To be fair, set.mm doesn't really ever use the term "valid" in the logical
sense. At best, it talks about wffs being "universally true",
"unconditionally true" (in ax-gen), or "provable" (when explaining the
turnstile symbol), and in some descriptions (e.g., idi, ax-mp) imprecisely
abbreviates this to "true". Perhaps avoiding that terminology was in the
interest of accessibility, or perhaps it may have been a particular habit
of NM, who in his paper uses "valid" to mean "syntactically well-formed".

If I were writing it, I'd likely just steal "unconditionally true" from the
ax-gen description.

Matthew House

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 9:13 AM 'Discher, Samiro' via Metamath <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Such issues highlight that natural language contains many pitfalls when
> it comes to precision.
> Technically, when you say "Any theorem of logic is necessary", I would
> interpret that as (⊢p) ⇒ □(⊢p). But you mean to say (⊢p) ⇒ (⊢□p).
>
> Already the term "necessary" is questionable, as modal logic is about
> whether something is "necessarily true", which is not the same as
> "necessary" (the latter is less specific and can refer to things that are
> not about truth).
>
> A more natural way to express that "□p" is a theorem in GL is to say that
> the statement that p is PA-provable is GL-provable. Which circumvents an
> issue that emerges only due to mixing meta with object language in natural
> language..
>
> I only meant to point out some mistakes in terminology, it is up to you
> what you make of it!
> ------------------------------
> *Von:* [email protected] <[email protected]> im Auftrag
> von savask <[email protected]>
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 1. Dezember 2025 14:01:03
> *An:* Metamath
> *Betreff:* [Metamath] Re: Advent of Metamath 2025
>
> Thank you for the remarks. Admittedly, I haven't tried to be very precise
> in theorem comments, for the most part their goal is to provide at least
> some intuition for the symbols. I'll wait for a bit in case others (or you)
> have other remarks, so I'll update the file all in one go.
>
> > But that is false. The necessitation rule actually says: if something
> (to be true) is a theorem (i.e. provable from only axioms, no premises),
> then it to be necessary (necessarily true) is also a theorem.
>
> I'm a bit reluctant to use "provable" here as the box symbol is later
> interpreted as "provable in PA". I can rephrase the comment as follows "Any
> theorem of logic is necessary", this is the motivation used by Standford's
> encyclopedia of philosophy
> <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/>.
>
> > "Turns out this axiom is true in GL, hence GL extends K4." should
> probably read "valid" rather than "true".
>
> Again, to avoid loaded terms, I can rephrase it as "Turns out this axiom *
> holds* in GL ...". Is that okay?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Metamath" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/a59931d7-5724-4a11-950c-84f4aeac64c8n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/a59931d7-5724-4a11-950c-84f4aeac64c8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Metamath" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/aa62e696d6bd4d1c827e72d779391311%40rwth-aachen.de
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/aa62e696d6bd4d1c827e72d779391311%40rwth-aachen.de?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Metamath" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/CADBQv9ZjSUzN5pORwzW6A9YC0V38ttW3xY1LKNwEbs7%3DyE%3DpCw%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to