Boiling it down to essentials, it looks to me like the key move is this:
If we can prove X, then we can prove Y.
Therefore, if X is true, then we can prove Y.
But this doesn’t follow—X could be true but not provable.
Is that right? It’s ages since I did logic, and never to a deep level, so excuse me if this is way off.
Boiling it down to essentials, it looks to me like the key move is this:
If we can prove X, then we can prove Y.
Therefore, if X is true, then we can prove Y.
But this doesn’t follow—X could be true but not provable.
Is that right? It’s ages since I did logic, and never to a deep level, so excuse me if this is way off.