Assume additionally that the internal modus-ponens condition requested in part (c) holds for this . If positive introspection also held for every sentence, then would satisfy all three Hilbert-Bernays-Löb derivability conditions: external necessitation rule was proved in part (c), modus ponens rule is the added condition, and introspection is the supposition.
The diagonal lemma applies to just as to any arithmetic formula. The usual Gödel second incompleteness theorem for a predicate with these conditions would then imply
when is consistent. Part (b) proves the opposite. Therefore the three conditions cannot all hold, and under the added modus-ponens hypothesis there must be some sentence such that
This is the intended contradiction argument and requires no identification of a particular .
Without that extra hypothesis, the valid conclusion is only that at least one of internal modus ponens rule and positive introspection fails. Rosser predicates can be constructed that satisfy positive introspection, so a failure of that condition cannot be inferred from the printed general assumptions alone. [ref]. The distinction concerns proof coding, not a missing page of the exam.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.