Timeline for Are there natural examples of mathematical statements which follow from consistency statements?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 23, 2010 at 1:00 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | PA is recursively enumerable, it's just that 1-consistency is stronger than just plain consistency. | |
| Jul 23, 2010 at 0:32 | comment | added | Kaveh | By a natural theory I mean something that ordinary mathematicians use, i.e. prove theorems using it (theorems inside it, not about it), so I think being recursively enumerable is probably a necessary condition. | |
| Jul 16, 2010 at 2:00 | history | edited | François G. Dorais | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
addendum
|
| Jul 16, 2010 at 0:26 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | In fact, most "combinatorial" statements (Hydra games, Kanamori-McAloon, ...) are equivalent to this theory. On the other hand, the theory is not recursive, so I am not sure it qualifies as "natural". (I find it natural, but I also think that a formal definition of naturalness ought to include that it is recursive.) | |
| Jul 16, 2010 at 0:21 | history | answered | François G. Dorais | CC BY-SA 2.5 |