Proving that a set is not consistent

Ok so i was given the following problem: if $\Sigma \vdash \psi$ then the set $\Sigma\cup${$\lnot\psi$} is not consitent .Prove it by using only the theorems of completeness and correctness

which basically say that: $\Sigma \vdash \psi \Leftrightarrow \Sigma\vDash\psi$ or in other words: when a set of types $\Sigma$ is consistent its also satisfiable and backwards

Any ideas??? Remember we cannot use proof by contradiction, we want to prove by using only the above theorems.

• What is $[\psi]$? – Wojowu Jan 17 '16 at 14:18
• i added parentheses now, is it better? Makes sense to you? – Aggelos Sfakianos Jan 17 '16 at 14:20
• $\{\psi\}$ would make it even clearer. However, don't you mean that this set is consistent? The problem as written is incorrect. – Wojowu Jan 17 '16 at 14:21
• no its not. I say if $\Sigma \vdash \psi$ is true , then the set created out of union of $\Sigma$ and $\psi$ is not consistent – Aggelos Sfakianos Jan 17 '16 at 14:28
• This is wrong in that case. Provided $\Sigma$ is itself consistent, then adding any statement which it proves won't make it inconsistent. – Wojowu Jan 17 '16 at 14:40

Thanks to completness and correctness, your problem is equivalent to showing that if $\Sigma\models\psi$ then $\Sigma\cup\{\neg\psi\}$ is not satisfiable. Both of the statements "$\Sigma\models\psi$" and "$\Sigma\cup\{\neg\psi\}$ is not satisfiable" assert, by definition, that certain sorts of models cannot exist. Write out and compare what those sorts of models are, and you'll have your proof.
• If you don't know what models are, then what do you mean by "$\Sigma\models\psi$ and what do you mean by "satisfiable"? The usual definitions of those concepts involve models. – Andreas Blass Jan 17 '16 at 15:24
• by model you mean valuation $\upsilon$?? – Aggelos Sfakianos Jan 17 '16 at 15:28