Thursday, 23 June 2022

Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (in progress)

 Why statistical mechanics works for classical physics and why it should not work for quantum physics

Source: Wikipedia

The assumption of statistical physics in a many body (10^23 particles) isolated classical system with given fixed energy is that every micro-state is equally probable. Why should this be the case? Because a system with 10^23 particles is highly likely to be chaotic. And a chaotic system will in general spend equal time in equal areas of its phase space. Hence, the expectation value of an observable will be the average of the expectation value corresponding to each of the micro-state.
$$\bar{A}_{\mathrm{classical}} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N A_i$$
But in the quantum case, there appears to be a problem. Even for a many body quantum system, if we go in the energy eigenbasis, then time evolution of the state just rotates the phases in the energy eigenbasis. That is, if the system is prepared an eigenstate, it will stay there.
Hence, long time expectation value of a general observable depends upon the initial state of the system. This does NOT happen in the classical case. See the following calculation.
$$|\psi(0)\rangle=\sum _\alpha c_\alpha |E_\alpha \rangle$$
$$\langle \hat{A}  \rangle_t \equiv \langle \Psi(t) | \hat{A} |\Psi(t) \rangle = \sum_{\alpha, \beta} c_{\alpha}^{*} c_{\beta} A_{\alpha \beta} e^{-i \left ( E_{\beta} - E_{\alpha} \right )t / \hbar }$$
The time average is then,
$$\langle \hat{A}  \rangle_t \overset{t\to\infty}{\approx} \sum_{\alpha} \vert c_{\alpha}\vert^2 A_{\alpha \alpha}$$
This is surprising because on one hand, the expectation value of general observable depends on the initial state of the system and on the other hand, we intuitively know that a sub system of this many body state is going to thermalize in finite time for a large class of initial state, and hence so will thermalize the expectation values of the local operators on this subsystem.
How to resolve this paradox?

Monday, 24 May 2021

 Cognitive Biases for Scientists (in progress)

We all suffer with Cognitive Biases. What is Cognitive Bias? One typical example is how we stick to and defend an information that we received earlier in life, no matter what it may be. Therefore, we have people born in a religious environment incapable of seeing the illogicality of their faith, and under adequate provocation, also ready to kill or get killed for their faith.
Such cognitive bias can prove fatal for a scientist. A scientist is in search of truth. Cognitive biases will make them fool themselves into believing something that is actually not true. But nature cannot be fooled, and the said scientist would waste all of their exsistence because of cognitive biases. We want to avoid that.
Why is Cognitive Biases a matter for absolute concern for a scientist, more so than a common person. I mean, the opposite can be argued. Science is a deductive discipline, a logical framework with rigour and objectivity? What room for subjectivity and let alone a Cognitive Bias is for a scientist? A scientist should be least worried about cognitive biases than common people!
If only this picture I have painted was true. The argument can be summarized in a single quote.

“It is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover.”


― Henri Poincaré

And when intuition is at play, congnitive biases follow. Hence the necessity to guard oneself from being fooled by one's own mind. Because, as Feynman said, "you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.".

Before we dive into a list of cognitive biases, it is important to note that there does not exist an exhaustive list of cogitive biases, in the same way as there does not exist an exhaustive list of nutritients required for a human being. Scientists know about a certain number of nutrients, but they might not know about many other ones. Moreover, we as human beings are not static machines. We are evolving. We do not have a strict list of prescriptions of nutrients. The body dynamically reacts to chemicals that it is exposed to, and this reaction also evolves through time.

What I am trying to say that, be watchful for cognitive lapses that perhaps nobody has heard of. How will you do that. Stay intellectually honest. Don't fool your own self.

Tuesday, 18 May 2021

Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete ?

 The Podolsk's argument

Consider a pair of particles, A and B, having entangled positions and momentum, separated by a distance. We can hence determine either the position or momentum of B by measuring the corresponding quantity of A. But note that in doing so, we could NOT have disturbed B whatsoever, because of special relativity.

Since the value of position or momentum of B can be determined without disturbing it, a concept of reality can be associated with these physical quantities. But quantum mechanics denies to attribute a definite position AND momentum to the particles prior to their measurement, and also claims that both these quantities do not coexist to arbitrary precision. Hence Quantum mechanics must be incomplete.

