Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

3

1

Let Σ be an axiom system. Can there be a formula φ, s.t.

Con(Σ) does not imply Con(Σ + φ) AND
Con(Σ) does not imply Con(Σ + not φ)

If yes, can you give me an example for ZFC?

edited Nov 5 2009 at 15:39

asked Oct 31 2009 at 10:46

Martin Lackner
43●5

	To clarify: what's your metatheory? E.g. do you want these implications to be non-provable from, say, Peano Arithmetic? – John Goodrick Oct 31 2009 at 16:31
	It's a little confusing to change the question after you've accepted an answer. It makes it look like you already have an answer you're happy with, so people aren't as eager to help, and it makes the existing answers look like they're dodging the question. Consider just asking a new question with a link back to this one. – Anton Geraschenko♦ Nov 2 2009 at 21:19
	You're right - I will change it. Thanks for pointing that out. – Martin Lackner Nov 5 2009 at 15:39

Richard Dore · Accepted Answer · 2009-10-31 20:15:46Z UTC

10

No, it's impossible for any axiom system. If Σ is consistent, then by the Completeness theorem, it has some model M. In M, φ is either true or false. So M is a model of either (Σ+φ) or (Σ+not φ). So at least one of them is consistent. It might be that your metatheory doesn't know which one is consistent, but it knows that at least one of them is.

edited Oct 31 2009 at 20:15

answered Oct 31 2009 at 18:18

Richard Dore
2,395●2●16●29

	This is a great answer! – Anton Geraschenko♦ Oct 31 2009 at 19:12
	Wait, there still seems to be a question here: namely, to give an example where the metatheory doesn't know which of Con(Sigma+phi) and Con(Sigma+~phi) is implied by Con(Sigma). – Scott Aaronson Apr 24 2011 at 21:10

Martin Lackner · Answer 2 · 2009-11-02 21:12:52Z UTC

Now that I know the answer, I've found my own simple proof. Probably it's interesting to someone else, so I post it:

I want to show that Con(Σ) is equivalent to ( Con(Σ + φ) OR Con(Σ + not φ) )

Proof: Con(Σ + φ) OR Con(Σ + not φ) iff

( Σ doesn't prove [φ -> FALSE] ) OR ( Σ doesn't prove [not φ -> FALSE] ) iff

Σ doesn't prove [(not φ -> FALSE) AND (φ -> FALSE)] iff

Σ doesn't prove [FALSE], which is Con(Σ).

Carsten Schultz · Answer 3 · 2009-10-31 12:31:32Z UTC

-2

Short answer: No.

answered Oct 31 2009 at 12:31

Carsten Schultz
194●2●6

1

Which of the two questions are you answering? In either case, I'm not sure a straight yes/no answer is helpful here. – John Goodrick Oct 31 2009 at 15:54

Is there a formula phi s.t. phi and not-phi have a stronger consistency?

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

3 Answers

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.