It’s quite straightforward to write an algorithm which accepts only valid proofs (but might also reject some proofs which are valid, though in first-order logic you can do away with this caveat). Flawed proofs are not an issue—if A presents a proof which B is unable to verify, B ignores it.
A proves that the logic A uses to prove that B is Reasonable is inconsistent. It is sufficient to say “If I can prove that B is Reasonable, B is Reasonable”.
(I didn’t downvote you.)
It’s quite straightforward to write an algorithm which accepts only valid proofs (but might also reject some proofs which are valid, though in first-order logic you can do away with this caveat). Flawed proofs are not an issue—if A presents a proof which B is unable to verify, B ignores it.
There’s someone who consistently downvotes everything I ever write whenever he comes onto the site; I’m not sure what to do about that.
A proves that A is inconsistent, then proves that A cooperates with every program that A proves is Reasonable and that B is reasonable.
B accepts A’s proof that A is inconsistent, and the rest follow trivially.
I’m not sure I understand. A is a TM—which aspect is it proving inconsistent?
A proves that the logic A uses to prove that B is Reasonable is inconsistent. It is sufficient to say “If I can prove that B is Reasonable, B is Reasonable”.