Bohr's reply to  The Podolsk's argument

Position and momentum are complementary quantities, and determining one destroys anything that can be said about the other. That is, these measurements are NOT non disturbing. Measuring the position of A DOES disturb B. There is a nonlocal influence in a way that no superluminal signaling is still valid.

Einstein's argument

The choice of measuring the position OR momentum of A collapses the wavefunction of B. But locality demands that such influence should not be possible. Hence, wavefunction is not true description of the 'real' state of the system, because it is not possible to influence the 'real' state of a system nonlocally.

My take

By measuring one of the EPR pair, we do end up disturbing the other particle. Nonlocal influences exist in quantum mechanics. These influences are such that a useful superluminal signal cannot be sent. Hence, measuring position of A instantaneously disturbs the state of B (in A's rest frame) in the same manner as measuring the position of B would disturb the state of B. Hence the reality claim based on non disturbance is invalid.

Einstein is wrong because when choice of measurement on particle A steers particle B's state, such superluminal influence does not transfer any information. Hence special relativity is not violated.

Einstein believed that the real state of a particle cannot be influenced by choices made at a distance. Hence wavefunction cannot be in one-to-one correspondence with the real states.

If by real state he meant all the information that can be extracted from the system, then this cannot indeed be influenced by the choices made at a distance. BUT, wavefunction gives a probabilistic description of a system, and hence can be disturbed from a distance without revealing superluminal information.

The superluminal signals are censored, inaccessible.

Monday, 12 April 2021

C* algebra

 algebra is a vector space V over a field F with a multiplication. The multiplication must be distributive and, for every f in F and x,y in V must satisfy

f(xy)=(fx)y=x(fy).

Note- by multiplication defined on teh evector space, we mean multiplication of two vectors to yield a number (or a vector maybe, depending on the case).

Examples of algebras include the algebra of real numbers, vectors and matrices, tensors, complex numbers, and quaternions.

Saturday, 19 December 2020

PC hacks

For people who find the sound only in left earphone irritating, you can try the following- On Android, go to setting, accessibility, mono audio. Exact path may vary depending on Android version, but it is there in recent ones. On ipados 13, go to setting, accessibility, audio/visual, mono audio


Ubuntu on windows

sudo apt-get install gcc //To update ubuntu

GNU plot on windows

p 'plot.txt' using 1:2 //to get a 2d plot from text file in which first column is used as 1st axis and 2nd column 2nd.
splot 'plot.txt' using 1:2:3 //surface plot with x, y , z data. gnuplot> set hidden3d //To get nice surface plot without points but actual surface. gnuplot> set dgrid3d 50,50 qnorm 2 gnuplot> splot 'data_file' with lines

Generate pdf thumbnail

Install genuine adobe acrobat reader. Go to edit, preferences, general, thumbnail. Also, go to control panel, set 'view by' on upper right side to large icons, find file explorer options, go to view, then set show thumbnail, and not icon. apply. If the files don't load, open acrobat, open file, go to pdf files and do large icon view. Thumbnails will generate. IF THE THUMBNAILS ARE WRONG, CLEAR CACHE. Search for disk cleanup, choose c drive, and clean only the thumbnail caches.

Download youtube videos

(but only when your life depends upon it. Downloading youtube videos is unethical, and this blog does not endorse it)

Use: youtube-dl

Download youtube-dl from github.
in cmd line, go to the youtube-dl directory. ALWAYS go to this folder to execute programs. type youtube-dl then give a space, and paste the link. youtube-dl -U for update To use options for download, just leave a space after youtube-dl and type the code for the option, then leave a space, and then paste the link. press shift enter.

Speed up a youtube video by an amount larger than 2x.

press ctrl + shift +j paste following command, with x replaced with teh speed you want. press enter document.getElementsByTagName("video")[0].playbackRate = x press ctrl + shift +j

Most economical export method from goodnotes

is flatened, with background. Handwriting recognision makes no difference.
If you make it editable, for pure notes, the file size becomes 10 times! Using blank background actually increases the file size.


gmail mail bulk delete code.

Your Gmail occupies space. If you want to free up space in bulk, search the following on gmail.

has:attachment larger:10mb

OR

Size:5m

Saturday, 15 August 2020

Summary: 'What is Life' by Schrodinger

Ch1: The classical Physicist's Approach to the subject

Why are organisms so large as compared to atoms?

