Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:07:47.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The consistency of system Q

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Frederic B. Fitch*
Affiliation:
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520

Extract

It will be shown that system Q of [1], with minor corrections, is free from contradiction and can be strengthened in various ways without destroying its consistency.

By the system C*A will be meant the system that results in place of CA if rule 3.4.10 is omitted in [2] from the rules 3.4 defining PA and RA for an arbitrary class A of equations. We let P*A be the theorems of C*A and R*A be the antitheorems of C*A, just as PA and RA are respectively the theorems and antitheorems of CA in [2]. Similarly Γ* is the class that is defined exactly like the class Γ in 4.18 of [2] except that systems of the form C*A replace those of the form CA. The terminology and conventions of [2] will be assumed in what follows.

Using the methods that were used to show in 5.9 of [2] that is free from contradiction, it is easy to show that C*A is free from contradiction for every class A of equations. (The fact that rule 3.4.10 is omitted causes the proof of consistency to work even for cases where A is not systematically closed in the sense of 4.11 of [2].)

Just as it was shown in 4.19 of [2] that Γ is systematically closed (in the sense of 4.11 of [2]), so also it clearly can be shown that Γ* is systematically closed. This means, in effect, that the rule of substitution of equals for equals holds in the system C*Γ*.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Fitch, F. B., Elements of combinatory logic, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1974.Google Scholar
[2]Fitch, F. B., A consistent combinatory logic with an inverse to equality, this Journal vol. 45 (1980), pp. 529543.Google Scholar