[FOM] Consequence of PA inconsistency

Harvey Friedman friedman at math.ohio-state.edu
Mon Apr 26 21:01:09 EDT 2010

I think that it is best, before we get into this standard technique,  
to determine whether or not what I wrote is truly responsive to the  
discussion that is going on about whether "an inconsistency in PA  
refutes arithmetic Platonism". When I wrote this paragraph, I thought  
it was responsive, but I would like to make sure.


On Apr 26, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Timothy Y. Chow wrote:

Harvey Friedman wrote:
> By using standard techniques, we can create an appropriately displayed
> proof in PA(101) of 1 = 0. You can look and see that the formulas to
> which induction is applied to are comprehensible to the "arithmetic
> Platonist".

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this standard technique.  Could you
please spell it out a little for us?  This sounds interesting.

More information about the FOM mailing list