show that for every consistent theory there is a complete consistent theory












0












$begingroup$


Let $mathcal{L}$ be any language of predicate logic, $Sigma_0$ a consistent theory in $mathcal{L}$. Let P be the set of all consistent theories $Sigma supseteq Sigma_0$ in $mathcal{L}$.
With the relation $subseteq$ P becomes partial ordered.



I'm trying to show that

1) every chain in P (i.e., every through $subseteq$ total ordered subset K$subseteq$ P) is limited. (I.e. for every chain $K subseteq P$ there is $Sigma^{ast} in P$ such that for all $Sigma in K$ $Sigma subseteq Sigma^{ast}$ holds.
The suggestion ist to check, if the constructed set $Sigma^{ast}$ really is in P and to not forget that not every chain is orderisomorphic (I hope that's the correct English word for it) to $(mathbb{N}, <)$;



2) if $Sigma in P_{mathcal{L}}$ is maximal (i.e. there's no $Sigma' supseteq Sigma$ in P), then $Sigma$ is complete;



3) conclude with the Lemma of Zorn that for every consistent theory there is a complete consistent theory, which is superset of it.



My problem lies within point 1). Neither do I see intuitively how this holds nor do I have an idea of how to proof it.
3) Will be easy once 1) and 2) are shown, I think.



So I'm looking forward to your ideas for 1) and 2).






first-order-logic predicate-logic proof-theory formal-proofs







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    Let $mathcal{L}$ be any language of predicate logic, $Sigma_0$ a consistent theory in $mathcal{L}$. Let P be the set of all consistent theories $Sigma supseteq Sigma_0$ in $mathcal{L}$.
    With the relation $subseteq$ P becomes partial ordered.



    I'm trying to show that

    1) every chain in P (i.e., every through $subseteq$ total ordered subset K$subseteq$ P) is limited. (I.e. for every chain $K subseteq P$ there is $Sigma^{ast} in P$ such that for all $Sigma in K$ $Sigma subseteq Sigma^{ast}$ holds.
    The suggestion ist to check, if the constructed set $Sigma^{ast}$ really is in P and to not forget that not every chain is orderisomorphic (I hope that's the correct English word for it) to $(mathbb{N}, <)$;



    2) if $Sigma in P_{mathcal{L}}$ is maximal (i.e. there's no $Sigma' supseteq Sigma$ in P), then $Sigma$ is complete;



    3) conclude with the Lemma of Zorn that for every consistent theory there is a complete consistent theory, which is superset of it.



    My problem lies within point 1). Neither do I see intuitively how this holds nor do I have an idea of how to proof it.
    3) Will be easy once 1) and 2) are shown, I think.



    So I'm looking forward to your ideas for 1) and 2).






    first-order-logic predicate-logic proof-theory formal-proofs







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      Let $mathcal{L}$ be any language of predicate logic, $Sigma_0$ a consistent theory in $mathcal{L}$. Let P be the set of all consistent theories $Sigma supseteq Sigma_0$ in $mathcal{L}$.
      With the relation $subseteq$ P becomes partial ordered.



      I'm trying to show that

      1) every chain in P (i.e., every through $subseteq$ total ordered subset K$subseteq$ P) is limited. (I.e. for every chain $K subseteq P$ there is $Sigma^{ast} in P$ such that for all $Sigma in K$ $Sigma subseteq Sigma^{ast}$ holds.
      The suggestion ist to check, if the constructed set $Sigma^{ast}$ really is in P and to not forget that not every chain is orderisomorphic (I hope that's the correct English word for it) to $(mathbb{N}, <)$;



      2) if $Sigma in P_{mathcal{L}}$ is maximal (i.e. there's no $Sigma' supseteq Sigma$ in P), then $Sigma$ is complete;



      3) conclude with the Lemma of Zorn that for every consistent theory there is a complete consistent theory, which is superset of it.



      My problem lies within point 1). Neither do I see intuitively how this holds nor do I have an idea of how to proof it.
      3) Will be easy once 1) and 2) are shown, I think.



      So I'm looking forward to your ideas for 1) and 2).






      first-order-logic predicate-logic proof-theory formal-proofs







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Let $mathcal{L}$ be any language of predicate logic, $Sigma_0$ a consistent theory in $mathcal{L}$. Let P be the set of all consistent theories $Sigma supseteq Sigma_0$ in $mathcal{L}$.
      With the relation $subseteq$ P becomes partial ordered.



