3 ms·
> I think I already excluded cases like (4) by stating that the checker operates on "arithmetical statement[s]". It's at least a bit vague, I think you need so
by Tainnor 4y ago
> I think I already excluded cases like (4) by stating that the checker operates on "arithmetical statement[s]".
It's at least a bit vague, I think you need something that is at least as strong as Robinson arithmetic. In particular, I believe that if you throw out multiplication (or addition, and keep multiplication), you get a complete theory.