Diagonal Lemma - Proof

Proof

Let f: N→N be the function defined by:

f(#(θ)) = #(θ(#(θ))

for each T-formula θ in one free variable, and f(n) = 0 otherwise. The function f is computable, so there is a formula δ representing f in T. Thus for each formula θ, T proves

(∀y) ,

which is to say

(∀y) .

Now define the formula β(z) as:

β(z) = (∀y) ,

then

β(#(θ)) ⇔ (∀y) ,

which is to say

β(#(θ)) ⇔ ψ(#(θ(#(θ))))

Let φ be the sentence β(#(β)). Then we can prove in T that:

(*) φ ⇔ (∀y) ⇔ (∀y) .

Working in T, analyze two cases:
1. Assuming φ holds, substitute #(β(#(β)) for y in the rightmost formula in (*), and obtain:

(#(β(#(β)) = #(β(#(β))) → ψ(#(β(#(β))),

Since φ = β(#(β)), it follows that ψ(#(φ)) holds.
2. Conversely, assume that ψ(#(β(#(β)))) holds. Then the final formula in (*) must be true, and φ is also true.

Thus φ ↔ ψ(#(φ)) is provable in T, as desired.

Read more about this topic:  Diagonal Lemma

Famous quotes containing the word proof:

    “The chief contribution of Protestantism to human thought is its massive proof that God is a bore.”
    —H.L. (Henry Lewis)

    “If any proof were needed of the progress of the cause for which I have worked, it is here tonight. The presence on the stage of these college women, and in the audience of all those college girls who will some day be the nation’s greatest strength, will tell their own story to the world.”
    —Susan B. Anthony (1820–1906)

    “The thing with Catholicism, the same as all religions, is that it teaches what should be, which seems rather incorrect. This is “what should be.” Now, if you’re taught to live up to a “what should be” that never existed—only an occult superstition, no proof of this “should be”Mthen you can sit on a jury and indict easily, you can cast the first stone, you can burn Adolf Eichmann, like that!”
    —Lenny Bruce (1925–1966)