[FOM] A proof that cannot be formalized in ZFC

[laureano luna]

Alex Blum wrote:

>Why does it follow that if there is no model of ZFC
>in which con(ZFC)
> is 
>true that the negation of con(ZFC) has a proof in
>ZFC?
>Doesn't this assume that ZFC is  complete?

No, it doesn't.

For any first order theory T, T has a model iff T is
consistent (here I had previously mentioned Henkin's
1949 result but Martin Davis has reminded me of the
fact that this was already in Gödel's 1930
completeness theorem); for any theory T and
any sentence S, T+S is inconsistent iff the negation
of S is a logical consequence of T.

Now, since first order logic is complete, ZFC proves
whatever is a logical consequence of its axioms. So,
if ZFC+Con(ZFC) has no model, then ZFC proves the
negation of Con(ZFC).
 
Laureano Luna




       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sé un Mejor Amante del Cine                         
¿Quieres saber cómo? ¡Deja que otras personas te ayuden!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/reto/entretenimiento.html