Get Self-consistent essential facts below. View Videos or join the Self-consistent discussion. Add Self-consistent to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
In classicaldeductive logic, a consistenttheory is one that does not entail 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, i.e., there exists an interpretation under which all formulas in the theory are true. This is the sense used in traditional Aristotelian logic, although in contemporary mathematical logic the term satisfiable is used instead. The syntactic definition states a theory is consistent if there is no formula such that both and its negation are elements of the set of consequences of . Let be a set of closed sentences (informally "axioms") and the set of closed sentences provable from under some (specified, possibly implicitly) formal deductive system. The set of axioms is consistent when for no formula .
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 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 of the underlying calculus if there is one) implies the consistency of the calculus: since there is no cut-free proof of falsity, there is no contradiction in general.
Consistency and completeness in arithmetic and set theory
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 ? in its language, at least one of ? or ¬? 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.
Moreover, Gödel's second incompleteness theorem shows that the consistency of sufficiently strong recursively enumerable 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, recursively enumerable, consistent theory of arithmetic can never be proven in that system itself. The same result is true for recursively enumerable theories that can describe a strong enough fragment of arithmetic—including set theories such as Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. These set theories cannot prove their own Gödel sentence--provided that they are consistent, which is generally believed.
Because consistency of ZF is not provable in ZF, the weaker notion relative consistency is interesting in set theory (and in other sufficiently expressive axiomatic systems). If T is a theory and A is an additional axiom, T + A is said to be consistent relative to T (or simply that A is consistent with T) if it can be proved that
if T is consistent then T + A is consistent. If both A and ¬A are consistent with T, then A is said to be independent of T.
Define a variable assignment by for each variable . Let be the term interpretation associated with .
Then for each -formula :
if and only if 
Sketch of proof
There are several things to verify. First, that is in fact an equivalence relation. Then, it needs to be verified that (1), (2), and (3) are well defined. This falls out of the fact that is an equivalence relation and also requires a proof that (1) and (2) are independent of the choice of class representatives. Finally, can be verified by induction on formulas.
^Tarski 1946 states it this way: "A deductive theory is called CONSISTENT or NON-CONTRADICTORY if no two asserted statements of this theory contradict each other, or in other words, if of any two contradictory sentences . . . at least one cannot be proved," (p. 135) where Tarski defines contradictory as follows: "With the help of the word not one forms the NEGATION of any sentence; two sentences, of which the first is a negation of the second, are called CONTRADICTORY SENTENCES" (p. 20). This definition requires a notion of "proof". Gödel in his 1931 defines the notion this way: "The class of provable formulas is defined to be the smallest class of formulas that contains the axioms and is closed under the relation "immediate consequence", i.e., formula c of a and b is defined as an immediate consequence in terms of modus ponens or substitution; cf Gödel 1931 van Heijenoort 1967:601. Tarski defines "proof" informally as "statements follow one another in a definite order according to certain principles . . . and accompanied by considerations intended to establish their validity[true conclusion for all true premises -- Reichenbach 1947:68]" cf Tarski 1946:3. Kleene 1952 defines the notion with respect to either an induction or as to paraphrase) a finite sequence of formulas such that each formula in the sequence is either an axiom or an "immediate consequence" of the preceding formulas; "A proof is said to be a proof of its last formula, and this formula is said to be (formally) provable or be a (formal) theorem" cf Kleene 1952:83.
Let be a signature, a theory in and a sentence in . We say that is a consequence of , or that entails, in symbols , if every model of is a model of . (In particular if has no models then entails .)
Warning: we don't require that if then there is a proof of from . In any case, with infinitary languages it's not always clear what would constitute a proof. Some writers use to mean that is deducible from in some particular formal proof calculus, and they write for our notion of entailment (a notation which clashes with our ). For first-order logic the two kinds of entailment coincide by the completeness theorem for the proof calculus in question.
We say that is valid, or is a logical theorem, in symbols , if is true in every -structure. We say that is consistent if is true in some -structure. Likewise we say that a theory is consistent if it has a model.
We say that two theories S and T in L infinity omega are equivalent if they have the same models, i.e. if Mod(S) = Mod(T). (Please note definition of Mod(T) on p. 30 ...)
A Shorter Model Theory by Wilfrid Hodges, p. 37
^van Heijenoort 1967:265 states that Bernays determined the independence of the axioms of Principia Mathematica, a result not published until 1926, but he says nothing about Bernays proving their consistency.
^Post proves both consistency and completeness of the propositional calculus of PM, cf van Heijenoort's commentary and Post's 1931 Introduction to a general theory of elementary propositions in van Heijenoort 1967:264ff. Also Tarski 1946:134ff.
^cf van Heijenoort's commentary and Gödel's 1930 The completeness of the axioms of the functional calculus of logic in van Heijenoort 1967:582ff
^cf van Heijenoort's commentary and Herbrand's 1930 On the consistency of arithmetic in van Heijenoort 1967:618ff.