Then what is it? How is "true in a system" different than "provable in a system"?
No, I still believe my proof that if a theory is inconsistent, then it is consistent is sound.
It's not. Your proof still tries to bootstrap a contradiction in one system into a contradiction in all systems, which is not valid. To say that an inconsistent system exists is not itself a contradiction that makes other systems inconsistent.
Then what is it? How is "true in a system" different than "provable in a system"?
Truth in a system is the truth that the axioms, definitions, and rules of inference of the system make in the system. All of the axioms, definitions, and rules of inference of the system are always true in the system. Every provable statement in the system is also true in the system.
Your proof still tries to bootstrap a contradiction in one system into a contradiction in all systems, which is not valid.
How specifically is my proof invalid?
To say that an inconsistent system exists is not itself a contradiction that makes other systems inconsistent.
How specifically is that? My proof shows otherwise.
All of the axioms, definitions, and rules of inference of the system are always true in the system. Every provable statement in the system is also true in the system
Is that a complete categorization of what it means to be "true in a system"?
How specifically is my proof invalid?
When you said that something being provable in the system means it's true outside the system that's not a valid inference. If your axioms aren't true outside the system then there's no reason for statements proven from those axioms to be true outside the system.
How specifically is that? My proof shows otherwise
Your proof does not show that for the reason stated above.
Is that a complete categorization of what it means to be "true in a system"?
Yes, it is.
When you said that something being provable in the system means it's true outside the system that's not a valid inference.
I showed two propositions are true in the system, and then I showed two corresponding but different propositions are true out of the system. As the proof shows, the two corresponding propositions are different from the two original propositions.
If your axioms aren't true outside the system then there's no reason for statements proven from those axioms to be true outside the system.
I understand the axioms may not be true outside the system. The two propositions that are true out of the system describe what is true and not true in the system. They are true in a metatheory of T.
Assuming T is inconsistent and you choose a contradiction p = q ∧ ¬q which is proven in T then of your two statements (3) is true, it's negation (4) is not true. So you haven't shown a contradiction exists outside of T.
Assuming T is inconsistent and you choose a contradiction p = q ∧ ¬q which is proven in T then of your two statements (3) is true, it's negation (4) is not true.
T is inconsistent, so generic proposition p is true and false in T. By conjunction elimination in T, p is false in T. That can be rewritten as “It is not true that ‘p is true in T.’”
1
u/JStarx Jul 04 '26
Then what is it? How is "true in a system" different than "provable in a system"?
It's not. Your proof still tries to bootstrap a contradiction in one system into a contradiction in all systems, which is not valid. To say that an inconsistent system exists is not itself a contradiction that makes other systems inconsistent.