Hannibal at 11:24, 16 May 2009

Hannibal — Sat, 16 May 2009 11:24:05 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 11:24, 16 May 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~{{other\|Consistency (disambiguation)}}~~
-	<!-- I added the odd spaces below so that they will all be rendered with TeX. In all three browsers on all three platforms I tried, PNG phi looked different enough from HTML phi that I think many people would be confused. (dreish) -->
-
	In [[logic]], a '''consistent''' [[theory (mathematical logic)\|theory]] is one that does not contain a contradiction. The lack of contradiction can be defined in either semantic or syntactic terms. The semantic definition states that a theory is consistent if it has a model; this is the sense used in traditional [[Term logic\|Aristotelian logic]], although in contemporary mathematical logic the term '''satisfiable''' is used instead. The syntactic definition states that a theory is consistent if there is no [[formula (mathematical logic)\|formula]] ''P'' such that both ''P'' and its negation are provable from the axioms of the theory under its associated deductive system.		In [[logic]], a '''consistent''' [[theory (mathematical logic)\|theory]] is one that does not contain a contradiction. The lack of contradiction can be defined in either semantic or syntactic terms. The semantic definition states that a theory is consistent if it has a model; this is the sense used in traditional [[Term logic\|Aristotelian logic]], although in contemporary mathematical logic the term '''satisfiable''' is used instead. The syntactic definition states that a theory is consistent if there is no [[formula (mathematical logic)\|formula]] ''P'' such that both ''P'' and its negation are provable from the axioms of the theory under its associated deductive system.

Line 58:		Line 55:

	(e) <math>\\exists x \\phi \\in \\Phi</math> if and only if there is a term <math>t</math> such that <math>\\phi{t \\over x}\\in\\Phi</math>.		(e) <math>\\exists x \\phi \\in \\Phi</math> if and only if there is a term <math>t</math> such that <math>\\phi{t \\over x}\\in\\Phi</math>.
-		+
-	~~===Henkin's theorem===~~	+
-	~~Let <math>\\Phi</math> be a maximally consistent set of formulas containing witnesses.~~	+
-		+
-	Define a binary relation on the set of S-terms <math> t_0 \\sim t_1 \\!</math> if and only if <math>\\; t_0 = t_1 \\in \\Phi</math>; and let <math>\\overline t \\!</math> denote the equivalence class of terms containing <math>t \\!</math>; and let <math>T_{\\Phi} := \\{ \\; \\overline t \\; \|\\; t \\in T^S \\} </math> where <math>T^S \\!</math> is the set of terms based on the symbol set <math>S \\!</math>.	+
-		+
-	~~Define the S-structure <math>\\mathfrak T_{\\Phi} </math> over <math> T_{\\Phi} \\!</math> the '''term-structure''' corresponding to <math>\\Phi</math> by:~~	+
-		+
-	~~(1) For <math>n</math>-ary <math>R \\in S</math>, <math>R^{\\mathfrak T_{\\Phi}} \\overline {t_0} \\ldots \\overline {t_{n-1}}</math> if and only if <math>\\; R t_0 \\ldots t_{n-1} \\in \\Phi</math>,~~	+
-		+
-	~~(2) For <math>n</math>-ary <math>f \\in S</math>, <math>f^{\\mathfrak T_{\\Phi}} (\\overline {t_0} \\ldots \\overline {t_{n-1}}) := \\overline {f t_0 \\ldots t_{n-1}}</math>,~~	+
-		+
-	~~(3) For <math>c \\in S</math>, <math>c^{\\mathfrak T_{\\Phi}}:= \\overline c</math>.~~	+
-		+
-	~~Let <math>\\mathfrak I_{\\Phi} := (\\mathfrak T_{\\Phi},\\beta_{\\Phi})</math> be the '''term interpretation''' associated with <math>\\Phi</math>, where <math>\\beta _{\\Phi} (x) := \\bar x</math>.~~	+
-		+
-	~~<center>~~	+
-	~~<math>(*) \\;</math> For all <math>\\phi</math>,<math>\\; \\mathfrak I_{\\Phi} \\vDash \\phi</math> if and only if <math> \\; \\phi \\in \\Phi</math>.</center>~~	+
-		+
-	~~===Sketch of proof===~~	+
-	~~There are several things to verify.~~ First, that <math>\\sim</math> is an [[equivalence relation]]. Then, it needs to be verified that (1), (2), and (3) are well defined. This falls out of the fact that <math>\\sim</math> is an equivalence relation and also requires a proof that (1) and (2) are independent of the choice of <math> t_0, \\ldots ,t_{n-1} </math> class representatives. Finally, <math> \\mathfrak I_{\\Phi} \\vDash \\Phi </math> can be verified by induction on formulas.	+

