What does it mean for G to be consistent with Q?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter agapito
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies that Golbach's conjecture (G) is consistent with Robinson's Arithmetic (Q) if G and Q do not contradict each other. Specifically, G is true if and only if Q cannot prove the negation of G (¬G). Since Q is established as sound and consistent, the relationship between G and Q is defined by their mutual non-contradiction, meaning both cannot simultaneously prove a statement and its negation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gödel's incompleteness theorems
  • Familiarity with Robinson's Arithmetic (Q)
  • Knowledge of propositional logic and consistency
  • Basic grasp of mathematical proofs and conjectures
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Gödel's incompleteness theorems in detail
  • Explore the implications of soundness in formal systems
  • Research the specifics of Golbach's conjecture and its historical context
  • Learn about consistency proofs in mathematical logic
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, logicians, and students of mathematical logic who are interested in the relationships between conjectures and formal systems, particularly in the context of Gödel's work and consistency in arithmetic.

agapito
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
My text if Smith's Godel book. We establish that G (Golbach's conjecture and a Π1 wff of Robinson's Arithmetic Q) is true if and only if Q cannot prove ¬G.

That much is clear. But then it goes on to say:

G is true if and only if G is consistent with Q.

We know that Q is sound (and thus consistent), so can someone please explain what "consistent with Q" means.

Thanks for all help.
 
Technology news on Phys.org
"G is consistent with Q' simply means that G and Q do not contradict each other. That, in turn, means that we cannot use G and Q to prove both statement "T" and statement "not T".
 
HallsofIvy said:
"G is consistent with Q' simply means that G and Q do not contradict each other. That, in turn, means that we cannot use G and Q to prove both statement "T" and statement "not T".

Greatly appreciate your help with this, agapito
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
991
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K