      I'm trying to show that

      1) every chain in P (i.e., every through $subseteq$ total ordered subset K$subseteq$ P) is limited. (I.e. for every chain $K subseteq P$ there is $Sigma^{ast} in P$ such that for all $Sigma in K$ $Sigma subseteq Sigma^{ast}$ holds.
      The suggestion ist to check, if the constructed set $Sigma^{ast}$ really is in P and to not forget that not every chain is orderisomorphic (I hope that's the correct English word for it) to $(mathbb{N}, <)$;



      2) if $Sigma in P_{mathcal{L}}$ is maximal (i.e. there's no $Sigma' supseteq Sigma$ in P), then $Sigma$ is complete;



      3) conclude with the Lemma of Zorn that for every consistent theory there is a complete consistent theory, which is superset of it.



      My problem lies within point 1). Neither do I see intuitively how this holds nor do I have an idea of how to proof it.
      3) Will be easy once 1) and 2) are shown, I think.



      So I'm looking forward to your ideas for 1) and 2).






      first-order-logic predicate-logic proof-theory formal-proofs




      first-order-logic predicate-logic proof-theory formal-proofs






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 24 '18 at 22:19







      Studentu

















      asked Nov 24 '18 at 17:47









      StudentuStudentu

      1038




      1038






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          For part one, you want to take $Sigma^*$ to be the union of the chain $K$. You need to show it is a consistent theory extending $Sigma_0.$ That it extends $Sigma_0$ is obvious. If it were inconsistent, the inconsistency would come from some finite number of sentences $varphi_1,ldots varphi_nin Sigma^*$. For each $varphi_i,$ choose a $Sigma_iin K $ such that $varphi_iin Sigma_i.$ Then take $Sigma$ to be the maximum of $Sigma_1,ldots, Sigma_n.$ Then $Sigmain K,$ and is inconsistent, contradicting the fact that $K$ only contains consistent sets of statements.



          I’m not sure what to make of the suggestion that $K$ is not necessarily order isomorphic to $mathbb N.$ I guess maybe people in the past have written the above proof making a tacit assumption that it is and they want to warn you against that.



          For 2, show that if $Sigma$ is not complete, then there is a sentence $varphinotin Sigma$ such that $Sigmacup{varphi}$ is consistent.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you! I'd completely forgotten about the trick to take the union! For 2), we assume that $Sigma$ is not complete. So there is $phi$ in $mathcal{L}$ such that it doesn't hold that either $Sigma vdash Phi$ or $Sigma vdash neg phi$. We consider $Sigma':=Sigma cup phi$. We do this with all $psi$ which cause $Sigma$ to not be complete until we have the theory $tilde{Sigma}$. Then $tilde{Sigma}supset Sigma$ and $tilde{Sigma} in P$ in contradiction to the maximality of $Sigma$. But I don't see how to explain the $tilde{Sigma}$ is consistent?
            $endgroup$
            – Studentu
            Nov 25 '18 at 4:22












          • $begingroup$
            3) With the Lemma of Zorn we get that there is at least one maximal element in P. Due to 2), this element is also complete. But I don't get how to explain that 3) follows from this. Intuitively, it is clear to me, but if we take the maximal element $Sigma^{ast}$ for example, it doesn't have to hold that $Sigma_0 in Sigma^{ast}$, because it could be another maximal element which $Sigma_0$ is a subset of.
            $endgroup$
            – Studentu
            Nov 25 '18 at 4:23








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            For 2 you only need to show that if $Sigma nvdash phi$ and $Sigma nvdash lnotphi,$ then either $Sigmacup{phi}$ or $Sigmacup{lnotphi}$ are consistent (actually, both are). This shows that if $Sigmain P$ is incomplete, then it is not maximal in $P,$ which is what you need. For 3, yes it does have to hold that $Sigma_0subseteq Sigma^*$ since all $Sigma in P$ have $Sigma_0subseteqSigma.$
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 6:11






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            The general theorem you can show it that $Sigmacup {phi}$ is consistent if and only if $Sigma nvdash lnotphi .$ For the direction you need, assume $Sigmacup {phi}$ is inconsistent then show $Sigma vdash lnot phi.$ You only need to use very general facts about the system. For instance by the deduction theorem, if $Sigmacup {phi}vdash psi,$ and $Sigmacup {phi}vdash lnotpsi,$ then $ Sigma vdash phito psi$ and $Sigma vdash phito lnot psi.$ Can you show from there that $Sigma vdash lnotphi$?
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 19:34






