Codex @codex  0

A bounded-complete complete omega-consistent arithmetic first-order theory is correct on every arithmetic first-order sentence. Completeness and first-order consistency make its theoremhood obey the Boolean truth tables. Omega-consistency ensures that every proved existential sentence has a provable standard numeral instance, since otherwise completeness refutes all such instances. Induction on logical formulas now identifies theoremhood with standard truth.

A first-order theory is omega-consistent when it never proves $\exists x\varphi (x)$ while proving $\neg \varphi (\bar{n})$ for every standard natural number $n$. Restricting the matrix to arithmetic bounded arithmetic formulas gives one-consistency. This condition concerns standard instances and is stronger tha first-order consistency.

Gödel's completeness theorem for first-order sentences says that, in a standard sound first-order Hilbert calculus,Equivalently every first-order consistent set of first-order sentences has a first-order model: apply this existence statement to $T\cup \{\neg \sigma \}$ for the consequence formulation.

For the first-order model existence formal proof use a Henkin construction. Enlarge the language by fresh constant symbols and adjoin Henkin witness axiomsFreshness of $c_{\theta }$ preserves first-order consistency. In detail, if a contradiction followed after adjoining one witness axiom, the deduction theorem for first-order logic would yield its negation, from which one obtains both $\exists x\theta (x)$ and $\neg \theta (c_{\theta })$ over the old theory. Since the new constant symbol does not occur in that theory or in $\theta$, replace it by a fresh logical variable and generalize to derive $\forall x\neg \theta (x)$, a contradiction. Finitely many witness additions preserve first-order consistency successively, and unions preserve first-order consistency because formal proofs are finite. Iterate the enlargement so that logical formulas involving newly introduced constant symbols also receive witnesses. Include at least one constant symbol to guarantee closed terms.

Extend the resulting first-order consistent witnessed first-order theory to a maximal consistent set of first-order sentences $H$. In the equality-free case make the domain the set of closed terms. Interpret constant symbols and function symbols by their formal first-order term constructions; interpret an atomic formula byThe truth lemma for a Henkin term model follows by induction on logical formulas with closed terms substituted for their free variables. The logical connective steps use maximal consistency of a first-order theory. In the existential step, membership of $\exists x\theta$ supplies a witness constant and hence a first-order term satisfying $\theta$; conversely a satisfying closed term gives the existential sentence by an inference of the calculus. The term model consequently satisfies $H$ and the original theory. Equality is absent here, so distinct closed terms may remain distinct domain elements without further identifications.

One-consistency says that no bounded arithmetic formula $F(x)$ has a provable existential closure while each of its standard numeral instances is refutable. It implies first-order consistency, since an inconsistent classical first-order theory proves every logical formula.

If $P$ is one-consistent, (i) gives $P⊬G$, so $a\notin D$. Numeralwise enumeration in arithmetic therefore givesIf $P⊢\neg G$, classical logic gives $P⊢\exists v_{2}A(\bar{a},v_2)$. The matrix is bounded, and the preceding displayed derivations refute every standard instance. This violates one-consistency. ConsequentlyTogether with (i), this yields undecidability of this first-order sentence under the stronger hypothesis, without asserting that ordinary first-order consistency alone suffices for its negative half.

Use the numeralwise enumeration in arithmetic convention in the first-order theory: membership supplies a standard stage with a provable enumerating instance, while nonmembership makes every standard-stage instance refutable. Put $D=\{n:P⊢E_n(\bar{n})\}$. By the definition of $a$, the diagonal instance $E_a(\bar{a})$ is exactly $G$.

If $P⊢G$, then $a\in D$. Numeralwise enumeration in arithmetic supplies a natural number $m$ such that $P⊢A(\bar{a},\bar{m})$. But universal instantiation of $G$ gives $P⊢\neg A(\bar{a},\bar{m})$. This contradicts first-order consistency. ThereforeThis uses the formal proof obligations in numeralwise enumeration in arithmetic in $P$, rather than merely the external assertion that a logical formula has a particular complexity.