Because of emergence of laws from the background heat as a result of large number of atoms. For example, motion of  each molecule in a gas is random, but diffusion emerges as an approximate law due to the principle of large numbers. Author points out that even if we know the number density of a gas, given a volume that should have N molecules, the actual number fluctuates by an amount $\sqrt{N}$.

Author suggests that all that we know about physics is approximate in this sense, as the pattern emerges out of large number of atoms that we have access to.

Author notes how because of the background heat, if life was susceptible to influence from individual atomic interactions, we would not be capable of organised thought.

Thursday, 21 May 2020

Solution to the game 'Among us'

Solution to the game 'Among us'


Today I played a very interesting murder mystery game on android called Among us.

Suppose you are stuck in a house, probably due to storm, with some people you know. Suddenly, all of you realize that there is a murderer among you, bent on killing everyone. You discover one murder, and then two... Everyone starts suspecting everyone else. Nobody can be trusted. What will you do?

There have been many movies and novels on this plot. 'Murder on the Orient Express' and 'And then there were none' are some works that I can recall of Agatha Christie on these lines. 'Johnny Gaddaar is a Bollywood movie on similar plot.

Among us lets you live through such a situation.

There are more than 4 players (typically 10) on a spaceship. They realize that there is an impostor among them, bent on killing everyone. The crew needs to successfully perform some tasks on the ship in order to win the game. On discovery of a dead colleague or gaining new clues, the crew can also call for an emergency meeting and vote to determine an impostor and kick him out of the ship, hence killing him. It is after the suspect is killed that it is disclosed whether he was actually the impostor or not. If they successfully kill the impostor, they win. If not, the game continues and their numbers dwindle. If the impostor manages to kill the second last of the crew, he wins.

If the impostor and the crew play a perfect game, can one force its victory on the other? Yes. Spoilers alert. You are about to learn the solution.

The crew can always defeat the impostor. All they need to do is split in groups of two and keep an eye on their partner while performing the tasks. If the impostor kills his partner, the rest of the crew will kick him out of the ship.

The developers of the game need to change the rules of the game to prevent this loophole.

Tuesday, 3 September 2019

python notes

Basics

variables and assignment

Variable can be combination of only letters and numbers and underscore "_". Can't start with a number. Variable names are case sensitive. Also, variable cannot have reserved words in python.

Types:-
  1. Integer: stores integer values, 1, -12 etc. "x=1".
  2. Float: stores floating values like 1.0, 1.2e-12 etc. "x=-12.56","x=float(1)".
  3. Complex: stores complex numbers. "x=1e12 + 12.65j","x=complex(1.5)".
  4. string: stores text in form of string of letters. "x="this is a string of words"".
"x=1" is same as "x = 1". Spaces in the beginning of a line has a meaning.

Input and output statements

  • print(x),print("the value of x is",x," and the value of y is",y)
  • x=input("the value of x is:")

Monday, 19 August 2019

Open Quantum system

Probability Theory

$\Omega$, the sample space, is the space of events. The most basic indivisible event $\omega \in \Omega$ is called elementary event.
We are usually interested only in a subset $A \in P(\Omega)$. This A is called a $\sigma$-algebra, and by definition should satisfy following conditions-
  1. $\Omega , \emptyset \in A$. 
  2. For all $A_1 ,A_2 \in A$, $A_1 \cap A_2 , A_1 \cup A_2 \in A$.
  3. For some mysterious reason, if $A_1,A_2,... \in A$, where the $A_n$'s are countably many, then $\cup_{n=1} ^\infty A_n \in A$. Why doesn't this automatically follow from the second condition?
Probability measure is a map $\mu : A \rightarrow [0,1]$. 
$\mu (A|B)$ means probability that A will happen given B has happened. If occurrence of B does not change the likelihood of A, then A and B are called statistically independent of each other.
The $\sigma$-algebra of Borel sets of R is the smallest $\sigma$-algebra which contains all subsets of the form $(-\infty, x), x \in R$. Borel Set contains all open and closed intervals of the real axis.

Random variable 

is a map $X: \Omega \rightarrow R$, which assigns to each elementary event $\omega \in \Omega$ a real number $X(\omega)$.
A further condition on the function X is that each point on the number line must be mapped to some $\omega \in A$, so that the reverse mapping exists for each point on the number line.

