2005/06/01 by W. W. Tait · 2 citations
Computer Science · Psychology · Mathematics · #Logic, programming, and type systems #Philosophy and Theoretical Science #Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms #Counterexample #Consistency (knowledge bases) #Mathematical proof #Interpretation (philosophy) #Mathematics #Calculus (dental) #Relation (database) #Section (typography) #Discrete mathematics #Computer science #Philosophy #Linguistics #Data mining
paper · doi:10.2178/bsl/1120231632
openalex publication_date 2005/06/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
Abstract The last section of “Lecture at Zilsel's” [9, §4] contains an interesting but quite condensed discussion of Gentzen's first version of his consistency proof for PA [8], reformulating it as what has come to be called the no-counterexample interpretation . I will describe Gentzen's result (in game-theoretic terms), fill in the details (with some corrections) of Gödel's reformulation, and discuss the relation between the two proofs.