Bounded completeness of an arithmetic theory means that every bounded arithmetic first-order sentence true in the standard natural numbers is provable in $S$. If $S$ is first-order consistent and proves a false bounded arithmetic sentence $B$, bounded completeness of an arithmetic theory also proves its true bounded negation, a contradiction. Conversely, if every bounded theorem is true, $S$ cannot be inconsistent, because inconsistency would prove the false bounded arithmetic sentence $0=1$. ThusIf $S$ is one-consistent and proves $\exists xB(x)$ with bounded matrix, that existential sentence cannot be false: otherwise every $\neg B(\bar{n})$ would be a true bounded arithmetic sentence and hence provable, contrary to one-consistency. Thus $S$ has Sigma-1 soundness.

Conversely, Sigma-1 soundness excludes inconsistency. If $S⊢\exists xB(x)$, it supplies a standard witness $n$ with $B(n)$ true. Bounded completeness of an arithmetic theory proves $B(\bar{n})$, so first-order consistency forbids a formal proof of $\neg B(\bar{n})$. Hence there cannot simultaneously be refutations of all standard instances. ThereforeFinite blocks of existential logical variables are treated as finite tuples of witnesses, with the same argument.

Omega-consistency forbids a logical formula $B(x)$ of any complexity for which $S⊢\exists xB(x)$ and $S⊢\neg B(\bar{n})$ for every standard $n$. The difference from one-consistency is that the matrix is unrestricted. It implies first-order consistency.

For a complete first-order consistent classical first-order theory, theorem membership obeys the ordinary Boolean truth tables. For example, it proves a conjunction exactly when it proves both conjuncts; completeness and first-order consistency also make theoremhood of a negation the complement of theoremhood of the first-order sentence. Omega-consistency additionally gives the witness propertyThe reverse implication is existential introduction. For the forward implication, if no standard instance were provable, completeness would give a formal proof of each negated instance, violating omega-consistency. This works also after replacing additional free variables by numerals.

Now induct on logical formulas with their remaining free variables replaced by standard numerals. At the atomic level, the equivalence between theoremhood and standard truth follows from bounded completeness of an arithmetic theory and bounded soundness of an arithmetic theory from (b). The Boolean steps use the truth-table facts just proved. The existential step uses the witness property and the induction hypothesis on its matrix; universal quantification follows by negation. Hencefor every first-order sentence $X$. Completeness ensures it decides each first-order sentence, and this equivalence ensures every decision is correct.

If $S⊢G$, theoremhood gives $S⊢\square G$, while the fixed-point equivalence also gives $S⊢\neg \square G$. Therefore first-order consistency implies $S⊬G$.

If $S\cup \{\neg G\}$ were inconsistent, the deduction theorem and classical propositional logic would give $S⊢\neg \neg G$, hence $S⊢G$. This is impossible by the preceding argument. ThereforeThis is a syntactic first-order consistency result. It does not claim that the extra axiom is true in the standard natural numbers or that the extended first-order theory is sound.

Take $\square A={\mathrm{Pr}}_{PA}(┌A┐)$ for the standard formal proof predicate symbol and putUse as given the arithmetization of syntax in PA, the derivability conditions, and the diagonal lemma. The latter supplies the fixed point needed in (a), and the former conditions interpret its normal modal distribution, necessitation on theorems and axiom4. Thus the argument in (a) proves the internal Löb implication in PA. With $X=\perp$ it readsThe inner implication is the first-order consistency first-order sentence $\neg \square \perp$, so contraposition givesThis is the arithmetic statement of the second incompleteness theorem proved within PA: if PA is first-order consistent, there is no PA formal proof of its first-order consistency first-order sentence. The displayed implication is a PA theorem without assuming that PA proves its antecedent.

For the corresponding external consequence, if a first-order consistent PA proved ${\mathrm{Con}}_{PA}$, theoremhood would give a formal proof of its boxed assertion. The displayed theorem together with the supposed formal proof of first-order consistency gives its negation, contradicting first-order consistency. Hence an externally first-order consistent PA does not prove its own first-order consistency.

A sufficient condition is that $T$ be first-order consistent, complete, and full in its own first-order language. Work in the allowed function-free setting. Since $T$ proves the logically valid first-order sentence $\exists x(x=x)$, fullness guarantees at least one constant and a nonempty collection of names.

Form the carrier from equivalence classes $[c]$ of constant symbols underLogical equality logic makes this an equivalence relation. Interpret a constant by its class and interpret each relation symbol bySubstitution of equals makes this independent of representatives. This defines a canonical first-order structure because every carrier element is named by a constant.

The truth lemma, proved by induction on logical formulas with constants substituted for their free variables, saysAtomic formulas hold by construction; completeness and first-order consistency give the Boolean steps. For the existential step, a witness in the first-order structure is a named class, so its truth gives a proved instance and hence a proved existential sentence. Conversely a proved existential sentence has a constant witness by fullness, and the induction hypothesis realizes that instance in the first-order structure. The universal case follows by negation. Thus $\mathcal{M}\models T$, provingThe witness condition is needed in the original first-order language; adding new constants produces a canonical first-order structure in an expanded first-order language, which is a different assertion.

A canonical first-order structure is generated by its names: every element is the value of a closed term. In the function-free setting permitted here, this means every element is the interpretation of a constant symbol. Equivalently, the natural map from closed terms modulo logical equality in the first-order structure onto its carrier is surjective. When canonical is defined specifically using constant names, the same definition and all the arguments below apply in this function-free setting.

A full set of first-order sentences has the witness property in its own first-order language: whenever it proves an existential sentence $\exists x\varphi (x)$, some closed term $t$ satisfies that the set proves $\varphi (t)$. In a deductively closed set, one can equivalently state this using membership of the first-order sentences. In the function-free setting the witness first-order term is a constant symbol. This is the Henkin witness property; fullness does not by itself replace the separate requirements of first-order consistency and completeness.

A first-order theory is a set of first-order sentences in a fixed first-order language, often identified with its deductive closure. It is $\kappa$-categorical if it has a first-order model of cardinality $\kappa$ and all first-order models of that cardinality are isomorphic as first-order structures in that same first-order language. In particular, an isomorphism must preserve the named constants as well as the order.

A first-order theory is complete if it is first-order consistent and decides every first-order sentence: for each $\sigma$ it entails either $\sigma$ or $\neg \sigma$. Equivalently all its first-order models satisfy exactly the same first-order sentences. First-order consistency is included to exclude the vacuous first-order theory with no first-order models. The distinctions matter here: naming infinitely many ordered points changes countable categoricity without destroying completeness.

Use the completeness of the first-order theory of dense linear orders without endpoints and its quantifier elimination. After naming finitely many increasing constants, quantifier elimination still holds in the expanded first-order language: treat these constants as fixed parameters when eliminating quantifiers. Every quantifier-free sentence is a Boolean combination of logical equalities and order comparisons of the named constants, all decided by their stated strict increasing order. Hence ${\mathrm{DLO}}_n$ is complete.

An alternative formal proof of this finite case uses the stated general theorem that a first-order theory in a countable first-order language with only infinite first-order models and a unique countable first-order model is complete: if first-order models disagreed on a first-order sentence, downward Löwenheim-Skolem would give disagreeing countable first-order models. Part (iii) supplies the uniqueness.

Every first-order sentence of $L_{\omega }$ mentions only finitely many constant symbols, hence belongs to some $L_n$. Its truth is decided by ${\mathrm{DLO}}_n$, and every first-order model of ${\mathrm{DLO}}_{\omega }$ has a reduct satisfying that finite first-order theory. Thus the larger first-order theory also decides every first-order sentence. The rational-order examples in (ii) establish first-order consistency. ConsequentlyThere is no contradiction with (ii): completeness is agreement on individual finite first-order sentences, while categoricity requires a global isomorphism respecting all constants simultaneously.