Stochastic process

It is a time dependent random variable.
Practically, it is understood with the means of probability dependent paths evolving with time, as a function of the real line.
$P(B_1,t_1; B_2;t_2;...;B_m,t_m) \equiv \mu (X(t_1)\in B_1, X(t_2) \in B_2, ..., X(t_m) \in B_m)$
The above equation means that the probability that a particle will evolve through Borel sets $B_1, B_2,...,B_m$ at discrete times $t_1,t_2,...,t_m$ depends on the path, and is denoted by the LHS notation.
As further elucidation, note that
$$P(R,t)=1$$
$$P(B_1,t_1; B_2;t_2;...;B_m,t_m) \geq 0$$
$$P(B_1,t_1; B_2,t_2;...;B_m,t_m;R,t_{m+1})=P(B_1,t_1; B_2;t_2;...;B_m,t_m)$$
Note that generally, the probability that a certain path will jump to some other path might depend on its past. So, the jump probability is a function of past values of the path. This not the case in Markovian evolution.

Markov process

A stochastic evolution of a path with short memory. Precisely,
$$X(t_{m+1}) \in B| X(t_m)=x_m, ... , X(t_1) = x_1)= \mu(X(t) \in B| X(t_m)=x_m)$$
where, $t_1 < t_2 < ... < t_m < t_{m+1}$. This equation means that the probability that the jump to B happens depends only on $x_m$.
Let $T(x,t|x',t') \equiv p_{1|1}(x,t|x',t')$ mean the probability that the jump from x' at t' to x at t happens. The RHS is called conditional transition probability or propagator.

Chapman-Kolgorov equation

$$T(x_3,t_3|x_1,t_1)= \int dx_2 T(x_3,t_3|x_2,t_2)T(x_2,t_2|x_1,t_1)$$
In the differential form,
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}T(x,t|x',t')=A(t)T(x,t|x',t')$$
Here, A(t) is a linear operator, a matrix with uncountably large size, which acts on the real number. Explicitly,
$$A(t)T(x,t|x',t') \equiv \lim_{\Delta t\to 0} \frac {1}{t}\left[ \int dx'' T(x,t+ \Delta t|x'',t)T(x,t|x',t')\right]$$
Note that both these equations are valid generally, not just valid for the Markov process.

Stationary and homogeneous stochastic processes

A stochastic process is stationary if the probability weight of all the paths remain invariant under time translation. Explicitly,
$$p_m(x_m,t_m +T;...;x_1,t_1 + T)= p_m(x_m,t_m;...;x_1,t_1)$$
A homogeneous process is one in which the propagator, T(x,t|x',t,) depends only on t-t', for a given x. So, a homogeneous process is statistically time invariant, while a stationary process's probability distribution remains invariant in time. An example of a process which is homogeneous but not stationary is Wiener process, they claim. Wiener process is just Brownian motion. Brownian motion is not stationary because it spreads.

Thursday, 18 July 2019

Latex notes

Latex notes

  • The write notation for dagger is \dagger and not \dag. Check for instance, $\dagger$ and $\dag$ (This error is intended for illustration).
  • Curly bracket, if intended to be visible, should be denoted by \{ and \}. For example, $\} \{$.
  • Three dots $\cdots$ \cdots 

Random Math notes

Random Math notes

  • Trace of any operator $A$ is preserved under unitary change of basis $U$ because in the new basis, $A' = U^{\dagger}AU$ and $Tr\{AB\}=Tr\{BA\}$ implies $Tr\{A'\}=Tr\{A\}$.
  • Note that $e^{A+B}=e^A . e^ B$ only if A and B commute. If they don't commute, the RHS will have terms of the type $C_{n,r} A^{n-r}B^r$ while the similar terms on LHS will be of the form $A^{n-r}B^r + A^{n-r-1}BAB^{r-1} + \cdots + B^{r}A^{n-r}$. If the terms don't commute, then these similar terms on LHS and RHS are not really equivalent. If they commute, then they are equal.

