Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones"

From: Torkel Franzen (torkel_at_sm.luth.se)
Date: 01/31/05 

Date: 31 Jan 2005 08:15:01 +0100

tchow@lsa.umich.edu writes:

> I would say that *something like* (+) is implicitly accepted by most
> people, and forms the basis for concluding that Goedel's 2nd theorem
> effectively kills Hilbert's program as originally conceived.

  Certainly. However, for this we don't need
"intension-preserving". It is sufficient that the equivalence of
Con(PA) and a "direct" formalization of "PA is consistent" is provable
in a weak theory.