[FOM] Consistency strength order
Robert M. Solovay
solovay at Math.Berkeley.EDU
Mon May 5 15:27:15 EDT 2008
On Sat, 3 May 2008, hendrik at topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 06:19:19PM -0700, Robert M. Solovay wrote:
>> I can't answer your question as to what the right consistency strength
>> notion is, in gneeral. But the following (old unpublished) example of
>> mine shows that the two notions can diverge. (The theory in question is
>> rather artificial.)
>>
>> Assume that "ZFC + "there is an inaccessible cardinal" is
>> consistent. (Call this theory ZFCI for short.)
>>
>> Then there is a theory T, obtained by adjoining a single sentence
>> phi to ZFC such that:
>>
>> 1) T has the same arithmetical consequences as ZFC.
>>
>> 2) It is finitistically (that is, in "primitive recursive
>> arithmetic") provable that "Con(T) iff Con(ZFCI)".
>>
>> The proof has much in common with the proofs of my old results
>> on the provability logic of Peano Arithmetic.
>
> Either this is trivial, or I completely misunderstand it.
>
> Can phi not just be "there is an inaccessible cardinal"? In that case,
> T would be ZFCI.
>
If phi is taken as "there is an inaccssible cadinal" then ZFC +
phi has new arithmetical consequences (not proved in ZFC). For example
the assertion "Con(ZFC)" is provable in "ZFC + phi" but not in ZFC.
> In
either case, I would appreciate an explanation of what you meant. >
> -- hendrik boom
My statement seems perfectly clear to me. What is it that you
don't understand.
--Bob Solovay
More information about the FOM
mailing list