Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let con(ZFC) be a sentence in ZFC asserting that ZFC has an omega-model M. Let $A_{M}$ be an wff over M. Let S be the theory ZFC+con(ZFC). Is the reflection for S: $Bew_{S}(A_{M}) \implies A_{M}$ is satisfied? I asking also for an explanation of the paradox in the link

http://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2007-October/012035.html

of the case when ZFC is replaced on S=ZFC+(ZFC has omega-model)?

share|improve this question
1  
Could you explain what does $Bew_S(A_M)$ mean? Also, perhaps you could re-word your final question somehow; I don't really understand it as it is written. –  Joel David Hamkins Mar 6 '13 at 22:20
    
    
I don't know what Bew_S(A) means here. Are you asking for an explanation of the paradox in the link you mention? –  Joel David Hamkins Mar 6 '13 at 22:35
1  
Joel, I think Bew_S(A_M) is supposed to be (a formalization of) the statement that A_M is provable in S. ("Bew" was, I believe, used by Gödel to abbreviate "beweisbar".) –  Andreas Blass Mar 6 '13 at 22:41
3  
Of course Bew_S(X)--->X is true for any X, because all the axioms of S are true. But that argument uses information that goes beyond ZFC, so presumably the question should be whether Bew_S(A_M)--->A_M is provable in some (yet to be specified) formal system. It should also be explained what is meant by a wff being "over M" and in particular why such a wff is in the language of S so that Bew_S(A_M) makes sense. –  Andreas Blass Mar 6 '13 at 22:45
show 10 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote accepted

I suppose the "paradox" you're asking about is the passage marked with >> at the link you gave, but with "$\omega$-model" in place of "model" and with "has an $\omega$-model" in place of "is consistent". But then there is no longer any justification for the statement (on lines 9 & 10) that there's a proof in ZFC of the negation of con(ZFC) (which now becomes the negation of "ZFC has an $\omega$-model"). What you have is rather that this negation holds in all $\omega$-models of ZFC, but that doesn't immediately translate into a syntactic fact about existence of a proof, which you could then translate into English.

I conjecture that, if you write down carefully just what the "paradox" is supposed to be, it will disappear.

share|improve this answer
add comment

protected by Andres Caicedo Nov 12 '13 at 3:06

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.