Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A formula can be proof-theoretically valid without being derivable in any given formal system, as shown by incompleteness phenomena affecting extensions of PA.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The distinction between 'proof-theoretically valid' and 'derivable' conflates semantic truth with proof-theoretic properties confusingly.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Any coherent notion of 'proof-theoretic validity' must ultimately be definable within or relative to some formal system's rules.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Incompleteness shows limits of specific systems, not that validity exists outside all possible formal derivation frameworks.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems prove true sentences exist unprovable in any consistent formal system extending PA.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Proof-theoretic validity concerns what follows from axioms; derivability concerns what a specific system can derive—these diverge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
We can semantically recognize formulas as valid through model-theoretic means even when no proof exists in formal systems.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.