structure for all areas    |     unexpand these ideas

5. Theory of Logic / K. Features of Logics / 3. Soundness

[whether all formal deductions always lead to truth]

12 ideas
If soundness can't be proved internally, 'reflection principles' can be added to assert soundness [Gödel, by Halbach/Leigh]
     Full Idea: Gödel showed PA cannot be proved consistent from with PA. But 'reflection principles' can be added, which are axioms partially expressing the soundness of PA, by asserting what is provable. A Global Reflection Principle asserts full soundness.
     From: report of Kurt Gödel (On Formally Undecidable Propositions [1931]) by Halbach,V/Leigh,G.E. - Axiomatic Theories of Truth (2013 ver) 1.2
     A reaction: The authors point out that this needs a truth predicate within the language, so disquotational truth won't do, and there is a motivation for an axiomatic theory of truth.
A proof theory is 'sound' if its valid inferences entail semantic validity [Enderton]
     Full Idea: If every proof-theoretically valid inference is semantically valid (so that |- entails |=), the proof theory is said to be 'sound'.
     From: Herbert B. Enderton (A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (2nd) [2001], 1.1.7)
Soundness would seem to be an essential requirement of a proof procedure [Tharp]
     Full Idea: Soundness would seem to be an essential requirement of a proof procedure, since there is little point in proving formulas which may turn out to be false under some interpretation.
     From: Leslie H. Tharp (Which Logic is the Right Logic? [1975], §2)
If everything that a theory proves is true, then it is 'sound' [Smith,P]
     Full Idea: If everything that a theory proves must be true, then it is a 'sound' theory.
     From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 01.1)
Soundness is true axioms and a truth-preserving proof system [Smith,P]
     Full Idea: Soundness is normally a matter of having true axioms and a truth-preserving proof system.
     From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 03.4)
     A reaction: The only exception I can think of is if a theory consisted of nothing but the axioms.
A theory is 'sound' iff every theorem is true (usually from true axioms and truth-preservation) [Smith,P]
     Full Idea: A theory is 'sound' iff every theorem of it is true (i.e. true on the interpretation built into its language). Soundness is normally a matter of having true axioms and a truth-preserving proof system.
     From: Peter Smith (Intro to Gödel's Theorems [2007], 03.4)
'Weakly sound' if every theorem is a logical truth; 'sound' if every deduction is a semantic consequence [Shapiro]
     Full Idea: A logic is 'weakly sound' if every theorem is a logical truth, and 'strongly sound', or simply 'sound', if every deduction from Γ is a semantic consequence of Γ. Soundness indicates that the deductive system is faithful to the semantics.
     From: Stewart Shapiro (Foundations without Foundationalism [1991], 1.1)
     A reaction: Similarly, 'weakly complete' is when every logical truth is a theorem.
Soundness is a semantic property, unlike the purely syntactic property of consistency [George/Velleman]
     Full Idea: Soundness is a semantic property, unlike the purely syntactic property of consistency.
     From: A.George / D.J.Velleman (Philosophies of Mathematics [2002], Ch.6)
Soundness theorems are uninformative, because they rely on soundness in their proofs [McGee]
     Full Idea: Soundness theorems are seldom very informative, since typically we use informally, in proving the theorem, the very same rules whose soundness we are attempting to establish.
     From: Vann McGee (Logical Consequence [2014], 5)
     A reaction: [He cites Quine 1935]
Soundness must involve truth; the soundness of PA certainly needs it [Halbach]
     Full Idea: Soundness seems to be a notion essentially involving truth. At least I do not know how to fully express the soundness of Peano arithmetic without invoking a truth predicate.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth [2011], 22.1)
     A reaction: I suppose you could use some alternative locution such as 'assertible' or 'cuddly'. Intuitionists seem a bit vague about the truth end of things.
Normally we only endorse a theory if we believe it to be sound [Halbach]
     Full Idea: If one endorses a theory, so one might argue, one should also take it to be sound.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth [2011], 22.1)
You cannot just say all of Peano arithmetic is true, as 'true' isn't part of the system [Halbach]
     Full Idea: One cannot just accept that all the theorems of Peano arithmetic are true when one accepts Peano arithmetic as the notion of truth is not available in the language of arithmetic.
     From: Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth [2011], 22.1)
     A reaction: This is given as the reason why Kreisel and Levy (1968) introduced 'reflection principles', which allow you to assert whatever has been proved (with no mention of truth). (I think. The waters are closing over my head).