Monday, 15 July 2019

How to solve Pyramid solitaire (work in progress)

How to solve Pyramid solitaire (work in progress)

There are 52 cards in the pyramid solitaire, out of which 28 are in visible in the form of a pyramid, while the remaining 24 are stacked together in an unknown order. So, by looking at the visible cards, we can know what is there in the stacked ones.
The version of Pyramid Solitaire that I am interested in right now is where it is possible to go through the stacked cards three times.
Now, A can annihilate Q, 2 can annihilate J and so on. In good interest, one wants to annihilate the cards already in the pyramid with each other, so that the stacked cards options don't get exhausted.

Here is the instruction to solve or find whether the card stack is solvable or not-
  1. Make a list of A, 2, 3,... , Q and note how many of these cards are there in the pyramid.
  2. If there are x A's and y Q's in the pyramid, then there has to be at least $z=x+y-4$ links between A and Q within the pyramid, which means that at least z number of pairs of A and Q must annihilate themselves within the pyramid itself. This restriction for all the other pairs puts an upper limit to the score in the solitaire as well as reducing the possible solution space to be scanned.
  3. Note that it is possible for a pyramid to compulsorily have no links within if sum of each of its pairs is 4 and there are also 4 kings in the pack, which will add up to 28. Also note that if there are less than 4 kings, then at least one compulsory interlink exists.

Thursday, 23 May 2019

Deriving electromagnetism from relativity and electrostatics.

Part 1: Liénard–Wiechert potential

The Liénard–Wiechert potential is given by-
$$\varphi(\mathbf{r}, t) = \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \left(\frac{q}{(1 - \mathbf{n} \cdot \mathbf{v_s})|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}_s|} \right)_{t_r}$$
Here, $q$ is the source charge, $n$ is unit vector pointing towards the charge from location $\mathbf{r}$, $v_s$ is the source velocity at a retarded time, and $\mathbf{r}$ is the source location at a retarded time.

There is a similar potential given in Feynman Lecture Vol. 2 which is only an approximation and misses the $\frac{1}{1 - \mathbf{n} \cdot \mathbf{v_s}}$ factor. In spite of the extra factor in the LW potential, it is simpler because the local time component $\varphi$ of four vector field potential is invariant under Lorentz transformation. We will prove this now. The advantage of this invariance is that once we know the local field potential, we do not need to worry about change in the far away charge distribution after Lorentz transformation. The local four vector field potential contains the complete information about the far-away charges. The same is not true for the approximate potential given in the Feynman Lecture.

The equation given in Feynman lecture is different because it is inside an integral. When doing this integral, the required factor will turn up, due to apparent change in the size of a body approaching or receding from us, due to the fact that speed of light is finite for all observers. If speed of light was infinite, approaching bodies will not appear larger, and so would charge.

Let there be a source charge stationary at point $(x_0,y_0,0)$ with respect to an observer O at origin. Let there be another observer $O'$ at origin, moving with velocity $\mathbf{v}=-v \hat{i}$. Then locally, in the $O'$ frame, one would expect that $$\varphi '=\gamma \varphi$$, where $\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$.

Let us see whether the same result follows from LW potential in the new frame.

In the frame O,
$$\varphi(0, t) = \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \left(\frac{q}{|\mathbf{r}|}\right)$$
In the new frame,
$$\varphi \prime(0, t) = \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \left(\frac{q}{(1 - \mathbf{n'} \cdot \mathbf{v})|\mathbf{r'}|}\right)$$

Note that in the new frame, $x_0 '=\gamma (x_0 + vr)$ where $r=\sqrt {x_0^2+y_0^2}$. Also, $y_0\prime=y_0$.
Also, Note that $$(1 - \mathbf{n'} \cdot \mathbf{v})=1-\frac{v x_0 '}{r'}$$, where $r'=\sqrt {x_0 '^2+y_0^2}$
$$=\frac{r\prime -v x_0\prime}{r\prime}$$
$$\implies \varphi \prime(0, t) = \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \left(\frac{q}{r\prime -v x_0\prime }\right)$$
Now, $r\prime -x_0\prime v$ turns out to be equal to $\frac {r}{\gamma}$, as can be checked. Hence, we obtain the expected equation.

Part 2: The actual Proof

Let there be a source charge stationary at point $(x_0,y_0,0)$ with respect to an observer O at origin. Let there be a charge $q$ at the origin moving with the velocity $\mathbf{u'}=u_x \hat{i}+u_y \hat{j}$ w.r.t O. Let there be another observer $O'$ at origin, moving with velocity $\mathbf{v}=v \hat{i}$, such that in the O' frame, the source appears to move with velocity $-v \hat{i}$.

