Skip to main content
13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 12, 2023 at 16:15 answer added godelian timeline score: 0
Jun 12, 2023 at 15:49 answer added PW_246 timeline score: 1
Jul 24, 2022 at 0:58 vote accept Glubs
Jul 23, 2022 at 19:51 history became hot network question
Jul 23, 2022 at 18:31 comment added Timothy Chow Another way to see that provability does not imply truth is that the consistency of the system is not provable; i.e., we can't rule out that $X$ and $\neg X$ are both provable, whereas we can certainly rule out that $X$ and $\neg X$ are both true.
Jul 23, 2022 at 12:43 answer added Will Sawin timeline score: 12
Jul 23, 2022 at 12:33 comment added Glubs @Wojowu I think you may have it. I was reading propositions as "a proof of", not "is true". This makes a lot more sense.
Jul 23, 2022 at 12:30 comment added Paul Siegel I think the historical origin of the distinction between "provable" and "proved" is Godel's first incompleteness theorem. Very roughly, this encodes the observation that a consistent formal system F cannot prove the statement "This statement is not provable in F". But the fact that F cannot prove the statement means that the statement is true in some broader sense.
Jul 23, 2022 at 12:30 comment added Wojowu The way $\Box X\to X$ should be read is "if X is provable then X is true". Alternatively, "if we have a proof that X is provable, then we have a proof of X". That such implications fail is a fairly well-established phenomenon in logic.
Jul 23, 2022 at 12:30 history edited Glubs CC BY-SA 4.0
added 281 characters in body
Jul 23, 2022 at 12:13 history edited Glubs
edited tags
S Jul 23, 2022 at 11:50 review First questions
Jul 23, 2022 at 13:48
S Jul 23, 2022 at 11:50 history asked Glubs CC BY-SA 4.0