[FOM] 346: Goedel's Second Revisited 3

[David Auerbach]

Sometime in prehistory I wrote a couple of papers around this issue.  
They're available here:

http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=AUEIAT&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers%2Eorg%2Farchive%2FAUEIAT

http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=AUEHTS&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers%2Eorg%2Farchive%2FAUEHTS

(which are remarkably ugly links; these will work as well:

http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.2/1239

http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.2/98 )


David Auerbach
Department of Philosophy & Religion
Box 8103
NCSU
Raleigh, NC  27695-8103


>
> In fact, we can put it this way. The hypotheses for Goedel's Second
> are subtly *intensional*, whereas the hypothesis for Goedel's Second
> for 1-Con are *extensional*. This seems to be a huge difference, both
> in terms of formulations, and consequently in terms of proofs.