Re: Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- From: george <greeneg@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:43:58 -0700
On Jul 26, 7:08 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
Well, the key statement that is wrong is the
claim "...this leads to a contradiction". No,
it doesn't. I can't say what's wrong with your
reasoning since you didn't say why you think it
leads to a contradiction.
On Jul 26, 3:25 pm, Newberry <newberr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We have derived G,
Not in PA you haven't.
The reason why G is not derivable is that
it is NOT EVEN TRUE, in SOME models of PA.
which says about itself that it is not derivable
NOthing "says anything about" itself, inherently.
Godel numbers are (almost) arbitrary.
Godel sentences (and consistency sentences)
are true under some interpretations and false under
others. The one you want to privilege (the natural
numbers) is NOT even DEFINABLE AT ALL at in the
context (r.e.classical first-order theories) that "derivability"
is about.
Basically, by "we have derived G", you meant,
"we have used ZFC to prove the existence of a model
of PA in which G is true". The far more interesting question
is actually about the models where it is false.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- From: Newberry
- Re: Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- References:
- Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- From: poopdeville
- Re: Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- From: Newberry
- Re: Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- From: Newberry
- Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- Prev by Date: Re: Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- Next by Date: Re: Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- Previous by thread: Re: Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- Next by thread: Re: Godel's Theorem and Model Theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
