The Fractal Logic of Φ-adic Recursion

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.08934
• Title: The Fractal Logic of Φ-adic Recursion
• Author: Milan Rosko (University of Hagen, Germany)
• Classification: math.LO (Mathematical Logic), cs.LO (Computer Science Logic)
• Publication Date: September 2025 (arXiv preprint v1, submitted Oct 10, 2025)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.08934

Abstract

This paper establishes a theory in which effective reasoning about Σ₁ propositions can be reduced to solving Fibonacci-indexed witness equations. Specifically, verification of affirmative reasoning (modus ponens) can be reduced to solving linear Diophantine equations in O(M(log n)) time, where M denotes the complexity of integer multiplication. This reduction is transitive: tautology verification proceeds through Fibonacci-indexed arithmetic, completely bypassing semantic evaluation. The core finding is the transitive closure principle in Φ-scaled space (Hausdorff dimension log_Φ 2), wherein logical consequence corresponds to search problems on Fibonacci arcs—a geometric invariant encoded in Zeckendorf representation. This yields a computational model in which proof verification is achieved through arithmetic alignment rather than truth-functional analysis, while maintaining soundness and respecting incompleteness.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

Traditional Gödel coding uses integer factorization to encode proofs, resulting in representations that grow exponentially with derivation depth. For proofs of length ℓ with maximum formula size m, the Gödel number scales as exp(O(ℓ·m)), making even moderately-sized derivations difficult to compute directly.

Research Motivation

1. Computational Complexity Issues: The exponential explosion in classical encoding stems from multiplicative structure; when encoding sequences (a₁,...,aₗ) as ∏ᵢpᵢᵃⁱ with primes pᵢ≥2, the result exceeds 2^(Σaᵢ)
2. Need for Geometric Interpretation: Seeking geometric interpretation of logical reasoning that separates formal transformation from semantic interpretation
3. Efficiency Enhancement: Maintaining polynomial growth through additive encoding via Fibonacci numbers while preserving structural fidelity

Point of Innovation

Inspired by Lovelace's foresight regarding symbolic computation, this paper attempts to realize formal transformation without requiring semantic interpretation, combining Fibonacci recurrence relations with Zeckendorf decomposition to provide geometric interpretation for logical witnesses.

Core Contributions

1. Established Δ₀ reasoning rules for Fibonacci encoding: Transformed modus ponens into linear Diophantine witnesses verifiable in O(M(log n)) time
2. Proposed head-index increment property: Proved that the encoding of formula φ→ψ satisfies i(ind(φ→ψ)) = 3·max{i(ind(φ)), i(ind(ψ))}+3
3. Constructed geometric proof verification model: Implemented proof verification through arc alignment in Φ-scaled space, bypassing truth-functional analysis
4. Achieved polynomial-time Diophantine tautology predicate: Represented tautology verification as solving polynomial constraints of degree ≤4
5. Established deep connection between logical reasoning and number theory: Revealed isomorphic relationship between Fibonacci recurrence and propositional logic inference rules

Detailed Methodology

Task Definition

Transform the proof verification problem of propositional logic into arithmetic problems over Fibonacci numbers. Given formula φₐ, determining whether it is a tautology is equivalent to solving the existential Diophantine equation ∃x P(a,x) = 0.

Core Technical Architecture

1. Fibonacci Pairing Function

Define pairing function ρ(jₐ, jb) = F₃·max{jₐ,jb}+3 + Fjₐ + Fjb, where jₐ, jb ∈ 3ℕ.

Key Properties:

• Injectivity: ρ is an injective function, avoiding the quadratic growth of Cantor pairing
• Zeckendorf Structure: Pairing results maintain valid Zeckendorf decomposition (non-consecutive indices)
• Head-Index Control: i(ρ(jₐ, jb)) = 3·max{jₐ, jb} + 3

2. Formula Encoding Scheme

ind(pₖ) = F₃ₖ₊₃ (variables)
ind(⊥) = F₃ = 2 (contradiction)
ind(φ→ψ) = ρ(i(ind(φ)), i(ind(ψ))) (implication)

3. Witness Verification Algorithm (Iterant)

For modus ponens φ, φ→ψ ⊢ ψ, verify the witness equation:

Fᵢ₍ₐ₎ + Fᵢ₍c₎ + Fₓ = Fᵢ₍b₎ + Fᵢ₍b₎₊₁

where x=0 is the unique witness.

Algorithm Flow:

1. Compute Δ = Fᵢ₍b₎ + Fᵢ₍b₎₊₁ - Fᵢ₍ₐ₎ - Fᵢ₍c₎
2. If Δ < 0, return ⊥
3. Compute Zeckendorf decomposition of Δ
4. If decomposition is unique (|J|=1), return witness; otherwise return ⊥

Technical Innovation Points

1. Geometric Interpretation

Visualize logical reasoning as arc alignment problems in Φ-scaled space through wheelcharts. Three consecutive Fibonacci numbers {Fₙ, Fₙ₊₁, Fₙ₊₂} correspond to premise, implication, and conclusion, where:

• South pair (Fₙ, Fₙ₊₁) completes the circle
• North pair (Fₙ₊₁, Fₙ₊₂) aligns similarly
• Northwest pair (Fₙ, Fₙ₊₂) necessarily misaligns, converging to 1-1/Φ:1/Φ

2. Matrix Formalization

Use companion matrix M = (1 1; 1 0) with eigenvalues Φ and ψ = (1-√5)/2. One step of modus ponens corresponds to matrix action (Fₙ, Fₙ₊₁) ↦ (Fₙ₊₁, Fₙ₊₂).

