say that two prefixed polynomial equations P and Q are equivalent or EFA-equivalent or EFA-provably
equivalent if there is a proof of P Q in the theory EFA, the Exponential Function Arithmetic. This is an
equivalence relation on the Atlas.
Definition 4. Length (or size)
Let us fix the following method of counting the length of a polynomial expression with quantifiers. We ignore
the quantifier-prefix and the final = 0 and count only the length of the polynomial, as follows: every
occurrence of a variable or multiplication or addition operation contrubutes 1 to the total size, coefficient n
contributes (n 1) to the total size, +n or n both contribute n, and the power n contrubutes (n 1) to the
total size.
This is the only moment in this paper that we make an arbitrary decision: we could of course instead count
coefficients and powers as contributing log2 (n) or log10 (n) or in other ways. Apart from this arbitrariness, the
definitions and objects of this paper are very absolute.
1 we
borrowed the word template from Harvey Friedman and his explanations presenting Boolean Relation Theory as the
study of a template
Definition 5. Seed
A polynomial expression with quantifier-prefix that is shortest in its EFA-equivalence class is called a seed of
its equivalence class. There may occasionally exist several seeds of the same equivalence class of the same size.
The Atlas is not really a new object. Some people in the XXth century called the set of equivelence classes
of closed formulas in any language under T -provability the Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra of T . However, this
paper, to our knowledge, is the first systematic attempt to study the whole arithmetically-complete Atlas as
one mathematical object.
1.2
Three possible polynomial templates: over N, Z, Q
There are at least three standard natural interesting templates involving polynomials with quantifiers which
we could use in this project:
1. to let variables range over natural numbers (non-negative integers);
2. to let variables range over all integers;
3. to let variables range over all rationals.
All three set-ups are equally interesting mathematically. Of course the polynomials with quantifiers behave
completely differently when the variables are allowed to range over these different sets. In building examples and
proving various theorems, we can expect advantages and disadvantages of each of these templates and trade-offs
between them. We chose to take template (1) and explore it thoroughly, but the other two are also excellent
templates and can afterwards be dealt with, building on the experience of study of template (1). We chose
template (1) because it is comfortable and usual for logicians. Template (3) will be a shoot-off of a separate
project about Unprovability Theory in The Language of Rational Numbers (not necessarily polynomials, but
mixtures of rational numbers and natural numbers are allowed). By Julia Robinsons theorem about rationals
[20], template (3) is arithmetically complete so there is some guarantee of success.
1.3
Diophantine equations
One important template was studied in the 1950s - 1970s that led to the solution of Hilberts 10th problem:
the collection of all possible Diophantine equations.
Solvability of Diophantine equations (the set of all sentences of the form x1 x2 . . . xn P (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) = 0)
is a 01 -complete set of setences. It means that every 01 formula in the language of first-order arithmetic
is EFA-provably equivalent to a sentence from this set. Equivalently (and somewhat psychologically more
importantly), every 01 sentence of arithmetic is EFA-provably (see [5]) equivalent to non-solvability of a
certain Diophantine equation.
Should we type some brief history of MDRP or refer readers to classical accounts?
However, the restriction of having only one block of quantifiers makes this template metamathematically
boring: it seems we cant encounter and study interesting metamathematical phenomena with this restriction
in place. We can do some good metamathematics if we dont have to be restricted by it.
Throughout the project we use many big and small methods and tricks developed by the community of people
who studied Hilberts 10th problem and related topics in the 1950s -1980s.
grain?
1.4
Arithmetical completeness
Non-solvability of Diophantine equations is 01 -complete. Similarly, our Atlas has a complteness property:
every first-order arithmetical formula is EFA-equivalent to a prefixed polynomial equation.
For example, the following prefixed polynomial expression:
...
...
is EFA-provably equivalent to . . ..
So, the Atlas of all prefixed polynomial equations is just another way of talking about formulas in the language
of first-order arithmetic. You can think of polynomial expressions as normal forms of first-order formulas.
1.5
On the choice of our background theory EFA
Ideas evolved for a century

The search for the right background foundational theory for mathematics lasted for about a century, evolving
through several stages of understanding. It went from an initial naive desire to build a rigorous foundation for
mathematics through several generations of logical controversies before reaching the modern understanding
of the roles of expressive strength, unprovability and logical strength and their relation to mathematics of
the time, and, more controversially, mathematics of the future. Nowadays, the answer is usually EFA (or
its variants I0 + exp or EA) or I1 (or its variants WKL0 , RCA0 or PRA). Let us explain, very briefly
and crudely, why the answer is not ZFC or NF or Z2 or I0 . Half of this discussion interlaps with Avigads
explanations in [1], but not all.
Two early attempts: set theories and type theories

In the period between 1900 and 1931, two initial directions of thought emerged, both with the idea of building
a foundation of mathematics, as they saw it at the time: the type-theoretic theories like that of Principia
Mathematica, the simple theory of types, etc and things that grew from them. On the other hand, another
group of thinkers was developing set theory, a series of theories and ideas building on the reckage of Cantors
inconsistent set theory, with the idea of prohibiting the Comprehension Scheme and substituting it by the
extremely minimalist Separation Scheme and cummulative hierarchy. What is important to note at this stage
is that both approches successfully showed how usual mathematics of that time can be embedded into these
set-ups. Both expressive tools of these theories and their power to mimick usual mathematical arguments (i.e.
strength) are absolutely adequate to imitate (or serve as foundation for) the fragment of mathematics that
existed in early XXth century. So, if the goal was to build some foundation of mathematics (as opposed to,
for example, a possible goal of finding the true mathematics) then both approaches succeeded. It is also clear
what are some of the the trade-offs they chose (the set-theoretic approach introduced a wealth of non-existent
entities (zfcsets, different infinities, etc) but gained quite some strength while type-theoretic approaches didnt
sink into non-existent notions but reached smaller strength).
Set theory fitted well with abstract mathematics somehow, but do you really need
strength?
With the rise of abstract mathematics, the idea of inevitability of set theory was somehow taking route
and most set-theorists of that time chose ZFC or ZFC+ extensions as the golden standard for mathematical
rigour. Bourbaki took a much weaker theory (see [12], [13]). Later some intermediate set theories were tried,
for example MAC (see [14]). All these set theories are stronger or weaker manifestations of the same idea of
to rewrite all.
to make more
subtle.
minimising Comprehension, and producing a transfinite hierarchy by iterating set-generation according to

certain restricted rules along internal well-founded linear orderings. It feels very strange to read thinkers of
that time since so many things changed our view of mathematics since then. (The biggest problem is that
there is no proof, only opinions, why we should prefer those theories (like ZFC+ extensions) over billions of
future set-ups that will give us very different picture of mathematics.)
What is left of type-theoretic approaches today

Type-theoretic approaches (simple type theory, Ramseys type theory, NF and the several new set-ups used
by computer scientists in the emerging field of automated theorem proving and Mathematical Knowledge
generation and storage) still exist and we shall mention them again later.
Arithmetization Revolution
G
odel and Tarski in the early 1930s made a crucial discovery: arithmetisation of mathematics. It later took
several generations of logicians to pinpoint how it really works in terms of expressive means and in terms
of strength. First it was arithmetisation of syntax and of computability in the 1930s (you can talk about
language, provability and computability in the language of first-order arithmetic). The important word here
is coding. Then Alan Turing, followed by Markovs school of constructive mathematics, introduced the idea
of arithmetising calculus, algebra, topology, etc. (A lot of this work was based on the initial, somewhat naive
and non-exact ideas of Brouwer 20-30 years before them.) So, in order to say sinx x x0 1, you no longer
need to claim that you embed your notions in the language of set theory, and imitate the usual proof using
set-theoretic axioms. Instead, you give the encoded definitions in the language of arithmetic, and prove your
theorem, perhaps, by mathematical induction. The new wave arithmetisation was completed by the MarkovShanin school, where they showed that you can say even more complex statements of separable mathematics
in the language of arithmetic. 2 So, the language of arithmetic was very quickly shown to have adequate
expressive means to express all that is associated with separable or concrete mathematics.
First-order, second-order, third-order language of arithmetic

Logical strength
Now that the question of expressive means is so much more settled, comes the question of strength. It was
gradually realized how strong the axioms of PA are (these were held, by logicians, as the golden standard of
mathematical reasoning until mid-1970s). Soon, PA gave way to I1 (see, for example [16]) and, currently
logical opinion usually oscillates between I1 and EFA as the theory where usual mathematics takes place.
Shouldnt we choose a very strong theory?

Should we go for a very strong arithmetical theory as our background theory? How about the set of firstorder arithmetical consequences of ZFC+ there is a huge cardinal? Or the set of first-order arithmetical
consequences of Z2 ? Even leaving aside the question of possible inconsistency of strongest known theories3 ,
here are the two main objections against fixing a very strong theory as the background theory.
1. Arbitrariness. Why this strong theory and not another one? What if they contradict each other on an
arithmetical statement? And even if we convince ourselves that a certain theory gives us true arithmetical statements, maybe the next generation of mathematicians will invent a billion better theories, and
better reasons, to prefer a theory that contradicts our theory. See a discussion of the research programme
of Arithmetical Splitting in [4].
2 At that time, they were also extremely sensitive to the logic used in the proofs of these results, and the many distinctions
you obtain in the absense of the Law of Excluded Middle. We shall be blind to these distinctions in this paper.
3 we shall ignore this question throughout the paper
2. Blindness to important distinctions. A strong theory dramatically factorizes the Atlas, hiding the
most important distinctions. From the point of view of ZFC+ there is a huge cardinal, the ParisHarrington Principle, 7-consistency of ZFC+ there are infinitely-many measurable cardinals and 0 = 0
are equivalent. We dont want this level of blindness because we know this is the kind of distinctions we
care about.
Example of Ramsey Theorem and the Hales-Jewett theorem

How about another extremely strong theory I1 ? This is a more reasonable candidate. But from the point
of view of I1 , the Finite Ramsey Theorem, the Hales-Jewett Theorem and the Prime Number Theorem are
equivalent statements. However, mathematicians sense that these distinctions are important. Erd
os-Rado
upper and lower superexponential bounds for the Finite Ramsey Theorem are a signal that this statement
has a somewhat different character from what is done in, say, analytic combinatorics. The Hales-Jewett
theorem, whose first proofs, alongside van der Waerdens theorem, involved the Ackermann function (and
hence were beyond the reach of I1 ) is on yet another, higher level of logical complexity and was even for a
while conjectured to be I1 -unprovable until Shelah [21] found the unusual lower and upper bound in terms of
the iterated tower (or tower of towers) functions. These are important mathematical distinctions, which
we would like to make, this is why we shall go below I1 , namely to EFA.
Shouldnt we choose a very weak theory?

How about fixing a very weak theory, below EFA, for example Robinsons Q or polynomial-function arithmetic
PFA or I0 ? Or perhaps one of the theories studied by the subject of weak arithmetics, like I0 +xlog x
exists? Here, the objection is:
- Irrelevance of distinctions. In the theories that describe mathematics without exponentiation, lots
of things become unavailable: you cant arithmetize well, you cant deal with the syntax well, there are
many things that are simply missing. Some of these theories cant prove commutativity of addition. We
could of course decide to fix one of these theories to be our ground theory. Then the equivalence classes of
our Atlas would explode in number, by dividing each equivalence class into neighbouring distinct chunks,
whose equivalence that weak theory cannot prove, because some common everyday things are missing
(for example inability to concatenate two arbitrary words). We understand that in some situations
these distinctions matter, for example in the interrelation between weak arithmetics and computational
complexity. Also in Sazonov-style philosophy of computer science. We chose, like most of the rest of
mathematics, to ignore these distinctions and accept totality of exponentiation.
Summary
In summary: choosing a background foundational theory for mathematics, and for the Atlas, we could, reasonably, choose any theory between EFA and I1 . We decided to chose the most sensitive one, EFA. Incidentally
EFA happens to be an exremely powerful foundational theory that formalises all usual concrete mathematics.
H. Friedman says Probably every theorem published in Annals of Mathematics whose statement involves
only finitary mathematical objects (i.e., an arithmetical statement) can be proved in EFA. More discussion
of EFA can be found in [1].
Lets say it again: the reason for our choice was based on whether the unprovabilities of the theory signal that
there is an important mathematical phenomenon that governs that unprovability or whether these unprovabilities are there simply because the theory is a silly one that is not equipped with tools for normal background
reasoning.
check
lower
bounds
1.6
Why this study is now possible
Why has the project become possible now in 2010? It is the extent of development of modern Unprovability
Theory: from the Paris-Harrington Principle and Kruskals theorem to Harvey Friedmans Boolean Relation
Theory and beyond. It is important to understand that the theoretical possibility of studying the Atlas was
(or could have been) understood a long time ago, but modern Unprovability Theory didnt exist yet, so the
tools were not available.
1.7
The language of logic (an extra explanation for non-logicians)
It is widely known and felt that mathematical theorems are not all equivalent to each other, that there are
issues of relative strength and unprovability there. The currently most advanced way of speaking about these
metamathematical phenomena comes from logic. For readers not fluent in modern logic, we are including this
section with extra explanations, to illustrate some important points.
Theorem 1. Over EFA,
- the finite Ramsey Theorem for all m, n, c there is N such that for every colouring of n-element subsets
of {0, 1, 2, . . . , N 1} into c colours, there exists a homogeneous subset of size m;
- 1-Con(EFA), i.e. the arithmetised sentence 1 (PrEFA (pq) ), where is a provability formula;
- the statement superexponentiation is a total function
are equivalent. Neither of them is EFA-provable.
Proof. We couldnt find any reference in literature, so we provide a simple model-theoretic proof in the Appendix.
So, this mathematical rigid phenomenon has different names, which are interchageable, depending on
the context. The usual mathematics, conducted in EFA will only yield functions that are computable in
time bounded by some fixed power of exponents. 19th century mathematics never left that class, and the first
escapes from it happened only in early XXth century4 When your mathematics falls into this new, higher EFAequivalence class, you notice that something slightly unusual happens: you would occasionally have to hit with
an unexpected argument that will produce a superexponential lower bound. In model-theoretic constructions,
you will see the statement 1-Con(EFA) necessarly used, as a big weapon to deal with the situation. So, the
main point we make here is: there is no need to be afraid of logical names for metamathematically-interesting
combinatorial phenomena. There is usually a combinatorial name for it just round the corner. (1-Con(EFA)
is one of the lowers classes, so the explanation with superexponentiation is clear and simple. When you go
higher - explanations of what this phenomenon really is become more complex.) What is important for us
is the thing that carries this strength invariant: the EFA-equivalence class. We shall not dwell on particular
examples manifesting a phenomenon, but will usually refer to the class (often under its logical name).
On lower bounds for van der Waerden theorem and Hales-Jewett, as another example. Text will be here.
Here is a picture (from [4]) of some of the logical theories we may mention later, ordered by the following
relation: a theory T1 is below another a theory T2 (we shall say has smaller arithmetical strength) if the set of
first-order arithmetical consequences of T1 is a proper subset of the set of first-order arithmetical consequences
of T2 . So, ZF and ZFC are denoted by the same point (they have the same arithmetical consequences). We put
ZFC-branch, NF-branch and PST-branch apart because it is not known whether any two of them contradict
each other on arithmetical formulas.
4 historical
question: apart from Hardys text with Hardy hierarchy, have there been concrete examples before Ramsey Theorem?
Notice that we do not care about such issues as whether a theory already has a neat axiomatisation or
whether its axioms have been justified. (Everything that has been justified and accepted falls below the
preference horizon). What is most important is the theorys set of first-order arithmetical consequences, its
arithmetical fragment.
1.8
Examples of equivalence classes and why we care
Let us give a few basic examples of EFA-equivalence classes, to get the first view of the complexity of the
object (the Atlas) we are facing. We shall not be assuming any philosophy in this study. In particular we shall
never assume or imply that prefixed polynomial equations are somehow divided into true and false ones.
Our main aim in this study is to approach the Atlas as mathematicians, and scientists, and to discover what
is really going on.
Another (somewhat marginal) aim here is to develop a new language or a new way of looking at the Atlas
that is different from the 20th century realist explanations about true but unprovable statements. We
are craving for a more adequate way of thinking, suited for the real purposes of modern metamathematics.
However, this aim, of catching the adequate way of looking at things, is marginal here because we dont think
that anyone can really accomplish it at this stage in the history of logic, before a certain hard mathematical
discovery (arithmetical splitting) has been made.
Here are some examples of different equivalence classes in our Atlas:
- theorems of EFA;
- negations of theorems of EFA;
- totality of the fifth branch of the Ackermann function;
- van der Waerden Theorem;
- 3-Con(ZFC);
- 17-Con(I2 );
Notice that the last two examples are incomparable classes. The statement 3-Con(ZFC) can, over EFA, imply
only new 04 arithmetical formulas, so not the 018 formula 17-Con(I2 ). The statement 17-Con(I2 ) implies
all 017 consequences of I2 , but not some simple consequences of ZFC, like the Paris-Harrington Principle.
For the same reason Con(ZFC) is of no help in proving Ramsey Theorem.
Here is another example of incomparable classes: this time each of them will contain a 01 formula. Let T1
and T2 be such that EFA + Con(T1 ) doesnt prove Con(T2 ) and EFA + Con(T2 ) doesnt prove Con(T1 ) (see
for example [22]). Then clearly Con(T1 ) and Con(T2 ) belong to incomparable classes.
Yet further examples will arise from Arithmetical Splitting: once two good theories T1 and T2 explicitly
contradict each other on an arithmetical statement then and belong to very interesting equivalence
classes. .
1.9
How to imagine the Atlas
Every EFA-equivalence class can be thought of as surrounded by a cluster of other classes that EFA fails to
identify, but I1 does. Then come the further classes such that PA identifies them with our class, etc. The
stronger theory we use, the more blind it will be to the important metamathematical differences we care about.
But also, keep in mind the disconnectedness of the Atlas: if and witness Arithmetical Splitting then
there will be no theory to ever believe they belong to the same class, so clusters dont eventually all fuse
together.
expand
Chapter 2
First three examples to guide us

Let us start by briefly glancing at three particular points in our Atlas. All three points belong to different
equivalence classes. It is important to note at this stage: the three expressions below can be re-written into
(or proved to be EFA-equivalent to) billions of other polynomial expressions of comparable lengths, so there is
no need to concentrate attention on these particular expressions, but think of them as a mere representatives
of their equivalence classes.
2.1
Unprovability by primitive recursive means
Here is a first element we come up with.

Theorem 2. For every e > 2, the following statement 1 (e) is equivalent to 1-consistency of I1 and hence
is unprovable in I1 .
m N ab cd A X xy BCF f ghijklnrpq
x(y +f x)(A+m+f y)[(A+f d)2 +(dg +g c+A)2 +(B +hdx)2 +(dxi+ic+B)2 +
+(C + j dy)2 + (dyk + k c + C)2 + (B + I + 1 C)2 + (C + n N )2 + (F + r b(B + C 2 ))2 +
+(bp(B + C 2 ) + p a + F )2 + ((F X)2 qe)2 ] = 0.
Proof.
See Appendix for the full proof. The proof goes by demonstrating equivalence with PH2e , the Paris-Harrington
Principle for pairs and e colours, so for every concrete e > 2, this statement is unprovable in I1 .
This statement seems to have quantifier complexity 06 . However, the last four blocks of quantifiers can be
bounded by some exponential expressions, which can be struggled with and eliminated using the methods from
[11], so the formula is equivalent to a 02 formula). We didnt do any of it because it would blow up the size
of the resulting polynomial.
With our method of counting length (see page 1), the polynomial above has size 131. The number of variables
is 25 (or 24 if you substitute e by 3).
Here, there are probably many possibilities to simplify the polynomial, perhaps to half of the current size, by
re-using variables and clever combinatorial equivalences during the proof. Also the choice of coding tricks and
the way to arrange the colouring can transform this polynomial. No attempts have been made yet to simplify
CHAPTER 2. FIRST THREE EXAMPLES TO GUIDE US
10
this raw polynomial expression. In this sense this was a very naive attempt. And there are no reasons to think
that we are anywhere near the shortest member of this equivalence class.
It may be possible to have a much shorter and simpler expression equivalent to the expression above if we use
additional means: exponentiation or both exponentiation and logarithm. It is interesting to see how much
better we can do with these extra means.
2.2
Unprovability in two-quantifier-induction arithmetic
Theorem 3. For each number e > 1, the following statement 2 (e) is equivalent to 1-consistency of I2 , and
thus is not provable in I2 .
m N ab cd A X xyz uvw BCDGH f ghijklnpqrst F G

x(y+Bx)(z+By)(A+m+Bz)[(A+f d)2 +(dg+gc+A)2 +(B+hdx)2 +(dxi+ic+B)2 +
+(C+jdy)2 +(dyk+kc+C)2 +(D+ldz)2 +(dzn+nc+D)2 +(B+F +1C)2 +(C+p+1D)2 +
+(D + q N )2 + (H + r bt)2 + (bts + s a + H)2 + (B + C 2 + D3 t)2 + ((X H)2 Ge)2 ] = 0.
Proof.
For full proof see the Appendix. Again, we show that for every e, the statement above is equivalent to PH3e ,
the Paris-Harrington Principle for triples and e colours. Already for e = 2, the statement is equivalent to
1-consistency of I2 .
The statement may look like 06 but is actually EFA-equivalent to a (much longer) 02 formula. The
statement has one free variable e (the number of colours) and 34 bound variables. With our method of
counting, the polynomial has size 174. Again, this is a somewhat naive first attempt. We are sure that
by more delicate method we can find an example half this size. What is the possible way to use the extra
expressivity if we have exponentiation and logarithm available?
2.3
Unprovability in full Peano Arithmetic
Theorem 4. Consider the following statement (n, e) with two parameters n and e. For every n > 1, e > 2,
the statement is equivalent to 1-consistency of In1 . So, with the quantifier prefix ne, this statement is
equivalent to 1-consistency of Peano Arithmetic and hence is unprovable in Peano Arithmetic.
m N ab cd xy zw it f g hklpqruv X ABCDEF j GI sH
[i (n + f + 1 i) ((g + f yi)2 + (yih + h x + g)2 + (g + l wi)2 + (wik + k z + g)2 ) + ((p + q b(x2 + y))2 +
+(b(x2 +y)r+ra+p)2 +((b(z 2 +w)j +j a+p)2 s1)(pb(z 2 +w)1s))2 ][(z+xd)2 +(yd+yc+z)2 +
+(t(z+m+f t)((g+ldt)2 +(dtk+kc+g)2 +(h+pd(t+1))2 +(d(t+1)q+qc+h)2 +(g+r+1h)2 +(g+sN )2 ))+
+((u+1X)2 +(X+vn)2 +(A+CX)2 +(XD+D+A)2 +(B+E(X+1))2 +((X+1)F +F +B)2 +
+((A dG 1 H) ((dGI + I c + A)2 H 1) G (z + m + H G) (B + H + 1 A))2 ) ((u + A b(2 + ))2 +
+(b(2 + )B + B a + u)2 + ((u w)2 ve)2 )] = 0.
CHAPTER 2. FIRST THREE EXAMPLES TO GUIDE US
11
Proof.
For full proof see the Appendix. We prove that for all n e the expression above is equivalent to the ParisHarrington principle in dimension n and number of colours e.
Again this is a somewhat naive theorem, without fine-tuning or clever tricks, and again we expect much simpler
polynomials, half the current size, to be quickly achieved using extra tricks. Again, all quantifiers after the
first two blocks of quantifiers can be made bounded by some exponential functions, and the famous battle
against the bounded quantifier (Chapter 6 of [11]) can reduce the statement to its true 02 shape, although at
the cost of losing the current small size. In the current formulation, we have 2 free variables n and e and 36
bound variables. The above polynomial is of size 352.
Corollary 5.
For every n, there is a prefixed polynomial equation of length 352 + 2n that is equivalent to 1-Con(In ).
So, the sizes of seeds of 1-Con(In ) are bounded by a linear function of n. We can try to think of some
pigeonhole argument now, for the next step: perhaps for all even (or odd?) n starting from some point there is
a seed of some 1-Con(Im ) of size n (unless they all have to be divisible by 4, etc...) We want some regularity
or order here.
Chapter 3
Going beyond predicative mathematics

is not that difficult after all
The readers could have thought for a moment that the three relatively neat examples from Chapter 2 are due
to pure luck and that it is much harder to reach high impredicative equivalence classes. We also thought that
for a while until proving the theorems of this chapter.
3.1
A coarse polynomial expression equivalent to the Finite Kruskal

