We investigate the theory IΔ 0 + Ω 1 and strengthen [Bu86. Theorem 8.6] to the following: if NP ≠ co-NP. then Σ-completeness for witness comparison formulas is not provable in bounded arithmetic. i.e. $I\delta_0 + \Omega_1 + \nvdash \forall b \forall c (\exists a(\operatorname{Prf}(a.c) \wedge \forall = \leq a \neg \operatorname{Prf} (z.b))\\ \rightarrow \operatorname{Prov} (\ulcorner \exists a(\operatorname{Prf}(a. \bar{c}) \wedge \forall z \leq a \neg \operatorname{Prf}(z.\bar{b})) \urcorner)).$ Next we study a "small reflection principle" in bounded arithmetic. We prove that for (...) all sentences φ $I\Delta_0 + \Omega_1 \vdash \forall x \operatorname{Prov}(\ulcorner \forall y \leq \bar{x} (\operatorname{Prf} (y. \overline{\ulcorner \varphi \urcorner}) \rightarrow \varphi)\urcorner).$ The proof hinges on the use of definable cuts and partial satisfaction predicates akin to those introduced by Pudlak in [Pu86]. Finally, we give some applications of the small reflection principle, showing that the principle can sometimes be invoked in order to circumvent the use of provable Σ-completeness for witness comparison formulas. (shrink)

By using a provability predicate of PA, we define ThmPA(M) as the set of theorems of PA in a modelMof PA. We say a modelMof PA is (1) illusory if ThmPA(M) ⊈ ThmPA(ℕ), (2) heterodox if ThmPA(M) ⊈ TA, (3) sane ifM⊨ ConPA, and insane if it is not sane, (4) maximally sane if it is sane and ThmPA(M) ⊆ ThmPA(N) implies ThmPA(M) = ThmPA(N) for every sane modelNof PA. We firstly show thatMis heterodox if and only if it is (...) illusory, and that ThmPA(M) ∩ TA ≠ ThmPA(ℕ) for any illusory modelM. Then we show that there exists a maximally sane model, every maximally sane model satisfies ¬ConPA+ConPA, and there exists a sane model of ¬ConPA+ConPAwhich is not maximally sane. We define that an insane model is (5) illusory by nature if its every initial segment being a nonstandard model of PA is illusory, and (6) going insane suddenly if its every initial segment being a sane model of PA is not illusory. We show that there exists a model of PA which is illusory by nature, and we prove the existence of a model of PA which is going insane suddenly. (shrink)

Guided by questions of scope, this paper provides an overview of what is known about both the scope and, consequently, the limits of Gödel’s famous first incompleteness theorem.

For a primitive recursive consistent and strong enough theory T we construct an independent statement which has some clear metamathematical meaning.