Timeline for Independence of PA implies independence of PA union all true $\Pi_1$ statements
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 21, 2010 at 9:36 | history | edited | arsmath |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 10, 2010 at 15:36 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 10, 2010 at 15:01 | history | edited | Zirui Wang | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
reference added
|
| Jun 10, 2010 at 14:59 | comment | added | Zirui Wang | @Joel David Hamkins: Right, I mean Corollary 3 and possibly Lemma 6. They do use Corollary 3 to prove the main result, Corollary 6. What I want is to figure out the proof for Corollary 3 so that I can understand the main result. Many thanks in advance. | |
| Jun 10, 2010 at 12:52 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | The paper that Wang Zirui is referring to is presumably this one: cs.technion.ac.il/~shai/ph.ps.gz, which he links to in his other question. Look at page 3 and footnote 2. I am not sure what they mean, but they do rule out Con(PA) and fixed-point-lemma self-referential statements. It isn't clear (at least upon quick perusal) whether they are making a strict mathematical claim or an empirical observation. | |
| Jun 10, 2010 at 12:16 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | Context would help too since the statement to be proven is clearly false. (E.g. Con(PA) is a true Pi_1 statement.) Perhaps there is some restriction on the statement in question. | |
| Jun 10, 2010 at 12:11 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Welcome to MathOverflow. The convention here is to state one's questions in the form of a question (preferably also with polite language), rather than textbook-exercise-style in the form of a command as you have. You can edit your question by clicking on 'edit'. | |
| Jun 10, 2010 at 10:52 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 23 | |
| Jun 10, 2010 at 9:13 | history | asked | Zirui Wang | CC BY-SA 2.5 |