Theorem
Theorem 6. The following polynomial equation with quantifiers K is equivalent to Finite Kruskal Theorem
and hence is unprovable in predicative mathematics, for example in the theory ATR0 :
K M ab ijcdef hk lmnpq A grst BF GIJLOP QW XY Z uvxyz CDHN T ERS U V
[(ic1)2 +(i+dM )2 +(w+1t)2 +(t+X q)2 +(g+1s)2 +(s+Y +1r)2 +(r+Zq)2 +((p+l2 bi1B)(l+Bp)
((biA+Aa+p+l2 )2 B1)((K+iq)2 B1)(upr1E)((prC+Cl+u)2 E1)(vps1E)((psD+Dl+v)2 E1)
(x pt 1 E) ((ptH + H l + x)2 E 1) (u + E v) v (q + E + 1 z) (((vN u)2 E 1)2 + (vR x)2 + (uS x)2 )
(ypz1E)((pzT +T l+y)2 E1)((ERu)2 +(ESv)2 +((EU y)2 V 1)2 ))2 ][mni(mn)(K +i+r+1m)
(K+j+r+1m)(j+ri)(M +r+1j)((f +e2 +rbi)2 +(bis+sa+f +e2 )2 +(k+h2 +tbj)2 +(bjW +W a+k+h2 )2 +
+(k+X+1h)2 +(F +Y f m)2 +(f mZ+Ze+F )2 +(F +F 2 G2 +gdm)2 +(dmB+Bc+F +F 2 G2 )2 +(kOR+Rh+G)2 +
+(G+E kO)2 +(S +1OIP Q(ef ))2 +(O+V K j)2 +(J +f n)2 +(f n + e+J)2 +(dn+c+J +J 2 L2 )2 +
+(J+J 2 L2 +dn)2 +((LG)2 1)2 +(P +P 2 Q2 +dI)2 +(dI+c+P +P 2 Q2 )2 +(I+Ki)2 +(P F )2 +(P J)2 +
+(P F + J)2 + (Q G)2 + (Q L)2 + (Q G + L)2 )] = 0.
This polynomial has size 648. It has 66 variables.

Discussion and commentary will be here.
12
CHAPTER 3. GOING BEYOND PREDICATIVE MATHEMATICS IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT AFTER ALL13
3.2
A phase transition polynomial between EFA-provability and

predicative unprovability
Consider the following quantified polynomial equation A(m, n), with the two free variables m and n, which
we show in bold font:
K M ab ijcdef hk lmnpq A grst BF GIJLOP QW XY Z
uvxyz CDHN T ERS k l m n o p U V
2
[(((i) 1)(() 1))2 +(((j)2 1)(()2 1))2 ][(2 +2 )((1+)2 +(++1)2 +

+(+)2 +(+++)2 +(+k +1i)2 ((+k )2 +(l +l +)2 +(2+m )2 +
+(n +n +n +2)2 )+(+o )2 +(+p +12)2 ))]+[(ic1)2 +(i+dM )2 +(w+1t)2 +(t+Xq)2 +(g+1s)2 +
+(s+Y +1r)2 +(r+Zq)2 +((p+l2 bi1B)(l+Bp)((biA+Aa+p+l2 )2 B1)((mK+nmq)2 B1)(upr1E)
((prC+Cl+u)2 E1)(vps1E)((psD+Dl+v)2 E1)(xpt1E)((ptH+Hl+x)2 E1)(u+Ev)(q+E+1z)
v(((vN u)2 E1)2 +(vRx)2 +(uSx)2 )(ypz1E)((pzT +T l+y)2 E1)((ERu)2 +((EU y)2 V 1)2 +
+(ES v)2 ))2 ][mni(mn)(mK +n+r+1mm)(mK +n+r+1mm)(j +ri)(M +r+1j)((f +e2 +rbi)2 +
+(bis+sa+f +e2 )2 +(k+h2 +tbj)2 +(bjW +W a+k+h2 )2 +(k+X+1h)2 +(f mZ+Ze+F )2 +(F +F 2 G2 +gdm)2 +
+(F +Y f m)2 +(dmB+Bc+F +F 2 G2 )2 +(kOR+Rh+G)2 +(G+EkO)2 +(S+1OIP Q(ef ))2 +(mO+V mKn)2 +
(J+f n)2 +(f n+e+J)2 +(dn+c+J+J 2 L2 )2 +(J+J 2 L2 +dn)2 +(dI+c+P +P 2 Q2 )2 +(P +P 2 Q2 +dI)2 +
+((L G)2 1)2 + (mI + mK n)2 + (P F )2 + (P J)2 + (P F + J)2 + (Q G)2 + (Q L)2 +
(Q G + L)2 )] = 0.
Theorem 7. There exists a real number w such that:

1. if
n
m
w then I0 + exp proves A(m, n);
2. if
n
m
> w then ATR0 does not prove A(m, n).
The number w is the real number introduced by Andreas Weiermann in [25] and is defined as follows: w = log1 ,
where is Otters tree constant (the inverse of the radius of convergence of the generating series for unordered
trees), w 0.6395781750 . . . .. The number w is of course primitive recursively computable.
This theorem is a new type of result within Andreas Weiermanns Programme of phase transitions between
provability and unprovability.
More discussion and commentary will be here.
This story sounded like science fiction in summer 2009 (and we saw disbelief in peoples eyes) but now this is
just another theorem.
CHAPTER 3. GOING BEYOND PREDICATIVE MATHEMATICS IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT AFTER ALL14
3.3
Graph Minor Theorem
Consider the following polynomial expression GM with a quantifier-prefix:

K N ab ij def ghm no xy ABC u klpz Y cqrvw DEF GHI s t L J M X OP Q
RW Z ST U V x1 x2 x3 y3 y4 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9 y1 y2
[(i+u+1N )2 +((k+k2 l2 +k3 l3 p3 bib1D)((biY +bY +Y a+k+k2 l2 +k3 l3 p3 )2 D1)(K+i+Dp)((D+2v)2 +
+(((wc)2 E 1)2 +((wq)2 F 1)2 +((wr)2 G1)2 )((w+E +1p)2 +(s+F lwl)2 +(lwG+lG+Gk+s)2 +
+(vH s)2 )+((cq)2 I 1)2 +((qr)2 J 1)2 +((rc)2 M 1)2 )2 ][(i+u+1j)2 +(d+d2 e2 +d3 e3 f 3 + bib)2 +
+(j++1N )2 +(bi+b+a+d2 e2 +d3 e3 f 3 )2 +(g+g 2 h2 +g 3 h3 m3 +bjb)2 +(bj+b+a+g+g 2 h2 +g 3 h3 m3 )2 +
+((p1)p((zk)2 (zl)2 +((f ++1z)(qeze1)((ez+e+d+q)2 1)((q)2 1))2 )((+2r)2 +
+(v+yky)2 +(yk+y+x+w)2 +(w+yly)2 +(yl +y + x+w)2 +(((sv)2 1)2 +((sw)2 1)2 )
((s + + 1 f )2 + (r t)2 + (t + os s)2 + (os + o + n + t)2 ))2 + ((C + k) ((BL + B + A + J)2 +
+(J + BLB)2 +(((Lk)2 1)(D+D2 E 2 +D3 E 3 F 3 J))2 +(((Lk1)2 1)(G+G2 H 2 +G3 H 3 I 3 J))2 +
+(((L1)2 1)(g+g 2 h2 +g 3 h3 m3 J))2 +(((LG)2 1)(n+n2 o2 +n3 o3 f 3 J))2 +(+1M )2 +(P +EM )2 +
+(EM +D+P )2 +(U +HR)2 +(HR+G+U )2 +(S +ER)2 +(ER+D+S)2 +(T +ERE)2 +
+(ER + D + T )2 + (R (I + x1 + 1 R) ((x1 + 2 O)2 + (M + x2 + 1 X)2 + (X + x3 F )2 + (Q + x4 EX)2 +
+(EXx5 +x5 D +Q)2 +(((I F +1)2 +(Ox6 P )2 +(Ox7 Q)2 +(((RM )2 +(U P Q)2 )((X +x8 R)2 +(U T )2 )
((R+x8 X)2 +(U S)2 +((RM )2 x9 1)2 ))((I F )2 +(Ox6 P )2 +(Ox7 Q)2 +(O P x8 +Qx9 )2 +((RM )2 +
+(U V )2 + (OV Q)2 ) ((R X)2 + (U V )2 + (OV Q)2 ) (((R X)2 y1 1)2 + ((R M )2 y2 1)2 + (U S)2 )))
((M +x1 F )2 +(I F +1)2 +(+x2 EW )2 +(EW x3 +x3 D+)2 +(((Zy3 P )2 x4 1)((Zy4 )2 x4 1)(M W )
(I x4 +1W )W (Z 1))2 +((R+x5 +1M )2 +(U S)2 )((M +x5 R)2 +(U T )2 ))((I F )2 +(U S)2 )2 )2 ] = 0.
Theorem 8. The statement GM is equivalent to the finite Graph Minor Theorem, and hence is unprovable
in at least 11 -CA0 .
This rough polynomial expression has size 1067.

Discussion and commentary will be here.
3.4
Phase transition polynomial equivalent to the planar graph minor threshold
Will be added here.

This is a variation of the above polynomial for graph minors, based on the article [2].
There is no exact phase transition result for full Graph Minor Theorem, but there is a neat threshold result
for the much smaller (exponential) class of planar graphs, with the constant log1 separating provable and
2
unprovable instances of the Graph Minor Theorem restricted to planar graphs. Here is a classical constant,
the planar graph constant from the graph enumeration theory, 29.06 < < 32.
Omitting the minors K3,3 and K5 is easy to express, and the rest of the polynomial is similar to the Graph
Minor polynomial above.
Chapter 4
Magic polynomials
4.1
Pell equation as a rudimentary example
4.2
Superexponentiation
4.3
Ackermannianness
15
Chapter 5
Universality and hopping between

equivalence classes
5.1
Jones 1978 theorem
5.2
Dyson-Jones-Shepherdson results
5.3
More hopping
16
Chapter 6
Polynomials for Nash-Williams theory

and Banach spaces
This section will be filled during the spring and summer of 2010.
Galvins Lemma and Nash-Williams Theorem

Formulations and explanations of the new Nash-Williams-style unprovable statements, which we got from new
indiscernibles, will be here.
Galvin-Prikry theorem
Gowers Theorem and its polynomial
About the Polynomial Footprint of all infinitary statements
Capturing the meaning and the strength of an infinitary statement via its first-order version (the core)
and then finding the polynomial expression for this first-order version to act as the invariant signature or
footprint of the original second-order statement. This will be the story of the polynomial DNA of every
infinitary statement.
17
Chapter 7
Values of polynomials and BAF-terms

7.1
A prefixed polynomial equation that knows values of all polynomials on all inputs
We will represent a polynomial by a four-tuple of numbers a, b, c, d, where a, b, c code, by Godel-coding, a

sequence of length c of some triples, each of which codes a finite sequence that represents a monomial of our
polynomial. The first element of this sequence will be the coefficient of the monomial. The rest of the elements
determine which variables occur in the monomial. For example, 4x31 x2 x27 = 4x1 x1 x1 x2 x7 x7 can be represented
by (4, 1, 1, 1, 2, 7, 7), or by (4, 7, 1, 2, 7, 1, 1), or by any other permutation that starts with the 4. The number
c is the total number of monomials and d is the number of positive monomials among them, so 0 d c.
The input of each polynomial will be a sequence (x1 , x2 , . . . . . .) Godel-coded by a pair x, y (there is no need
to fix the length of the input).
We are interested in the relation the polynomial coded by a, b, c, d, when fed the input coded by x, y
returns the value w. This relation will allow us to quantify over all polynomials and to quantify over all
computably enumerable sets (since they are sets of values of polynomials).
Consider the following polynomial equation (a, b, c, d, x, y, w), with free variables a, b, c, d, x, y, w, which
we showed in bold:
st uv i ef g qr h j klmnop ABCDEF GHIJM N OP QRST U V W X
[i (c + A + 1 i) j (g + A j) ((e + e2 f 2 + e3 f 3 g 3 + A bi)2 + (biB + B a + e + e2 f 2 + e3 f 3 g 3 )2 + (h + C vi)2 +
+(viD + D u + h)2 + (k + E rj)2 + (rjF + F q + k)2 + (l + G rj r)2 + (rjH + rH + H q + l)2 + (m + I f j f )2 +
+(f jJ +f J +J e+m)2 +(n+M ymy)2 +(ymN +yN +N x+n)2 +(l kn)2 +((j 1)2 O 1)2 ((k +O f )2 +
+(f P +P e+k)2 )2 +((jg+1)2 Q1)2 (lh)2 +(o+Rti)2 +(tiS+Ss+o)2 +(p+T ti+t)2 +(tiU tU +U s+p)2 +
+((i1)2 +h2 )2 ((2+V i)2 +(i+W d)2 +(oph)2 )2 ((d+V +1i)2 +(op+h)2 )2 +((ic)2 X 1)2 (ow)2 )] = 0.
Theorem 9.
For any a, b, c, d, x, y, w, the polynomial coded by a, b, c, d, on input coded by x, y assumes the value w if
and only if (a, b, c, d, x, y, w).
Let us introduce a simple notation for the block of quantifiers of and for the polynomial of .
P Quantif iers(
x, Y ) be the block of quantifiers in , where
x
= stuvief gqrhjklmnopABCDEF GHIJM N OP QRST U V W X
18
Let
CHAPTER 7. VALUES OF POLYNOMIALS AND BAF-TERMS
19
is the list of all the bound variables of in order of appearance in the quantifier-prefix, and with a new variable
Y added at the end, i.e.
P Quantif iers(
x, Y ) = st uv i ef g qr h j klmnop ABCDEF GHIJM N OP QRST U V W XY.
Now, let
P(x, Y, a, b, c, d, x, y, w) be the following polynomial:
i(c+A+1i)j(g+Aj)((e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 +Abi)2 +(biB+Ba+e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 )2 +(h+C vi)2 +(k+Erj)2 +

+(viD+Du+h)2 +(rjF +F q+k)2 +(l+Grjr)2 +(rjH+rH+Hq+l)2 +(m+If jf )2 +(f jJ +f J +J e+m)2 +
+(n+M ymy)2 +(ymN +yN +N x+n)2 +(lkn)2 +((j 1)2 O1)2 ((k+Of )2 +(f P +P e+k)2 )2 +(lh)2
((jg+1)2 Q1)2 +(o+Rti)2 +(tiS+Ss+o)2 +(p+T ti+t)2 +(tiU tU +U s+p)2 +((i1)2 +h2 )2 ((2+V i)2 +
+(i + W d)2 + (o p h)2 )2 ((d + V + 1 i)2 + (o p + h)2 )2 + ((i c)2 X 1)2 ((o w)2 Y )2 ).
Recall that x
covers all variables that occur in P Quantif iers(
x, Y ), apart from Y . This polynomial differs
from the polynomial in (a, b, c, d, x, y, w) by only one term at the very end of the expression. This is a switch
that we introduce so that the polynomial P(x
, Y, a, b, c, d, x, y, w) would cover both (a, b, c, d, x, y, w) and
the opposite of (a, b, c, d, x, y, w), as follows.
For any a, b, c, d, x, y, w, the polynomial coded by a, b, c, d, on input coded by x, y does not assume the
value w if and only if P Quantif iers(
x, Y )[P(x
, Y + 1, a, b, c, d, x, y, w) = 0].
The other equivalence is our Theorem 7 above:
(a, b, c, d, x, y, w) P Quantif iers(
x, Y )[P(x
, 0, a, b, c, d, x, y, w) = 0].
In this sense knows values of all polynomials on all inputs.

The mention of the universal polynomial from [11] will be here.
The mention that actually knows the actual values (not just existence of the solution as in universal
polynomials in the sense of [11]) - will be here.
7.2
An exp-polynomial expression that knows values of all polynomials on all inputs
will be here.
Target length: 1-2 lines.
7.3
The polynomial expression for values of BAF-terms

.
Let us first introduce BAF-terms, as in [7]. We shall use the symbols + (addition), (cut-off subtraction, i.e.
x y if x > y and 0 otherwise), (multiplication), exp (base-2 exponentiation) and log (the integer part of
the binary logarithm, with log(0) = 0).
Definition.
.
BAF-terms (basic arithmetic functions, BAF-functions) are functions built from 0, 1, +, , , exp, log and
variables v1 , v2 , v3 , . . ..
Examples of BAF-terms: examples here.
20
What is the difference with poly-exp-log functions: explanation here.