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Studentu Some of that is on the right track, but you need $Sigma vdash lnotphi,$ not just $Sigmacup{phi}vdash lnot phi.$ If you have the $bot,$ symbol, you might just do $ Sigmacup{phi}vdashbot,$ and then use the deduction theorem to get $Sigma vdash phito bot.$ How close this is to $Sigmavdash lnot phi$ depends on the system you're using (in some systems it's the same thing by definition).
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 21:16













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3011853%2fshow-that-for-every-consistent-theory-there-is-a-complete-consistent-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          For part one, you want to take $Sigma^*$ to be the union of the chain $K$. You need to show it is a consistent theory extending $Sigma_0.$ That it extends $Sigma_0$ is obvious. If it were inconsistent, the inconsistency would come from some finite number of sentences $varphi_1,ldots varphi_nin Sigma^*$. For each $varphi_i,$ choose a $Sigma_iin K $ such that $varphi_iin Sigma_i.$ Then take $Sigma$ to be the maximum of $Sigma_1,ldots, Sigma_n.$ Then $Sigmain K,$ and is inconsistent, contradicting the fact that $K$ only contains consistent sets of statements.



          I’m not sure what to make of the suggestion that $K$ is not necessarily order isomorphic to $mathbb N.$ I guess maybe people in the past have written the above proof making a tacit assumption that it is and they want to warn you against that.



          For 2, show that if $Sigma$ is not complete, then there is a sentence $varphinotin Sigma$ such that $Sigmacup{varphi}$ is consistent.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you! I'd completely forgotten about the trick to take the union! For 2), we assume that $Sigma$ is not complete. So there is $phi$ in $mathcal{L}$ such that it doesn't hold that either $Sigma vdash Phi$ or $Sigma vdash neg phi$. We consider $Sigma':=Sigma cup phi$. We do this with all $psi$ which cause $Sigma$ to not be complete until we have the theory $tilde{Sigma}$. Then $tilde{Sigma}supset Sigma$ and $tilde{Sigma} in P$ in contradiction to the maximality of $Sigma$. But I don't see how to explain the $tilde{Sigma}$ is consistent?
            $endgroup$
            – Studentu
            Nov 25 '18 at 4:22












          • $begingroup$
            3) With the Lemma of Zorn we get that there is at least one maximal element in P. Due to 2), this element is also complete. But I don't get how to explain that 3) follows from this. Intuitively, it is clear to me, but if we take the maximal element $Sigma^{ast}$ for example, it doesn't have to hold that $Sigma_0 in Sigma^{ast}$, because it could be another maximal element which $Sigma_0$ is a subset of.
            $endgroup$
            – Studentu
            Nov 25 '18 at 4:23








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            For 2 you only need to show that if $Sigma nvdash phi$ and $Sigma nvdash lnotphi,$ then either $Sigmacup{phi}$ or $Sigmacup{lnotphi}$ are consistent (actually, both are). This shows that if $Sigmain P$ is incomplete, then it is not maximal in $P,$ which is what you need. For 3, yes it does have to hold that $Sigma_0subseteq Sigma^*$ since all $Sigma in P$ have $Sigma_0subseteqSigma.$
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 6:11






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            The general theorem you can show it that $Sigmacup {phi}$ is consistent if and only if $Sigma nvdash lnotphi .$ For the direction you need, assume $Sigmacup {phi}$ is inconsistent then show $Sigma vdash lnot phi.$ You only need to use very general facts about the system. For instance by the deduction theorem, if $Sigmacup {phi}vdash psi,$ and $Sigmacup {phi}vdash lnotpsi,$ then $ Sigma vdash phito psi$ and $Sigma vdash phito lnot psi.$ Can you show from there that $Sigma vdash lnotphi$?
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 19:34






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Studentu Some of that is on the right track, but you need $Sigma vdash lnotphi,$ not just $Sigmacup{phi}vdash lnot phi.$ If you have the $bot,$ symbol, you might just do $ Sigmacup{phi}vdashbot,$ and then use the deduction theorem to get $Sigma vdash phito bot.$ How close this is to $Sigmavdash lnot phi$ depends on the system you're using (in some systems it's the same thing by definition).
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 21:16


















