Re: What is

On 29 Mar, 11:35, "elsiemelsi" <cyprin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
you say

you are confuse!
You are generalizing a result about consistency
to whole logic. Even if this result is not expressable in this
manner : "a proven
statement is not a true statement", It is wrong.
You'd better re-read the definition of coerence in formal system.
The question is about ALL the true sentences of a formal theory!

i say rubbish just tell us what a true statement is with out useing the
word provable

you say

If given a substratum S and an object A, it is provable that A belong

Your problem is a false problem.
You need a definition of truth indipendent from the notion of
provability
cause in your opinion the notion of truth cannot be based upon the
notion of provability.
But it is clear that if a demonstration is a finite sequence of steps
that given a set of axioms
lead to a new formula derived from that set or from another proven
formula using fixed
rules of inference, the premises must be true otherwise from false
premises only
false consequences can be derived.
So the problem is that of nature of axioms or postulates (as in
geometry).
When a sentence must be regarded as true even if there is no proof for
it.
This is the main question.
Not of all notions can be fournish a proof.

For example let's demonstrate this statement:

"There must will exist a sentence for which there is not a proof"

Try!





to
S



than S is predicable of A and S(A) is true.

i say rubbish
what is the definition of predictable

all that babel amounts to is a true statement is predictable of a
proven
statement -that is even weaker than hilberts idea for since godel a
proven
statement is not a true statement

so wat ever predictable means
you are predicting a statement from a statement that is not even true-
but
only provable

--

--
Message posted usinghttp://www.talkaboutscience.com/group/sci.logic/
More information athttp://www.talkaboutscience.com/faq.html

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: All panduks are green
    ... or disprovable depends on what axioms you are assuming. ... look at provability as if it were a disease ... make it consistent by adding an axiom saying that this very theory is ... You seem oblivious now even to what Daryl is talking about. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem
    ... > nothing more than the axioms of N." ... be truth in the first phrase. ... So your points are that he isn't defining the theorems, ... provability to be truth.", we should instead say, "Smullyan defines ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: all the incompleteness proofs are worthless untill...
    ... derivable from axioms via inference rules. ... Everything is relative to the context of a particular formal ... between provability and derivability from axioms via inference ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: all the incompleteness proofs are worthless untill...
    ... derivable from axioms via inference rules. ... Around here provability is indeed the same thing as ... own connection to absolute truth, since it was only the worry ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: primitive recursive: obsolete?
    ... all true sentences of arithmetic in the language of PA. ... IF you don't *know* enough about these axioms you wouldn't necessarily ... GC is false then there is a recursively axiomatized theory in which ... enough to make it possible to solve all the provability problems. ...
    (sci.logic)