DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

AND ENGINEERING

ASSIGNMENT - II

TITLE : UNSOLVABLE PROBLEM

NAME : SHYAMALA P

ROLL NO: CSB2242

SUB CODE: UCS1501

SUB NAME: THEORY OF AUTOMATA

DATE: 11.11.2024
INTRODUCTION :

In mathematics, the classification of numbers into categories like rational, irrational,

algebraic, and transcendental reveals fascinating differences in their nature and behavior.
Among these, irrational and transcendental numbers hold unique importance. Irrational
numbers, such as
√2 and π, cannot be written as exact fractions, meaning their decimal forms are infinite and non-
repeating. This characteristic challenges the simplicity of number representation and highlights the
limits of rational approximations. Even further removed from the familiar are transcendental
numbers, a subset of irrationals that defy any solution as roots of polynomial equations with
rational coefficients. Key examples like π and e are central to geometry, calculus, and complex
analysis, embodying concepts that reach beyond traditional algebra. The study of irrationality and
transcendence dates back to ancient Greek mathematicians, who first recognized irrational
numbers in their exploration of geometric forms, such as the diagonal of a square. Later, the
transcendence of numbers like π and e was proven in the 19th century, further expanding the
boundaries of mathematics and providing insights into fields as diverse as quantum mechanics,
probability, and cryptography. Understanding these numbers helps mathematicians grasp the
infinite complexity underlying even seemingly simple numerical concepts, revealing the depth and
breadth of the mathematical universe. Both irrationality and transcendence challenge conventional
notions of measurement, representation, and exactness in numbers, making them subjects of
enduring curiosity and mathematical exploration.

TOPICS :

1. The compatibility of the arithmetical axioms

2. Uniformization of analytic relations by means of automorphic functions

 THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE ARITHMETICAL AXIOMS

The compatibility of the arithmetical axioms refers to whether the axioms underlying
arithmetic can be consistently combined without contradictions. In formal mathematics,
ensuring that a set of axioms can coexist without leading to inconsistency is crucial for
maintaining the validity of proofs and the soundness of the system.

Consistency in Arithmetic:
A set of axioms is said to be consistent if no contradictions can be derived from them.
For example, in a consistent system, you cannot derive both a statement P and its negation
¬ P.

The foundational axioms of arithmetic, such as the Peano axioms, provide a framework
for natural numbers. Ensuring their consistency means proving that no sequence of logical
deductions can lead to contradictory outcomes

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems.

 First Incompleteness Theorem: In any consistent formal system that is expressive

enough to include basic arithmetic, there are statements that are true but cannot be
proven within the system.
 Second Incompleteness Theorem: A formal system that includes basic arithmetic
cannot prove its own consistency. This implies that while we can work under the
assumption that a system like Peano arithmetic is consistent, we cannot prove it
using the axioms within the system itself

Interpretations of Compatibility

The term compatibility in this context generally implies the consistency of the
axioms. For example, the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice
which underpin much of modern mathematics, are assumed to be consistent and compatible,
but this is taken as an assumption since Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem precludes
an internal proof of consistency
Mathematicians often show that an axiom set is consistent by proving its relative
consistency—demonstrating that if one widely accepted set of axioms (e.g., set theory) is
consistent, then another system (e.g., Peano arithmetic) is consistent as well.

Detailed Examination of Arithmetical Axioms :

The Peano Axioms: Discuss the structure and main points:

 P 1: Zero is a number.
 P 2: Every number has a successor.
 P 3: Zero is not the successor of any number.
 P 4 : Distinct numbers have distinct successors.
 P 5: (Induction): A property that holds for zero and for the successor of any number
that has it must hold for all numbers.
Expressive Power and Limitations: The Peano axioms can define operations like addition
and multiplication but are not capable of addressing all properties of numbers (e.g., prime
number distribution)

Methods of Proving Compatibility

 Relative Consistency Proofs: Demonstrating that a new system of axioms is

consistent if an existing system (e.g., ZFC) is consistent.
 Model Theory: Using models to show that if a set of axioms has a model (a structure
that satisfies all axioms), it must be consistent. For example, showing that the natural
numbers form a model for Peano arithmetic implies the consistency of the axioms.
 Hilbert's Program and Its Challenges: An attempt to ground all of mathematics in a
finite set of axioms and prove their consistency using formal logic. Gödel's theorems
showed the limitations of this approach.
Modern Perspectives on Axiom Compatibility:

 Alternative Formal Systems:

o Systems such as constructive mathematics or intuitionistic logic attempt to
modify traditional approaches by rejecting the law of the excluded middle and
requiring explicit constructions for proofs.
 Proof Assistants and Automated Theorem Provers:
o The use of computational tools to check the compatibility and consistency of
axioms in formal systems. Proof assistants like Coq and Lean play a significant
role in modern mathematical logic.
 Philosophical Implications:
o The acceptance of axiomatic systems and assumptions about their consistency
touches on foundational questions in the philosophy of mathematics. Is
mathematics discovered or invented? The compatibility of axioms brings this
debate to light, highlighting whether truths are inherent or chosen based on
logical frameworks

Examples and Modern Relevance:

