We argue that, under the usual assumptions for sufficiently strong arithmetical theories that are subject to Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem, one cannot, without impropriety, talk about *the* Gödel sentence of the theory. The reason is that, without violating the requirements of Gödel’s theorem, there could be a true sentence and a false one each of which is provably equivalent to its own unprovability in the theory if the theory is unsound.

We take an argument of Gödel's from his ground‐breaking 1931 paper, generalize it, and examine its validity. The argument in question is this: "the sentence G says about itself that it is not provable, and G is indeed not provable; therefore, G is true".

We respond to some of the points made by Bennet and Blanck (2022) concerning a previous publication of ours (2021).

The proofs of Kleene, Chaitin and Boolos for Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem are studied from the perspectives of constructivity and the Rosser property. A proof of the incompleteness theorem has the Rosser property when the independence of the true but unprovable sentence can be shown by assuming only the (simple) consistency of the theory. It is known that Gödel's own proof for his incompleteness theorem does not have the Rosser property, and we show that neither do Kleene's or Boolos' proofs. (...) However, we show that a variant of Chaitin's proof can have the Rosser property. The proofs of Gödel, Rosser and Kleene are constructive in the sense that they explicitly construct, by algorithmic ways, the independent sentence(s) from the theory. We show that the proofs of Chaitin and Boolos are not constructive, and they prove only the mere existence of the independent sentences. (shrink)

A cornerstone of modern mathematical logic is the diagonal lemma of Gödel and Carnap. It is used in e.g. the classical proofs of the theorems of Gödel, Rosser and Tarski. From its first explication in 1934, just essentially one proof has appeared for the diagonal lemma in the literature; a proof that is so tricky and hard to relate that many authors have tried to avoid the lemma altogether. As a result, some so called diagonal-free proofs have been given for (...) the above mentioned fundamental theorems of logic. In this paper, we provide new proofs for the semantic formulation of the diagonal lemma, and for a weak version of the syntactic formulation of it. (shrink)

We demonstrate that, in itself and in the absence of extra premises, the following argument scheme is fallacious: The sentence A says about itself that it has a property F, and A does in fact have the property F; therefore A is true. We then examine an argument of this form in the informal introduction of Gödel’s classic (1931) and examine some auxiliary premises which might have been at work in that context. Philosophically significant as it may be, that particular (...) informal argument plays no rôle in Gödel’s technical results. Going deeper into the issue and investigating truth conditions of Gödelian sentences (i.e., those sentences which are provably equivalent to their own unprovability) will provide us with insights regarding the philosophical debate on the truth of Gödelian sentences of systems—a debate which goes back to Dummett (1963). (shrink)

Gödel's second incompleteness theorem is proved for Herbrand consistency of some arithmetical theories with bounded induction, by using a technique of logarithmic shrinking the witnesses of bounded formulas, due to Z. Adamowicz [Herbrand consistency and bounded arithmetic, Fundamenta Mathematical vol. 171 (2002), pp. 279-292]. In that paper, it was shown that one cannot always shrink the witness of a bounded formula logarithmically, but in the presence of Herbrand consistency, for theories I∆₀+ Ωm, with m ≥ 2, any witness for any (...) bounded formula can be shortened logarithmically. This immediately implies the unprovability of Herbrand consistency of a theory T ⊇ I∆₀ + Ω₂ in t itself. In this paper, the above results are generalized for I∆₀ + Ω₁. Also after tailoring the definition of Herbrand consistency for I∆₀ we prove the corresponding theorems for I∆₀. Thus the Herbrand version of Gödel's second incompleteness theorem follows for the theories I∆₀ + Ω₁ and I∆₀. (shrink)

It is shown that all the provably total functions of Basic Arithmetic BA, a theory introduced by Ruitenburg based on Predicate Basic Calculus, are primitive recursive. Along the proof a new kind of primitive recursive realizability to which BA is sound, is introduced. This realizability is similar to Kleene's recursive realizability, except that recursive functions are restricted to primitive recursives.

