FOM: RE: Chaitin
Raatikainen Panu A K
Praatikainen at elo.helsinki.fi
Mon Apr 2 04:27:35 EDT 2001
On 30 Mar 01, at 10:49, Harvey Friedman wrote:
> One point of clarification. You do need that if T proves K(a) > b then K(a)
> > b is true, and that appears to be a form of soundness. However K(a) > b
> is always a Pi-0-1 sentence, and so it is just consistency, and no more.
RE: Yes, this is the crucial point - I even knew this but I had
already forgotten it (it was 3-4 years ago when I really worked with
these issues) - now I was just thinking of the form of the definition
of K(x) which is apparently Sigma-0-2, and that is why I thought
that one needs more substantial soundness assumptions ...
Good that this issue became clear !
More information about the FOM