Consider a BAF-term f of arity k, i.e. no more than k different variables v1 , . . . , vk occur in it. We will encode
t as a sequence (a1 , a2 , . . . , as ) of triples. The last element of the triple will represent an operation as follows:
symbol
translation
+ 0
.
exp 3
log
The first two components of the triple will represent the input as follows:
symbol
translation
0
1
1
2
v1
3
..
.
vk
k+2
result after step i
i + k + 2.
By the last line we mean once we are computing the value of the BAF-term, given a certain input, take the
result you have obtained so far after i steps. A binary operation coded by the third component acts on the
two other components, taking the first one as the leftmost. If the operation is unary, it works only on the first
element.
The sequence (a1 , a2 , . . . , as ) of length s will be coded by (a, b, s). The only other piece of information
needed is the arity k, so a BAF-term is completely determined by (a, b, s, k). Using the translation above, the
statement (a, b, s, k) determines a BAF-term is equivalent to
i ef g hjlmnop
(s+hi)((e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 +hbib)2 +(bij+bj+ja+e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 )2 +(g+l4)2 +(m+1e)2 +(e+nik2)2 +

+(o + 1 f )2 + (f + p i k 2)2 ) = 0.
We would like to express w is the value of the BAF-term coded by (a, b, s, k) on the input-sequence coded
by (x, y).
Consider the following prefixed polynomial equation (a, b, s, k, x, y, w), with free variables a, b, s, k, x, y, w,
which we show in bold:
cd i ef g hjl mnopqrtuvz ABC D EF G HI JK LM N O P Q RS
[(hmdid)2 +(din+dn+nc+h)2 +(o+1i)2 h2 +((i1)2 p1)2 (h1)2 +(i+q1)2 (k+2+qi)2 ((h+qyi+y)2 +
+(yir yr + r + x + h)2 )2 + (i + t k 2)2 (k + 2 + s + t i)2 ((e + e2 f 2 + e3 f 3 g 3 + t bi + bk + b)2 + (k + v de)2 +
+(dez+zc+k)2 +(biubkubu+ua+e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 )2 +(l+Adf )2 +(df B+Bc+l)2 +(g 2 +(hkl)2 )2 ((g1)2 +
+(k + E + 1 l)2 (h k + l)2 + (l + F k)2 h2 )2 ((g 2)2 + (h kl)2 ) ((g 3)2 + (1 + J F )2 + (F K + K E + 1)2 +
+(h+LF kF )2 +(F kM +F M +M E+h)2 +(k+N +1G)2 ((H+N F G)2 +(F GO+OE+H)2 +(I+P F GF )2 +
21
+(F GQ+F Q+QE +I)2 +(I 2H)2 )2 )2 ((g 4)2 +((k2 +h2 )(((1+J F )2 +(F K +K E +1)2 +(D+LF yF )2 +
+(F hM + F M + M E + D)2 + (h + N + 1 i)2 ((H + N F G)2 + (F GO + O E + H)2 + (F GQ + F Q + Q E + I)2 +
+(I + P F G F )2 + (I 2H)2 )2 )2 + (D + R x)2 + (k + S + 1 2D)2 ))2 )2 + ((k + 1 + s i)2 C 1)2 (h w)2 ] = 0.
Theorem 10. For any a, b, s, k, x, y, w, the BAF-term coded by a, b, s, k, on input coded by x, y assumes
the value w if and only if (a, b, s, k, x, y, w).
As we did for and P in the previous section, let us introduce notation for the block of quantifiers of
and the polynomial of . Let QQuantif iers(
x, T ) be the following block of quantifiers (where x
is the list
cdief ghjlABCDEF GHIJKLM N OP QRST of all bound variables of , and with T added at the end):
QQuantif iers(
x, T ) = cd i ef g hjl mnopqrtuvz ABC D EF G HI JK LM N O P Q RS T.
Now define
Q(x, T, a, b, s, k, x, y, w) to be the following polynomial:
(hmdid)2 +(din+dn+nc+h)2 +(o+1i)2 h2 +((i1)2 p1)2 (h1)2 +(i+q1)2 (k+2+qi)2 ((h+qyi+y)2 +

+(yir yr + r + x + h)2 )2 + (i + t k 2)2 (k + 2 + s + t i)2 ((e + e2 f 2 + e3 f 3 g 3 + t bi + bk + b)2 + (dez + z c + k)2 +
+(k+vde)2 +(biubkubu+ua+e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 )2 +(l+Adf )2 +(df B+Bc+l)2 +(g 2 +(hkl)2 )2 ((g1)2 +
+(k + E + 1 l)2 (h k + l)2 + (l + F k)2 h2 )2 ((g 2)2 + (h kl)2 ) ((g 3)2 + (1 + J F )2 + (F K + K E + 1)2 +
+(h+LF kF )2 +(F kM +F M +M E+h)2 +(k+N +1G)2 ((H+N F G)2 +(F GO+OE+H)2 +(I+P F GF )2 +
+(F GQ+F Q+QE +I)2 +(I 2H)2 )2 )2 ((g 4)2 +((k2 +h2 )(((1+J F )2 +(F K +K E +1)2 +(D+LF yF )2 +
+(F hM + F M + M E + D)2 + (h + N + 1 i)2 ((H + N F G)2 + (F GO + O E + H)2 + (F GQ + F Q + Q E + I)2 +
+(I + P F G F )2 + (I 2H)2 )2 )2 + (D + R x)2 + (k + S + 1 2D)2 ))2 )2 + ((k + 1 + s i)2 C 1)2 ((h w)2 T )2 .
Recall that x
covers all variables occurring in QQuantif iers(
x, T ), apart from T . This polynomial differs
from the polynomial of (a, b, s, k, x, y, w) by only one term at the very end of the expression. This is a switch
that we introduce so that this polynomial Q(x
, Y, a, b, s, k, x, y, w) would cover both (a, b, s, k, x, y, w) and
the opposite of (a, b, s, k, x, y, w), as follows.
For any a, b, s, k, x, y, w, the BAF-term coded by a, b, s, k, on input coded by x, y does not assume the
value w if and only if QQuantif iers(
x, T )[Q(x
, T + 1, a, b, s, k, x, y, w) = 0]. The other equivalence is our
Theorem 8:
(a, b, s, k, x, y, w) QQuantif iers(
x, T )[Q(x
, 0, a, b, s, k, x, y, w) = 0].
7.4
A poly-exp-log expression that knows values of all BAF-terms

on all inputs
will be here.
Target length: 2-3 lines.
7.5
Arbitrary programming languages
Not to forget the story of any programming language. Indeed a polynomial expression that knows the Halting
Problem is just a minor modification of .
We dont have to do it for Turing machines but write a more conventient Turing-complete programming
language instead.
7.6
22
About Katies project
An explanation of how much more we can now express will be here.

Example: we can now feasibly quantify over all computable functions, because we have written (in this
chapter above) a short polynomial expression that knows values of all polynomials on all inputs. Indeed, since
every computably enumerable set (including graphs of computable functions) is the set of all values of some
polynomial of several variables, we can easily write for every computably enumerable set A . . .
Katie Pearces MSci project [19] was devoted to this kind of questions and includes a polynomial expression
that is equivalent to Harvey Friedmans recent unprovable statement for all computable functions f : Nk Nk
there are distinct natural numbers x1 , x2 , . . . , xk+1 such that f (x1 , x2 , . . . , xk ) is coordinate-wise smaller or
equal to f (x2 , x3 , . . . , xk+1 ).
Chapter 8
Polynomial expressions that cant be

tackled by ZFC and stronger theories
The coarse ZFC-unprovable polynomial expression you will find below is still a bit long. We only did the most
rough raw version, without fiddling with the initial combinatorial statement beforehand. We safely predict
that by the end of spring 2011, the polynomial will shrink to a reasonable size and the poly-exp-log expression
will be quite simple. (See discussion in the end of this chapter.)
Instead of carefully thinking and spending some time on playing with Friedmans Boolean Relation Theory
and careful efficient coding, we really couldnt resist the temptation and wrote down the reckless attempt
straight away. This is the first time that a polynomial expression of such high strength has been explicitly
written down. The length is far from optimal and the readers shouldnt think that the final clever answer will
be anywhere near that long.
Recall the story how since the early 1970s solution of Hilberts Tenth Problem, some people dreamt of finding
a polynomial expression (usually imagined in the shape of the statement of non-solvability of some Diophantine
equation, i.e. in explicitly 01 form) having consistency strength of, say, ZFC.
It was around that time that the opinion was expressed that short polynomial equations of this strength cant
be written. There is a historical explanation for this opinion. Unprovability Theory, as we know it now in 2010,
did not yet exist in the 1970s. At that time people only knew one kind of unprovable first-order arithmetical
statement, namely ConT , that is why they could only think in terms of writing down ConT by expressing some
provability predicate PrT for some proof system and then writing down PrT (p0 = 1q) for it. Of course in
this form this is not really a feasible task, but luckily we dont have to think in terms of ConT any longer.
Nowadays, with all the sophisticated unprovability-machinery available, polynomial equations are ready to
spring from different corners of the subject: Ramsey theory, well-partial-order theory, Nash-Williams theory
and from Friedmans Boolean Relation Theory (as well as polynomial expressions to be obtained from the
theory of dags, greedy chains, set series, etc). We hope that this paper demonstrates it well.
We chose Proposition E, which is ACA00 -equivalent to 1-Con(ZFC + {there exist n-Mahlo cardinals}n ), here
because it has recently been studied and carefully checked during the Bristol Boolean Relation Theory research
meeting.
8.1
Friedmans Proposition E
For x
a k-tuple (x1 , . . . , xk ) of natural numbers we write |
x| for max{x1 , . . . , xk }. The following statement is
our variation of Friedmans Proposition E (see [7]):
23
CHAPTER 8. POLYNOMIAL EXPRESSIONS THAT CANT BE TACKLED BY ZFC AND STRONGER THEORIES24
For any two terms f, g BAF of several variables, such that there exist rational numbers a, b, c, d > 1
with a|
x| f (
x) b|
x| and c|
y | g(
y ) d|
y | for all but finitely many x
and y,
there exist computably enumerable sets A B C N,
each containing infinitely many powers of 2, such that
f A B gB and f B C gC and B gB = and C gC = .
As expected, f A stands for the image under f of all k-tuples of elements of A, where f has arity k.
This will be the statement we translate into a polynomial equation. Using BRT, it is easy to show that this
variation is equivalent to Friedmans original Proposition E so the strength is preserved.
Recall the definitions of P and Q and P Quantif iers(
x, y) and QQuantif iers(
x, y) in Sections 7.1 and
7.3. The polynomials P and Q contain the information stored in and , respectively, in the following way:
x, y)[P(x
, 0, a, b, c, d, x, y, w) = 0],
and
x, y)[Q(x
, 0, a, b, s, k, x, y, w) = 0].
Let us first write an intermediate polynomial expression which contains the polynomials
the following polynomial expression:
P and Q. Let E be
abcd ef gh tuvw klm xy ABCD EF GH IJKL Y z nopq M N OP QRST U X j

i V W Z a1 b1 rs i1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1 k1 l1 m1 n1 a2 a3 a4
QQuantif iers(
x, x0 ) P Quantif iers(
y , y0 ) QQuantif iers(
z , z0 ) P Quantif iers(
r , r0 ) QQuantif iers(
s, s0 )
P Quantif iers(t, t0 ) P Quantif iers(
u, u0 ) QQuantif iers(
v , v0 ) QQuantif iers(w,
w0 ) QQuantif iers(
q , q0 )
[((ta)2 +(ub)2 +(vc)2 +(wd)2 )((te)2 +(uf )2 +(vg)2 +(wh)2 )+((Y ++1v)2 +(+ 2 2 + 3 3 3 uY u1)2
((uY +u+t++ 2 2 + 3 3 3 )2 1)2 (5+)2 2 (Y +w+3+)2 2 (Y +w+3+)2 (nypy1)2
2
(Q(x
, x0 , t, u, v, w, x, y, z )) ((yp+y+x+n)2 1)2 (oyq y 1)2 ((yq+y+x+o)2 1)2 (w+p)2
(w+q)2 (ryiy1)2 ((yi+y+x+r)2 1)2 ((i+1w)2 +(n++1r)2 (r++1o)2 )((m++1n)2 +
+(z ++1kn)2 (ln++1z)2 )(z ++1n)2 ][((((M A)2 1)((N B)2 1)((O C)2 1)((P D)2 1)
((QE)2 1)((RF )2 1)((S G)2 1)((T H)2 1))2 +(((M E)2 1)((N F )2 1)((OG)2 1)
((P H)2 1)((QI)2 1)((RJ)2 1)((S K)2 1)((T L)2 1))2 )((1+e1 b1 )2 +(b1 f1 +f1 a1 +1)2 +
+(W + g1 b1 V b1 )2 + (b1 V h1 + b1 h1 + h1 a1 + W )2 + ((V + k1 + 1 i1 ) ((c1 + k1 b1 i1 )2 + (b1 i1 n1 + b1 n1 + n1 a1 + d1 )2 +
2
+(b1 i1 l1 + l1 a1 + c1 )2 + (d1 + m1 b1 i1 b1 )2 + (d1 2c1 )2 ))2 + (j + + 1 W )2 + ((P(y, 0, M, N, O, P, , , W )) +

2
+((Zj1)((j+++Z)2 1)Q(z, z0 , e, f, g, h, , , U )((j+1+h)2 +((P(r, r0 , Q, R, S, T, , , Z )) )

((U X)2 1))2 + (Q(s, s0 , a, b, c, d, , , U ) ( j 1 a4 ) ((j + + + )2 a4 1) (((j + a4 + 1 d)2 +
2
+(P(t, t0 , M, N, O, P, , , )) ) (((P(u
, 0, Q, R, S, T, , , )) + (P(v, 0, Q, R, S, T, , , U ) (((sa2 + a2 + a2 + )2 +
2
+(Q(w,
0, e, f, g, h, , , U )) + (h + a3 s)2 ((P(q, 0, Q, R, S, T, , , )) + ( + a4 s )2 )))2 )] = 0.
Theorem 11. The polynomial expression E is (I0 + exp)-equivalent to Friedmans Proposition E, which is
ACA0 -equivalent to 1-Con(ZFC + {there exists an n-Mahlo cardinal}n ).
8.2
An intermediate poly-exp-log-expression equivalent to 1-Con(ZFC+

Mahlo cardinals)
will be here.
8.3
A polynomial expression that is equivalent to 1-Con(ZFC+Mahlo

