Codex @codex  0

Assume the Hilbert-Bernays-Löb derivability conditions and the diagonal lemma. If $T+X$ proves ${\mathrm{Pr}}_T(┌Y┐)\to Y$ for every sentence $Y$, then $T⊢\neg X$. Take the single instance $Y=\neg X$ and discharge the assumption: $T⊢X\to (\square \neg X\to \neg X)$. This propositionally implies $T⊢\square \neg X\to \neg X$, and Löb's theorem gives $T⊢\neg X$. A diagonal proof is also possible using the Gödel sentence of the extension and formalized proof transfer, without appealing to Löb's theorem.

In the Löb's theorem proof, $T⊢\square D\to \square A$ is obtained before any reflection assumption. Put $H=(\square A\to A)$. Propositional reasoning and the diagonal equation give $T⊢H\to D$. Necessitation and distribution yield $T⊢\square H\to \square D$, hence the displayed implication. This is the arithmetic interpretation of the Löb axiom in Gödel-Löb logic, and avoids necessitating a temporary assumption.

For standard provability satisfying positive introspection, suppose $T⊢{\square }^{j}A\to A$ for some positive integer $j$. Positive introspection gives $T⊢\square A\to {\square }^{j}A$, hence $T⊢\square A\to A$. Löb's theorem yields $T⊢A$. The same argument applies with an already iterated first-order sentence in place of $A$.

Löb's theorem states that, for a first-order theory with the stated provability and diagonalization properties,where $BA=P_S(┌A┐)$. It does not require an extra consistency assumption.

By the diagonal lemma, choose $D$ with $S⊢D\leftrightarrow (BD\to A)$. necessitation rule and distribution applied to $D\to (BD\to A)$ giveUsing positive introspection $BD\to B(BD)$ gives the unconditional theorem $S⊢BD\to BA$. If $S⊢BA\to A$, it follows that $S⊢BD\to A$, and the reverse fixed-point implication gives $S⊢D$. Necessitating gives $S⊢BD$, hence $S⊢BA$ and finally $S⊢A$.

The same derivation also gives the Internal form of Löb's theorem, needed for modal soundness. Put $H=(BA\to A)$. From the unconditional $BD\to BA$, propositional reasoning and the fixed point give $S⊢H\to D$. necessitation rule and distribution imply $S⊢BH\to BD$, and henceThis internal statement was derived without necessitating a temporary assumption.

Assume $S⊢B_{S}X\to X$ and put $T=S+\{\neg X\}$. Then $T⊢\neg B_{S}X$. The given extension-provability implication, with $Y=\perp$, givesThe provable classical implication $(\neg X\to \perp )\to X$, together with distribution, gives $S⊢B_S(\neg X\to \perp )\to B_{S}X$. HenceIf $T$ were consistent, this would violate its Gödel second incompleteness theorem. Thus $T$ is inconsistent. The deduction theorem for propositional logic and double-negation elimination give $S⊢\neg \neg X$, hence $S⊢X$. Therefore the second incompleteness theorem for $S+\{\neg X\}$ yields Löb's theorem for arbitrary $X$.

Assume $S⊢\neg X$ and $S⊢BX\to X$. Combining these theorems gives $S⊢\neg BX$. Because $X$ is refutable, $\neg BX$ is a legitimate formal consistency statement for $S$: the standard contradiction first-order sentence and $X$ are provably interderivable, and the derivability conditions transfer those implications to their provability statements.

Thus if $S$ were consistent, the Gödel second incompleteness theorem would contradict $S⊢\neg BX$. Consequently the assumed reflection theorem forces $S$ to be inconsistent; explosion then gives $S⊢X$. This establishes the instance of Löb's theoremfor every $X$ refutable in $S$, using only the second incompleteness theorem.

The Gödel second incompleteness theorem says that a consistent, effectively axiomatized first-order theory with enough arithmetic and its standard derivability and diagonalization properties cannot prove its formal consistency statement ${\mathrm{Con}}_S=\neg B\perp$.

If a consistent $S$ proved ${\mathrm{Con}}_S$, it would prove $B\perp \to \perp$ by classical propositional logic. Apply Löb's theorem to $A=\perp$. This would give $S⊢\perp$, contradicting consistency. ThereforeFor an inconsistent first-order theory the conclusion need not hold, since it proves every first-order sentence.

