I Detail of Diagonalization Lemma

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the clarification of the diagonalization lemma as presented in C. Smorynski's work. It highlights the distinction between a coded term and its corresponding name, emphasizing that they are not necessarily the same. An example illustrates this difference, where the coded term "1" represents a value, while the name "1" refers to the symbol denoting that value. The inquiry seeks to understand if the name of a coded term is equivalent to the coded term itself. This nuanced understanding is crucial for grasping the implications of the diagonalization lemma in modal logic.
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,749
Reaction score
243
TL;DR Summary
Is the name of a codification the same as the codification?
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985)
(I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box.
The overline is assigning a name.

1756204018859.webp

The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nomadreid said:
The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term?

Thanks in advance.
The question is more general than it looks and there is a difference between the coded term and the name of the coded term.

For example,
The coded term is 1.
The name of the coded term is 1.
In the first case 1 presents the coded term while in the second case 1 presents the symbol which is used to denote the coded term.
 
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top