cardinals)
It may be too early to open brackets in E but we couldnt resist this temptation.
Let be the following prefixed polynomial equation:
c2 d2 i2 e2 f2 g2 h2 j2 l2 m2 n2 o2 p2 q2 r2 t2 u2 v2 z2 A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 F2 G2 H2 I2 J2 K2 L2 M2 N2 O2 P2 Q2 R2 S2 T2
s3 t3 u3 v3 i3 e3 f3 g3 q3 r3 h3 j3 k3 l3 m3 n3 o3 p3 A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 G3 H3 I3 J3 M3 N3 O3 P3 Q3 R3 S3 T3 U3 V3 W3 X3
s5 t5 u5 v5 i5 e5 f5 g5 q5 r5 h5 j5 k5 l5 m5 n5 o5 p5 A5 B5 C5 D5 E5 F5 G5 H5 I5 J5 M5 N5 O5 P5 Q5 R5 S5 T5 U5 V5 W5 X5 Y5
c d i e f g h j l m n o p q r t u v z A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T
((uY +u+t++ 2 2 + 3 3 3 )2 1)2 (5+)2 2 (Y +w+3+)2 2 (Y +w+3+)2 (nypy1)2
(((h2 m2 d2 i2 d2 )2 +(d2 i2 n2 +d2 n2 +n2 c2 +h2 )2 +(o2 +1i2 )2 h22 +((i2 1)2 p2 1)2 (h2 1)2 +(i2 +q2 1)2 (w+2+q2 i2 )2
((h2 +q2 yi2 +y)2 +(yi2 r2 yr2 +r2 +x+h2 )2 )2 +(i2 +t2 w2)2 (w+2+v+t2 i2 )2 ((e2 +e22 f22 +e32 f23 g23 +t2 ui2 +uw+u)2 +
+(w + v2 d2 e2 )2 + (d2 e2 z2 + z2 c2 + w)2 + (ui2 u2 uwu2 uu2 + u2 t + e2 + e22 f22 + e32 f23 g23 )2 + (d2 f2 B2 + B2 c2 + l2 )2 +
+(l2 +A2 d2 f2 )2 +(g22 +(h2 wl2 )2 )2 ((g2 1)2 +(w+E2 +1l2 )2 (h2 w+l2 )2 +(l2 +F2 w)2 h22 )2 ((g2 2)2 +(h2 wl2 )2 )
((g2 3)2 +(1+J2 F2 )2 +(F2 K2 +K2 E2 +1)2 +(h2 +L2 F2 w F2 )2 +(F2 wM2 +F2 M2 +M2 E2 +h2 )2 +(w +N2 +1G2 )2
((H2 + N2 F2 G2 )2 + (F2 G2 O2 + O2 E2 + H2 )2 + (I2 + P2 F2 G2 F2 )2 + (F2 G2 Q2 + F2 Q2 + Q2 E2 + I2 )2 + (I2 2H2 )2 )2 )2
((g2 4)2 + ((w2 + h22 ) (((1 + J2 F2 )2 + (F2 K2 + K2 E2 + 1)2 + (D2 + L2 F2 y F2 )2 + (F2 h2 M2 + F2 M2 + M2 E2 + D2 )2 +
+(h2 +N2 +1i2 )2 ((H2 +N2 F2 G2 )2 +(F2 G2 O2 +O2 E2 +H2 )2 +(I2 +P2 F2 G2 F2 )2 +(F2 G2 Q2 +F2 Q2 +Q2 E2 +I2 )2 +
+(I2 2H2 )2 )2 )2 +(D2 +R2 x)2 +(w+S2 +12D2 )2 ))2 )2 +((w+1+vi2 )2 C2 1)2 ((h2 z)2 T2 1)2 ))2 (oyqy1)2
((yp + y + x + n)2 1)2 ((yq + y + x + o)2 1)2 (w + p)2 (w + q)2 ((yi + y + x + r)2 1)2
(ryiy1)2 ((i+1w)2 +(n++1r)2 (r++1o)2 )((m++1n)2 +(z++1kn)2 (ln++1z)2 )(z++1n)2 ]
[((((M A)2 1)((N B)2 1)((OC)2 1)((P D)2 1)((QE)2 1)((RF )2 1)((S G)2 1)
((T H)2 1))2 +(((M E)2 1)((N F )2 1)((OG)2 1)((P H)2 1)((QI)2 1)((RJ)2 1)
((S K)2 1)((T L)2 1))2 )((1+e1 b1 )2 +(b1 f1 +f1 a1 +1)2 +(W +g1 b1 V b1 )2 +(b1 V h1 +b1 h1 +h1 a1 +W )2 +
+((V +k1 +1i1 )((c1 +k1 b1 i1 )2 +(b1 i1 n1 +b1 n1 +n1 a1 +d1 )2 +(b1 i1 l1 +l1 a1 +c1 )2 +(d1 +m1 b1 i1 b1 )2 +(d1 2c1 )2 ))2 +
+(j++1W )2 +(i3 (O+A3 +1i3 )j3 (g3 +A3 j3 )((e3 +e23 f32 +e33 f33 g33 +A3 N i3 )2 +(N i3 B3 +B3 M +e3 +e23 f32 +e33 f33 g33 )2 +
+(h3 + C3 v3 i3 )2 + (v3 i3 D3 + D3 u3 + h3 )2 + (k3 + E3 r3 j3 )2 + (r3 j3 F3 + F3 q3 + k3 )2 + (r3 j3 H3 + r3 H3 + H3 q3 + l3 )2 +
+(l3 +G3 r3 j3 r3 )2 +(m3 +I3 f3 j3 f3 )2 +(f3 j3 J3 +f3 J3 +J3 e3 +m3 )2 +(n3 +M3 m3 )2 +(m3 N3 +N3 +N3 +n3 )2 +
+(l3 k3 n3 )2 +((j3 1)2 O3 1)2 ((k3 +O3 f3 )2 +(f3 P3 +P3 e3 +k3 )2 )2 +((j3 g3 +1)2 Q3 1)2 (l3 h3 )2 +(o3 +R3 t3 i3 )2 +
+(t3 i3 S3 +S3 s3 +o3 )2 +(p3 +T3 t3 i3 +t3 )2 +(t3 i3 U3 t3 U3 +U3 s3 +p3 )2 +((i3 1)2 +h23 )2 ((2+V3 i3 )2 +(i3 +W3 P )2 +
+(o3 p3 h3 )2 )2 ((P + V3 + 1 i3 )2 + (o3 p3 + h3 )2 )2 + ((i3 O)2 X3 1)2 (o3 W )2 ))2 + (((j + + + Z)2 1)
(Z j 1 ) (((h4 m4 d4 i4 d4 )2 + (d4 i4 n4 + d4 n4 + n4 c4 + h4 )2 + (o4 + 1 i4 )2 h24 + ((i4 1)2 p4 1)2 (h4 1)2 +
+(i4 + q4 1)2 (h + 2 + q4 i4 )2 ((h4 + q4 i4 + )2 + (i4 r4 r4 + r4 + + h4 )2 )2 + (i4 + t4 h 2)2 (h + 2 + g + t4 i4 )2
((e4 +e24 f42 +e34 f43 g43 +t4 f i4 +f h+f )2 +(h+v4 d4 e4 )2 +(d4 e4 z4 +z4 c4 +h)2 +(f i4 u4 f hu4 f u4 +u4 e+e4 +e24 f42 +e34 f43 g43 )2 +
+(l4 +A4 d4 f4 )2 +(d4 f4 B4 +B4 c4 +l4 )2 +(g42 +(h4 hl4 )2 )2 ((g4 1)2 +(h+E4 +1l4 )2 (h4 h+l4 )2 +(l4 +F4 h)2 h24 )2
((g4 2)2 +(h4 hl4 )2 )((g4 3)2 +(1+J4 F4 )2 +(F4 K4 +K4 E4 +1)2 +(h4 +L4 F4 hF4 )2 +(F4 hM4 +F4 M4 +M4 E4 +h4 )2 +
+(h+N4 +1G4 )2 ((H4 +N4 F4 G4 )2 +(F4 G4 O4 +O4 E4 +H4 )2 +(I4 +P4 F4 G4 F4 )2 +(F4 G4 Q4 +F4 Q4 +Q4 E4 +I4 )2 +
+(I4 2H4 )2 )2 )2 ((g4 4)2 + ((h2 + h24 ) (((1 + J4 F4 )2 + (F4 K4 + K4 E4 + 1)2 + (F4 h4 M4 + F4 M4 + M4 E4 + D4 )2 +
+(D4 +L4 F4 F4 )2 +(h4 +N4 +1i4 )2 ((H4 +N4 F4 G4 )2 +(F4 G4 O4 +O4 E4 +H4 )2 +(F4 G4 Q4 +F4 Q4 +Q4 E4 +I4 )2 +
+(I4 +P4 F4 G4 F4 )2 +(I4 2H4 )2 )2 )2 +(D4 +R4 )2 +(h+S4 +12D4 )2 ))2 )2 +((h+1+gi4 )2 C4 1)2 ((h4 U )2 T4 1)2 ))
((j +1+h)2 +(i5 (S +A5 +1i5 )j5 (g5 +A5 j5 )((e5 +e25 f52 +e35 f53 g53 +A5 Ri5 )2 +(Ri5 B5 +B5 Q+e5 +e25 f52 +e35 f53 g53 )2 +
+(t5 i5 S5 +S5 s5 +o5 )2 +(p5 +T5 t5 i5 +t5 )2 +(t5 i5 U5 t5 U5 +U5 s5 +p5 )2 +((i5 1)2 +h25 )2 ((2+V5 i5 )2 +(i5 +W5 T )2 +
+(o5 p5 h5 )2 )2 ((T + V5 + 1 i5 )2 + (o5 p5 + h5 )2 )2 + ((i5 S)2 X5 1)2 ((o5 Z)2 Y5 1)2 )) ((U X)2 1))2 +
+((((h6 m6 d6 i6 d6 )2 + (d6 i6 n6 + d6 n6 + n6 c6 + h6 )2 + (o6 + 1 i6 )2 h26 + ((i6 1)2 p6 1)2 (h6 1)2 + (i6 + q6 1)2
(d + 2 + q6 i6 )2 ((h6 + q6 i6 + )2 + (i6 r6 r6 + r6 + + h6 )2 )2 + (i6 + t6 d 2)2 (d + 2 + c + t6 i6 )2 ((d + v6 d6 e6 )2 +
+(e6 +e26 f62 +e36 f63 g63 +t6 bi6 +bd+b)2 +(d6 e6 z6 +z6 c6 +d)2 +(bi6 u6 bdu6 bu6 +u6 a+e6 +e26 f62 +e36 f63 g63 )2 +(l6 +A6 d6 f6 )2 +
+(d6 f6 B6 +B6 c6 +l6 )2 +(g62 +(h6 dl6 )2 )2 ((g6 1)2 +(d+E6 +1l6 )2 (h6 d+l6 )2 +(l6 +F6 d)2 h26 )2 ((g6 2)2 +(h6 dl6 )2 )
((g6 3)2 +(1+J6 F6 )2 +(F6 K6 +K6 E6 +1)2 +(h6 +L6 F6 dF6 )2 +(F6 dM6 +F6 M6 +M6 E6 +h6 )2 +(d+N6 +1G6 )2
((g6 4)2 + ((d2 + h26 ) (((1 + J6 F6 )2 + (F6 K6 + K6 E6 + 1)2 + (D6 + L6 F6 F6 )2 + (F6 h6 M6 + F6 M6 + M6 E6 + D6 )2 +
+(I6 2H6 )2 )2 )2 +(D6 +R6 )2 +(d+S6 +12D6 )2 ))2 )2 +((d+1+ci6 )2 C6 1)2 ((h6 U )2 T6 1)2 ))(j 1a4 )
((j + + + )2 a4 1) ((i7 (O + A7 + 1 i7 ) j7 (g7 + A7 j7 ) ((e7 + e27 f72 + e37 f73 g73 + A7 N i7 )2 + (h7 + C7 v7 i7 )2 +
+(N i7 B7 +B7 M +e7 +e27 f72 +e37 f73 g73 )2 +(v7 i7 D7 +D7 u7 +h7 )2 +(k7 +E7 r7 j7 )2 +(r7 j7 F7 +F7 q7 +k7 )2 +(l7 +G7 r7 j7 r7 )2 +
+(r7 j7 H7 + r7 H7 + H7 q7 + l7 )2 + (m7 + I7 f7 j7 f7 )2 + (f7 j7 J7 + f7 J7 + J7 e7 + m7 )2 + (m7 N7 + N7 + N7 + n7 )2 +
+(n7 + M7 m7 )2 + (l7 k7 n7 )2 + ((j7 1)2 O7 1)2 ((k7 + O7 f7 )2 + (f7 P7 + P7 e7 + k7 )2 )2 + ((j7 g7 + 1)2 Q7 1)2
(l7 h7 )2 + (o7 + R7 t7 i7 )2 + (t7 i7 S7 + S7 s7 + o7 )2 + (p7 + T7 t7 i7 + t7 )2 + (t7 i7 U7 t7 U7 + U7 s7 + p7 )2 + ((i7 1)2 + h27 )2
((2+V7 i7 )2 +(i7 +W7 P )2 +(o7 p7 h7 )2 )2 ((P +V7 +1i7 )2 +(o7 p7 +h7 )2 )2 +((i7 O)2 X7 1)2 ((o7 )2 Y7 1)2 )2 +
+(j +a4 +1d)2 )((i8 (S +A8 +1i8 )j8 (g8 +A8 j8 )((e8 +e28 f82 +e38 f83 g83 +A8 Ri8 )2 +(Ri8 B8 +B8 Q+e8 +e28 f82 +e38 f83 g83 )2 +
+(l8 +G8 r8 j8 r8 )2 ++(m8 +I8 f8 j8 f8 )2 +(f8 j8 J8 +f8 J8 +J8 e8 +m8 )2 +(n8 +M8 m8 )2 +(m8 N8 +N8 +N8 +n8 )2 +
+(o8 p8 h8 )2 )2 ((T +V8 +1i8 )2 +(o8 p8 +h8 )2 )2 +((i8 S)2 X8 1)2 (o8 )2 ))2 +((i9 (S +A9 +1i9 )j9 (g9 +A9 j9 )
((e9 + e29 f92 + e39 f93 g93 + A9 Ri9 )2 + (Ri9 B9 + B9 Q + e9 + e29 f92 + e39 f93 g93 )2 + (h9 + C9 v9 i9 )2 + (v9 i9 D9 + D9 u9 + h9 )2 +
+(k9 + E9 r9 j9 )2 + (r9 j9 F9 + F9 q9 + k9 )2 + (l9 + G9 r9 j9 r9 )2 + (r9 j9 H9 + r9 H9 + H9 q9 + l9 )2 + (m9 + I9 f9 j9 f9 )2 +
+(f9 j9 J9 + f9 J9 + J9 e9 + m9 )2 + (n9 + M9 m9 )2 + (m9 N9 + N9 + N9 + n9 )2 + (l9 k9 n9 )2 + ((j9 1)2 O9 1)2
((k9 + O9 f9 )2 + (f9 P9 + P9 e9 + k9 )2 )2 + ((j9 g9 + 1)2 Q9 1)2 (l9 h9 )2 + (o9 + R9 t9 i9 )2 + (t9 i9 S9 + S9 s9 + o9 )2 +
+(p9 + T9 t9 i9 + t9 )2 + (t9 i9 U9 t9 U9 + U9 s9 + p9 )2 + ((i9 1)2 + h29 )2 ((2 + V9 i9 )2 + (i9 + W9 T )2 + (o9 p9 h9 )2 )2
((T +V9 +1i9 )2 +(o9 p9 +h9 )2 )2 +((i9 S)2 X9 1)2 (o9 U )2 ))((((h m d i d )2 +(d i n +d n +n c +h )2 +
+(o +1i )2 h2 +((i 1)2 p 1)2 (h 1)2 +(i +q 1)2 (h+2+q i )2 ((h +q i +)2 +(i r r +r ++h )2 )2 +
+(i + t h 2)2 (h + 2 + g + t i )2 ((e + e2 f2 + e3 f3 g3 + t f i + f h + f )2 + (h + v d e )2 + (d e z + z c + h)2 +
+(f i u f hu f u +u e+e +e2 f2 +e3 f3 g3 )2 +(l +A d f )2 +(d f B +B c +l )2 +(g2 +(h hl )2 )2 ((g 1)2 +
+(h+E +1l )2 (h h+l )2 +(l +F h)2 h2 )2 ((g 2)2 +(h hl )2 )((g 3)2 +(1+J F )2 +(F K +K E +1)2 +
+(h +L F hF )2 +(F hM +F M +M E +h )2 +(h+N +1G )2 ((H +N F G )2 +(F G O +O E +H )2 +
+(I + P F G F )2 + (F G Q + F Q + Q E + I )2 + (I 2H )2 )2 )2 ((g 4)2 + ((h2 + h2 ) (((F K + K E + 1)2 +
+(1 + J F )2 + (D + L F F )2 + (F h M + F M + M E + D )2 + (h + N + 1 i )2 ((F G O + O E + H )2 +
+(H + N F G )2 + (I + P F G F )2 + (F G Q + F Q + Q E + I )2 + (I 2H )2 )2 )2 + (D + R )2 +
+(h + S + 1 2D )2 ))2 )2 + ((h + 1 + g i )2 C 1)2 ((h U )2 T 1)2 ))2 + (sa2 + a2 + a2 + )2 + (h + a3 s)2
(i0 (S +A0 +1i0 )j0 (g0 +A0 j0 )((e0 +e20 f02 +e30 f03 g03 +A0 Ri0 )2 +(Ri0 B0 +B0 Q+e0 +e20 f02 +e30 f03 g03 )2 +(h0 +C0 v0 i0 )2 +
+(v0 i0 D0 + D0 u0 + h0 )2 + (k0 + E0 r0 j0 )2 + (r0 j0 F0 + F0 q0 + k0 )2 + (l0 + G0 r0 j0 r0 )2 + (r0 j0 H0 + r0 H0 + H0 q0 + l0 )2 +
+(m0 + I0 f0 j0 f0 )2 + (f0 j0 J0 + f0 J0 + J0 e0 + m0 )2 + (n0 + M0 m0 )2 + (m0 N0 + N0 + N0 + n0 )2 + (l0 k0 n0 )2 +
+((j0 1)2 O0 1)2 ((k0 + O0 f0 )2 + (f0 P0 + P0 e0 + k0 )2 )2 + ((j0 g0 + 1)2 Q0 1)2 (l0 h0 )2 + (t0 i0 S0 + S0 s0 + o0 )2 +
+(o0 + R0 t0 i0 )2 + (p0 + T0 t0 i0 + t0 )2 + (t0 i0 U0 t0 U0 + U0 s0 + p0 )2 + ((i0 1)2 + h20 )2 ((2 + V0 i0 )2 + (i0 + W0 T )2 +
+(o0 p0 h0 )2 )2 ((T + V0 + 1 i0 )2 + (o0 p0 + h0 )2 )2 + ((i0 S)2 X0 1)2 (o0 )2 ))2 + ( + a4 s )2 )))2 )] = 0.
Theorem 12. is ACA00 -equivalent to
1-Con(ZFC + {there exists an n-Mahlo cardinal}n ).
Corollary 13. The statement above is a sinlge axiom, whose 02 consequences over ACA0 are exactly the
02 theorems of ZFC + {there exists an n-Mahlo cardinal}n ).
In the sense of Corollary 13, theoretically you dont have to use ZFC+{there exists an n-Mahlo cardinal}n for
any 2-quantifier arithmetical purposes (for example if you object to that particular theory on some philosophical
grounds). Instead, you can use the purely arithmetical single axiom . The authors actually know how to
practically use Axiom in proving arithmetical sentences, following the monograph [7].
The authors have no philosophical objections to the theory ZFC + {there exists an n-Mahlo cardinal}n or to
NF or to any other theory. We find it absolutely fascinating to study how one can axiomatize large portions of
these theories arithmetical fragments by a single, pure arithmetical axiom about one polynomial. (It would be
even more fascinating to discover that these theories, and a billion others, contradict each other on first-order
arithmetical sentences: see a discussion of Arithmetical Splitting in [4].)
8.4
What will be the final length after some optimization
Boolean Relation Theory has a lot of flexibility, so we are planning to fiddle with Proposition E to decrease
the number of appeals to P and Q and re-use these appeals in a couple of places. Also, P and Q will get
simplified (especially with the use of exp and log).
With the current 4 appeals to Q and 6 appeals to P, the size of the answer is approximately 4|Q|+6|P |+9
lines (subscripts increased it from 72 to 80 lines above).
We expect to get down to 3 uses of Q and 4 uses of P, so if we also save one line in
the answer will be shorter than 3 6 + 4 4 + 9 = 43 lines.
P and two lines in Q,
In poly-exp-log format, we safely predict an answer that fits in fewer than 3 2 + 4 1 + 3 = 13 lines.
8.5
A short poly-exp-log expression equivalent to 1-Con(ZFC+ Mahlo

cardinals)
will be here.
Chapter 9
Subtle cardinals
28
Chapter 10
Seeds
About classification of short polynomial equations with quantifiers: seeing the full distribution of EFA-provable
equivalence classes of polynomial equations with quantifiers.
The idea is to go through all polynomial equations, starting from length n = 1 and generate all possible
polynomial equations and use the automatical polynomial transformation software or some kind of prover to
eliminate all quickly-provable/refutable junk and isolate and extract the candidates for the unprovable ones,
and then use automatic transformation programs, to compare them with the PH2 polynomial of Theorem 2
and other strong ones: below I1 and above I1 alike. (Or just do those hard cases by hands!)
We can actually find some amazing polynomials, the seeds of strength in very short lengths, something that
people absolutely dont expect.
At the moment, we have an example of length 131 (Theorem 2) and lots above it, but we might bump into
some absolutely unexpected examples that have size, say 23 or 37.
It is also a good idea to try this in the poly-exp or poly-exp-log set-up to obtain very impressive examples.
Here is how we count the size of a polynomial expression (the same definition as on page 1). In the
polynomial equation with quantifiers:
- every occurence of a variable inside the polynomial adds 1 to the total size;
- every operation symbol , + or between variables adds 1 to the total size;
- for a natural number n, +n or n adds n to the total size;
- for a natural number n, n or n adds (n 1) to the size;
- the power n adds (n 1) to the total size;
- brackets are disregarded;
- the quantifier-prefix is disregarded.
It is not final that we will use this size measure in the future, but for a while it will be. What we want of
a measure is that it is monotone and somehow reflects the simplicity of the expression. We dont want to
count the size of squaring (t(x))2 by doubling the size of t(x) for exactly this reason: in the computation of
it, we grab t(x) and square it in a single act of squaring, instead of computing it again and then multiplying
it by itself.
With this measure, the raw coarse polynomials we have so far had the following sizes:
29
CHAPTER 10. SEEDS
page 9:
page 10:
page 10:
page 12:
page 14:
page 27:
10.1
Theorem 2
Theorem 3
Theorem 4
Theorem 6
Theorem 8
Theorem 12
30
1-Con(I1 )
1-Con(I2 )
1-Con(PA)
1-Con(ATR0 )
GMT
1-Con(ZFC + {n-Mahlo}n
our name
1
2
K
GM
unprovable in theory
I1
I2
PA
ATR0
11 -CA0
ZFC + {n-Mahlo}n
current size (6.12.2010)

131
174
352
648
1067
4620
Provable and refutable cases
How to extract and dispose of all provable and refutable rubbish.
10.2
Some short known open problems
Some open problems may be seeds, or will follow from seeds.
10.3
What are seeds
Clearly, every equivalence class of a prefixed polynomial equation thatis present in size n, is also present in
the sizes larger than n (add 1 and subtract 1 from some variable). The same expression is also spread around
by polynomial rewriting and EFA-proofs.
For every polynomial equation with quantifiers, consider the set of all polynomial equations that are EFAequivalent to it. A seed, or a purely polynomial seed is a polynomial equation of smallest size in its equivalence
class. If a seed belongs to the EFA-equivalence class of an arithmetical formula , we shall say it is a seed of .
We are not saying the seed of because there may be several seeds of of the same size.
We shall not count the two trivial seeds: 0 = 0) (the seed of truth, the seed belonging to the equivalence
class of all provable rubbish) and 1 = 0) (the seed of lies, the seed of all refutable rubbish) as seeds.
We also have have slightly lower interest in the intermediate seeds (provable in I1 but unprovable in EFA),
for example in the seed for the Finite Ramsey Theorem (see discussion on page 46), which is provable in
I0 + tower but unprovable in I0 + exp. For us, the stronger the theory - the more precious the seed.
Clearly, we can expect seeds of quite reasonable sizes, for example, by Theorem 2 there is a seed of 1-Con(I1 )
of size <131.
10.4
Quantifier complexity of seeds
A remark that two-quantifier seeds equivalent to 1-consistencies are appearing so early and in such abandunce,
unlike one-quantifier seeds of consistency (we have none in this paper so far). Some discussion of how quantifiercomplexity buys us size.
10.5
Reckless conjectures
An important task of this chapter is to find a seed or get to one as close as possible.
Conjecture 1: there are no seeds of size smaller than 12.
CHAPTER 10. SEEDS
31
Conjecture 2: there is a seed of 1-consistency of I1 of size <40.

Conjecture 3: there is a seed that implies Con(ZFC), of size <85.
Some discussion about the feasibility of the gap will be added only later.
10.6
No reason to expect that our examples are anywhere near

seeds
One more thought will be here. The examples of points from various equivalence classes that we have at the
moment were obtained from combinatorial statements. These are polynomials burdened with parts that are
responsible for G
odel coding, and other non-polynomial, in a sense non-arithmetical clutter. In this way we
hit members of various equivalence classes that is not likely to be anywhere near the seed of this class (at least
we dont know any reasons why they should be).
We can try to fiddle with the examples we have to go down and reach the seeds. Algebraic geometry, automatic
(or manual) polynomial transformations, and luck, may be needed there.
10.7
Magic polynomials versus seeds
10.8
Seeds in the poly-exp set-up
will be discussed and discovered here.

Conjecture 1: there are no exponential seeds of size smaller than 7.
Conjecture 2: there is an exponential seed of 1-Con(I1 ) of size <27.
Conjecture 3: there is an exponential seed that implies Con(ZFC), of size <47.
Some sentence about absoluteness of seeds will be added here, to convey the message that finding seeds is
not a matter of opinion or judgement: liking seeds, or disliking seeds or debating whether seeds are natural
is like liking sin(x) and cos(x), disliking sin(x) and cos(x) or talking whether sin(x) and cos(x) are natural.
10.9
Counting what grows from seeds
some counting results: generating functions etc.

The story about conguence of all equivalence classes.
Not to forget to visualise the emergence of seeds as you move along the Atlas, increasing n.
Chapter 11
What use could a fragment of the

Atlas be
This is just a copy-paste of my email from April 2010. The text will be severly edited in the future.
The Atlas of Truth and Strength is an exciting possibility that follows from this polynomial project.
11.1
The Atlas as a knowledge database
Mathematicians keep re-proving each others results again and again, in different languages. The results may
seem to talk or prove lemmas about p-adics, or complex numbers or finite groups or about graph theory but
hardly ever know when they re-do the work that has been already done many times, possibly in another
subject, possibly cast in absolutely different terms. There is a lot of wasted time spent re-proving the same
basic I0 + exp combinatorial lemmas.
However, occasionally mathematics stumbles upon lemmas with a bit of strength and people get puzzled:
they sense the difference but dont know how to explain why Ramsey Theorem is not the same as the prime
number theorem. (We, logicians, metamathematicains, that this intuitive reason manifests itself in the fact
that Ramsey Thoerem is not EFA-provable, but the prime number theorem isnt. In particular, these two
statements are not equivalent.)
The of course there is the Paris-Harrington Principle and the amasing world of logical strength and unprovability, giving us other statements that are not equivalent to each other.
What if we produce the Atlas (or Encyclopedia, or Dictionary) of (suitably chosen normal forms of) all
polynomial expressions with quantifiers, of lengths, say, < 500 and teach people how to translate most of their
questions, in their subjects, into that language like it is done in this paper, and to routinely check in the Atlas
for the strength or provability or refutability (the metamathematical status) of every small statement they
ever encounter? (more precisely: to look up the EFA-provable equivalence class of their statement).
How would the teaching process go?
1. Example 1: Paris-Harrington.
Teaching how the translation goes, checking the polynomial in the Atlas. Understanding the (quite big)
strength. Being directed to see the small and cute seed of this statement.
2. Example 2: Some Sylows theorem in group theory and PNT.
Translating Sylows theorem into its polynomial, checking in the Atlas. Translate the Prime Number
Theorem, Check the Atlas. Indeed both statements are EFA-provable. No need to spend time proving
them.
3. Example 3: Finite Ramsey Theorem.
32
CHAPTER 11. WHAT USE COULD A FRAGMENT OF THE ATLAS BE
33
Translating the Ramsey Theorem, ending up with a polynomial statement unprovable in I0 + exp,
checking it in the Atlas and seeing this fact and the strength clearly marked in the Atlas
4. Example 4: Gowerss theorem about Banach spaces.
This is an adventurous and creative bit (unlike the other, mechanical exercises!) Showing how to miniaturise such second-order statements, (find a first-order fragment preserving a lot of strength), then
translate into a polynomial expression, that is marked in the Atlas as, say, unprovable in 11 -CA0 (conjecture).
The next step is finding the seed of this statement.
How to communicate this second-order statement to hypothetical aliens on other planets? Send them
the seed of this statement! Alien mathematicians will understand the language of polynomials. The
aliens on other planets will recognize this seed as the unique code of this mathematical phenomenon.
5. Example 5: Classical Open Problems.
Translating twin prime, Hypothesis H, P=NP etc, etc... These equivalence classes will produce lots of
equivalent polynomial expressions. Mathematicians will always be able to check whether their problem
in whatever subject happens to be equivalent to a known open problem! Just check the Atlas!
6. Example 6: Graph minor theorem.
Showing the translation from Chapter 3 above, clearly marking what are the known lower and upper
bounds on the stregth. GMT itself is not an open problem but the Atlas of Truth and Strength will
clearly state what IS the problem (exact strenghth yet unknown).
All possible logical strengths will be clearly marked! All open problems will be clearly marked! All
polynomial seeds will be clearly marked as seeds!
Polynomials we get from Boolean Relation Theory will amaze people, and well genarate very many examples in the reasonable lengths.
Logic will be crucial there, and they will see a lot of important equivalence classes throughout the place
apart from the commonly encountered classes (equivalents of 0 = 0 and equivalents of x x = 0).
The Atlas will indeed educate the world about logic: they will see that mathematical statements are no
longer true or false but fall into so many important and interesting metamathematical classes.
At an early size there will be a polynomial for, say, 1-Con(NF). Suddenly NF will be not a weird set
theory, but one of the canoical metamathematical equivalence classes.
As an Appendix to the Atlas, we can list all discovered and suspected seeds.
Because seeds and suspected seeds are so rare, and EFA-equivalence classes are so few, the list of seeds
will be a short, 5-page table.
Probably this whole project should first be tried for a very small maximal length, up to, say, 132, to see
how many polynomial expressions we really want to list in the ATLAS (the EFA-equivalence classes are huge,
but the number of classes, I guess, is quite small).
Of course there are lots of seeds already below 132, for example the seed of Paris-Harrington for pairs.
This sounds almost like a computer science exercise, but all messages the project sends to the world of
mathematicians are about unprovability, templates and the true nature of various arithmetizable mathematical
subjects.
Is Isabelle the right package to learn?
Later, the sister-Atlases can be produced: fine-tuned for the rationals or allowing exponentiation and
logarithm, but, most importatnly, the Atlas in the Rich Language of finite set theory, very close to the actual
language that mathematicians are using.
11.2
34
Building some fragment of the Atlas
First notice that the equivalence of two arithmetical statements is undecidable. However, we can try to generate
the equivalence classes, see the gaps and try to fill in the thousands of gaps by hands.
Isabelle or some other automatic deduction software, can be used to generate polynomials with quantifiers
and do automatic proofs to carve the equivalence classes.
I guess we can generate the first LaTeX file for the Atlas automatically, and then automatically mark the
equivalence classes. We already have names for several amazing equivalence classes (PH, RT, E).
The ATLAS can be arranged like a dictionary, so that any polynomial expression could be quickly found.
You see: there are very many polynomial expressions with quantifiers, but theres always a short dictionary
route to locate each of them!!! We dont even have to produce a paper version of this Atlas - just the searchable
database-file or a pdf file, or both.
Well... maybe distributing a few hard copies will be cool too.
Now imagine the impact this Atlas (a huge volume in large A3 format) will have. It is fine it it takes one
century to build, as long as it is eventually built, and all answers recorded.
All small-sized questions in everyones own mathematical subject that may ever come up will have the
answer (its metamathematical status) written there.
(And, perhaps, the majority of questions is, or can be re-cast in, or decomposed to be determined from
statements of small sizes.)
The first tentative version of the Atlas (a few thousand pages) can be produced and experimentally distributed on this planet, and then we can wait a few years to hear reactions and see what are the desired
improvements.
Maybe people will want not polynomials but first-order arithmetical formulas, or to enrich the language
with a bit of exponentiation and sets and cardinalities and calculus and algebra symbols...
The second edition of the Atlas will cater for those actual needs.
Perhaps we can later produce a huge file of 20-30 Terabites (I guess there will be discs of this size available)
with all expressions of lengths up to 1000, really covering centuries worth of mathematicains work.
Seeds for ZFC+Mahlo and ZFC+subtle, NF, Positive ST, will appear quite early as you can see from the
draft above. I conjecture that these seeds are shorter than 400 symbols, but seeds of ZFC seem a bit larger,
but still well within 1000 symbols.
11.3
Seed-size as a new invariant to measure simplicity of logical

equivalence classes
Notice that classes like Con(NF) or 1-Con(ZFC+ subtle cardinals will appear in the Atlas earlier than, say ZFC
or light-face (set-parameter-free) 11 -CA0 . In this sense, the length of the seed, although somewhat correlated
with logical strength, really measures simplicity of the simplest description of the class, not its strength.
11.4
Canonical equivalence classes not easily accessible to humans

via axiomatisation
write the whole story in detail.
11.5
The role of the Atlas in the search for Arithmetical Splitting
An interesting implication for the Arithmetical Bifurcation project is this: arithmetical statements that are
as good as their negations (with no preference between and ) will already be in the Atlas, already marked
as unprovable in such-and-such theories.
35
11.6
Atlas in three languages: polynomials, poly-exp-log and Rich