What we are going to prove is, if we assume that for a stationary source, electrostatic force is as given by coulomb's law, then a Lorentz transformation of this force from frame O to O' is equivalent to the force arising from electromagnetic fields generated when solving the same result using the LW potential.

According to electromagnetic theory:-
$$\mathbf{E}=-\nabla \varphi - \frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t}$$
$$\mathbf{B}=\nabla \times \mathbf{A}$$
$$ \mathbf{F}\propto \left( \mathbf{E} + \mathbf{B} \times \mathbf{v}\right)$$
Now, $\nabla \varphi = \varphi _x +\varphi _y + \varphi _z$. Also, 
$$\varphi_x= \frac{-x_0}{r^3}$$
$$\varphi_y= \frac{-y_0}{r^3}$$
$$\varphi_z=0$$
Then, in the O' frame,
$$\varphi '=\gamma \varphi$$
$$\mathbf{A}=-\gamma v \varphi$$
$$-\varphi _x' - \frac{\partial \mathbf{A'}}{\partial t} = \frac {\varphi \prime _x}{\gamma} = \varphi _x$$, because $\frac {\partial \mathbf {A'}}{\partial t}$ cancels the time component of $\varphi \prime _x'$ as seen in the O frame.
$$\implies \mathbf{E'}=\varphi _x \hat{i} + \gamma \varphi _y \hat{j}$$
Also, $$\mathbf{B'}=-v \gamma \varphi _y \hat{k}$$
$$\mathbf {F'}=q \left( \mathbf{E'} + \mathbf {B'}(u_y \prime \hat{i} - u_x \prime \hat{j})  \right)$$
Note that $u_y \prime$ and $u_x \prime$ are the velocity components of the second charge placed at origin, as seen in the O' frame.
Now in the frame O, $F=\varphi _x \hat{i} + \varphi _y \hat{j}= F_x \hat{i}+F_y \hat{j}$.
Let $ F'=F'_{x'} \hat{i}+ F'_y \hat{j}$.

Then $$F'_{x'}=F_x - \frac {F_y v u_y}{1- v u_x}$$.
Also, $$F'_y= \gamma F_y + v \gamma F_y \left( \frac {u_x -v}{1- v u_x} \right)$$
$$\implies F'_y= \frac {F_y}{\gamma (1-v u_x)}$$

This is the force that you would get when you apply Lorentz transformation from frame O to O'.

Concluding points

  1. The LW potentials are completely part of classical electromagnetism. But it can be noted that classical electromagnetism is not consistent under Galilean transformation. The correct transformation that preserves invariance of experimental results between inertial frames is that given by Lorentz transformation, which was discovered before Einstein's result.
  2. Hence magnetism is nothing more than relativistic effects on Force acting on a moving body as viewed from a frame of reference other than the one in which the object is stationary. It should be noted that this should apply for other forces of nature as well. For example gravito-magnetism is as real an effect.
  3. What I did in this post was what was historically done in the reverse order. Relativity was deduced to make electromagnetism consistent. I, instead, assumed SR and derived EM as a consequence. It should be noted though that SR is more fundamental than EM.

Saturday, 18 May 2019

Axioms of Set theory

A very good video explaining the axioms of Set theory. https://youtu.be/zcvsyL7GtH4

Following are the 9 axioms of Set Theory.

  1. Axiom of extensionality: Two sets are equal (are the same set) if they have the same elements.
  2. Axiom of regularity (also called the Axiom of foundation): If element of a set X is another set Y, then X and Y are disjoint. This means Y cannot contain any elements that X contains, including Y itself. Hence, this prevents Y from containing itself.
  3. Axiom schema of specification (also called the axiom schema of separation or of restricted comprehension): In order to avoid paradoxes, if you are building a set X by describing some property of its elements, then you need to specify another set Y from where you need to pick the elements of X in question. (Note: Wikipedia says that this restriction is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox, but I do not see how, since the Paradox can be solved simply by applying the axiom of Regularity- Set that contains itself does not exist in the first place. Russell's paradox questions the existence of set of all sets that do not contain themselves.)
  4. Axiom of pairing: If x and y are sets, then there exists a set which contains x and y as elements.
  5. Axiom of union: The union over the elements of a set exists
  6. Axiom schema of replacement: When a function f acts on a set X, the image or the range of X is also a set.
  7. Axiom of infinity: There exist a set of infinite size.
  8. Axiom of power set: Power set exists for every set.
  9. Axiom of choice: Given a set X that contains other non empty sets $Y_1, Y_2, Y_3$ etc. within it. Then there exists a function f from X to $Y_1 \cup Y_2 \cup Y_3 \cup...$ such that $f(Y_n) \in Y_n$.

Proof of Godel's incompleteness Theorem

 This proof borrows from the book 'Godel's proof' by Nagel and Newman.

First Incompleteness theorem:


The first incompleteness theorem states that 'Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.'
  1. Uniquely number every theorem in a system of mathematics. We can do this by assigning 10 symbols like $0$,$1$,$\subset$ (short for ‘if . . . then . . .’) etc a number between 1 to 10. Also, we can assign numerical variables, sentential variables and predicate variables to first, second and third powers of prime numbers greater or equal to 11, respectively. Note that the use of prime number ensures that all these variables get assigned a unique number, because otherwise $11^2$ is nothing but 121. Another way of doing it could have been assigning 11, 12 and 13 with variable of each type sequentially, and so on.
  2. Now that each letter of the language has a unique numerical representation, we assign a number to a formula by raising the nth prime to the power of the numerical value of the nth symbol, and taking product of all such numbers. Strings of formulas separated by comma is also a formula.
  3. The fact that a formula with Godel number x is the proof of a Godel number z hints towards a mathematical property that these two numbers share in the general case. This mathematical property depends upon the syntax as well as the rule of inference of the proof system. Let us denote the fact that the numbers x and z share this specific property by the formula $ Dem(x,z)$. This formula might not be true for a given value of x and z. Note that here, $Dem$ is a predicate variable.
  4. Next, let $sub(m,13,m)$ denote the Godel number of the formula that you get when you replace in the formula with Godel number m, each occurrence of the variable with Godel number 13 (here y) the number m.
  5. Now, note the meaning of $\sim \exists x Dem(x,sub(n,13,n))$ where n is Godel number of the statement $\sim \exists x Dem(x,sub(y,13,y))$. Note that $sub(n,13,n)$ is just the Godel number of the first formula. Hence, the first formula states that it cannot be proven within the system. (Although seen at mathematical level, the first formula just claims that a number does not have a given mathematical property. It is only when interpreted at metamathematical level that we infer a second layer of meaning to this statement- that it is claiming that it cannot be proven within the system). Now, if this statement is false, then it can be proven. A system of mathematics that can prove even false results is inconsistent. Hence, it must be true, and hence cannot be proven.
  6. Note that $\sim \exists x Dem(x,sub(n,13,n))$ expresses a property that no number possesses. Hence, it represents a new axiom of mathematics.

Notes:-
  1. If there are finitely many rules of inference, then Godel's theorem holds. If there are infinitely many of them, then we get another Godel like situation, where instead of infinite axioms, there infinite rules of inference. But the question is, is there an equivalent formulation of logic where there are only axioms but no rule of inference? I don't think so. Rules of inference are necessary to get from one axiom to another. They can be encompassed by a property that Godel numbers possess, as given by $Dem(x,z)$. Hence the rules of inference link numbers based on some property. Godel statement of a system of axioms is a statement that numbers don't possess a certain property.
  2. How does the choice of syntax affect the numerical relations as in $Dem(x,z)$? There should be some invariance regarding some general properties of these relations, independent of the choice of syntax.

Second Incompleteness theorem


The second incompleteness theorem states that 'Assume F is a consistent formalized system which contains elementary arithmetic. Then the consistency of F is not provable within F.'

The proof of the second incompleteness theorem follows from the first one. Even though the Godel statement G of a system F states that it is not provable, the reason why we cannot prove it within the system is that we are assuming that our system is consistent, and hence cannot prove a statement which says that it is not provable. Hence the consistency of F implies its incompleteness. The last sentence itself can be formalized as a theorem in F, and can also be proven within F. The proof follows because if we know that our system is consistent, then there is no more barrier in proving that G must be true. It is the lack of proof of consistency that prevents a proof a G. But if G is proven, then we will get an absurd result. Hence if F is consistent, its consistency itself is necessarily not provable to establish the non-provability of G.