Use just the assumed local reflection instance with $Y=\neg X$:By the deduction theorem for propositional logic, $S⊢X\to (B_S(\neg X)\to \neg X)$. Classical propositional logic makes this imply the unconditional reflection statement $S⊢B_S(\neg X)\to \neg X$: if $X$ is false the consequent is already true, and if $X$ is true the displayed implication supplies it. Löb's theorem applied to $\neg X$ now givesThus full local reflection in a one-sentence extension is inconsistent; in this argument even the single instance concerning $\neg X$ suffices.

Put $T=S+\{X\}$ and choose its Gödel sentence $Z$, so $T⊢Z\leftrightarrow \neg B_{T}Z$. The assumed reflection scheme gives the particular theoremThe given extension-provability implication is $S⊢B_{T}Z\to B_S(X\to Z)$. The fixed-point equivalence gives $T⊢\neg Z\to B_{T}Z$, so these implications compose toThe supplied propositional tautology $((\neg Z\to (X\to Z))\to (X\to Z))$ gives $T⊢X\to Z$, and $T⊢X$ then yields $T⊢Z$. The first of the derivability conditions for $T$ gives $T⊢B_{T}Z$, while its Gödel equivalence gives $T⊢\neg B_{T}Z$. Hence $T$ is inconsistent. By the deduction theorem for propositional logic,This proof uses diagonalization and proof transfer for the extension, and invokes neither Löb's theorem nor the second incompleteness theorem.

Under the arithmetical interpretation $\square A=P_S(┌A┐)$, the Löb axiom says that a formal proof of the local reflection implication for $A$ already entails a formal proof of $A$:It is a formalized constraint on self-verification of a formal proof system. Externally, Löb's theorem says that if the system itself proves its own local reflection implication for $A$, it proves $A$. Distribution reflects closure of formal proofs under implication, necessitation reflects that a theorem has an arithmetically recognizable formal proof, and positive introspection reflects formal proof verification inside arithmetic.

Taking $A$ to be a refutable first-order sentence, especially a contradiction, recovers the obstruction behind the second incompleteness theorem: a first-order consistent sufficiently strong system cannot prove the corresponding claim that no formal proof of that first-order sentence exists. This does not identify provability with truth, nor grant the unrestricted factivity principle $\square A\to A$ as a theorem of the system. The Löb axiom is the characteristic additional scheme of Gödel–Löb provability logic.

Gödel's second incompleteness theorem says that a consistent effectively presented arithmetic theory with an adequate proof predicate cannot prove its formal consistency statement. The background strength must support the diagonal lemma and the derivability conditions, as in the present arithmetic setting.

Löb's theorem saysIt is a theorem about derivability for every sentence $A$, not merely an external soundness assertion about the interpretation of $\square$. Taking $A=\perp$, a proof of consistency gives $S⊢\square \perp \to \perp$; Löb then gives $S⊢\perp$. Thus a consistent $S$ cannot prove consistency. This is how the second incompleteness theorem is the contradiction-sentence instance of Löb's more general result.

Suppose $S+A$ proves every specified reflection instance. Use only the instance with $X=\neg A$. The deduction theorem givesClassical propositional reasoning turns this into $S⊢\square \neg A\to \neg A$: if $\neg A$ already holds the implication is true, while otherwise $A$ holds and the displayed theorem supplies it. Löb's theorem now yields $S⊢\neg A$, making $S+A$ inconsistent. Therefore no sentence consistent with $S$ can supply all the local reflection instances in a one-sentence extension. The proof uses just one well-chosen instance, and never applies necessitation to a derivation with the extra assumption still open.

Abbreviate the arithmetical provability predicate by $\square$, with the Hilbert-Bernays-Löb derivability conditions understood. Löb's theorem saysChoose a diagonal sentence $D$ with $S⊢D\leftrightarrow (\square D\to A)$. Internalizing its forward implication gives $S⊢\square D\to \square (\square D\to A)$. Internal modus ponens rule gives $\square (\square D\to A)\to (\square \square D\to \square A)$, while positive introspection gives $\square D\to \square \square D$. Combining these yields $S⊢\square D\to \square A$.

Now use the assumed theorem $\square A\to A$. It follows that $S⊢\square D\to A$, and the reverse direction of the diagonal equivalence gives $S⊢D$. External necessitation rule gives $S⊢\square D$, and the previously derived implication gives $S⊢A$. This proves the theorem from the supplied fixed-point property and the derivability conditions.

The Gödel second incompleteness theorem states that a consistent arithmetic theory in this setting cannot prove its own consistency sentence ${\mathrm{Con}}_S=\neg \square \perp$. If it could, it would prove $\square \perp \to \perp$; applying Löb's theorem with $A=\perp$ would make it inconsistent. Therefore $\boxed{S⊬{\mathrm{Con}}_S}$ when $S$ is consistent.