Detail of Diagonalization Lemma

1 reply · 2K views · last reply
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,779
Reaction score
258
TL;DR
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.

Handwritten-style derivation of the diagonalization lemma: Suppose psi(.) is given; let v be a variable and v0 a value of v; theta v0 is psi(sub(v0, v0)); m = boxed theta v0; phi = theta m-bar; then phi = theta m-bar = psi(sub(m, m-bar)); chain of equivalences ending in psi(boxed phi).

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.
 
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.