Abstract
The paper studies two formal schemes related to ω-completeness. LetS be a suitable formal theory containing primitive recursive arithmetic and letT be a formal extension ofS. Denoted by (a), (b) and (c), respectively, are the following three propositions (where α(x) is a formula with the only free variable x): (a) (for anyn) (⊢ T α(n)), (b) ⊢ T ∀ x Pr T (−α(x)−) and (c) ⊢ T ∀xα(x) (the notational conventions are those of Smorynski [3]). The aim of this paper is to examine the meaning of the schemes which result from the formalizations, over the base theoryS, of the implications (b) ⇒ (c) and (a) ⇒ (b), where α ranges over all formulae. The analysis yields two results overS : 1. the schema corresponding to (b) ⇒ (c) is equivalent to ¬Cons T and 2. the schema corresponding to (a) ⇒ (b) is not consistent with 1-CON T. The former result follows from a simple adaptation of the ω-incompleteness proof; the second is new and is based on a particular application of the diagonalization lemma.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