Language
11.7
Almost all arithmetical statements are unprovable
The Atlas may help us produce a result like Almost all arithmetical statements are unprovable. This has
been a dream idea for a while that simultaneously came to many peoples minds.
| ||=n PA6`}|
on
The problem is how to measure almost all. Shall we just consider density limn |{ |{
| ||=n}|
the set of first-order arithmetical formulas? But there is some mess there and some irrelevant symmetries.
Perhaps we should try to design a better, more compelling measure first?
Perhaps1 the right measure could be the number of symbols in a polynomial equation?
Here, each coefficient can be counted in unary so that there would be only finitely-many polynomial equations
of each size n.) So, among all length-n polynomial equations with quantifiers, we count those provable in I0 ,
those provable in I1 , those unprovable in ZFC, PA, NF etc etc..: the set of all size-n polynomial equations
with quantifiers partitions into these classes, and then we look at the asymptotic behaviour of these classes.
If these proportions are asymptotically not zero this would be a good measure.
11.8
The story of Arithmetical Bifurcation formulated in terms of

polynomials
will be here.
This will be another dream-story: about equally good foundational theories whose arithmetical consequences
contradict each other.
Then well cook up a polynomial equation with a quantifier-prefix, such that one foundational theory believes
in this statement and another foundational theory believes in its negation.
See the full discussion of Arithmetical Bifurcation in [4].
1 although
it is too early to tell, and there are other thoughts about templates to realise this dream
Chapter 12
How to build a fragment of the Atlas

This is an early stub. Full explanation is needed, whats going on. Not to be finished before the end of spring
2011. Or erased by then.
12.1
Feasibility matters: the question of normal form
12.2
Automatic transformations of polynomial expressions
By translating a statement (e.g. the Graph Minor Theorem) we obtain a prefixed polynomial equation that is
likely to be very far from the shortest member of its (I0 + exp)-equivalence class (its seed).
We hope a second step can be made to obtain the best polynomial equations with quantifiers that can
reached by re-writing and transforming our intermediate polynomials.
(Perhaps computer scientists already have some packages for (I0 + exp)-transformations of polynomials?)
The resulting final short polynomial will probably not resemble any translations of any meaningful combinatorial formulas. But it will not have been discovered without going via a polynomial translation of a known
unprovable statement.
Perhaps there are some implemented packages to deal with polynomial equations with quantifier-prefixes??
(I guess just re-writing polynomials and ignoring quantifiers will not help much...)
12.3
Proofs get translated into mechanical transformations of polynomials
Insert Katies translations of KM2 and KM to start with [19] as an illustration of the story that the quantified
polynomial equation for PH2 can be re-written into the quantified polynomial equation for KM2 because the
whole (I0 + exp)-proof of their equivalence can be re-written according to some truth-preserving rules.
But what are the re-writing rules?
The story about a calculus of prefixed polynomials. Full list of all rewriting rules.
Theorem 14. Let and be statements in the language of first-order arithmetic and I0 ` .
Then there exists a CPP-transformation of the prefixed polynomial equation P into the prefixed polynomial
equation P .
The story of EFA-equivalences and the calculus of prefixed exponential-polynomials.
36
CHAPTER 12. HOW TO BUILD A FRAGMENT OF THE ATLAS
12.4
37
Three calculi of polynomial transformations: I0 , EFA, richer

language
the three kinds of transformation will correspond to I0 , I0 +exp and rich language with more elementary
functions included.
Chapter 13
Incomparable consistency strengths

13.1
Proofs by Montague, Shelah, Solovay and Solovay-Shavrukov
13.2
A priority argument
13.3
An infinite splitting
38
Chapter 14
Finding unusual equivalence classes

(like 2-Con(NF))
39
Chapter 15
Final remarks
15.1
Meaninglessnessization
15.2
Meaningfulnessization
The story about meaningfulness of each bit and fragment of polynomials will be here.
A mention of different polynomials encoding different phenomena (and only mechanically intertranslatable
polynomials encoding the same phenomenon).
40
CHAPTER 15. FINAL REMARKS
41
Part II
Appendix
(Theres no need to read this Appendix unless you want to check the proofs!)
42
43
The aim here is to spell out a sufficient amount of detail to confirm that all polynomials
quoted in theorems throughout the paper are correct.
This Appendix will later be re-written to deal with final best polynomials of all chapters.
Basic plugs
Here are basic equivalences to be used in the future, where rem and gcd stand for remainder and greatest common divisor,
respectively.
a 6= b
ab
a<b
a|b
a-b
a = rem(b, c)
a 6= rem(b, c)
a = gcd(b, c)
a 6= gcd(b, c)
x((a b)2 = x + 1)
x((a b)2 x 1 = 0)
x(a + x = b)
x(a + x b = 0)
x(a + x + 1 = b)
x(a + x + 1 b = 0)
x(ax = b)
x(ax b = 0)
x(ax 6= b)
xy((ax b)2 = y + 1)
xy((ax b)2 y 1 = 0)
a<c c|ba
x(a + x + 1 = c) x(cx = b a)
x(a + x + 1 c = 0) x(cx b + a = 0)
ac c-ba
x(a = c + x) xy((cx b + a)2 = y + 1)
a | b a | c xy(a = bx cy)
x(ax = b) x(ax = c) xy(a = bx cy)
x(ax b = 0) x(ax c = 0) xy(a bx + cy = 0)
x(x | b x | c x - a)
x(y(xy = b) y(xy = c) yz((xy a)2 = z + 1)))
x(y(xy b = 0) y(xy c = 0) yz((xy a)2 z 1 = 0)))
In case of a disjunction, reuse variables belonging to an existential quantifier, whereas in case of a disjunction, reuse variables
belonging to an universal quantifier. If P (x) and Q(y) are polynomials, then
(P (x) = 0 Q(x) = 0) P (x)2 + Q(y)2 = 0
and
(P (x) = 0 Q(x) = 0) P (x) Q(y) = 0.
In particular, applying these rules we obtain the following useful equivalences that will be used as plugs wherever necessary.
a 6= b
x((a b)2 x 1 = 0)
ab
x(a + x b = 0)
a<b
x(a + x + 1 b = 0)
a|b
x(ax b = 0)
a-b
xy((ax b)2 y 1 = 0)
a = rem(b, c)
xy((a + x + 1 c)2 + (cy b + a)2 = 0)
a 6= rem(b, c)
xy((a c y) ((cx b + a)2 y 1) = 0)
a = gcd(b, c)
xyzu((ax b)2 + (ay c)2 + (a bz + cu)2 = 0)
a 6= gcd(b, c)
xyzuv((xy b)2 + (xz c)2 + ((xu a)2 v 1)2 = 0)
story about reusing variables.
44
We might want to say something like:

It is well-known that, given the toolbox above, one could start translating known first order statements containing proof theoretic
strength in a naive way. Thanks to our template, one could give up the restriction of having only one block of existential quantifiers.
That would enable her or him to obtain already rather short expressions, in comparison to known examples. Moreover, clever
coding and reuse of variables can shorten such a prefixed polynomial equation even further. However, pure translation of known
unprovable statements soon turns out to have its limits. As we reached this point, we needed to dig deeper in order to reduce size
even more. First of all we twisted the unprovable statements in such a way that coding became more neat. Clearly, knowledge of
unprovability theory is very welcome at this stage. Secondly, we reduced the polynomials using small algebraic tricks. In the final
result, one might not recognise the original statement, as it has been manipulated so often. Below one can find a brief account of
how we obtained the prefixed polynomial equations presented in Part I. As described, getting to the final polynomial is part of a
process which develops in time, so it is impossible to write down every single detail. Nevertheless, enough detail is provided to
consider the explanations below as a proofs, in the traditional sense of the word.
Version of Paris-Harrington for pairs

Let e be any given natural number and consider the following statement:
for every number m, there exists a number N , such that for every colouring f of 2-subsets of {0, 1, . . . , N }
into e colours, there is an f -homogeneous H {0, 1, . . . , N } of size at least min H + m 1.
An n-subset is a subset which contains n elements. Let us first fix notation and rewrite the previous statement using but
mathematical symbols. For every n 2 and A N, the set of all n-subsets of A will be written down as [A]n . If N is a natural
number, then [N ] will denote the set {0, 1, . . . , N 1}. [[N ]]n will be simplified to [N ]n and f ({x1 , . . . , xn }) is shortened to
f (x1 , . . . , xn ), under the assumption that the xi s are increasing.
m N f : [N + 1]2 [e] Hc (H [N + 1] |H| min H + m 1 f [H]2 = {c}).
(15.1)
The main idea is to represent colourings f : [N + 1]2 e as sequences (a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) of natural numbers, in such a way that, if
k < l [N + 1] and k + l2 = i, then
ai f (k, l) mod e.
Remark that if k < l then the function which associates (k, l) with k + l2 is injective. Using G
odel coding we can code sequences
(a1 , . . . , an ) as pairs (a, b) of natural numbers in such a way that for i = 1, . . . , n,
ai = rem(a, bi + 1).
We refer to [11] for more information on this type of coding. If (a, b) codes a sequence (a1 , . . . , an ) such that n < N + (N + 1)2 ,
then not all values of possible 2-subsets of [N + 1] will be covered. In this case we extend the sequence in a trivial way by adding
as at the end until the length of the sequence is at least N + (N + 1)2 . This extended sequence defines a function f : [N + 1]2 e,
as described above. Remark that the equalities ai = rem(a, bi + 1) and ai f (k, l) mod e now hold for all k < l [N + 1] and
i = k + l2 .
We will code the subset H as an increasing sequence (c1 , . . . , cp ), such that ci [N + 1] for i = 1, . . . , p. Using G
odel coding,
this latter sequence is coded as a pair (c, d).
To avoid ambiguity we use the letter Y instead of H to denote the homogeneous set. The intermediate statement, equivalent
to (15.1) becomes:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
m N ab cd A X
xy BCF
((0 < x x < y
y A + m 1)
(A = rem(c, d + 1)
B = rem(c, dx + 1)
C = rem(c, dy + 1)
B<C
C <N +1
F = rem(a, b(B + C 2 ) + 1)
F X mod e))
(a, b) codes f , (c, d) codes the homogeneous set Y

more variables to express our needs
x and y are indices of elements coded by (c, d)
|Y | min Y + m 1
A is the first element of Y , which is the minimum
B is the xth element of Y
C is the y th element of Y
(c, d) codes elements of Y in increasing order
Y [N + 1]
F = f (B, C)
f (B, C) equals the constant colour represented by X
Now the final substitutions:

m N ab cd A X xy BCF f ghijklnrpq
x(y +f x)(A+m+f y)[(A+f d)2 +(dg +g c+A)2 +(B +hdx)2 +(dxi+ic+B)2 +(C +j dy)2 +(dyk +k c+C)2 +
+(B + I + 1 C)2 + (C + n N )2 + (F + r b(B + C 2 ))2 + (bp(B + C 2 ) + p a + F )2 + ((F X)2 qe)2 ] = 0.
Hence we obtain our theorem.
Theorem
The prefixed polynomial equation above is equivalent to statement (15.1), and thus unprovable in I1 , for every e > 2.
45
Version of Paris-Harrington for triples

Let e be any given natural number and consider the following statement:
for every number m, there exists a number N , such that for every colouring f of 3-subsets of {0, 1, . . . , N }
In purely mathematical language one would write this down as:
m N f : [N + 1]3 [e] Hc (H [N + 1] |H| min H + m 1 f [H]3 = {c}).
The main idea is to represent colourings f : [N +
if j < k < l [N + 1] and j + k2 + l3 = i, then
1]3
(15.2)
[e] as sequences (a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) of natural numbers, in such a way that,

ai f (j, k, l)
mod e.
Remark that if j < k < l then the function which associates (j, k, l) with j + k2 + l3 is injective.
The intermediate translation of the statement (15.2) becomes (once again we use the letter Y instead of H to denote the
homogeneous set):
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
m N ab cd AX
xyz BCDH
((0 < x x < y y < z
z A + m 1)
(A = rem(c, d + 1)
B = rem(c, dx + 1)
C = rem(c, dy + 1)
D = rem(c, dz + 1)
B<C
C<D
D <N +1
H = rem(a, b(B + C 2 + D3 ) + 1)
H X mod e))
(a, b) codes f , (c, d) codes the homogeneous set Y

more variables to express our needs
x, y and z are indices of elements coded by (c, d)
|Y | min Y + m 1
A is the first element of Y , which is the minimum
B is the xth element of Y
C is the y th element of Y
D is the z th element of Y
Y [N + 1]
H = f (B, C, D)
f (B, C, D) equals the constant colour represented by X
Remark that if x < y < z then the function which associates (x, y, z) with x + y 2 + z 3 is injective. After the final substitutions
and simplifications we get:
m N ab cd A X xyz uvw BCDGH f ghijklnpqrst F G
x(y+Bx)(z+By)(A+m+Bz)[(A+f d)2 +(dg+gc+A)2 +(B+hdx)2 +(dxi+ic+B)2 +(C+jdy)2 +(dyk+kc+C)2 +
+(D+ldz)2 +(dzn+nc+D)2 +(B+F +1C)2 +(C+p+1D)2 +(D+qN )2 +(H+rbt)2 +(bts+sa+H)2 +(B+C 2 +D3 t)2 +
+((X H)2 Ge)2 ] = 0.
Theorem
The prefixed polynomial equation above is equivalent to statement (15.2), and thus unprovable in I2 , for every e > 2.
Version of the full Paris-Harrington

Consider the following statement:
for all numbers e, m and n, there exists a number N , such that for every colouring f of n-subsets of {0, 1, . . . , N }
In purely mathematical language one would write this down as:
emn N f : [N + 1]n [e] Hc (H [N + 1] |H| min H + m 1 f [H]n = {c}).
(15.3)
The encoding of f and H will be similar to the previous cases. We need to express that every n-subsets of H is coloured in the
same way. These n-subsets will be represented by an increasing sequence of n elements of H.
The intermediate statement, equivalent to (15.6) becomes (once again we use the letter Y instead of H to denote the homogeneous set):
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
emn N ab cd A X
[xy zw i
((0 < i i n)
rem(x, yi + 1) = rem(z, wi + 1))
rem(a, b(x2 + y) + 1)
= rem(a, b(z 2 + w) + 1))]
[k j F G BCD f
(A = rem(c, d + 1)
B = rem(c, dk + 1)
C = rem(c, d(k + 1) + 1)
D = rem(a, b(2 + ) + 1)
F = rem(, j + 1)
G = rem(, (j + 1) + 1)
((0 < k k A + m 1)
(B < C C < N + 1))
((0 < j j n)
(F = rem(c, df + 1)
0<f f A+m1
F < G)
D X mod e))]
(a, b) codes f , (c, d) codes Y ,

A = min Y and X is the constant colour
(x, y) and (z, w) code arbitrary n-sets
i is an index for elements of (x, y) and (z, w)
the first n elements of (x, y) and (z, w) are equal
the n-sets represented by (x, y) and (z, w)
are coloured in the same way
A is the first element of Y

B is the kth element of Y
C is the (k + 1)th element of Y
D is the colour of the n-set (, )
F is the j th element of (, )
G is the (j + 1)th element of (, )
k is an index for elements of Y
the elements of Y [N + 1] are given in increasing order
j is an index for elements of (, )
F also belongs to Y
the elements of (, ) are given in increasing order
the colour of (, ) equals the constant colour X
Now we give the final prefixed polynomial equation, after substitutions and simplifications. Remark that we reused several
variables in order to reduce size.
m N ab cd xy zw it f g hklpqruv X ABCDEF j GI sH
[i(n+f +1i)((g +f yi)2 +(yih+hx+g)2 +(g +l wi)2 +(wik +k z +g)2 )+((p+q b(x2 +y))2 +(b(x2 +y)r +r a+p)2 +
+((b(z 2 +w)j+ja+p)2 s1)(pb(z 2 +w)1s))2 ][(z+xd)2 +(yd+yc+z)2 +(t(z+m+f t)((g+ldt)2 +(dtk+kc+g)2 +
+(h + p d(t + 1))2 + (d(t + 1)q + q c + h)2 + (g + r + 1 h)2 + (g + s N )2 )) + ((u + 1 X)2 + (X + v n)2 + (A + C X)2 +
+(XD+D+A)2 +(B+E(X+1))2 +((X+1)F +F +B)2 +((AdG1H)((dGI+Ic+A)2 H1)G(z+m+HG)
(B + H + 1 A))2 ) ((u + A b(2 + ))2 + (b(2 + )B + B a + u)2 + ((u w)2 ve)2 )] = 0
Theorem
The prefixed polynomial equation above is equivalent to statement (15.3), and thus unprovable in PA, for every e > 2.
Reminder:
Not to forget the story of Ramsey Theorem (the most difficult colouring) that yields Diophantine equations with solutions of
superexponential growth. I typed this paragraph here because I dont yet know where it might go eventually. (Will be copy-pasted
into its proper place in the future (if at all).)
Exponentiation
Maybe theres no need for this section at all, unless you want to shift it to general remarks about translation in the beginning
of the kitchen? These two sections are kept only not to lose. They will not be here in the future!
xy = z
ab i (1 = a1 z = ay+1 (i y ai+1 = xai ))
ab i c (1 = rem(a, b + 1) z = rem(a, b(y + 1) + 1)

(i > y (c = rem(a, bi + 1) xc = rem(a, b(i + 1) + 1)))
Using this last expression, we can translate the totality of the exponential function ( xy z (xy = z)), by
xy z ab i c ef gh kl mn
(1+eb)2 +(bf +f a+1)2 +(z+gbyb)2 +(byh+bh+ha+z)2 +(y+k+1i)2 ((c+kbi)2 +(bil+la+c)2 +(cx+mbib)2 +
47
+(bin + bn + n a + cx)2 ) = 0.
As we will need this prefixed polynomial equation quite often in this paper, we write down a plug and play version. Whenever
needed, the star symbol () will be replaced by any symbol convenient at that place.
xy = z
a b i c e f g h k l m n [(1 + e b )2 + (b f + f a + 1)2 +
(z + g b y b )2 + (b yh + b h + h a + z)2 + (y + k + 1 i )2
((c + k b i )2 + (b i l + l a + c )2 + (xc + m b i b )2 +
(b i n + b n + n a + xc )2 ) = 0]
To think of a shorter one!
Logarithm
log(x) is the floor (integer part) of the usual base-2 logarithm, with log(0) redefined as 0. We get:
log(x) = y
z ((x = 0 y = 0) (z = 2y z x x < 2z))
Using the plug and play version of the exponentiation (the star symbol is omitted) to express z = 2y we obtain:
z ab i c ef gh kl mn op
(x2 +y 2 )(((1+eb)2 +(bf +f a+1)2 +(z +g by b)2 +(byh+bh+ha+z)2 +(y +k +1i)2 ((c+k bi)2 +(bil +l a+c)2 +
+(2c + m bi b)2 + (bin + bn + n a + 2c)2 )) + (z + o x)2 + (x + p + 1 2z)2 )) = 0.
Also for log(x) we can make a plug and play version:
log(x) = y
z a b i c e f g h k l m n o p
[(x2 + y 2 ) (((1 + e b )2 + (b f + f a + 1)2 + (z + g b y b )2 +
(b yh + b h + h a + z )2 + (y + k + 1 i)2 ((c + k b i )2 +
(b i l + l a + c )2 + (2c + m b i b )2 + (b i n + b n + n a + 2c )2 )
+(z + o x)2 + (x + p + 1 2z )2 )) = 0]
Superexponentiation
this section will also not be needed, but might go into the section about Diophantine equation of superexponential growth... or not
..
x
=z
| {z }
ab i (1 = a z = ay+1 (i y ai+1 = xai ))
ab i cd (1 = rem(a, b + 1) z = rem(a, b(y + 1) + 1)
y times
(i > y (c = rem(a, bi + 1) d = rem(a, b(i + 1) + 1) d = xc ))
ab i cd ef j g (1 = rem(a, b + 1) z = rem(a, b(y + 1) + 1)

