3
$\begingroup$

If I have a theory with the following axioms:

  1. $\forall x.(x=x)$

  2. $\forall x\forall y.\left(x=y\rightarrow\left(\varphi\left(x,x\right)\rightarrow\varphi\left(x,y\right)\right)\right)$, where $\varphi$ is any atomic formula.

And any model of these axioms is an equivalence relation, how do I prove that this theory isn't complete?

  • 0
    I would like to edit my previous comment, but i do not see how.So - in my previous comment - please replace the sentence:"if you allow...." with "If you alllow φ to be any other binary relation (that is different from "=") , then your signature has infinite binary relations, so it is in fact a scheme".2011-12-19

1 Answers 1

5

Let $\phi$ be the sentence $\forall x \forall y (x=y)$. Is $\phi$ a theorem? Is $\lnot\phi$ a theorem?

  • 0
    @magma: Yes, context is not supplied, and it would be nice to know whether there is something more interesting going on. As you pointed out, it would be nice to have a full conventional quick description of the language.2011-12-19