Prolog detects pathological self reference in the Gödel sentence

Abstract

This sentence G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G) and its negation G ↔ ~(F ⊢ ¬G) are shown to meet the conventional definition of incompleteness: Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)). They meet conventional definition of incompleteness because neither the sentence nor its negation is provable in F (or any other formal system). --

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Omega-consistency and the diamond.George Boolos - 1980 - Studia Logica 39 (2-3):237 - 243.
Socrates did it before Gödel.Josef Wolfgang Degen - 2011 - Logic and Logical Philosophy 20 (3):205-214.
Incompleteness and inconsistency.Stewart Shapiro - 2002 - Mind 111 (444):817-832.
The Liar Syndrome.Albert A. Johnstone - 2002 - SATS 3 (1):37-55.
On Gödel Sentences and What They Say.Peter Milne - 2007 - Philosophia Mathematica 15 (2):193-226.
There May Be Many Arithmetical Gödel Sentences.Kaave Lajevardi & Saeed Salehi - 2021 - Philosophia Mathematica 29 (2):278–287.
Heterologicality and Incompleteness.Cezary Cieśliński - 2002 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 48 (1):105-110.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-04-10

Downloads
288 (#69,921)

6 months
90 (#52,004)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references