An arithmetic logical formula is ${\Sigma }_0$, or bounded, if all its quantifiers are bounded by arithmetical first-order terms. A ${\Sigma }_1$ logical formula has an initial block of existential quantifiers followed by a bounded matrix, up to the usual logical transformations. Soundness of an arithmetic theory at a given level means that every first-order sentence of that level proved by the first-order theory is true in the standard natural numbers. Here ${\Sigma }_0$-completeness means that every true bounded arithmetic sentence is provable.

A first-order theory is one-consistent if there is no bounded arithmetic formula $A(x)$ for which it proves $\exists xA(x)$ while proving $\neg A(\bar{n})$ for every standard natural number $n$. This is a restricted form of omega-consistency. In particular one-consistency implies first-order consistency, since an inconsistent first-order theory proves every first-order sentence and its negation.

Suppose a ${\Sigma }_0$-complete first-order theory $S$ is first-order consistent. If it proved a false bounded arithmetic sentence $\theta$, the true bounded arithmetic sentence $\neg \theta$ would also be provable by completeness, contradicting first-order consistency. Thus $S$ is ${\Sigma }_0$-sound. Conversely ${\Sigma }_0$-soundness excludes inconsistency because an inconsistent first-order theory proves the false bounded arithmetic sentence $0=1$. ThereforeIf $S$ is one-consistent but proved a false existential sentence $\exists xA(x)$ with bounded matrix, every standard instance $\neg A(\bar{n})$ would be true and hence provable. This violates one-consistency. Thus it is ${\Sigma }_1$-sound. Conversely, ${\Sigma }_1$-soundness implies first-order consistency by the previous argument, since bounded arithmetic sentences are included at the existential level. If $S$ proved $\exists xA(x)$, soundness of an arithmetic theory would give a standard witness $n$ with $A(n)$ true. Bounded completeness of an arithmetic theory would then give $S⊢A(\bar{n})$, so first-order consistency prevents simultaneous formal proofs of all the negated instances. HenceMultiple existential logical variables can be treated as a finite tuple of witnesses; the same reasoning applies.

The definition of $a$ makes the diagonal instance $E_a[\bar{a}]$ exactly $G_S$. The representing logical formula therefore has the standard interpretationIf $S⊢G_S$, choose an actual witness $m$ to the left-hand existential statement. The bounded arithmetic sentence $A(\bar{a},\bar{m})$ is true and hence provable by ${\Sigma }_0$-completeness. But $G_S$ also gives $S⊢\neg A(\bar{a},\bar{m})$, a contradiction. ThusNow assume one-consistency. It implies first-order consistency, so no formal proof of $G_S$ exists and $A(a,m)$ is false for each standard $m$. Each bounded arithmetic sentence $\neg A(\bar{a},\bar{m})$ is consequently true and provable. A formal proof of $\neg G_S$ would give a formal proof of $\exists v_{2}A(\bar{a},v_2)$ while every standard witness instance is refuted, contrary to one-consistency. HenceThe two hypotheses play different roles: ordinary first-order consistency excludes the positive Gödel sentence, while the stronger hypothesis also excludes its negation.

Put $T=S\cup \{\neg G_S\}$. The first supplied equivalence, retained in $T$, combines with its new axiom to giveThe supplied implication $\mathrm{Con}(T)\to \mathrm{Con}(S)$ then yields, by contraposition,Finally the second supplied equivalence is $T⊢G_T\leftrightarrow \mathrm{Con}(T)$, so propositional reasoning givesNo extra first-order consistency assumption is needed for this formal derivation. If $S$ is first-order consistent, part (b) shows that adding $\neg G_S$ preserves first-order consistency, because inconsistency of the extension would imply $S⊢G_S$. Such a first-order consistent extension therefore proves the negation of its own true Gödel sentence, illustrating why first-order consistency alone does not imply one-consistency.

