trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Godel's second incompleteness theorem proves that no consistent formal system can prove its own consistency.
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
6 sources for · 0 against

Multiple mathematical and logic sources explicitly state that Gödel's second incompleteness theorem demonstrates that a sufficiently strong, consistent formal system cannot prove its own consistency.

Evidence for · 6
2019 · cited by 129
In 1931, when he was only 25 years of age, the great Austrian logician Kurt Gödel (1906– 1978) published an epoch-making paper [16] (for an English translation see [8, pp. 5–38]), in which he proved that an effectively definable consistent mathematical theory which is strong enough to prove Peano’s postulates of elementary arithmetic cannot prove its own consistency. In fact, Gödel first established that there always exist sentences φ in the language of Peano Arithmetic which are true, but are undecidable; that is, neither φ nor ¬φ is provable from Peano’s postulates. This is known as Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem. This theorem is quite remarkable in its own right because it shows that Peano’s well-known postulates, which by and large are considered as an axiomatic basis for elementary arithmetic, cannot prove all true statements about natural numbers. But Gödel went even further. He showed that his first incompleteness theorem implies that an effectively definable sufficiently strong consistent mathematical theory cannot prove its own consistency. This theorem became known as Gödel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem. Since then the two theorems are referred to as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems. They became landmark theorems and had a huge impact on the subsequent development of logic. In order to give more context, we step further back in time. The idea of formalizing logic goes back to the ancient Greek philosophers. One of the first to pursue it was the great German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716). His dream was to develop a universal symbolic language, which would reduce all debate to simple calculation. The next major figure in this pursuit was the English mathematician George Boole (1815–1864), who has provided the first successful steps in this direction. This line of research was developed to a great extent by the famous German mathematician and philosopher Gottlob Frege (1848–1925), and reached its peak in the works of Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) and Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947). Their magnum opus Principia Mathematica [27] has provided relatively simple, yet rigorous formal basis for logic, and became very influential in the development of the twentieth century logic. ∗Mathematical Sciences; Dept. 3MB, Box 30001; New Mexico State University; Las Cruces, NM 88003; gbezhani@nmsu.edu. We recall that a theory is consistent if it does not prove contradiction. More details on the work of Boole, Frege, and Russell and Whitehead can be found on our webpage http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/historical-projects/; see the historical projects [24, 7]. The work of Boole has resulted in an important concept of Boolean algebra, which is discussed in great length in a series of historical projects [3, 2, 1], also available on our webpage.
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:for=4+2p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency

More for · 5
2005 · cited by 36
Godel began his 1951 Gibbs Lecture by stating: "Research in the founda tions of mathematics during the past few decades has produced some results which seem to me of interest, not only in themselves, but also with regard to their implications for the traditional philosophical problems about the nature of mathematics." (Godel 1951) Godel is referring here especially to his own incompleteness theorems (Godel 1931). Godel's first incompleteness theorem (as improved by Rosser (1936)) says that for any consistent formalized system F, which contains elementary arith metic, there exists a sentence GF of the language of the system which is true but unprovable in that system. Godel's second incompleteness theo rem states that no consistent formal system can prove its own consisten cy.1 These results are unquestionably among the most philosophically important logico-mathematical discoveries ever made. However, there is also ample misunderstanding and confusion surrounding them. The aim of this paper is to review and evaluate various philosophical interpreta tions of Godel's theorems and their consequences, as well as to clarify some confusions.
1992 · cited by 14
In this note we give a short proof of Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem. G6del's Second Incompleteness Theorem states that no sufficiently strong consistent mathematical theory can prove its own consistency [1]. In this note we give a short proof of the theorem. Theorem. It is unprovable in set theory (unless it is inconsistent) that there exists a model of set theory. Proof. Assume that set theory is consistent and that it proves that a model of set theory exists. Let I be a finite set of axioms sufficiently strong to formulate the concepts "model" and "satisfies" and to prove the existence of a model of set theory. For the rest of the proof, a model means a model of I and letters M and N denote models. If m is a set with a binary relation, Em denotes that relation. If N l= (E is a relation), then E* is the relation consisting of all pairs (x, y) such that N F xEy. If M and N, are models we define M < N if there exists some m E N such that EM= (Em)*. (Informally, M < N means that M is, in the real world, the structure that N thinks m is.) If M < N then for every sentence a (1) M F a if and only if N =(m = a). In particular, N F (m is a model). Also, if N l (m is a model), then (em)* is the E-relation of some model M < N. It follows that (2) if M1 < M2 and M2 < M3 then M1 < M3. Let us consider some fixed coding of formulas by numbers (Godel numbering), and let S, be the name for the nth definable set of numbers. Received by the editors September 29, 1992 and, in revised form, November 30, 1992. 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 03B99, 03C99, 03E99, 03F99. Supported in part by NSF grant DMS-8918299. ? 1994 American Mathematical Society 0002-9939/94 $1.00 + $.25 per page
2004 · cited by 0
first incompleteness theorem. The first is syntactical, in which the formulas of the formal system are … of Gédel’s second incompleteness theorem. By the argument of Case 1 of his first theorem, we have: If … and 3 by Gédel’s first incompleteness theorem. By Gédel’s completeness theorem, both will possess a denumerable
2002 · cited by 0
In this paper, we attempt to show that a weak version of Hilberťs metamathematics is compatible with Godel's Incompleteness Theorems by employing only what are clearly natural provability predicates. Defining first 4T proves the consistency of a theory S indirectly in one step", we subsequently prove (i) "PA proves its own consistency indirectly in one step" and sketch the proof for (ii) "If S is a recursively enumerable extension of (QF-IA), S proves its own consistency indirectly in one step". The formalizations of the metatheoretical consistency assertions that occur in these theorems are clearly the natural ones. We conclude the paper with reflections on indirect consistency proofs and soundness proofs. 1. Goders Incompleteness Theorems and Consistency Proofs The main goal of Hilberťs foundational project was to vindicate all of classical mathematics by means of a finitist metamathematical consistency "proof'. Hilbert considered classical mathematics to be the paradigm of unassailable truth and believed that finitist means, as conceived by him, were absolutely reliable.1 For decades it has been widely held that Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem put an end to Hilberťs original proof-theoretic programme. On the face of it, this view seems plausible: if we succeeded in carrying out a consistency proof for all of mathematics in metamathematics, mathematics would prove its own consistency, given that metamathematics is only a small fragment of mathematics in its entirety.
cited by 0
Kurt Friedrich Gödel ( GUR-dəl; German: [ˈkʊʁt ˈɡøːdl̩] ; April 28, 1906 – January 14, 1978) was a logician, mathematician, cosmologist, and philosopher. Considered along with Aristotle and Gottlob Frege to be one of the most significant logicians in history, Gödel profoundly influenced scientific and philosophical thinking in the 20th century (at a time when Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whiteh Kurt Friedrich Gödel ( GUR-dəl; German: [ˈkʊʁt ˈɡøːdl̩] ; April 28, 1906 – January 14, 1978) was a logician, mathematician, cosmologist, and philosopher. Considered along with Aristotle and Gottlob Frege to be one of the most significant logicians in history, Gödel profoundly influenced scientific and philosophical thinking in the 20th century (at a time when Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, and David Hilbert were using logic and set theory to investigate the foundations of mathematics), building on earlier work by Frege, Richard Dedekind, and Georg Cantor. Gödel's discoveries in the foundations of mathematics led to the proof of his completeness theorem in 1929 as part of his dissertation to earn a doctorate at the University of Vienna, and the publication of Gödel's incompleteness theorems two years later, in 1931. The… If a (logical or axiomatic formal) system is omega-consistent, it cannot be syntactically complete. The consistency of axioms cannot be proved within their own system. These theorems ended a half-century of attempts, beginning with the work of Frege and culminating in Principia Mathematica and Hilbert's program, to find a non-relatively consistent axiomatization sufficient for number theory (that was to serve as the foundation for other fields of mathematics). Gödel constructed a formula that claims it is itself unprovable in a given formal system. If it were provable, it would be false. Thus there will always be at least one true but unprovable statement. That is, for any computably enumerable set of axioms for arithmetic (that is, a set that can in principle be printed out by an idealized computer with unlimited resources), there is a formula that is true of arithmetic, but not provable in that system. To make this precise, Gödel had to produce a method to encode (as natural numbers) statements, proofs, and the concept of provability; he did this by a process known as Gödel numbering. In his two-page paper Zum intuitionistischen Aussagenkalkül (1932), Gödel refuted the finite-valuedness of intuitionistic logic. In the proof, he implicitly used what has later become known as Gödel–Dummett intermediate logic (or Gödel fuzzy logic).
Everything we examined (6)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theoremspeer-reviewedno side taken
  2. On Gödel’s second incompleteness theorempeer-reviewedno side taken
  3. A Profile of Mathematical Logicreferenceno side taken
  4. Hilbert's Programme and Gödel's Theoremspeer-reviewedno side taken
  5. Kurt Gödelreferenceno side taken
  6. On the Philosophical Relevance of Godel's Incompleteness Theoremspeer-reviewedno side taken
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt