Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    If Cons(F) were provable in F, then the Gödel sentence G_... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The consistency statement Cons(F) cannot be provable in F

    If Cons(F) were provable in F, then the Gödel sentence G_F would also be provable in F by simple logic

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Gödel's first incompleteness theorem holds for FIf G_F were provable in F, that would contradict Gödel's first incompleteness th...The consistency statement Cons(F) cannot be provable in F

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Therefore K(k) and ¬K(k) are both provable.85%By the Completeness Theorem, provable sentences are valid, but not all...84%All provable sentences are true83%It is provable that the embedded sentence has the same truth value for...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: goedel-incompleteness
    View source passageHide passage
    where \(G_F\) is the Gödel sentence for \(F\) provided by the first theorem. If \(\Cons(F)\) were provable in \(F\), so would be \(G_F\), by simple logic. This would contradict Gödel’s first theorem. Consequently, \(\Cons(F)\) cannot be provable in \(F\) either.

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective