2026-08-28·por Sijie Wang#node#math

soundness-and-completeness

Soundness & completeness

Parent: logic

Modern logic's founding move is to split a logic into two a priori unrelated sides — then prove they coincide. Soundness and completeness are those coincidence theorems.

  • syntax-and-semantics — the split: syntax (⊢, proofs = finite, meaning-less symbol manipulation) vs semantics (⊨, truth in models = meaning). The whole subject lives on decoupling these and re-relating them.
  • soundness — ⊢ φ ⟹ ⊨ φ: everything provable is true (the calculus tells no lies). Easy direction.
  • completeness — ⊨ φ ⟹ ⊢ φ: everything true is provable (no gaps). The hard direction (Gödel, 1929).
  • propositional-example — see both directions at once on P → (Q → P) (truth table + proof).
  • hilbert-godel-tarski — how the split was born: the crisis, Hilbert's program, Tarski's truth, Gödel's completeness and incompleteness.
  • canonical-model — the canonical/term model: how completeness is actually proved (Lindenbaum + Henkin + truth lemma — the syntax becomes the model), worked on the syllogism.

Together: ⊢ φ ⟺ ⊨ φ — provability = truth. A proof system that is both is a faithful mirror of meaning.

Why it's foundational

Logic wants two things that look incompatible: proofs must be mechanical (checkable, no appeal to meaning — Hilbert's formalism), yet they must certify truth (meaning — Tarski's semantics). Soundness+completeness are exactly the bridge:

  • compute truth by proving — the basis of automated reasoning and proof assistants (a sound kernel means a checked term is genuinely true);
  • study provability and truth as separate objects — this births proof theory (syntax) and model theory (semantics) as distinct fields;
  • and they set the stage for Gödel incompleteness: for arithmetic, syntax and semantics come apart — a theory can't prove every truth of ℕ (see the caveat below).

Full story of how it was born → hilbert-godel-tarski. A concrete propositional walk-through → propositional-example.

completeness ≠ "not incomplete"

Completeness of a proof system (proves all valid formulas — FOL, propositional) is a different thing from Gödel incompleteness (a theory can't prove all sentences true in its intended model ℕ). Don't conflate them.

sobre esta entrada

Una de las entradas de wiki de sijie. La IA en este sitio está anclada en el mismo corpus y responde en la voz de sijie, con citas que vuelven a entradas como esta — responder le cuesta dinero a sijie, así que espera detrás de un código: ingrese código de acceso →