[FOM] Truth of the Goedel sentence
William Tait
wwtx at earthlink.net
Fri May 2 10:17:37 EDT 2003
There has been some discussion in the FOM list of the meaning of truth
in Friedman's (4/29)
> *) there is a true sentence in the language of PA which is not
> provable in PA.
What about
**) There is a sentence of PA not provable in PA but provable in PA^2.
If we agree that having a proof of it is a warrant (and, I would add,
the only warrant that we have) for asserting a sentence phi of PA
(which is the same thing as asserting its truth) then the assertion of
truth need only be (and must be) backed by an assertion of
provability. Of course, the question of whether or not the provability
of phi in an extension of PA yields its truth will depend upon whether
or not we accept the new concepts and axioms of the extension---in the
case of PA^2, quantification over sets of numbers (with the
comprehension axion, although for the case in question, this can be
weakened). Since I accept PA^2 as a part of mathematics, I rest easy
with Friedman's *)
Of course, one might raise the possibility of taking phi itself as a
new axiom, rendering my suggested justification of *) trivial. We
could say that most people would not accept phi as an axiom; but truth
should no be democratically determined. So this would lead to the
question of what should count as an axiom---a very interesting
question, I think.
Bill Tait
More information about the FOM
mailing list