Hannibal at 11:20, 16 May 2009

Hannibal — Sat, 16 May 2009 11:20:32 GMT

New page

{{other|Consistency (disambiguation)}}


In [[logic]], a '''consistent''' [[theory (mathematical logic)|theory]] is one that does not contain a contradiction. The lack of contradiction can be defined in either semantic or syntactic terms. The semantic definition states that a theory is consistent if it has a model; this is the sense used in traditional [[Term logic|Aristotelian logic]], although in contemporary mathematical logic the term '''satisfiable''' is used instead. The syntactic definition states that a theory is consistent if there is no [[formula (mathematical logic)|formula]] ''P'' such that both ''P'' and its negation are provable from the axioms of the theory under its associated deductive system.

If these semantic and syntactic definitions are equivalent for a particular logic, the logic is '''complete.''' The completeness of [[sentential calculus]] was proved by [[Paul Bernays]] in 1918 and [[Emil Post]] in 1921, while the completeness of [[predicate calculus]] was proved by [[Kurt Gödel]] in 1930. Stronger logics, such as [[second-order logic]], are not complete.

A '''consistency proof''' is a [[mathematical proof]] that a particular theory is consistent. The early development of mathematical [[proof theory]] was driven by the desire to provide finitary consistency proofs for all of mathematics as part of [[Hilbert's program]]. Hilbert's program was strongly impacted by [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems|incompleteness theorems]], which showed that sufficiently strong proof theories cannot prove their own consistency (provided that they are in fact consistent).

Although consistency can be proved by means of model theory, it is often done in a purely syntactical way, without any need to reference some model of the logic. The [[cut-elimination]] (or equivalently the [[Normalization property|normalization]] of the [[Curry-Howard|underlying calculus]] if there is one) implies the consistency of the calculus: since there is obviously no cut-free proof of falsity, there is no contradiction in general.

==Consistency and completeness in arithmetic==
In theories of arithmetic, such as [[Peano arithmetic]], there is an intricate relationship between the consistency of the theory and its [[completeness]]. A theory is complete if, for every formula φ in its language, at least one of φ or ¬ φ is a logical consequence of the theory.

[[Presburger arithmetic]] is an axiom system for the natural numbers under addition. It is both consistent and complete.

[[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]] show that any sufficiently strong effective theory of arithmetic cannot be both complete and consistent. Gödel's theorem applies to the theories of [[Peano arithmetic]] (PA) and [[Primitive recursive arithmetic]] (PRA), but not to Presburger arithmetic.

Moreover, Gödel's second incompleteness theorem shows that the consistency of sufficiently strong effective theories of arithmetic can be tested in a particular way. Such a theory is consistent if and only if it does ''not'' prove a particular sentence, called the Gödel sentence of the theory, which is a formalized statement of the claim that the theory is indeed consistent. Thus the consistency of a sufficiently strong, effective, consistent theory of arithmetic can never be proven in that system itself. The same result is true for effective theories that can describe a strong enough fragment of arithmetic – including set theories such as [[Zermelo–Frankel set theory]]. These set theories cannot prove their own Gödel sentences - provided that they are consistent, which is generally believed.

==Formulas==
A set of [[formulas]] <math>\\Phi</math> in first-order logic is '''consistent''' (written Con<math>\\Phi</math>) [[if and only if]] there is no formula <math>\\phi</math> such that <math>\\Phi \\vdash \\phi</math> and <math>\\Phi \\vdash \\lnot\\phi</math>. Otherwise <math>\\Phi</math> is '''inconsistent''' and is written Inc<math>\\Phi</math>.

<math>\\Phi</math> is said to be '''simply consistent''' [[if and only if]] for no formula <math>\\phi</math> of <math>\\Phi</math> are both <math>\\phi</math> and the [[negation]] of <math>\\phi</math> theorems of <math>\\Phi</math>.

<math>\\Phi</math> is said to be '''absolutely consistent''' or '''Post consistent''' if and only if at least one formula of <math>\\Phi</math> is not a theorem of <math>\\Phi</math>.

<math>\\Phi</math> is said to be '''maximally consistent''' if and only if for every formula <math>\\phi</math>, if Con <math>\\Phi \\cup \\phi</math> then <math>\\phi \\in \\Phi</math>.

<math>\\Phi</math> is said to '''contain witnesses''' if and only if for every formula of the form <math>\\exists x \\phi</math> there exists a term <math>t</math> such that <math>(\\exists x \\phi \\to \\phi {t \\over x}) \\in \\Phi</math>. See [[First-order logic]].