(i > y (c = rem(a, bi + 1) d = rem(a, b(i + 1) + 1) 1 = rem(e, f + 1)
d = rem(e, f (c + 1) + 1) (i > c (g = rem(e, f j + 1)
xg = rem(e, f (j + 1) + 1)))))
..
Using this last expression, we can translate the totality of the superexponential function ( xy z ( x
= z)), by
| {z }
y times
xy z ab i cd ef j gh kl mn op qr st uv AB CD EF
(1+mb)2 +(bn+na+1)2 +(z+obyb)2 +(byp+bp+pa+z)2 +((y+q+1i)((c+qbi)2 +(bir+br+ra+c)2 +(d+sbib)2 +
+(bit+bt+ta++d)2 +(1+uf )2 +(f v +v e+1)2 +(d+Af cf )2 +(f cB +f B +B e+d)2 +((c+C +1i)((g +C f j)2 +
+(f jD + D e + g)2 + (xg + E f j f )2 + (f jF + f F + F e + xg)2 )))2 = 0.
48
Kruskals theorem and its phase transition: intermediate translation

We start with the following slightly changed version of the finite Kruskal Theorem (proved ATR0 -unprovable by H. Friedman, see
[23]):
for all K there is a number M such that whenever T1 , . . . , TM are finite trees such that for all i M , the number of vertices of
Ti equals K + i there are two indices i < j M such that the tree Ti inf-preservingly embeds into Tj .
In more mathematical language one could write this down as:
K M T1 , . . . , TM (i(|Ti | = K + i) ij(i < j Ti embeds inf-preservingly into Tj )).
(15.4)
The idea is as follows. A tree Ti is coded by a pair (x, y), where x and y G
odel-code a sequence of (K + i)-many natural
numbers, the vertices of the tree. The set is ordered by divisibility and, to make sure it is a tree, we say that for no two natural
numbers in the set, one not dividing another, is there another number in the set divisible by them both.
So first we state that we are dealing with a sequence of trees satisfying the condition. Then we will claim the existence of two
indices i and j (i < j), such that there exists an embedding from Ti into Tj . This embedding is coded by the pair (c, d), which
represents a sequence of pairs. Such a pair consists of a node of Ti and its corresponding node of Tj .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
K M ab
[ i pq rst uvxyz
q = K + f (i)
(0 < i i M
0<t tq
0 < s s < r r q)
(p + 2 = rem(a, bi + 1)
p<
u = rem(, pr + 1)
v = rem(, ps + 1)
x = rem(, pt + 1)
0<v v<u
(v - u (v - x u - x))
zq
y = rem(, pz + 1)
y = gcd(u, v)))]
[ ij cd ef hk mn
F Gp JL P Qq
(0 < i i < j j M
0<m mK+i
0 < n n K + j m 6= n)
(e + f 2 = rem(a, bi + 1)
h + k2 = rem(a, bj + 1)
F = rem(e, f m + 1)
F + F 2 G2 = rem(c, dm + 1)
G = rem(h, kp + 1)
0<p pK+j
J = rem(e, f n + 1)
J + J 2 L2 = rem(c, dn + 1)
L 6= G
P + P 2 Q2 = rem(c, dq + 1)
0<q q K+i
0<P 0<Q
gcd(F, J) = P
gcd(G, L) = Q))]
q is the size of the tree Ti

i is an index for trees
t is an index for nodes in Ti
s and r are indices for nodes in Ti
(p, ) codes the tree Ti
needed for the coding
r is the index of the element u of Ti
s is the index of the element v of Ti
t is the index of the element x of Ti
smaller indices code smaller elements
If two elements are not on the same branch,
then they do not have a common supremum.
y actually is an element of Ti
z is the index of the element y of Ti
y is the infimum of u and v
(c, d) codes the embedding from Ti to Tj
Ti and Tj belong to our sequence, and i < j
m is an index for nodes in Ti
n is an index for nodes in Tj
(e, f ) codes the tree Ti
(h, k) codes the tree Tj
F belongs to Ti
(F, G) belongs to the embedding
G belongs to Tj
J belongs to Ti
(J, L) belongs to the embedding
the embedding is injective
(P, Q) belongs to the embedding
ensure the pairing function is injective
the embedding preserves the infimum.
Remark that some of the variables have already been merged, in order to make it easier to check
the correctness of the polynomial afterwards.
Final polynomial equation for Kruskals Theorem

The following prefixed polynomial equation is equivalent to statement (15.4) above.
K M ab ijcdef hk lmnpq A grst BF GIJLOP QW XY Z uvxyz CDHN T ERS U V
49
[(i c 1)2 + (i + d M )2 + (w + 1 t)2 + (t + X q)2 + (g + 1 s)2 + (s + Y + 1 r)2 + (r + Z q)2 + ((p + l2 bi 1 B) (l + B p)

((biA+Aa+p+l2 )2 B1)((K+iq)2 B1)(upr1E)((prC+Cl+u)2 E1)(vps1E)((psD+Dl+v)2 E1)
(x pt 1 E) ((ptH + H l + x)2 E 1) (u + E v) v (q + E + 1 z) (((vN u)2 E 1)2 + (vR x)2 + (uS x)2 )
(y pz 1 E) ((pzT + T l + y)2 E 1) ((ER u)2 + (ES v)2 + ((EU y)2 V 1)2 ))2 ] [mni(m n) (K + i + r + 1 m)
(K +j +r +1m)(j +r i)(M +r +1j)((f +e2 +r bi)2 +(bis+sa+f +e2 )2 +(k +h2 +tbj)2 +(bjW +W a+k +h2 )2 +
+(k +X +1h)2 +(F +Y f m)2 +(f mZ +Z e+F )2 +(F +F 2 G2 +g dm)2 +(dmB +B c+F +F 2 G2 )2 +(kOR+Rh+G)2 +
+(G + E kO)2 + (S + 1 OIP Q(e f ))2 + (O + V K j)2 + (J + f n)2 + (f n + e + J)2 + (dn + c + J + J 2 L2 )2 +
+(J +J 2 L2 +dn)2 +((LG)2 1)2 +(P +P 2 Q2 +dI)2 +(dI+c+P +P 2 Q2 )2 +(I +K i)2 +(P F )2 +(P J)2 +
+(P F + J)2 + (Q G)2 + (Q L)2 + (Q G + L)2 )] = 0
Theorem
The prefixed polynomial equation above is equivalent to statement (15.4), and thus unprovable in ATR0 .
Final polynomial expression for Weiermanns phase transition

Studying phase transitions, we parametrise the statement (15.4) above as follows:
K M T1 , . . . , TM (i(|Ti | = K + f (i)) ij(i < j Ti embeds inf-preservingly into Tj )).
(15.5)
n
Now we set, in the expresion (15.5) above, f (i) to be m
log(i) for every i N. We modify the prefixed polynomial equation by
introducing = log(i) and = log(j) and afterwards substituting it at the right places in our polynomial. We introduce and
as follows.
(( = i = ) ( = j = )) ( = log()).
We use the expression for the logarithm, which one can find above and modify it to fit the context.
log() =
k l m n o p
[(2 + 2 ) (((1 + )2 + ( + + 1)2 + ( + )2 +
( + + + )2 + ( + k + 1 i)2 (( + k )2 +
(l + l + )2 + (2 + m )2 + (n + n + n + 2)2 )
+( + o )2 + ( + p + 1 2)2 )) = 0]
Let A(m, n) be the following prefixed polynomial equation.

K M ab ijcdef hk lmnpq A grst BF GIJLOP QW XY Z
uvxyz CDHN T ERS k l m n o p U V
[((( i)2 1) (( )2 1))2 + ((( j)2 1) (( )2 1))2 ] [(2 + 2 ) ((1 + )2 + ( + + 1)2 +
+( + )2 + ( + + + )2 + ( + k + 1 i)2 (( + k )2 + (l + l + )2 + (2 + m )2 +
+(n +n +n +2)2 )+(+o )2 +(+p +12)2 ))]+[(ic1)2 +(i+dM )2 +(w+1t)2 +(t+X q)2 +(g+1s)2 +
+(s+Y +1r)2 +(r+Zq)2 +((p+l2 bi1B)(l+Bp)((biA+Aa+p+l2 )2 B1)((mK+nmq)2 B1)(upr1E)
((prC+Cl+u)2 E1)(vps1E)((psD+Dl+v)2 E1)(xpt1E)((ptH+Hl+x)2 E1)(u+Ev)(q+E+1z)
v (((vN u)2 E 1)2 + (vR x)2 + (uS x)2 ) (y pz 1 E) ((pzT + T l + y)2 E 1) ((ER u)2 + ((EU y)2 V 1)2 +
+(ES v)2 ))2 ] [mni(m n) (mK + n + r + 1 mm) (mK + n + r + 1 mm) (j + r i) (M + r + 1 j) ((f + e2 + r bi)2 +
+(bis+sa+f +e2 )2 +(k +h2 +tbj)2 +(bjW +W a+k +h2 )2 +(k +X +1h)2 +(f mZ +Z e+F )2 +(F +F 2 G2 +g dm)2 +
+(F +Y f m)2 +(dmB+Bc+F +F 2 G2 )2 +(kOR+Rh+G)2 +(G+EkO)2 +(S+1OIP Q(ef ))2 +(mO+V mK n)2 +
(J +f n)2 +(f n + e+J)2 +(dn+c+J +J 2 L2 )2 +(J +J 2 L2 + dn)2 +(dI+c+P +P 2 Q2 )2 +(P +P 2 Q2 +dI)2 +
+((LG)2 1)2 +(mI +mK n)2 +(P F )2 +(P J)2 +(P F +J)2 +(Q G)2 +(QL)2 +(QG +L)2 )] = 0
Theorem 15. Let w be the real number introduced by Andreas Weiermann. w = log1 , where is Otters tree constant (the
inverse of the radius of convergence of the generating series for unordered trees): w 0.6395781750 . . . .
n
1. If m
> w then ATR0 does not prove A(m, n).
n
2. If m
w then I0 + exp proves A(m, n).
Proof. Notice that A(m, n) is equivalent to an adapted version of KT n log . Then use Weiermans theorem on the phase transition
m
of KTr log (see [25]). Weiermanns single compression might seem to provide only PA-unprovability, but it is easy to see (you can
see this argument spelled out e.g. in [?]) that a second compression argument gives full finite Kuskal Theorem, and hence this
statement is unprovable in ATR0 .
50
Graph Minor Theorem

Consider the finite Graph Minor Theorem
(strength: at least 11 -CA0 , see H. Friedman, N. Robertson and P. Seymour [6]):
for every K there is N such that whenever
G1 , G2 , . . . , GN is a sequence of simple graphs,
such that |Gi | < K + i, then for
some i < j, Gi is isomorphic to a minor of Gj .
A simple graph contains no loops or multiple edges.
If G and H are two simple graphs, then we call H a minor of G (H E G)
if H can be obtained from G by a succession of three elementary operations:
edge removal, edge contraction and removal of an isolated vertex.
So, heres the statement to translate:
K N G1 , . . . , GN ( i (|Gi | < K + i) ij H (i < j Gi ' H H E Gj )).
A graph with c vertices will be represented by a sequence
(a1 , . . . , ac ), coded by a triple (a, b, c), which
lists all vertices. Two vertices ai and aj are adjacent if and
only if there exists a natural number n > 1 dividing both ai and aj .
Since we do not allow multiple edges, it does not matter whether or not
this n is prime. A natural number n > 1 dividing only ai , for some i,
will not carry any meaning, since we do not allow loops.
Two graphs (a, b, c) and (d, e, f ) are isomorphic
if there exists a bijection g : {0, . . . , c} {0, . . . , f } such that for all i, j < c:
x (x > 1 x | ai x | aj ) y (y > 1 y | dg(i) y | dg(j) ).
The following is equivalent to the finite Graph Minor Theorem:

K N ab
[ i def jkl g m h
(i < N
(d + d2 e2 + d3 e3 f 3 = rem(a, b(i + 1) + 1)
f <K+i
(1 < g
(m = j m = k m = l)
(m < f
h = rem(d, e(m + 1) + 1)
g | h))
(j = k k = l l = j)))]
[ ij def ghm no xy ABC kl p z qr vw DEF GHI

s t L J M X OP Q RW Z ST U V
(i < j j < N
d + d2 e2 + d3 e3 f 3 = rem(a, b(i + 1) + 1)
g + g 2 h2 + g 3 h3 m3 = rem(a, b(j + 1) + 1)
(1 < p
(z = k z = l)
(z < f
q = rem(d, e(z + 1) + 1)
p | q))
(1 < r
v = rem(x, y(k + 1) + 1)
w = rem(x, y(l + 1) + 1)
(s = v s = w)
(t = rem(n, o(s + 1) + 1)
r|t
s < f )))
(a, b) codes the sequence of graphs

(d, e, f ) codes Gi
|Gi | < K + i
any natural number g > 1,
will divide at most two elements
of the sequence
(n, o) codes H, (x, y) codes the isomorphism
(d, e, f ) codes Gi+1

(g, h, m) codes Gj+1
if two vertices dk and dl
are adjacent
then their images also are
(15.6)
51
(k < C
(J = rem(A, B(L + 1) + 1)
(L = k J = D + D2 E 2 + D3 E 3 F 3 )
(L = k + 1 J = G + G2 H 2 + G3 H 3 I 3 )
(L = 1 J = g + g 2 h2 + g 3 h3 m3 )
(L = C J = n + n2 o2 + n3 o3 f 3 )
0 < M P = rem(D, EM + 1)
U = rem(G, HR + 1)
S = rem(D, ER + 1)
T = rem(D, E(R + 1) + 1)
((0 < R R I)
((1 < O M < X X F
Q = rem(D, EX + 1)
((I = F 1 O | P O | Q
((R = M U = P Q)
(R X U = T )
(R < X R 6= M U = S))))
(I = F O = gcd(P, Q)
((R = M U = V OV = P )
(R = X U = V OV = Q)
(R 6= X R 6= M U = S)))))
(M F I = F 1
= rem(D, EW + 1)
((Z | P Z | M 6= W
W I 0 < W)
Z = 1)
((R < M U = S)
(R M U = T )))
(I = F U = S)))]
(A, B, C) codes a sequence of graphs
Gj is the first graph of this sequence

H is the last graph of this sequence
consider vertex M and vertex X

edge contraction
edge removal
isolated vertex removal
exact copy
Translation yields the following polynomial expression with a quantifier prefix:

K N ab ij def ghm no xy ABC u klpz Y cqrvw DEF GHI s t L J M X OP Q
RW Z ST U V x1 x2 x3 y3 y4 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9 y1 y2
[(i+u+1N )2 +((k +k2 l2 +k3 l3 p3 bib1D)((biY +bY +Y a+k +k2 l2 +k3 l3 p3 )2 D 1)(K +i+D p)((D +2v)2 +
+(((wc)2 E1)2 +((wq)2 F 1)2 +((wr)2 G1)2 )((w+E+1p)2 +(s+F lwl)2 +(lwG+lG+Gk+s)2 +(vH s)2 )+
+((c q)2 I 1)2 + ((q r)2 J 1)2 + ((r c)2 M 1)2 )2 ] [(i + u + 1 j)2 + (j + + 1 N )2 + (d + d2 e2 + d3 e3 f 3 + bi b)2 +
+(bi +b + a+d2 e2 +d3 e3 f 3 )2 +(g +g 2 h2 +g 3 h3 m3 +bj b)2 +(bj +b + a+g +g 2 h2 +g 3 h3 m3 )2 +((p1)p((z k)2
(z l)2 + ((f + + 1 z) (q ez e 1 ) ((ez + e + d + q)2 1) (( q)2 1))2 ) (( + 2 r)2 + (v + yk y)2 +
+(yk+y+x+w)2 +(w+yly)2 +(yl +y + x+w)2 +(((sv)2 1)2 +((sw)2 1)2 )((s++1f )2 +(rt)2 +
+(t + os s)2 + (os + o + n + t)2 ))2 + ((C + k) ((J + BL B)2 + (BL + B + A + J)2 + (((L k)2 1)
(D +D2 E 2 +D3 E 3 F 3 J))2 +(((Lk 1)2 1)(G+G2 H 2 +G3 H 3 I 3 J))2 +(((L1)2 1)(g +g 2 h2 +g 3 h3 m3 J))2 +
+(((L G)2 1) (n + n2 o2 + n3 o3 f 3 J))2 + ( + 1 M )2 + (P + EM )2 + (EM + D + P )2 + (U + HR)2 +
+(HR + G + U )2 + (S + ER)2 + (ER + D + S)2 + (T + ER E)2 + (ER + D + T )2 + (R (I + x1 + 1 R)
((x1 +2O)2 +(M +x2 +1X)2 +(X +x3 F )2 +(Q+x4 EX)2 +(EXx5 +x5 D+Q)2 +(((I F +1)2 +(Ox6 P )2 +(Ox7 Q)2 +
+(((R M )2 +(U P Q)2 )((X +x8 R)2 +(U T )2 )((R +x8 X)2 +(U S)2 +((R M )2 x9 1)2 ))((I F )2 +(Ox6 P )2 +
+(Ox7 Q)2 + (O P x8 + Qx9 )2 + ((R M )2 + (U V )2 + (OV Q)2 ) ((R X)2 + (U V )2 + (OV Q)2 ) (((R X)2 y1 1)2 +
+((RM )2 y2 1)2 +(U S)2 )))((M +x1 F )2 +(I F +1)2 +(+x2 EW )2 +(EW x3 +x3 D +)2 +(((Zy3 P )2 x4 1)
((Zy4 )2 x4 1)(M W )(I x4 +1W )W (Z 1))2 +((R+x5 +1M )2 +(U S)2 )((M +x5 R)2 +(U T )2 ))((I F )2 +
+(U S)2 )2 )2 ] = 0.
Theorem
The statement is equivalent to the finite Graph Minor Theorem, and hence is unprovable at least in 11 -CA0 .
52
A prefixed polynomial equation that knows values of all polynomials on all inputs
We will represent a polynomial by a 4-tuple (a, b, c, d), where (a, b) codes a sequence of length c of triples (e, f, g). The number
c is the total number of monomials and d is the number of positive monomials among them, so 0 d c. The triple (e, f, g)
codes a sequence of length g which represents a monomial of the polynomial. The first element of this latter sequence will be the
coefficient of the monomial. The other elements determine which variables are used. For example, 4x31 x2 x27 = 4x1 x1 x1 x2 x7 x7
can be represented by (4, 1, 1, 1, 2, 7, 7), or equivalently by (4, 7, 1, 2, 7, 1, 1), or any other permutation that starts with the 4.
The input will be a tuple x coded by (x, y). Recall that (x, y) codes xm for any m, by putting xm = rem(x, y(m + 1) + 1),
which equals x for m large enough. Once we start computing the value of a polynomial given a certain input, (s, t) will code the
sequence of partial sums. The sequence of the values of the monomials is coded by (u, v). It is clear that both sequences have
length c, the number of monomials in the polynomial. The sequence (q, r) will compute the product of the coefficient and inputs
for each monomial.
Let P be any polynomial. If w is any natural number, then P (x) = w, where P is coded by (a, b, c, d) and x by (x, y) is
equivalent to:
st uv i ef g qr h j klmnop
[(0 < i i c
0 < j j < g)
(e + e2 f 2 + e3 f 3 g 3 = rem(a, bi + 1)
h = rem(u, vi + 1)
k = rem(q, rj + 1)
l = rem(q, r(j + 1) + 1)
m = rem(e, f (j + 1) + 1)
n = rem(x, y(m + 1) + 1)
l = kn
(j = 1 k = rem(e, f + 1))
(j = g 1 l = h)
o = rem(s, ti + 1)
p = rem(s, t(i 1) + 1)
((i = 1 h = o)
(1 < i i d o = p + h)
(d < i o = p h))
(i = c o = w))]
every monomial will be considered

every variable of a certain monomial will be looked at
(e, f, g) codes the ith monomial
h is the value of the ith monomial
k is the j th element in the computation of the monomial
l is the (j + 1)th element in the computation of the monomial
m is the j th variable in the monomial
n is xm+1
start with the coefficient
h is the value of the ith monomial
o is the ith partial sum
m is the (i 1)th partial sum
the first partial sum is the value of the first monomial
addition of the values of positive monomials
subtraction of the values of negative monomials
w is the last value of the computation
Final substitutions yield the following prefixed polynomial equation (a, b, c, d, x, y, w), with free variables a, b, c, d, x, y, w,
which we show in bold:
st uv i ef g qr h j klmnop ABCDEF GHIJM N OP QRST U V W X
[i(c+A+1i)j (g +Aj)((e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 +Abi)2 +(biB +B a+e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 )2 +(h+C vi)2 +(viD +D u+h)2 +
+(k + E rj)2 + (rjF + F q + k)2 + (l + G rj r)2 + (rjH + rH + H q + l)2 + (m + I f j f )2 + (f jJ + f J + J e + m)2 +
+(n+M ymy)2 +(ymN +yN +N x+n)2 +(lkn)2 +((j1)2 O1)2 ((k+Of )2 +(f P +P e+k)2 )2 +((jg+1)2 Q1)2
(l h)2 + (o + R ti)2 + (tiS + S s + o)2 + (p + T ti + t)2 + (tiU tU + U s + p)2 + ((i 1)2 + h2 )2 ((2 + V i)2 + (i + W d)2 +
+(o p h)2 )2 ((d + V + 1 i)2 + (o p + h)2 )2 + ((i c)2 X 1)2 (o w)2 )] = 0.
Theorem
For any a, b, c, d, x, y, w, the polynomial coded by a, b, c, d, on input coded by x, y assumes the value w if and only if
(a, b, c, d, x, y, w).
In this sense knows values of all polynomials on all inputs.
Later, in Proposition E we will also need to express that a certain natural number w is not the value of the polynomial coded
by (a, b, c, d) on the input x coded by (x, y)). Brute force would work: we can write down the exact negation of the prefixed
polynomial equation above. Although this approach is possible, it is unnecessary to do that much effort. Since we already
computed P (x) above, it is sufficient to claim that the final value of the computation does not equal w. Having that remark in
mind, we obtain:
st uv i ef g qr h j klmnop ABCDEF GHIJM N OP QRST U V W XY
[i(c+A+1i)j (g +Aj)((e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 +Abi)2 +(biB +B a+e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 )2 +(h+C vi)2 +(viD +D u+h)2 +
+(o p h)2 )2 ((d + V + 1 i)2 + (o p + h)2 )2 + ((i c)2 X 1)2 ((o w)2 Y 1)2 )] = 0.
53
As we will use the last two prefixed polynomials equations quite often in the next section, we introduce a short notation for
them as follows. First, let P Quantif iers(
x, Y ) be the block of quantifiers above, where x
covers all variables, apart from Y , i.e.
P Quantif iers(
x, Y ) = st uv i ef g qr h j klmnop ABCDEF GHIJM N OP QRST U V W XY.
Next, let
P(x, Y, a, b, c, d, x, y, w) be the following polynomial:

