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 Sentences proved from first-order axioms are true in all models of those axioms, including countable models and non-standard models
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
The Löwenheim-Skolem theorem entails that first-order axioms for real analysis have countable models, yet 'true in all models' cannot capture intended mathematical truth about uncountable reals.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Skolem's paradox reveals that 'truth in all models' is model-relative: a sentence about uncountability can be true in the intended model yet satisfied in a countable model via different satisfaction relations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Therefore, provability from first-order axioms tracks formal satisfiability across structures, not truth about the mathematical domain the axioms were designed to characterize.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Non-standard models of Peano arithmetic, as demonstrated by Thoralf Skolem in 1933, contain 'natural numbers' with no standard correlates, making first-order provability insufficient to exclude pathological interpretations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If sentences proved from first-order arithmetic axioms are 'true' in non-standard models containing infinite natural numbers, then 'true in all models' conflates formal truth-in-a-structure with arithmetical truth about the natural numbers.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
First-order logic satisfies the Completeness Theorem
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The Completeness Theorem uses the concept of a first-order structure, so provability implies truth across all such structures
?
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.