3. Self-Similarity

The fractal self-similarity of Fibonacci sequences ensures patterns hold at every nested level. When chaining implications α→β→γ→δ→..., this generates nested wheelchart sequences like golden rectangles, each scaled by Φ.

Theoretical Results

Main Theorems

Theorem 1.2 (Fibonacci Encoding and Diophantine Tautology Predicate): There exist encoding ind: L → ℕ and bounded-degree polynomial P ∈ ℤa,x such that:

1. log ind(φ) = O(|φ|) (polynomial size)
2. i(ind(φ→ψ)) = max{i(ind(φ)), i(ind(ψ))} + 3 (head-index increment)
3. φₐ is a tautology ⟺ ∃x ∈ ℕⁿ P(a,x) = 0 (Diophantine representation)

Theorem 2.5 (Head-Index Increment): For formulas φ,ψ: i(ind(φ→ψ)) = 3·max{i(ind(φ)), i(ind(ψ))} + 3

Theorem 4.1 (Diophantine Tautology Predicate): There exists a polynomial P(a,x) ∈ ℤa,x₁,...,xₙ of degree ≤4 such that φₐ is a tautology if and only if ∃x ∈ ℕⁿ P(a,x) = 0, where n = O(ℓ·log ℓ).

Complexity Analysis

1. Encoding Complexity: log ind(φ) = O(|φ|), computable in O(|φ|·M(log ind(φ))) bit operations
2. Witness Verification: Predicate W(a,b) decidable in O(log b·M(log b)) bit operations
3. Witness Size: If φₐ has a shortest proof of length m, there exists witness b satisfying log b = O(m)

Geometric and Modal Analogies

Geometric Embedding

Wheelchart verification can be reimplemented as a theorem in Tarski's first-order Euclidean geometry. The witness equation (1.12) can be expressed as a Π₁ sentence:

∀Pₐ, Pc, Pb ∈ ℝ² ∃Q [Collinear(Pₐ, Pc, Q) ∧ Dist(O,Q) = Dist(O,Pb)]

Modal Algebra Analogy

1. The ratio (Fₙ₊₁ : Fₙ) → Φ parallels Kripke accessibility w R w'
2. Fₙ₊₂ = Fₙ₊₁ + Fₙ corresponds to □P → □□P
3. Witness equations interpretable as function application (φ→ψ, φ) ↦ ψ

Related Work

Theoretical Foundations

• Classical Gödel Encoding: Uses products of prime powers, leading to exponential growth
• Zeckendorf's Theorem: Every positive integer has a unique non-consecutive Fibonacci representation
• Diophantine Representation Theory: Work of Robinson, Davis, Putnam, and Matiyasevich

Innovations in This Paper

• First realization of Δ₀ inference rules as linear Diophantine witnesses
• Established head-index increment property enabling deterministic growth
• Provided geometric interpretation of logical reasoning

Limitations and Future Directions

Limitations

1. Complexity: While verification is polynomial-time, witness size may still be exponential
2. Scope: Currently limited to propositional logic; extension to first-order logic requires further work
3. Practicality: Practical applicability of theoretical construction remains to be verified

Future Directions

1. Extension to Modal Logic: Leverage Kripke framework analogies
2. Automated Theorem Proving: Develop proof search algorithms based on geometric alignment
3. Complexity Theory: Explore potential isomorphic relationships with RSA problems
4. Geometric Complexity Theory: Develop computational models based on Φ-scaling

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Innovation: First establishment of deep connection between logical reasoning and Fibonacci number theory
2. Geometric Intuition: Provides geometric interpretation of logical reasoning with significant conceptual value
3. Technical Rigor: Mathematical proofs are rigorous with theoretically significant results
4. Interdisciplinary Integration: Successfully connects logic, number theory, geometry, and computational complexity theory

Weaknesses

1. Limited Practical Value: Complex theoretical construction with unclear practical application prospects
2. Strong Constraints: Requires technical conditions such as restricting indices to multiples of 3
3. Verification Complexity: While theoretically polynomial-time, constant factors may be large
4. Overly Technical Presentation: Some geometric analogies may be somewhat forced

Impact Assessment

1. Theoretical Contribution: Provides new perspective and tools for proof theory
2. Inspirational Value: May inspire application of other mathematical structures in logic
3. Reproducibility: Theoretical results are reproducible, though implementation is complex

Applicable Scenarios

1. Theoretical Computer Science: Research in proof complexity and algorithm design
2. Mathematical Logic: Research in proof theory and model theory
3. Symbolic Computation: Theoretical foundations for automated reasoning systems

Conclusion

This paper proposes an innovative theoretical framework transforming propositional logic proof verification into arithmetic problems over Fibonacci numbers. Through clever encoding schemes and geometric interpretation, it realizes an "arithmetic alignment" proof verification paradigm, providing a novel mathematical perspective on logical reasoning. While practical value remains to be verified, its theoretical innovation and interdisciplinary integration make it a valuable theoretical contribution. This work may provide new insights and tools for future research in automated reasoning, geometric logic, and computational complexity theory.