          1












          $begingroup$

          For part one, you want to take $Sigma^*$ to be the union of the chain $K$. You need to show it is a consistent theory extending $Sigma_0.$ That it extends $Sigma_0$ is obvious. If it were inconsistent, the inconsistency would come from some finite number of sentences $varphi_1,ldots varphi_nin Sigma^*$. For each $varphi_i,$ choose a $Sigma_iin K $ such that $varphi_iin Sigma_i.$ Then take $Sigma$ to be the maximum of $Sigma_1,ldots, Sigma_n.$ Then $Sigmain K,$ and is inconsistent, contradicting the fact that $K$ only contains consistent sets of statements.



          I’m not sure what to make of the suggestion that $K$ is not necessarily order isomorphic to $mathbb N.$ I guess maybe people in the past have written the above proof making a tacit assumption that it is and they want to warn you against that.



          For 2, show that if $Sigma$ is not complete, then there is a sentence $varphinotin Sigma$ such that $Sigmacup{varphi}$ is consistent.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you! I'd completely forgotten about the trick to take the union! For 2), we assume that $Sigma$ is not complete. So there is $phi$ in $mathcal{L}$ such that it doesn't hold that either $Sigma vdash Phi$ or $Sigma vdash neg phi$. We consider $Sigma':=Sigma cup phi$. We do this with all $psi$ which cause $Sigma$ to not be complete until we have the theory $tilde{Sigma}$. Then $tilde{Sigma}supset Sigma$ and $tilde{Sigma} in P$ in contradiction to the maximality of $Sigma$. But I don't see how to explain the $tilde{Sigma}$ is consistent?
            $endgroup$
            – Studentu
            Nov 25 '18 at 4:22












          • $begingroup$
            3) With the Lemma of Zorn we get that there is at least one maximal element in P. Due to 2), this element is also complete. But I don't get how to explain that 3) follows from this. Intuitively, it is clear to me, but if we take the maximal element $Sigma^{ast}$ for example, it doesn't have to hold that $Sigma_0 in Sigma^{ast}$, because it could be another maximal element which $Sigma_0$ is a subset of.
            $endgroup$
            – Studentu
            Nov 25 '18 at 4:23








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            For 2 you only need to show that if $Sigma nvdash phi$ and $Sigma nvdash lnotphi,$ then either $Sigmacup{phi}$ or $Sigmacup{lnotphi}$ are consistent (actually, both are). This shows that if $Sigmain P$ is incomplete, then it is not maximal in $P,$ which is what you need. For 3, yes it does have to hold that $Sigma_0subseteq Sigma^*$ since all $Sigma in P$ have $Sigma_0subseteqSigma.$
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 6:11






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            The general theorem you can show it that $Sigmacup {phi}$ is consistent if and only if $Sigma nvdash lnotphi .$ For the direction you need, assume $Sigmacup {phi}$ is inconsistent then show $Sigma vdash lnot phi.$ You only need to use very general facts about the system. For instance by the deduction theorem, if $Sigmacup {phi}vdash psi,$ and $Sigmacup {phi}vdash lnotpsi,$ then $ Sigma vdash phito psi$ and $Sigma vdash phito lnot psi.$ Can you show from there that $Sigma vdash lnotphi$?
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 19:34






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Studentu Some of that is on the right track, but you need $Sigma vdash lnotphi,$ not just $Sigmacup{phi}vdash lnot phi.$ If you have the $bot,$ symbol, you might just do $ Sigmacup{phi}vdashbot,$ and then use the deduction theorem to get $Sigma vdash phito bot.$ How close this is to $Sigmavdash lnot phi$ depends on the system you're using (in some systems it's the same thing by definition).
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 21:16
















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          For part one, you want to take $Sigma^*$ to be the union of the chain $K$. You need to show it is a consistent theory extending $Sigma_0.$ That it extends $Sigma_0$ is obvious. If it were inconsistent, the inconsistency would come from some finite number of sentences $varphi_1,ldots varphi_nin Sigma^*$. For each $varphi_i,$ choose a $Sigma_iin K $ such that $varphi_iin Sigma_i.$ Then take $Sigma$ to be the maximum of $Sigma_1,ldots, Sigma_n.$ Then $Sigmain K,$ and is inconsistent, contradicting the fact that $K$ only contains consistent sets of statements.



          I’m not sure what to make of the suggestion that $K$ is not necessarily order isomorphic to $mathbb N.$ I guess maybe people in the past have written the above proof making a tacit assumption that it is and they want to warn you against that.



          For 2, show that if $Sigma$ is not complete, then there is a sentence $varphinotin Sigma$ such that $Sigmacup{varphi}$ is consistent.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          For part one, you want to take $Sigma^*$ to be the union of the chain $K$. You need to show it is a consistent theory extending $Sigma_0.$ That it extends $Sigma_0$ is obvious. If it were inconsistent, the inconsistency would come from some finite number of sentences $varphi_1,ldots varphi_nin Sigma^*$. For each $varphi_i,$ choose a $Sigma_iin K $ such that $varphi_iin Sigma_i.$ Then take $Sigma$ to be the maximum of $Sigma_1,ldots, Sigma_n.$ Then $Sigmain K,$ and is inconsistent, contradicting the fact that $K$ only contains consistent sets of statements.



          I’m not sure what to make of the suggestion that $K$ is not necessarily order isomorphic to $mathbb N.$ I guess maybe people in the past have written the above proof making a tacit assumption that it is and they want to warn you against that.



          For 2, show that if $Sigma$ is not complete, then there is a sentence $varphinotin Sigma$ such that $Sigmacup{varphi}$ is consistent.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Nov 25 '18 at 6:12

























          answered Nov 24 '18 at 18:27









          spaceisdarkgreenspaceisdarkgreen

          32.6k21753




          32.6k21753












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you! I'd completely forgotten about the trick to take the union! For 2), we assume that $Sigma$ is not complete. So there is $phi$ in $mathcal{L}$ such that it doesn't hold that either $Sigma vdash Phi$ or $Sigma vdash neg phi$. We consider $Sigma':=Sigma cup phi$. We do this with all $psi$ which cause $Sigma$ to not be complete until we have the theory $tilde{Sigma}$. Then $tilde{Sigma}supset Sigma$ and $tilde{Sigma} in P$ in contradiction to the maximality of $Sigma$. But I don't see how to explain the $tilde{Sigma}$ is consistent?
            $endgroup$
            – Studentu
            Nov 25 '18 at 4:22












          • $begingroup$
            3) With the Lemma of Zorn we get that there is at least one maximal element in P. Due to 2), this element is also complete. But I don't get how to explain that 3) follows from this. Intuitively, it is clear to me, but if we take the maximal element $Sigma^{ast}$ for example, it doesn't have to hold that $Sigma_0 in Sigma^{ast}$, because it could be another maximal element which $Sigma_0$ is a subset of.
            $endgroup$
            – Studentu
            Nov 25 '18 at 4:23








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            For 2 you only need to show that if $Sigma nvdash phi$ and $Sigma nvdash lnotphi,$ then either $Sigmacup{phi}$ or $Sigmacup{lnotphi}$ are consistent (actually, both are). This shows that if $Sigmain P$ is incomplete, then it is not maximal in $P,$ which is what you need. For 3, yes it does have to hold that $Sigma_0subseteq Sigma^*$ since all $Sigma in P$ have $Sigma_0subseteqSigma.$
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 6:11






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            The general theorem you can show it that $Sigmacup {phi}$ is consistent if and only if $Sigma nvdash lnotphi .$ For the direction you need, assume $Sigmacup {phi}$ is inconsistent then show $Sigma vdash lnot phi.$ You only need to use very general facts about the system. For instance by the deduction theorem, if $Sigmacup {phi}vdash psi,$ and $Sigmacup {phi}vdash lnotpsi,$ then $ Sigma vdash phito psi$ and $Sigma vdash phito lnot psi.$ Can you show from there that $Sigma vdash lnotphi$?
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 19:34






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Studentu Some of that is on the right track, but you need $Sigma vdash lnotphi,$ not just $Sigmacup{phi}vdash lnot phi.$ If you have the $bot,$ symbol, you might just do $ Sigmacup{phi}vdashbot,$ and then use the deduction theorem to get $Sigma vdash phito bot.$ How close this is to $Sigmavdash lnot phi$ depends on the system you're using (in some systems it's the same thing by definition).
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 21:16




















          • $begingroup$
            Thank you! I'd completely forgotten about the trick to take the union! For 2), we assume that $Sigma$ is not complete. So there is $phi$ in $mathcal{L}$ such that it doesn't hold that either $Sigma vdash Phi$ or $Sigma vdash neg phi$. We consider $Sigma':=Sigma cup phi$. We do this with all $psi$ which cause $Sigma$ to not be complete until we have the theory $tilde{Sigma}$. Then $tilde{Sigma}supset Sigma$ and $tilde{Sigma} in P$ in contradiction to the maximality of $Sigma$. But I don't see how to explain the $tilde{Sigma}$ is consistent?
            $endgroup$
            – Studentu
            Nov 25 '18 at 4:22












          • $begingroup$
            3) With the Lemma of Zorn we get that there is at least one maximal element in P. Due to 2), this element is also complete. But I don't get how to explain that 3) follows from this. Intuitively, it is clear to me, but if we take the maximal element $Sigma^{ast}$ for example, it doesn't have to hold that $Sigma_0 in Sigma^{ast}$, because it could be another maximal element which $Sigma_0$ is a subset of.
            $endgroup$
            – Studentu
            Nov 25 '18 at 4:23








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            For 2 you only need to show that if $Sigma nvdash phi$ and $Sigma nvdash lnotphi,$ then either $Sigmacup{phi}$ or $Sigmacup{lnotphi}$ are consistent (actually, both are). This shows that if $Sigmain P$ is incomplete, then it is not maximal in $P,$ which is what you need. For 3, yes it does have to hold that $Sigma_0subseteq Sigma^*$ since all $Sigma in P$ have $Sigma_0subseteqSigma.$
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 6:11






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            The general theorem you can show it that $Sigmacup {phi}$ is consistent if and only if $Sigma nvdash lnotphi .$ For the direction you need, assume $Sigmacup {phi}$ is inconsistent then show $Sigma vdash lnot phi.$ You only need to use very general facts about the system. For instance by the deduction theorem, if $Sigmacup {phi}vdash psi,$ and $Sigmacup {phi}vdash lnotpsi,$ then $ Sigma vdash phito psi$ and $Sigma vdash phito lnot psi.$ Can you show from there that $Sigma vdash lnotphi$?
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 19:34






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Studentu Some of that is on the right track, but you need $Sigma vdash lnotphi,$ not just $Sigmacup{phi}vdash lnot phi.$ If you have the $bot,$ symbol, you might just do $ Sigmacup{phi}vdashbot,$ and then use the deduction theorem to get $Sigma vdash phito bot.$ How close this is to $Sigmavdash lnot phi$ depends on the system you're using (in some systems it's the same thing by definition).
            $endgroup$
            – spaceisdarkgreen
            Nov 25 '18 at 21:16


















          $begingroup$
          Thank you! I'd completely forgotten about the trick to take the union! For 2), we assume that $Sigma$ is not complete. So there is $phi$ in $mathcal{L}$ such that it doesn't hold that either $Sigma vdash Phi$ or $Sigma vdash neg phi$. We consider $Sigma':=Sigma cup phi$. We do this with all $psi$ which cause $Sigma$ to not be complete until we have the theory $tilde{Sigma}$. Then $tilde{Sigma}supset Sigma$ and $tilde{Sigma} in P$ in contradiction to the maximality of $Sigma$. But I don't see how to explain the $tilde{Sigma}$ is consistent?
          $endgroup$
          – Studentu
          Nov 25 '18 at 4:22






          $begingroup$
          Thank you! I'd completely forgotten about the trick to take the union! For 2), we assume that $Sigma$ is not complete. So there is $phi$ in $mathcal{L}$ such that it doesn't hold that either $Sigma vdash Phi$ or $Sigma vdash neg phi$. We consider $Sigma':=Sigma cup phi$. We do this with all $psi$ which cause $Sigma$ to not be complete until we have the theory $tilde{Sigma}$. Then $tilde{Sigma}supset Sigma$ and $tilde{Sigma} in P$ in contradiction to the maximality of $Sigma$. But I don't see how to explain the $tilde{Sigma}$ is consistent?
          $endgroup$
          – Studentu
          Nov 25 '18 at 4:22














          $begingroup$
          3) With the Lemma of Zorn we get that there is at least one maximal element in P. Due to 2), this element is also complete. But I don't get how to explain that 3) follows from this. Intuitively, it is clear to me, but if we take the maximal element $Sigma^{ast}$ for example, it doesn't have to hold that $Sigma_0 in Sigma^{ast}$, because it could be another maximal element which $Sigma_0$ is a subset of.
          $endgroup$
          – Studentu
          Nov 25 '18 at 4:23






