Larry_D'Anna comments on The Cartoon Guide to Löb's Theorem - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (90)
Eliezer: "Why doesn't the given proof of Lob's Theorem, the steps 1-10, show that PA + "◻C -> C" |- C?"
That's just not what it says. The hypothesis in step 2 isn't "◻C -> C" it's "◻(◻C -> C)". I suppose if the Hypothesis were "◻C -> C" we could try to find where it breaks. Step 7 is the only step that depends on 2 so it has to be there. Translating the amusing cartoons, we have
2. ◻(◻C -> C) 6. ◻(◻L -> ◻C) 7. ◻(◻L -> C)
Lets say that instead we have
2'. ◻C -> C
Well what are we supposed to do with it? We're stuck. Just because ◻C -> C doesn't mean that PA can prove it.