[FOM] Only one proof (fwd)

John Baldwin jbaldwin at uic.edu
Wed Sep 9 11:17:04 EDT 2009

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, Aatu Koskensilta wrote:

  Quoting William Tait <williamtait at mac.com>:
> > Two examples in set theory are Goedel's proof of the consistency of CH
> > relative to ZF using inner models and Cohen's proof of the consistency
> > of Not-CH using forcing.
> Another example: Gdel's proof for the first incompleteness theorem
> understood as the result that the set of Pi-1 truths is productive.
> I'm not aware of any way of proving this result without going through
> essentially the recursion theoretic contortions found in the original
> proof. (I may well be just ignorant.)
I am not sure of how `understood as productive' affects the observation 
that via Paris-Harrington,
the first incompleteness theorem can be proved without coding syntax. 
This surely qualifies as a
different proof.

John T. Baldwin
Emeritus Professor
Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer
jbaldwin at uic.edu
Room 613 Science and Engineering Offices (SEO)
851 S. Morgan
Chicago, IL 60607

More information about the FOM mailing list