          $begingroup$
          3) With the Lemma of Zorn we get that there is at least one maximal element in P. Due to 2), this element is also complete. But I don't get how to explain that 3) follows from this. Intuitively, it is clear to me, but if we take the maximal element $Sigma^{ast}$ for example, it doesn't have to hold that $Sigma_0 in Sigma^{ast}$, because it could be another maximal element which $Sigma_0$ is a subset of.
          $endgroup$
          – Studentu
          Nov 25 '18 at 4:23






          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          For 2 you only need to show that if $Sigma nvdash phi$ and $Sigma nvdash lnotphi,$ then either $Sigmacup{phi}$ or $Sigmacup{lnotphi}$ are consistent (actually, both are). This shows that if $Sigmain P$ is incomplete, then it is not maximal in $P,$ which is what you need. For 3, yes it does have to hold that $Sigma_0subseteq Sigma^*$ since all $Sigma in P$ have $Sigma_0subseteqSigma.$
          $endgroup$
          – spaceisdarkgreen
          Nov 25 '18 at 6:11




          $begingroup$
          For 2 you only need to show that if $Sigma nvdash phi$ and $Sigma nvdash lnotphi,$ then either $Sigmacup{phi}$ or $Sigmacup{lnotphi}$ are consistent (actually, both are). This shows that if $Sigmain P$ is incomplete, then it is not maximal in $P,$ which is what you need. For 3, yes it does have to hold that $Sigma_0subseteq Sigma^*$ since all $Sigma in P$ have $Sigma_0subseteqSigma.$
          $endgroup$
          – spaceisdarkgreen
          Nov 25 '18 at 6:11




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          The general theorem you can show it that $Sigmacup {phi}$ is consistent if and only if $Sigma nvdash lnotphi .$ For the direction you need, assume $Sigmacup {phi}$ is inconsistent then show $Sigma vdash lnot phi.$ You only need to use very general facts about the system. For instance by the deduction theorem, if $Sigmacup {phi}vdash psi,$ and $Sigmacup {phi}vdash lnotpsi,$ then $ Sigma vdash phito psi$ and $Sigma vdash phito lnot psi.$ Can you show from there that $Sigma vdash lnotphi$?
          $endgroup$
          – spaceisdarkgreen
          Nov 25 '18 at 19:34




          $begingroup$
          The general theorem you can show it that $Sigmacup {phi}$ is consistent if and only if $Sigma nvdash lnotphi .$ For the direction you need, assume $Sigmacup {phi}$ is inconsistent then show $Sigma vdash lnot phi.$ You only need to use very general facts about the system. For instance by the deduction theorem, if $Sigmacup {phi}vdash psi,$ and $Sigmacup {phi}vdash lnotpsi,$ then $ Sigma vdash phito psi$ and $Sigma vdash phito lnot psi.$ Can you show from there that $Sigma vdash lnotphi$?
          $endgroup$
          – spaceisdarkgreen
          Nov 25 '18 at 19:34




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @Studentu Some of that is on the right track, but you need $Sigma vdash lnotphi,$ not just $Sigmacup{phi}vdash lnot phi.$ If you have the $bot,$ symbol, you might just do $ Sigmacup{phi}vdashbot,$ and then use the deduction theorem to get $Sigma vdash phito bot.$ How close this is to $Sigmavdash lnot phi$ depends on the system you're using (in some systems it's the same thing by definition).
          $endgroup$
          – spaceisdarkgreen
          Nov 25 '18 at 21:16






          $begingroup$
          @Studentu Some of that is on the right track, but you need $Sigma vdash lnotphi,$ not just $Sigmacup{phi}vdash lnot phi.$ If you have the $bot,$ symbol, you might just do $ Sigmacup{phi}vdashbot,$ and then use the deduction theorem to get $Sigma vdash phito bot.$ How close this is to $Sigmavdash lnot phi$ depends on the system you're using (in some systems it's the same thing by definition).
          $endgroup$
          – spaceisdarkgreen
          Nov 25 '18 at 21:16




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3011853%2fshow-that-for-every-consistent-theory-there-is-a-complete-consistent-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

          Image
          3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question
          Read more

          Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

          Image
          up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx
          Read more

          Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

          Image
          0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"
          Read more