Randomized trial models arithmetic equivalence in natural numbers, indicating consistency from axioms without reliance on traditional logic.
A formal system VR generated by two primitive operations — the nullary base ∅ and the unary succession t. VR posits no axioms of its own: membership ∈ is defined by recursion on t, the succession principle A3 is a theorem, and induction A4 is the recursor of the inductive term-algebra. The von Neumann natural numbers are the unfolding of t from ∅; equality is Leibnizian and coincides with structural term-identity by a theorem. VR is arithmetically equivalent to first-order Peano arithmetic (under the schematic reading of the Leibnizian quantifier), whence consistency relative to ZF follows as a metatheoretic corollary. "Axiom-free" is exact in the Lean 4 companion: #print axioms reports the empty profile [ ] (no propext, Classical.choice, or Quot.sound) for every object of Part I. Version 1.1.1 removes the former third "primitive" — a propositional implication → on a two-valued type. It was load-bearing for no VR theorem (the Lean companion confirms the entire arithmetic — membership, the von Neumann numbers, +, ×, ^, and the PA-equivalence — references it nowhere), and it was not logic in any inferential sense: a truth-function on a two-element type is the semantic Boolean algebra of propositional logic, not the logic itself (no consequence relation, no derivability, no completeness). VR therefore neither needs nor generates a logic of its own; the logic it reasons with is metatheoretic, borrowed from the ambient framework. At this layer VR is pure arithmetic on {∅, t}, equivalent to first-order PA. The arithmetic content is unchanged from v1.1.0; this version removes a non-load-bearing appendage and the over-claim that VR founds its own propositional logic. First/foundational work of the VR Cycle; Lean 4 companion module VRCycle.VR (Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20324240). Prepared with the assistance of Claude (Anthropic, Opus 4.8) in the cycle's Variant A architecture; all mathematical content, definitions, theorems and positions are due to the author, Vitaly Reznik.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vitaly Reznik (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: