Consistency proof | Wikipedia audio article
Channel: wikipedia tts
Date: 14/01/2019

This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency


00:04:10 1 Consistency and completeness in arithmetic and set theory
00:07:07 2 First-order logic
00:07:17 2.1 Notation
00:08:06 2.2 Definition
00:12:35 2.3 Basic results
00:18:36 2.4 Henkin's theorem
00:26:33 2.5 Sketch of proof
00:27:55 3 Model theory
00:29:22 4 See also



Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago.

Learning by listening is a great way to:
- increases imagination and understanding
- improves your listening skills
- improves your own spoken accent
- learn while on the move
- reduce eye strain

Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to listen a lot, you could try using a bone conduction headphone, or a standard speaker instead of an earphone.

Listen on Google Assistant through Extra Audio:
https://assistant.google.com/services/invoke/uid/0000001a130b3f91
Other Wikipedia audio articles at:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wikipedia+tts
Upload your own Wikipedia articles through:
https://github.com/nodef/wikipedia-tts
Speaking Rate: 0.7486615279668885
Voice name: en-US-Wavenet-E


"I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think."
- Socrates


SUMMARY
=======
In classical deductive logic, a consistent theory is one that does not contain 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 and only 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 
  
    
      
        T
      
    
    {\displaystyle T}
   is consistent if and only if there is no formula 
  
    
      
        φ
      
    
    {\displaystyle \varphi }
   such that both 
  
    
      
        φ
      
    
    {\displaystyle \varphi }
   and its negation 
  
    
      
        ¬
        φ
      
    
    {\displaystyle \lnot \varphi }
   are elements of the set 
  
    
      
        T
      
    
    {\displaystyle T}
  . Let 
  
    
      
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle A}
   be a set of closed sentences (informally "axioms") and 
  
    
      
        ⟨
        A
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle A\rangle }
   the set of closed sentences provable from 
  
    
      
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle A}
   under some (specified, possibly implicitly) formal deductive system. The set of axioms 
  
    
      
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle A}
   is consistent when 
  
    
      
        ⟨
        A
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle A\rangle }
   is.If there exists a deductive system for which these semantic and syntactic definitions are equivalent for any theory formulated in a particular deductive logic, the logic is called complete. The completeness of the sentential calculus was proved by Paul Bernays in 1918 and Emil Post in 1921, while the completeness of predicate calculus was proved by Kurt Gödel in 1930, and consistency proofs for arithmetics restricted with respect to the induction axiom schema were proved by Ackermann (1924), von Neumann (1927) and Herbrand (1931). Stronger logics, such as second-order logic, are not complete.
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 obviously no cut-free proof of falsity, there is no contradiction in general.