On a Question of Hamkins'
Abstract
Joel Hamkins asks whether there is a -formula such that is independent over , if this theory is consistent, where this construction is extensional in with respect to {\sf PA}-provable equivalence. We show that there can be no such extensional Rosser formula of any complexity. We give a positive answer to Hamkins' question for the case where we replace Extensionality by a weaker demand that we call \emph{Conditional Extensionality}. For this case, we prove an even stronger result, to wit, there is a -formula that is extensional and -flexible. We leave one important question open: what happens when we weaken Extensionality to Consistent Extensionality, i.e., Extensionality for consistent extensions?
Cite
@article{arxiv.2502.09109,
title = {On a Question of Hamkins'},
author = {Albert Visser},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09109},
year = {2026}
}
Comments
This preprint has been superseded by preprint ArXiv:2506.13524, Extensional Independence, by Taishi Kurahashi and Albert Visser