Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem

On Mar 28, 6:51 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 2008-03-28, in sci.logic, Charlie-Boo wrote:

I can think of a couple of approaches to formalizing Godel's 2nd
Incompleteness Theorem (in PA), and will see if they apply to Q.

The usual proofs of the second incompleteness theorems are of no use
in showing that "Robinson arithmetic is consistent" is not provable in
Robinson arithmetic.

What are these usual proofs (other than the original)? Reference?
How do we know they are of no use?

C-B

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...@xxxxxxxxx)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
 - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

.

Relevant Pages