English

On a Question of Hamkins'

Logic 2026-03-09 v2

Abstract

Joel Hamkins asks whether there is a Π10\Pi^0_1-formula ρ(x)\rho(x) such that ρ(ϕ)\rho({\ulcorner \phi \urcorner}) is independent over PA+ϕ{\sf PA}+\phi, if this theory is consistent, where this construction is extensional in ϕ\phi 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 Π10\Pi^0_1-formula ρ(x)\rho(x) that is extensional and Π10\Pi^0_1-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This preprint has been superseded by preprint ArXiv:2506.13524, Extensional Independence, by Taishi Kurahashi and Albert Visser

R2 v1 2026-06-28T21:42:48.627Z