===Basic results===
'''1.''' The following are equivalent:

(a) Inc<math>\\Phi</math>

(b) For all <math>\\phi,\\; \\Phi \\vdash \\phi.</math>

'''2.''' Every satisfiable set of formulas is consistent, where a set of formulas <math>\\Phi</math> is satisfiable if and only if there exists a model <math>\\mathfrak{I}</math> such that <math>\\mathfrak{I} \\vDash \\Phi </math>.

'''3.''' For all <math>\\Phi</math> and <math>\\phi</math>:

(a) if not <math> \\Phi \\vdash \\phi</math>, then Con<math> \\Phi \\cup \\{\\lnot\\phi\\}</math>;

(b) if Con <math>\\Phi</math> and <math>\\Phi \\vdash \\phi</math>, then Con<math> \\Phi \\cup \\{\\phi\\}</math>;

(c) if Con <math>\\Phi</math>, then Con<math> \\Phi \\cup \\{\\phi\\}</math> or Con<math> \\Phi \\cup \\{\\lnot \\phi\\}</math>.

'''4.''' Let <math>\\Phi</math> be a maximally consistent set of formulas and contain witnesses. For all <math>\\phi</math> and <math> \\psi </math>:

(a) if <math> \\Phi \\vdash \\phi</math>, then <math>\\phi \\in \\Phi</math>,

(b) either <math>\\phi \\in \\Phi</math> or <math>\\lnot \\phi \\in \\Phi</math>,

(c) <math>(\\phi \\or \\psi) \\in \\Phi</math> if and only if <math>\\phi \\in \\Phi</math> or <math>\\psi \\in \\Phi</math>,

(d) if <math>(\\phi\\to\\psi) \\in \\Phi</math> and <math>\\phi \\in \\Phi </math>, then <math>\\psi \\in \\Phi</math>,

(e) <math>\\exists x \\phi \\in \\Phi</math> if and only if there is a term <math>t</math> such that <math>\\phi{t \\over x}\\in\\Phi</math>.

===Henkin's theorem===
Let <math>\\Phi</math> be a maximally consistent set of formulas containing witnesses.

Define a binary relation on the set of S-terms <math> t_0 \\sim t_1 \\!</math> if and only if <math>\\; t_0 = t_1 \\in \\Phi</math>; and let <math>\\overline t \\!</math> denote the equivalence class of terms containing <math>t \\!</math>; and let <math>T_{\\Phi} := \\{ \\; \\overline t \\; |\\; t \\in T^S \\} </math> where <math>T^S \\!</math> is the set of terms based on the symbol set <math>S \\!</math>.

Define the S-structure <math>\\mathfrak T_{\\Phi} </math> over <math> T_{\\Phi} \\!</math> the '''term-structure''' corresponding to <math>\\Phi</math> by:

(1) For <math>n</math>-ary <math>R \\in S</math>, <math>R^{\\mathfrak T_{\\Phi}} \\overline {t_0} \\ldots \\overline {t_{n-1}}</math> if and only if <math>\\; R t_0 \\ldots t_{n-1} \\in \\Phi</math>,

(2) For <math>n</math>-ary <math>f \\in S</math>, <math>f^{\\mathfrak T_{\\Phi}} (\\overline {t_0} \\ldots \\overline {t_{n-1}}) := \\overline {f t_0 \\ldots t_{n-1}}</math>,

(3) For <math>c \\in S</math>, <math>c^{\\mathfrak T_{\\Phi}}:= \\overline c</math>.

Let <math>\\mathfrak I_{\\Phi} := (\\mathfrak T_{\\Phi},\\beta_{\\Phi})</math> be the '''term interpretation''' associated with <math>\\Phi</math>, where <math>\\beta _{\\Phi} (x) := \\bar x</math>.

<center>
<math>(*) \\;</math> For all <math>\\phi</math>,<math>\\; \\mathfrak I_{\\Phi} \\vDash \\phi</math> if and only if <math> \\; \\phi \\in \\Phi</math>.</center>

===Sketch of proof===
There are several things to verify. First, that <math>\\sim</math> is an [[equivalence relation]]. Then, it needs to be verified that (1), (2), and (3) are well defined. This falls out of the fact that <math>\\sim</math> is an equivalence relation and also requires a proof that (1) and (2) are independent of the choice of <math> t_0, \\ldots ,t_{n-1} </math> class representatives. Finally, <math> \\mathfrak I_{\\Phi} \\vDash \\Phi </math> can be verified by induction on formulas.

==References==
* [[The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy]], ''consistency''
* H.D. Ebbinghaus, J. Flum, W. Thomas, '''Mathematical Logic'''
* Jevons, W.S., ''Elementary Lessons in Logic, 1870''

Consistency - Revision history

Hannibal at 11:24, 16 May 2009

Hannibal at 11:20, 16 May 2009