Interesting as they are by themselves in philosophy and mathematics, paradoxes can be made even more fascinating when turned into proofs and theorems. For example, Russell’s paradox, which overthrew Frege’s logical edifice, is now a classical theorem in set theory, to the effect that no set contains all sets. Paradoxes can be used in proofs of some other theorems—thus Liar’s paradox has been used in the classical proof of Tarski’s theorem on the undefinability of truth in sufficiently rich languages. This (...) paradox (as well as Richard’s paradox) appears implicitly in Gödel’s proof of his celebrated first incompleteness theorem. In this paper, we study Yablo’s paradox from the viewpoint of first- and second-order logics. We prove that a formalization of Yablo’s paradox (which is second order in nature) is non-first-orderizable in the sense of George Boolos (1984). (shrink)

To counter a general belief that all the paradoxes stem from a kind of circularity (or involve some self--reference, or use a diagonal argument) Stephen Yablo designed a paradox in 1993 that seemingly avoided self--reference. We turn Yablo's paradox, the most challenging paradox in the recent years, into a genuine mathematical theorem in Linear Temporal Logic (LTL). Indeed, Yablo's paradox comes in several varieties; and he showed in 2004 that there are other versions that are equally paradoxical. Formalizing these versions (...) of Yablo's paradox, we prove some theorems in LTL. This is the first time that Yablo's paradox(es) become new(ly discovered) theorems in mathematics and logic. (shrink)

We present axiom systems, and provide soundness and strong completeness theorems, for classes of Kripke models with restricted extension rules among the node structures of the model. As examples we present an axiom system for the class of cofinal extension Kripke models, and an axiom system for the class of end-extension Kripke models. We also show that Heyting arithmetic is strongly complete for its class of end-extension models. Cofinal extension models of HA are models of Peano arithmetic.

We argue that Gödel's completeness theorem is equivalent to completability of consistent theories, and Gödel's incompleteness theorem is equivalent to the fact that this completion is not constructive, in the sense that there are some consistent and recursively enumerable theories which cannot be extended to any complete and consistent and recursively enumerable theory. Though any consistent and decidable theory can be extended to a complete and consistent and decidable theory. Thus deduction and consistency are not decidable in logic, and an (...) analogue of Rice's Theorem holds for recursively enumerable theories: all the non-trivial properties of them are undecidable. (shrink)

The proofs of Gödel (1931), Rosser (1936), Kleene (first 1936 and second 1950), Chaitin (1970), and Boolos (1989) for the first incompleteness theorem are compared with each other, especially from the viewpoint of the second incompleteness theorem. It is shown that Gödel’s (first incompleteness theorem) and Kleene’s first theorems are equivalent with the second incompleteness theorem, Rosser’s and Kleene’s second theorems do deliver the second incompleteness theorem, and Boolos’ theorem is derived from the second incompleteness theorem in the standard way. (...) It is also shown that none of Rosser’s, Kleene’s second or Boolos’ theorems is equivalent with the second incompleteness theorem, and Chaitin’s incompleteness theorem neither delivers nor is derived from the second incompleteness theorem. We compare (the strength of) these six proofs with one another. (shrink)

We prove the equivalence of the semantic version of Tarski’s theorem on the undefinability of truth with the semantic version of the diagonal lemma and also show the equivalence of a syntactic version of Tarski’s undefinability theorem with a weak syntactic diagonal lemma. We outline two seemingly diagonal-free proofs for these theorems from the literature and show that the syntactic version of Tarski’s theorem can deliver Gödel–Rosser’s incompleteness theorem.

This is a report on the Doctoral Consortium co-located with the 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law in Montreal.

A polynomially bounded recursive realizability, in which the recursive functions used in Kleene's realizability are restricted to polynomially bounded functions, is introduced. It is used to show that provably total functions of Ruitenburg's Basic Arithmetic are polynomially bounded (primitive) recursive functions. This sharpens our earlier result where those functions were proved to be primitive recursive. Also a polynomially bounded schema of Church's Thesis is shown to be polynomially bounded realizable. So the schema is consistent with Basic Arithmetic, whereas it is (...) inconsistent with Heyting Arithmetic. (shrink)

We formalize the notion of Herbrand Consistency in an appropriate way for bounded arithmetics, and show the existence of a finite fragment of IΔ0 whose Herbrand Consistency is not provable in IΔ0. We also show the existence of an IΔ0-derivable Π1-sentence such that IΔ0 cannot prove its Herbrand Consistency.