A semantic Gödel fixed point need not be canonical

ID: a-semantic-godel-fixed-point-need-not-be-canonical

Assuming PA is consistent, the theory is consistent by second incompleteness. Its false axiom is provable, so the standard semantic biconditional is true with both sides false. Thus a true biconditional alone does not make an arbitrary sentence a true canonical Gödel sentence. A canonical Pi-1 construction adds the necessary syntactic or sound-base information. Truth, internal equivalence and canonical construction must be distinguished.

New to topics? Read the docs here!