P(x, Y, a, b, c, d, x, y, w) =
i(c+A+1i)j (g +Aj)((e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 +Abi)2 +(biB +B a+e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 )2 +(h+C vi)2 +(viD +D u+h)2 +
+(o p h)2 )2 ((d + V + 1 i)2 + (o p + h)2 )2 + ((i c)2 X 1)2 ((o w)2 Y )2 ).
Recall that x
covers all variables occurring in P Quantif iers(
x, Y ), apart from Y . This polynomial differs from the polynomial in
(a, b, c, d, x, y, w) by only one term at the very end of the expression. This is a switch that we introduce so that this polynomial
P(x, Y, a, b, c, d, x, y, w) covers both (a, b, c, d, x, y, w) and the opposite of (a, b, c, d, x, y, w), as specified below. These two
definitions enable us to state two important equivalences. The first one says that for any a, b, c, d, x, y, w, the polynomial coded by
a, b, c, d, on input coded by x, y does not assume the value w if and only if P Quantif iers(
x, Y )[P(x
, Y + 1, a, b, c, d, x, y, w) =
0]. The second equivalence is
x, Y )[P(x
, 0, a, b, c, d, x, y, w) = 0].
The polynomial equation that knows values of all BAF-terms on all inputs
Let us first introduce BAF-terms, as given in [7]. Variables of such terms will often be denoted by v1 , v2 , .... In the next definition
we use +, , , exp2 and log2 , where the subscript refers to the base 2. We will interpret all of them as usual, apart from and
log2 . Working within the natural numbers, x y is defined by the usual x y if x y and 0 otherwise. For the same reason will
log2 (x) be the floor of the usual base 2 logarithm, with log(0) = 0. This specific log has been translated before. The truncated
subtraction has the following translation:
.
xy=z
(x y z = x y) (x < y z = 0)
(x < y z = x y) (x y z = 0)
ab (x + a + 1 y)2 (z x + y)2 + (y + b x)2 z 2 = 0
Henceforth we will leave out the subscript 2 and simple write exp and log.
.
Definition 6. BAF (basic functions) is the set of all functions given by terms built up from 0, 1, +, , , exp, log and variables
v1 , v2 , . . .. A term t representing a basic function is called a BAF-term.
Consider a basic function f with arity k, i.e. no more than k different variables v1 , . . . , vk occur in the corresponding BAFterm t. We will encode t as a sequence (a1 , a2 , . . . , as ) of triples. The last element of the triple will represent an operation as
follows:
symbol
translation
exp
log
+
.
The first two components of the triple will represent the input as follows:
symbol
translation
v1
..
.
vk
k+2
result after step i
i + k + 2.
54
By the last line we mean once we are computing the value of the BAF-term, given a certain input, take the result you have
obtained so far after i steps. A binary operation coded by the third component acts on the two other components, taking the
first one as the leftmost. If the operation is unary, it works only on the first element.
The sequence (a1 , a2 , . . . , as ) with length s will be coded by (a, b, s). As the only extra information needed is the arity k, a
BAF-term is completely determined by (a, b, s, k). Using the translation explained above, the statement (a, b, s, k) determines a
BAF-term (shortly, (a, b, s, k) BAF) is equivalent to
i ef g
(i < s
(rem(a, b(i + 1) + 1) = e + e2 f 2 + e3 f 3 g 3
g<5
0<e e<i+k+3
0 < f f < i + k + 3))
for every element ai+1 in the sequence,

ai+1 codes a triple (e, f, g)
five possible operations
e codes the first input
f codes the second input
Full translation yields:

i ef g hjlmnop
(s + h i) ((e + e2 f 2 + e3 f 3 g 3 + h bi b)2 + (bij + bj + j a + e + e2 f 2 + e3 f 3 g 3 )2 + (g + l 4)2 + (m + 1 e)2 + (e + n i k 2)2 +
+(o + 1 f )2 + (f + p i k 2)2 ) = 0
Suppose a BAF-term t coded by (a, b, s, k) is given, as well as a k-tuple (x1 , . . . , xk ) of natural numbers and a natural number
w. Let f be the basic function related to t. We would like to express that w is the value of f acting on (x1 , . . . , xk ), i.e. w is the
value of t when we substitute the variables vi by the numbers xi for i = 1, . . . , k. Let (x, y) code the input (x1 , . . . , xk ). With
this setup the statement f (x1 , . . . , xk ) = w is equivalent to
cd i ef g hjl
(h = rem(c, d(i + 1) + 1)
i=0h=0
i=1h=1
(1 < i i < k + 2) h = rem(x, y(i 1) + 1)
(k + 2 i i < k + 2 + s)
(e + e2 f 2 + e3 f 3 g 3 = rem(a, b(i k 1) + 1)
k = rem(c, de + 1)
l = rem(c, df + 1)
((g = 0 h = k + l)
.
(g = 1 h = k l)
(g = 2 h = kl)
(g = 3 h = 2k )
(g = 4 h = log(k))
i=k+1+sh=w
(c, d) codes the computation

h is the value computed after the ith step
put/upload 0 as first element of the computation
put/upload 1 as second element of the computation
put/upload all input values xi
the ith step of the actual program
the ith triple of the program is coded by (e, f, g, )
k is the value computed after the eth step
l is the value computed after the f th step
0 codes addition
1 codes truncated subtraction
2 codes multiplication
3 codes exponentiation
4 codes logarithm
w is the value computed after the last step
If we extend our language with the function symbols , exp and log, then we obtain the following statement, equivalent to
f (x1 , . . . , xk ) = w, where f is a basic function related to a BAF-term determined by (a, b, s, k). Recall that the input (x1 , . . . , xk )
is coded by (x, y).
cd i ef g hjl mnopqrtuvz AB
[(hmdid)2 +(din+dn+nc+h)2 +(o+1i)2 h2 +((i1)2 p1)2 (h1)2 +(i+q 1)2 (k +2+q i)2 ((h+q yi+y)2 +
+(yir yr +r +x+h)2 )2 +(i+tk 2)2 (k +2+s+ti)2 ((e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 +tbi+bk +b)2 +(biubkubu+ua+e+e2 f 2 +
.
+e3 f 3 g 3 )2 +(k+vde)2 +(dez+zc+k)2 +(l+Adf )2 +(df B+Bc+l)2 +(g 2 +(hkl)2 )2 ((g1)2 +(h(k l))2 )2 ((g2)2 +
+(h kl)2 )2 ((g 3)2 + (h 2k )2 )2 ((g 4)2 + (h log(k))2 )2 + ((k + 1 + s i)2 C 1)2 (h w)2 ] = 0.
.
As shown above, we can translate h = k l, h = 2k and h = log(k), in order to get a prefixed polynomial equation in our
original language. Once again we use the plug and play versions. These final substitutions yield the following prefixed polynoimal
equation (a, b, s, k, x, y, w), with free variables a, b, s, k, x, y, w, which we show in bold:
cd i ef g hjl mnopqrtuvz ABC D EF G HI JK LM N O P Q RS
[(hmdid)2 +(din+dn+nc+h)2 +(o+1i)2 h2 +((i1)2 p1)2 (h1)2 +(i+q 1)2 (k+2+q i)2 ((h+q yi+y)2 +
+(yir yr +r +x+h)2 )2 +(i+tk2)2 (k+2+s+ti)2 ((e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 +tbi+bk+b)2 +(k+v de)2 +(dez +z c+k)2 +
+(biubkubu+ua+e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 )2 +(l+Adf )2 +(df B+Bc+l)2 +(g 2 +(hkl)2 )2 ((g1)2 +(k+E+1l)2 (hk+l)2 +
+(l+F k)2 h2 )2 ((g2)2 +(hkl)2 )((g3)2 +(1+J F )2 +(F K +K E +1)2 +(h+LF kF )2 +(F kM +F M +M E +h)2 +
+(k + N + 1 G)2 ((H + N F G)2 + (F GO + O E + H)2 + (I + P F G F )2 + (F GQ + F Q + Q E + I)2 + (I 2H)2 )2 )2
((g 4)2 + ((k2 + h2 ) (((1 + J F )2 + (F K + K E + 1)2 + (D + L F y F )2 + (F hM + F M + M E + D)2 + (h + N + 1 i)2
((H + N F G)2 + (F GO + O E + H)2 + (I + P F G F )2 + (F GQ + F Q + Q E + I)2 + (I 2H)2 )2 )2 + (D + R x)2 +
55
+(k + S + 1 2D)2 ))2 )2 + ((k + 1 + s i)2 C 1)2 (h w)2 ] = 0.

Remark that while translating h = log(k), we reused all variables needed to express h = 2k .
Theorem
For any a, b, s, k, x, y, w, the BAF-term coded by a, b, s, k, on input coded by x, y assumes the value w if and only if
(a, b, s, k, x, y, w).
Similar to the previous case, we also want to be able to express the negation of . Once again brute force would imply that we
write down the exact negation of the prefixed polynomial equation above. This approach would be possible, but it suffices to
claim that the final value of the computation of f (x1 , . . . , xk ) does not equal w. Having this remark in mind, we obtain:
cd i ef g hjl mnopqrtuvz ABC D EF G HI JK LM N O P Q RS T
2
[(hmdid) +(din+dn+nc+h)2 +(o+1i)2 h2 +((i1)2 p1)2 (h1)2 +(i+q 1)2 (k+2+q i)2 ((h+q yi+y)2 +
+(k + S + 1 2D)2 ))2 )2 + ((k + 1 + s i)2 C 1)2 ((h w)2 T 1)2 ] = 0.
As we will use the last two prefixed polynomials equations quite often in the next section, we introduce a short notation for
them as follows. First, let QQuantif iers(
x, T ) be the block of quantifiers above, where x
covers all variables, apart from T , i.e.
QQuantif iers(
x, T ) = cd i ef g hjl mnopqrtuvz ABC D EF G HI JK LM N O P Q RS T.
Next, let
Q(x, T, a, b, s, k, x, y, w) be the following polynomial:

Q(x, T, a, b, s, k, x, y, w) =
2
(hmdid) +(din+dn+nc+h) +(o+1i)2 h2 +((i1)2 p1)2 (h1)2 +(i+q 1)2 (k+2+q i)2 ((h+q yi+y)2 +
+(k + S + 1 2D)2 ))2 )2 + ((k + 1 + s i)2 C 1)2 ((h w)2 T )2 .
Recall that x
covers all variables occurring in QQuantif iers(
x, T ), apart from T . This polynomial differs from the polynomial in
(a, b, s, k, x, y, w) by only one term at the very end of the expression. This is a switch that we introduce so that this polynomial
Q(x, Y, a, b, s, k, x, y, w) covers both (a, b, s, k, x, y, w) and the opposite of (a, b, s, k, x, y, w), as specified below. These two
definitions enable us to state two important equivalences. The first one says that for any a, b, s, k, x, y, w, the BAF-term coded by
a, b, s, k, on input coded by x, y does not assume the value w if and only if QQuantif iers(
x, T )[Q(x
, T +1, a, b, s, k, x, y, w) = 0].
The second equivalence is
x, T )[Q(x
, 0, a, b, s, k, x, y, w) = 0].
A paragraph will be here, with explanations that we actually realised a programming language for computing BAF-terms by a
polynomial.
Explanations about all programming languages (there is no difference: this set-up gives you all languages, including Turingcomplete languages.)
56
Friedmans Proposition E: intermediate expression

If x
is a k-tuple (x1 , . . . , xk ) of natural numbers, then |
x| = max{x1 , . . . , xk }. The following statement is a variation of Friedmans
Proposition E (see [7]):
For all f, g BAF such that there exist a, b, c, d > 1 with a|
x| f (
x) b|
x|
and c|
y | g(
y ) d|
y | for all but finitely many x
and y,
there exist recursive enumerable A B C N,
each containing infinitely many powers of 2, such that
f A B gB
f B C gC
B gB =
C gC = .
As expected, f A stands for the image under f of all k-tuples composed by elements of A, where f has arity k (similarly for f B,
gB and gC). We will call this statement Proposition E[r.e.], as it is closely related to Proposition E, but uses recursive enumerable
(r.e.) sets. Friedman also deals with another variation using sets with primitive recursive enumeration functions (see Proposition
E[prim], in [7]). Both Proposition E and Proposition E[prim] are shown to be ACA00 -equivalent to 1-Con(ZFC + {n-Mahlo}n )
(see section 6.1 in [7]). Remark that the definition of BAF has been given in the previous section. Since we are dealing with
BAF-terms, we will again represent a function by a 4-tuple. In particular, (a, b, c, d) and (e, f, g, h) wil code f and g, respectively.
We introduce another function coded by (t, u, v, w) to deal with f and g at the same time. The infinite, recursive enumerable sets
A, B and C will be coded by 4-tuples representing polynomials. In this way, their elements are values of these polynomials. We
introduce two sets M and Q, coded by (M, N, O, P ) and (Q, R, S, T ), to deal with. The intermediate state of the translation of
Proposition E[r.e.] is:
abcd ef gh tuvw
(a, b, c, d) codes f , (e, f, g, h) codes g
[ klm xy z nopq i r
(((t = a u = b v = c w = d)
(t, u, v, w) = (a, b, c, d)
(t = e u = f v = g w = h))
(t, u, v, w) = (e, f, g, h)
((t, u, v, w) BAF
(t, u, v, w) determines a BAF-term
(t, u, v, w, x, y, z)
z is the value of (t, u, v, w) in x
n = rem(x, y(p + 1) + 1) p < w
n = xp+1
o = rem(x, y(q + 1) + 1) q < w
o = xq+1
r = rem(x, y(i + 1) + 1)
r = xi+1
(i < w (r n r o))
n = max{x1 , . . . , xw } and o = min{x1 , . . . , xw }
(n > m kn z ln)
(t, u, v, w) ELG
n z))]
(t, u, v, w) SD
[ ABCD EF GH IJKL
(A, B, C, D) codes A, (E, F, G, H) codes B, (I, J, K, L) codes C
M N OP QRST U i X
(M, N, O, P ) codes M, (Q, R, S, T ) codes Q
V W Z j kl
((M = A N = B O = C P = D
M=A
Q = E R = F S = G T = H)
Q=B
(M = E N = F O = G P = H
M=B
Q = I R = J S = K T = L))
Q=C
((2V = W W > i
(M, N, O, P, , , W )
W M
(((e, f, g, h, , , U )
U is the value of g(1 , . . . , h ), so U gQ
rem(, (i + 1) + 1) = Z
(i < h (Q, R, S, T, , , Z))
the elements coded by (, ) are element of Q
(Q, R, S, T, , , X))
XQ
U 6= X)
Q gQ =
(((a, b, c, d, , , U )
U is the value of f (1 , . . . , d ), so U f M
rem(, (i + 1) + 1) =
(i < d (M, N, O, P, , , )))
the elements coded by (, ) are element of M
((Q, R, S, T, , , )
MQ
((Q, R, S, T, , , U )
U Q
((e, f, g, h, , , U )
U is the value of g(1 , . . . , h ), so U gQ
rem(, (j + 1) + 1) =
(j < h (Q, R, S, T, , , ))))
the elements coded by (, ) are element of Q
))))]
Theorem
57
Let P and Q the two polynomials and P Quantif iers(
x, Y ) and QQuantif iers(
x, T ) be the sequences of quantifiers be defined
in the previous sections.
Now, let E be the following polynomial expression:
QQuantif iers(
x, x0 ) P Quantif iers(
y , y0 ) QQuantif iers(
z , z0 ) P Quantif iers(
r , r0 ) QQuantif iers(
s, s0 )
P Quantif iers(t, t0 ) P Quantif iers(
u, u0 ) QQuantif iers(
v , v0 ) QQuantif iers(w,
w0 ) QQuantif iers(
q , q0 )
((uY +u+t++ 2 2 + 3 3 3 )2 1)2 (5+)2 2 (Y +w+3+)2 2 (Y +w+3+)2 (nypy1)2
2
(Q(x
, x0 , t, u, v, w, x, y, z )) ((yp+y+x+n)2 1)2 (oyq y 1)2 ((yq+y+x+o)2 1)2 (w+p)2
(w+q)2 (ryiy1)2 ((yi+y+x+r)2 1)2 ((i+1w)2 +(n++1r)2 (r++1o)2 )((m++1n)2 +
+(z ++1kn)2 (ln++1z)2 )(z ++1n)2 ][((((M A)2 1)((N B)2 1)((O C)2 1)((P D)2 1)
((QE)2 1)((RF )2 1)((S G)2 1)((T H)2 1))2 +(((M E)2 1)((N F )2 1)((OG)2 1)
((P H)2 1)((QI)2 1)((RJ)2 1)((S K)2 1)((T L)2 1))2 )((1+e1 b1 )2 +(b1 f1 +f1 a1 +1)2 +
+(W + g1 b1 V b1 )2 + (b1 V h1 + b1 h1 + h1 a1 + W )2 + ((V + k1 + 1 i1 ) ((c1 + k1 b1 i1 )2 + (b1 i1 n1 + b1 n1 + n1 a1 + d1 )2 +
2
+(b1 i1 l1 + l1 a1 + c1 )2 + (d1 + m1 b1 i1 b1 )2 + (d1 2c1 )2 ))2 + (j + + 1 W )2 + ((P(y, 0, M, N, O, P, , , W )) +

2
+((Zj1)((j+++Z)2 1)Q(z, z0 , e, f, g, h, , , U )((j+1+h)2 +((P(r, r0 , Q, R, S, T, , , Z )) )

((U X)2 1))2 + (Q(s, s0 , a, b, c, d, , , U ) ( j 1 a4 ) ((j + + + )2 a4 1) (((j + a4 + 1 d)2 +
2
+(P(t, t0 , M, N, O, P, , , )) ) (((P(u
, 0, Q, R, S, T, , , )) + (P(v, 0, Q, R, S, T, , , U ) (((sa2 + a2 + a2 + )2 +
2
+(Q(w,
0, e, f, g, h, , , U )) + (h + a3 s)2 ((P(q, 0, Q, R, S, T, , , )) + ( + a4 s )2 )))2 )] = 0.
The statement E is EFA-equivalent to Proposition E[r.e.] and hence is ACA0 -equivalent to
Proposition E expanded into an explicit polynomial

