Theorem bj-babygodel 35573

Description: See the section header comments for the context.

The first hypothesis reads "𝜑 is true if and only if it is not provable in T" (and having this first hypothesis means that we can prove this fact in T). The wff 𝜑 is a formal version of the sentence "This sentence is not provable". The hard part of the proof of Gödel's theorem is to construct such a 𝜑, called a "Gödel–Rosser sentence", for a first-order theory T which is effectively axiomatizable and contains Robinson arithmetic, through Gödel diagonalization (this can be done in primitive recursive arithmetic). The second hypothesis means that ⊥ is not provable in T, that is, that the theory T is consistent (and having this second hypothesis means that we can prove in T that the theory T is consistent). The conclusion is the falsity, so having the conclusion means that T can prove the falsity, that is, T is inconsistent.

Therefore, taking the contrapositive, this theorem expresses that if a first-order theory is consistent (and one can prove in it that some formula is true if and only if it is not provable in it), then this theory does not prove its own consistency.

This proof is due to George Boolos, Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem Explained in Words of One Syllable, Mind, New Series, Vol. 103, No. 409 (January 1994), pp. 1--3.

(Contributed by BJ, 3-Apr-2019.)

Hypotheses

Ref	Expression
bj-babygodel.s	⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ Prv 𝜑)
bj-babygodel.1	⊢ ¬ Prv ⊥

Assertion

Ref	Expression
bj-babygodel	⊢ ⊥

Proof of Theorem bj-babygodel

Step	Hyp	Ref	Expression
1		bj-babygodel.1	. . . 4 ⊢ ¬ Prv ⊥
2	1	ax-prv1 35568	. . 3 ⊢ Prv ¬ Prv ⊥
3		bj-babygodel.s	. . . . . . . . 9 ⊢ (𝜑 ↔ ¬ Prv 𝜑)
4	3	biimpi 215	. . . . . . . 8 ⊢ (𝜑 → ¬ Prv 𝜑)
5	4	prvlem1 35571	. . . . . . 7 ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv ¬ Prv 𝜑)
6		ax-prv3 35570	. . . . . . 7 ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv Prv 𝜑)
7		pm2.21 123	. . . . . . . 8 ⊢ (¬ Prv 𝜑 → (Prv 𝜑 → ⊥))
8	7	prvlem2 35572	. . . . . . 7 ⊢ (Prv ¬ Prv 𝜑 → (Prv Prv 𝜑 → Prv ⊥))
9	5, 6, 8	sylc 65	. . . . . 6 ⊢ (Prv 𝜑 → Prv ⊥)
10	9	con3i 154	. . . . 5 ⊢ (¬ Prv ⊥ → ¬ Prv 𝜑)
11	10, 3	sylibr 233	. . . 4 ⊢ (¬ Prv ⊥ → 𝜑)
12	11	prvlem1 35571	. . 3 ⊢ (Prv ¬ Prv ⊥ → Prv 𝜑)
13	2, 12, 9	mp2b 10	. 2 ⊢ Prv ⊥
14	13, 1	pm2.24ii 120	1 ⊢ ⊥

Syntax hints:  ¬ wn 3   ↔ wb 205  ⊥wfal 1553  Prv cprvb 35567

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-prv1 35568  ax-prv2 35569  ax-prv3 35570

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 206

This theorem is referenced by: (None)