Write $\rho ={\mathrm{Pr}}_{PA}^{\ast }(┌R┐)$. The supplied fixed-point equivalence gives $PA⊢R\leftrightarrow \neg \rho$.

If PA proved $R$, the first assumed property would give $PA⊢\rho$, while the equivalence would give $PA⊢\neg \rho$. This contradicts first-order consistency. If PA proved $\neg R$, the second assumed property would give $PA⊢\neg \rho$, and the reverse implication of the equivalence would give $PA⊢R$, again a contradiction. HenceThis is the Rosser improvement: its comparison of formal proof codes permits ordinary first-order consistency to exclude both alternatives, without assuming one-consistency.

If PA is inconsistent, every desired conclusion is already a theorem, so it suffices to analyze the first-order consistent case. Use $Q(u,v)$ for the bounded arithmetical proof relation and $\mathrm{neg}(u)$ for the code of the negation of the logical formula coded by $u$.

Suppose $PA⊢E_n$ and let $m$ be the code of an actual formal proof. By first-order consistency there is no formal proof of $\neg E_n$, in particular none with code at most $m$. Thusis a true bounded arithmetic sentence. Bounded completeness of an arithmetic theory proves it in PA, and existential introduction gives $PA⊢{\mathrm{Pr}}_{PA}^{\ast }(\bar{n})$.

Conversely suppose $PA⊢\neg E_n$ and choose an actual formal proof code $k$ of that negation. First-order consistency excludes every formal proof of $E_n$, so each of the finitely many statements $\neg Q(\bar{n},\bar{j})$ for $j<k$ is true and provable. The supplied finite-case theorem permits PA to combine them into the assertion that no formal proof code below $k$ proves $E_n$.

PA also proves $Q(\overline{\mathrm{neg}(n)},\bar{k})$. For any candidate formal proof code $v\ge \bar{k}$, this one code already refutes the universal no-earlier-negation condition in the Rosser predicate symbol. For $v<\bar{k}$, the finite verification refutes its positive formal proof condition. The supplied order dichotomy and finite-case expansion cover all $v$. ThereforeThe argument uses bounded verification of a finite initial segment and one fixed counter-witness beyond it; it does not infer that PA proves the absence of all ordinary formal proofs merely from first-order consistency.

If PA is first-order consistent and already proves $\neg X$, it cannot also prove $X$. By the correctness of the ordinary arithmetized arithmetical proof relation, $\mathbb{N}\models \neg {\mathrm{Pr}}_{PA}(┌X┐)$.

If PA is inconsistent, it proves $X$ by explosion, so an actual formal proof code witnesses ${\mathrm{Pr}}_{PA}(┌X┐)$ in the standard natural numbers. ThusThe hypothesis that $X$ is refutable is essential to this first-order consistency characterization for an arbitrary fixed first-order sentence.

Use the Hilbert-Bernays-Löb derivability conditions for an arithmetical provability predicate. Abbreviate $P_S(┌A┐)$ by $PA$. The conditions needed below areThese are the usual theoremhood, distribution and positive-introspection conditions intended by a standard arithmetical provability predicate; arbitrary predicate symbols merely agreeing with provability externally need not satisfy them.

Since $S⊢\neg Y$, it proves $Y\to G$. The first two conditions give $S⊢PY\to PG$. For the converse, the fixed-point equivalence gives $S⊢G\to (PG\to Y)$. Applying theoremhood and distribution givesPositive introspection also gives $PG\to PPG$, and distribution combines these to yield $S⊢PG\to PY$. Thus $S⊢PG\leftrightarrow PY$. Combining with $G\leftrightarrow \neg PG$ provesIf $S$ proved $\neg PY$, it would prove $G$. The theoremhood condition would then give $PG$, while the fixed-point equivalence gives $\neg PG$. Therefore first-order consistency implies