The polynomial equation E above is far from optimal, and the polynomials P and Q which we plug there are far from optimal,
so perhaps it is too early to open the brackets.
However, we couldnt resist the temptation, so we opened all brackets and wrote the following polynomial expression. This is the
first time that a polynomial expression of the strength of ZFC + Mahlo cardinals has been witten down.
Now we substitute P and Q by the actual polynomials. Let be the following prefixed polynomial equation:

s3 t3 u3 v3 i3 e3 f3 g3 q3 r3 h3 j3 k3 l3 m3 n3 o3 p3 A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 G3 H3 I3 J3 M3 N3 O3 P3 Q3 R3 S3 T3 U3 V3 W3 X3
58
c d i e f g h j l m n o p q r t u v z A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T
((uY +u+t++ 2 2 + 3 3 3 )2 1)2 (5+)2 2 (Y +w+3+)2 2 (Y +w+3+)2 (nypy1)2
(((h2 m2 d2 i2 d2 )2 +(d2 i2 n2 +d2 n2 +n2 c2 +h2 )2 +(o2 +1i2 )2 h22 +((i2 1)2 p2 1)2 (h2 1)2 +(i2 +q2 1)2 (w+2+q2 i2 )2
((h2 +q2 yi2 +y)2 +(yi2 r2 yr2 +r2 +x+h2 )2 )2 +(i2 +t2 w2)2 (w+2+v+t2 i2 )2 ((e2 +e22 f22 +e32 f23 g23 +t2 ui2 +uw+u)2 +
+(w + v2 d2 e2 )2 + (d2 e2 z2 + z2 c2 + w)2 + (ui2 u2 uwu2 uu2 + u2 t + e2 + e22 f22 + e32 f23 g23 )2 + (d2 f2 B2 + B2 c2 + l2 )2 +
+(l2 +A2 d2 f2 )2 +(g22 +(h2 wl2 )2 )2 ((g2 1)2 +(w+E2 +1l2 )2 (h2 w+l2 )2 +(l2 +F2 w)2 h22 )2 ((g2 2)2 +(h2 wl2 )2 )
((g2 3)2 +(1+J2 F2 )2 +(F2 K2 +K2 E2 +1)2 +(h2 +L2 F2 w F2 )2 +(F2 wM2 +F2 M2 +M2 E2 +h2 )2 +(w +N2 +1G2 )2
((g2 4)2 + ((w2 + h22 ) (((1 + J2 F2 )2 + (F2 K2 + K2 E2 + 1)2 + (D2 + L2 F2 y F2 )2 + (F2 h2 M2 + F2 M2 + M2 E2 + D2 )2 +
+(I2 2H2 )2 )2 )2 +(D2 +R2 x)2 +(w+S2 +12D2 )2 ))2 )2 +((w+1+vi2 )2 C2 1)2 ((h2 z)2 T2 1)2 ))2 (oyqy1)2
((yp + y + x + n)2 1)2 ((yq + y + x + o)2 1)2 (w + p)2 (w + q)2 ((yi + y + x + r)2 1)2
(ryiy1)2 ((i+1w)2 +(n++1r)2 (r++1o)2 )((m++1n)2 +(z++1kn)2 (ln++1z)2 )(z++1n)2 ]
[((((M A)2 1)((N B)2 1)((OC)2 1)((P D)2 1)((QE)2 1)((RF )2 1)((S G)2 1)
((T H)2 1))2 +(((M E)2 1)((N F )2 1)((OG)2 1)((P H)2 1)((QI)2 1)((RJ)2 1)
((S K)2 1)((T L)2 1))2 )((1+e1 b1 )2 +(b1 f1 +f1 a1 +1)2 +(W +g1 b1 V b1 )2 +(b1 V h1 +b1 h1 +h1 a1 +W )2 +
+((V +k1 +1i1 )((c1 +k1 b1 i1 )2 +(b1 i1 n1 +b1 n1 +n1 a1 +d1 )2 +(b1 i1 l1 +l1 a1 +c1 )2 +(d1 +m1 b1 i1 b1 )2 +(d1 2c1 )2 ))2 +
+(j++1W )2 +(i3 (O+A3 +1i3 )j3 (g3 +A3 j3 )((e3 +e23 f32 +e33 f33 g33 +A3 N i3 )2 +(N i3 B3 +B3 M +e3 +e23 f32 +e33 f33 g33 )2 +
+(t3 i3 S3 +S3 s3 +o3 )2 +(p3 +T3 t3 i3 +t3 )2 +(t3 i3 U3 t3 U3 +U3 s3 +p3 )2 +((i3 1)2 +h23 )2 ((2+V3 i3 )2 +(i3 +W3 P )2 +
+(o3 p3 h3 )2 )2 ((P + V3 + 1 i3 )2 + (o3 p3 + h3 )2 )2 + ((i3 O)2 X3 1)2 (o3 W )2 ))2 + (((j + + + Z)2 1)
(Z j 1 ) (((h4 m4 d4 i4 d4 )2 + (d4 i4 n4 + d4 n4 + n4 c4 + h4 )2 + (o4 + 1 i4 )2 h24 + ((i4 1)2 p4 1)2 (h4 1)2 +
+(i4 + q4 1)2 (h + 2 + q4 i4 )2 ((h4 + q4 i4 + )2 + (i4 r4 r4 + r4 + + h4 )2 )2 + (i4 + t4 h 2)2 (h + 2 + g + t4 i4 )2
((e4 +e24 f42 +e34 f43 g43 +t4 f i4 +f h+f )2 +(h+v4 d4 e4 )2 +(d4 e4 z4 +z4 c4 +h)2 +(f i4 u4 f hu4 f u4 +u4 e+e4 +e24 f42 +e34 f43 g43 )2 +
+(l4 +A4 d4 f4 )2 +(d4 f4 B4 +B4 c4 +l4 )2 +(g42 +(h4 hl4 )2 )2 ((g4 1)2 +(h+E4 +1l4 )2 (h4 h+l4 )2 +(l4 +F4 h)2 h24 )2
((g4 2)2 +(h4 hl4 )2 )((g4 3)2 +(1+J4 F4 )2 +(F4 K4 +K4 E4 +1)2 +(h4 +L4 F4 hF4 )2 +(F4 hM4 +F4 M4 +M4 E4 +h4 )2 +
+(h+N4 +1G4 )2 ((H4 +N4 F4 G4 )2 +(F4 G4 O4 +O4 E4 +H4 )2 +(I4 +P4 F4 G4 F4 )2 +(F4 G4 Q4 +F4 Q4 +Q4 E4 +I4 )2 +
+(I4 2H4 )2 )2 )2 ((g4 4)2 + ((h2 + h24 ) (((1 + J4 F4 )2 + (F4 K4 + K4 E4 + 1)2 + (F4 h4 M4 + F4 M4 + M4 E4 + D4 )2 +
+(D4 +L4 F4 F4 )2 +(h4 +N4 +1i4 )2 ((H4 +N4 F4 G4 )2 +(F4 G4 O4 +O4 E4 +H4 )2 +(F4 G4 Q4 +F4 Q4 +Q4 E4 +I4 )2 +
+(I4 +P4 F4 G4 F4 )2 +(I4 2H4 )2 )2 )2 +(D4 +R4 )2 +(h+S4 +12D4 )2 ))2 )2 +((h+1+gi4 )2 C4 1)2 ((h4 U )2 T4 1)2 ))
((j +1+h)2 +(i5 (S +A5 +1i5 )j5 (g5 +A5 j5 )((e5 +e25 f52 +e35 f53 g53 +A5 Ri5 )2 +(Ri5 B5 +B5 Q+e5 +e25 f52 +e35 f53 g53 )2 +
+(o5 p5 h5 )2 )2 ((T + V5 + 1 i5 )2 + (o5 p5 + h5 )2 )2 + ((i5 S)2 X5 1)2 ((o5 Z)2 Y5 1)2 )) ((U X)2 1))2 +
+((((h6 m6 d6 i6 d6 )2 + (d6 i6 n6 + d6 n6 + n6 c6 + h6 )2 + (o6 + 1 i6 )2 h26 + ((i6 1)2 p6 1)2 (h6 1)2 + (i6 + q6 1)2
59
(d + 2 + q6 i6 )2 ((h6 + q6 i6 + )2 + (i6 r6 r6 + r6 + + h6 )2 )2 + (i6 + t6 d 2)2 (d + 2 + c + t6 i6 )2 ((d + v6 d6 e6 )2 +

+(e6 +e26 f62 +e36 f63 g63 +t6 bi6 +bd+b)2 +(d6 e6 z6 +z6 c6 +d)2 +(bi6 u6 bdu6 bu6 +u6 a+e6 +e26 f62 +e36 f63 g63 )2 +(l6 +A6 d6 f6 )2 +
+(d6 f6 B6 +B6 c6 +l6 )2 +(g62 +(h6 dl6 )2 )2 ((g6 1)2 +(d+E6 +1l6 )2 (h6 d+l6 )2 +(l6 +F6 d)2 h26 )2 ((g6 2)2 +(h6 dl6 )2 )
((g6 3)2 +(1+J6 F6 )2 +(F6 K6 +K6 E6 +1)2 +(h6 +L6 F6 dF6 )2 +(F6 dM6 +F6 M6 +M6 E6 +h6 )2 +(d+N6 +1G6 )2
((g6 4)2 + ((d2 + h26 ) (((1 + J6 F6 )2 + (F6 K6 + K6 E6 + 1)2 + (D6 + L6 F6 F6 )2 + (F6 h6 M6 + F6 M6 + M6 E6 + D6 )2 +
+(I6 2H6 )2 )2 )2 +(D6 +R6 )2 +(d+S6 +12D6 )2 ))2 )2 +((d+1+ci6 )2 C6 1)2 ((h6 U )2 T6 1)2 ))(j 1a4 )
((j + + + )2 a4 1) ((i7 (O + A7 + 1 i7 ) j7 (g7 + A7 j7 ) ((e7 + e27 f72 + e37 f73 g73 + A7 N i7 )2 + (h7 + C7 v7 i7 )2 +
+(N i7 B7 +B7 M +e7 +e27 f72 +e37 f73 g73 )2 +(v7 i7 D7 +D7 u7 +h7 )2 +(k7 +E7 r7 j7 )2 +(r7 j7 F7 +F7 q7 +k7 )2 +(l7 +G7 r7 j7 r7 )2 +
+(r7 j7 H7 + r7 H7 + H7 q7 + l7 )2 + (m7 + I7 f7 j7 f7 )2 + (f7 j7 J7 + f7 J7 + J7 e7 + m7 )2 + (m7 N7 + N7 + N7 + n7 )2 +
+(n7 + M7 m7 )2 + (l7 k7 n7 )2 + ((j7 1)2 O7 1)2 ((k7 + O7 f7 )2 + (f7 P7 + P7 e7 + k7 )2 )2 + ((j7 g7 + 1)2 Q7 1)2
(l7 h7 )2 + (o7 + R7 t7 i7 )2 + (t7 i7 S7 + S7 s7 + o7 )2 + (p7 + T7 t7 i7 + t7 )2 + (t7 i7 U7 t7 U7 + U7 s7 + p7 )2 + ((i7 1)2 + h27 )2
((2+V7 i7 )2 +(i7 +W7 P )2 +(o7 p7 h7 )2 )2 ((P +V7 +1i7 )2 +(o7 p7 +h7 )2 )2 +((i7 O)2 X7 1)2 ((o7 )2 Y7 1)2 )2 +
+(j +a4 +1d)2 )((i8 (S +A8 +1i8 )j8 (g8 +A8 j8 )((e8 +e28 f82 +e38 f83 g83 +A8 Ri8 )2 +(Ri8 B8 +B8 Q+e8 +e28 f82 +e38 f83 g83 )2 +
+(l8 +G8 r8 j8 r8 )2 ++(m8 +I8 f8 j8 f8 )2 +(f8 j8 J8 +f8 J8 +J8 e8 +m8 )2 +(n8 +M8 m8 )2 +(m8 N8 +N8 +N8 +n8 )2 +
+(o8 p8 h8 )2 )2 ((T +V8 +1i8 )2 +(o8 p8 +h8 )2 )2 +((i8 S)2 X8 1)2 (o8 )2 ))2 +((i9 (S +A9 +1i9 )j9 (g9 +A9 j9 )
((e9 + e29 f92 + e39 f93 g93 + A9 Ri9 )2 + (Ri9 B9 + B9 Q + e9 + e29 f92 + e39 f93 g93 )2 + (h9 + C9 v9 i9 )2 + (v9 i9 D9 + D9 u9 + h9 )2 +
+(k9 + E9 r9 j9 )2 + (r9 j9 F9 + F9 q9 + k9 )2 + (l9 + G9 r9 j9 r9 )2 + (r9 j9 H9 + r9 H9 + H9 q9 + l9 )2 + (m9 + I9 f9 j9 f9 )2 +
+(f9 j9 J9 + f9 J9 + J9 e9 + m9 )2 + (n9 + M9 m9 )2 + (m9 N9 + N9 + N9 + n9 )2 + (l9 k9 n9 )2 + ((j9 1)2 O9 1)2
((k9 + O9 f9 )2 + (f9 P9 + P9 e9 + k9 )2 )2 + ((j9 g9 + 1)2 Q9 1)2 (l9 h9 )2 + (o9 + R9 t9 i9 )2 + (t9 i9 S9 + S9 s9 + o9 )2 +
+(p9 + T9 t9 i9 + t9 )2 + (t9 i9 U9 t9 U9 + U9 s9 + p9 )2 + ((i9 1)2 + h29 )2 ((2 + V9 i9 )2 + (i9 + W9 T )2 + (o9 p9 h9 )2 )2
((T +V9 +1i9 )2 +(o9 p9 +h9 )2 )2 +((i9 S)2 X9 1)2 (o9 U )2 ))((((h m d i d )2 +(d i n +d n +n c +h )2 +
+(o +1i )2 h2 +((i 1)2 p 1)2 (h 1)2 +(i +q 1)2 (h+2+q i )2 ((h +q i +)2 +(i r r +r ++h )2 )2 +
+(i + t h 2)2 (h + 2 + g + t i )2 ((e + e2 f2 + e3 f3 g3 + t f i + f h + f )2 + (h + v d e )2 + (d e z + z c + h)2 +
+(f i u f hu f u +u e+e +e2 f2 +e3 f3 g3 )2 +(l +A d f )2 +(d f B +B c +l )2 +(g2 +(h hl )2 )2 ((g 1)2 +
+(h+E +1l )2 (h h+l )2 +(l +F h)2 h2 )2 ((g 2)2 +(h hl )2 )((g 3)2 +(1+J F )2 +(F K +K E +1)2 +
+(h +L F hF )2 +(F hM +F M +M E +h )2 +(h+N +1G )2 ((H +N F G )2 +(F G O +O E +H )2 +
+(I + P F G F )2 + (F G Q + F Q + Q E + I )2 + (I 2H )2 )2 )2 ((g 4)2 + ((h2 + h2 ) (((F K + K E + 1)2 +
+(1 + J F )2 + (D + L F F )2 + (F h M + F M + M E + D )2 + (h + N + 1 i )2 ((F G O + O E + H )2 +
+(H + N F G )2 + (I + P F G F )2 + (F G Q + F Q + Q E + I )2 + (I 2H )2 )2 )2 + (D + R )2 +
+(h + S + 1 2D )2 ))2 )2 + ((h + 1 + g i )2 C 1)2 ((h U )2 T 1)2 ))2 + (sa2 + a2 + a2 + )2 + (h + a3 s)2
(i0 (S +A0 +1i0 )j0 (g0 +A0 j0 )((e0 +e20 f02 +e30 f03 g03 +A0 Ri0 )2 +(Ri0 B0 +B0 Q+e0 +e20 f02 +e30 f03 g03 )2 +(h0 +C0 v0 i0 )2 +
+(v0 i0 D0 + D0 u0 + h0 )2 + (k0 + E0 r0 j0 )2 + (r0 j0 F0 + F0 q0 + k0 )2 + (l0 + G0 r0 j0 r0 )2 + (r0 j0 H0 + r0 H0 + H0 q0 + l0 )2 +
+(m0 + I0 f0 j0 f0 )2 + (f0 j0 J0 + f0 J0 + J0 e0 + m0 )2 + (n0 + M0 m0 )2 + (m0 N0 + N0 + N0 + n0 )2 + (l0 k0 n0 )2 +
+((j0 1)2 O0 1)2 ((k0 + O0 f0 )2 + (f0 P0 + P0 e0 + k0 )2 )2 + ((j0 g0 + 1)2 Q0 1)2 (l0 h0 )2 + (t0 i0 S0 + S0 s0 + o0 )2 +
+(o0 + R0 t0 i0 )2 + (p0 + T0 t0 i0 + t0 )2 + (t0 i0 U0 t0 U0 + U0 s0 + p0 )2 + ((i0 1)2 + h20 )2 ((2 + V0 i0 )2 + (i0 + W0 T )2 +
+(o0 p0 h0 )2 )2 ((T + V0 + 1 i0 )2 + (o0 p0 + h0 )2 )2 + ((i0 S)2 X0 1)2 (o0 )2 ))2 + ( + a4 s )2 )))2 )] = 0.
Theorem
The prefixed polynomial equation is ACA00 -equivalent to
60
An estimate for the size of some future optimised answer

Boolean Relation Theory has a lot of flexibility, so we are planning to fiddle with Proposition E to decrease the number
of appeals to P and Q and re-use these appeals in a couple of places. Also, P and Q will get simplified (especially
with the use of exp and log).
With the current 4 appeals to Q and 6 appeals to P, the size of the answer is approximately 4 |Q| + 6 |P | + 9 lines
(subscripts increased it from 72 to 80 lines above).
We expect to get down to 3 uses of Q and 4 uses of
will be shorter than 3 6 + 4 4 + 9 = 43 lines.
P, so if we also save one line in P and two lines in Q, the answer
In poly-exp-log format, we safely predict an answer that fits in fewer than 3 2 + 4 1 + 3 = 13 lines.
Bibliography
[1] Avigad, J. (2003). Number theory and elementary arithmetic. Philosophia Mathematica, 11, pp. 257 284.
[2] Bovykin, A. (2010). Unprovability threshold for the planar graph minor theorem. Annals of Pure and
Applied Logic, 162 (3), pp. 175 - 181.
[3] Bovykin, A. (2009). Brief introduction to unprovability. Logic Colloquium 2006. Lecture Notes in Logic,
pp. 38 64.
[4] Bovykin, A. (2010). Starting the quest for Arithmetical Splitting. Draft.
[5] Dimitracopoulos, Gaifman (1982?) MDRP theorem can be done in I0 + exp.
[6] Friedman, H., Robertson, N., Seymour, P. (1987). The metamathematics of the graph minor theorem.
Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 65, pp. 229-261.
[7] Friedman, H. (2010). Boolean Relation Theory. An 860-page manuscript.
[8] Jones, J.P. (1978). Three universal representations of recursively enumerable sets. Journal of Symbolic
Logic, 43 (2), pp 335 351.
[9] Jones, J. P. (1980). Undecidable diophantine equations, Bulletin of the Amer. Math. Soc. 3, No. 2,
pp. 859-862.
[10] J.P. Jones, John C. Shepherdson and Verena H. Dyson (1982). Some diophantine forms of Godels Theorem, Archiv fur Math. Logik und Grundlagenforschung 22, pp. 51-60.
[11] Matiyasevich, Yu. (1993). Hilberts Tenth Problem. The MIT Press.
[12] Matthias, A.
[13] Matthias, A. The ignorance of Bourbaki.
[14] Matthias, A. (1998). On the strength of MAC.
[15] Matthias, A. (2011). the new article, in preparation
[16] Mints, G. (1976). What can be done in PRA.
[17] Here will be the reference to Moroz polynomial.
[18] Paris, J., Harrington, L. (1977). A mathematical incompleteness in Peano arithmetic. Handbook for Mathematical Logic, ed. J. Barwise. North-Holland.
[19] Pearce, K. (2010). MSci project. Bristol University.
[20] J. Robinson: the theorem about rational numbers.
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY
62
[21] Shelah, S. (1988). Primitive recursive bounds for van der Waerden numbers. Journal of the American
Mathematical Society, 3, 683-697.
[22] Shelah, S. (1985). On logical sentences in PA. Logic Colloquium 1982.
[23] A reference for Friedmans result on Kruskal Theorem strength. Rick Smith article?
[24] Todorcevic, S. (2005). High-dimensional Ramsey theory and Banach space geometry. In the book with
Argyros Ramsey Methods in Analysis.
[25] Weiermann, A.(2003). An application of graphical enumeration to PA. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 68 (1),
pp. 5-16.
[26] Weiermann, A. (2005). Analytic combinatorics, proof-theoretic ordinals, and phase transitions for independence results. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 136, pp. 189-218.

Studying the Atlas of all possible polynomial equations with quantifier-prefixes

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Studying the Atlas of all possible polynomial equations with quantifier-prefixes

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Studying the Atlas of all possible

polynomial equations with quantifier-prefixes

Andrey Bovykin and Michiel De Smet

on this picture, we emphasise the partial ordering by strength

Andrey Bovykin: indiscernibles@googlemail.com

Results and discussion

2 First three examples to guide us

3 Going beyond predicative mathematics is not that difficult after all

5 Universality and hopping between equivalence

6 Polynomials for Nash-Williams theory and Banach spaces

8 Polynomial expressions that cant be tackled by ZFC and stronger theories

11 What use could a fragment of the Atlas be

12 How to build a fragment of the Atlas

13 Incomparable consistency strengths

14 Finding unusual equivalence classes (like 2-Con(NF))

Results and discussion

Five main definitions

Three possible polynomial templates: over N, Z, Q

On the choice of our background theory EFA

Ideas evolved for a century

Two early attempts: set theories and type theories

minimising Comprehension, and producing a transfinite hierarchy by iterating set-generation according to

What is left of type-theoretic approaches today

First-order, second-order, third-order language of arithmetic

Shouldnt we choose a very strong theory?

Example of Ramsey Theorem and the Hales-Jewett theorem

Shouldnt we choose a very weak theory?

Why this study is now possible

The language of logic (an extra explanation for non-logicians)

Examples of equivalence classes and why we care

How to imagine the Atlas

First three examples to guide us

Unprovability by primitive recursive means

Here is a first element we come up with.

CHAPTER 2. FIRST THREE EXAMPLES TO GUIDE US

Unprovability in two-quantifier-induction arithmetic

m N ab cd A X xyz uvw BCDGH f ghijklnpqrst F G

Unprovability in full Peano Arithmetic

CHAPTER 2. FIRST THREE EXAMPLES TO GUIDE US

Going beyond predicative mathematics

A coarse polynomial expression equivalent to the Finite Kruskal

This polynomial has size 648. It has 66 variables.

A phase transition polynomial between EFA-provability and

[(((i) 1)(() 1))2 +(((j)2 1)(()2 1))2 ][(2 +2 )((1+)2 +(++1)2 +

Theorem 7. There exists a real number w such that:

w then I0 + exp proves A(m, n);

> w then ATR0 does not prove A(m, n).

Graph Minor Theorem

Consider the following polynomial expression GM with a quantifier-prefix:

This rough polynomial expression has size 1067.

Phase transition polynomial equivalent to the planar graph minor threshold

Will be added here.

Pell equation as a rudimentary example

Universality and hopping between

Jones 1978 theorem

Polynomials for Nash-Williams theory

Galvins Lemma and Nash-Williams Theorem

Values of polynomials and BAF-terms

We will represent a polynomial by a four-tuple of numbers a, b, c, d, where a, b, c code, by Godel-coding, a

CHAPTER 7. VALUES OF POLYNOMIALS AND BAF-TERMS

P(x, Y, a, b, c, d, x, y, w) be the following polynomial:

i(c+A+1i)j(g+Aj)((e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 +Abi)2 +(biB+Ba+e+e2 f 2 +e3 f 3 g 3 )2 +(h+C vi)2 +(k+Erj)2 +

In this sense knows values of all polynomials on all inputs.