 Ensuring the compatibility of axioms is essential in logic and foundational

mathematics. Systems that are built on contradictory axioms can prove any statement
to be true, leading to the collapse of the logical structure.
 In mathematical logic, model theory helps explore which models satisfy certain axiom
systems, reinforcing whether the axioms are compatible and consistent

Conclusion:

The compatibility of arithmetical axioms means that these axioms can be used together
in a logical system without contradictions. While foundational systems like Peano arithmetic
are assumed consistent, Gödel's work shows that the absolute proof of their consistency lies
outside the reach of the system itself, thus making consistency an axiom taken on faith or
proved through relative means in more complex systems
 UNIFORMIZATION OF ANALYTIC RELATIONS BY MEANS OF
AUTOMORPHIC FUNCTIONS

Analytic relations are sets defined by analytic functions in the complex plane. They
describe how various complex variables relate in a consistent, smooth manner.
The concept of uniformization refers to the process of finding a simpler domain (e.g., the
upper half-plane or a Riemann surface) where complex analytic relations can be represented more
straightforwardly.
Automorphic functions are complex-analytic functions invariant under the action of a
discrete group of transformations. Their behavior under transformations makes them ideal for
describing structures on Riemann surfaces and mapping complex relations onto simpler domains.

Historical Background and Importance

 Riemann's Contributions: Bernhard Riemann's work on surfaces and conformal

mappings laid the foundation for the idea of uniformization. He conjectured that every
simply connected Riemann surface could be mapped conformally onto one of three
canonical surfaces: the sphere, the complex plane, or the unit disk.
 Poincaré and Koebe: Henri Poincaré and Paul Koebe independently proved the
Uniformization Theorem, which states that every simply connected Riemann surface
is conformally equivalent to one of the three types mentioned above. This theorem
allows complex algebraic curves and surfaces to be represented more systematically.
 Applications in Modern Mathematics: Uniformization underlies many advances in
complex analysis, algebraic geometry, and number theory, influencing modern topics
such as modular forms and string theory.

Automorphic Functions and Their Properties:

 Definition: Automorphic functions are holomorphic functions f (z) that satisfy:

f (γ (z))=f (z )for all γ ∈ Γ ,
where Γ is a discrete group of Möbius transformations acting on the upper half-plane or
other domains.
Examples:
 Modular Forms: A classical example where automorphic functions appear. They are
functions on the upper half-plane invariant under the action of the modular group
SL(2 , Z) .
 Theta Functions: These are used in the theory of elliptic functions and play a role in
uniformizing the complex torus.
Properties:
 Periodicity: Automorphic functions often have periodic or quasi-periodic properties due
to the transformation groups they are associated with.
 Invariance: The invariance property simplifies the representation of complex structures,
which is essential for uniformization

The Role of Automorphic Functions in Uniformization:

 Mapping Complex Relations: Automorphic functions map complex analytic relations to

a more uniform or structured domain, allowing easier analysis and manipulation. For
instance, modular functions can map hyperbolic spaces or Riemann surfaces to the
complex plane in a way that preserves structure.
 Elliptic Curves and the j -Invariant: The uniformization of elliptic curves by
automorphic functions (specifically the j−¿invariant) demonstrates how these functions
parameterize complex tori. The function j(τ ) maps the upper half-plane to the moduli
space of elliptic curves, providing a way to classify them.
 Uniformization Theorem Application: Every complex algebraic curve can be expressed
in terms of automorphic functions. This is particularly useful in classifying Riemann
surfaces and their higher-genus counterparts.

Analytical Tools and Techniques

 Möbius Transformations: Fundamental to understanding automorphic functions,

these transformations preserve the structure of the upper half-plane and form groups
that act on it, like SL(2 , Z) for modular forms.
 Fundamental Domains: The study of automorphic functions often involves
analyzing their behavior within a fundamental domain—a section of the complex
plane that, when acted upon by a group Γ , tiles the whole plane.
 Fuchsian and Kleinian Groups: These groups are central in the classification of
 automorphic functions. Fuchsian groups act on the hyperbolic plane and relate to
functions with a hyperbolic metric, while Kleinian groups operate on three-
dimensional hyperbolic spaces

Applications Beyond Complex Analysis

 Algebraic Geometry: Automorphic functions help describe and simplify the structure of
algebraic varieties. By uniformizing curves, mathematicians can study their properties
through simpler models.
 Number Theory: Automorphic forms generalize modular forms and are pivotal in
proving deep results, such as those found in the Langlands program. They connect Galois
representations and L-functions, influencing areas like elliptic curve theory.
 String Theory and Physics: Automorphic functions appear in theoretical physics,
specifically in models involving higher-dimensional shapes and symmetries. The
uniformization of analytic relations is crucial for understanding compactified spaces in
string theory.

Conclusion:
Automorphic functions serve as powerful tools for simplifying and analyzing complex
analytic relations, transforming how mathematicians approach uniformization problems. The
intertwining of these functions with group theory, number theory, and geometry highlights their
fundamental importance. The ongoing exploration of automorphic functions and their
applications promises further breakthroughs in mathematical theory, influencing both pure and
applied mathematics.