There are no such, in ordinary senses of the terms, by Goedel's Second Incompleteness Theorem.
-
-
I am skeptical that either of those theories can prove their own consistency in an unordinary sense either.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
not saying they can. Saying only theories that can diagonalize are ordinary excludes them from being ordinary
-
but there are theories in the ordinary sense which prove their own consistency in the ordinary sense
-
What I meant already noted by
@ModelOfTheory. I would dispute "prove their own consistency in the ordinary sense". -
Not inclined to take theories that can't represent basic syntactic operations as describing syntax, & thus
-
not inclined to identify any claims of such as claims of their own consistency, in any "ordinary" sense
-
Would originally have used lengthier, more specific wording than "ordinary", but, well, Twitter constraints
-
As seen even now, can be difficult to pack every bit of nuance into Twitter without some charity in wording
-
Not an ideal medium (or, at least, one I've yet mastered) for anything more complex than quick quips and
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.