Proof the Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter newton1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof and implications of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, particularly its relevance to mathematical systems and its potential connection to theoretical physics. Participants explore the theorem's implications for completeness and consistency in mathematical frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests a proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and questions whether it implies that mathematical systems can never be complete.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about providing a proof due to the theorem's complexity and depth, noting that it suggests any sufficiently complex axiomatic system is either inconsistent or incomplete.
  • It is mentioned that incompleteness means there are statements within the system that cannot be proven or disproven, and adding such statements as axioms leads to further incompleteness.
  • A participant discusses the challenge of proving the consistency of various mathematical systems, highlighting the interdependence of different mathematical frameworks.
  • One participant inquires whether the theorem applies to other scientific systems, such as physics.
  • Another participant clarifies that Gödel's theorem applies specifically to logical systems based on axioms, primarily mathematics, and does not extend to physics, which relies on experimental evidence.
  • A later reply suggests that theoretical physics may involve axiomatic systems created prior to experimental validation, raising questions about the theorem's implications in that context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to mathematical systems but disagree on its implications for theoretical physics and whether it can be extended to scientific frameworks based on experimental evidence.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the relationship between axiomatic systems in mathematics and their applicability to theoretical physics, as well as the implications of incompleteness for scientific theories developed without experimental evidence.

newton1
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
who can show me how to proof the Godel's Incompleteness Theorem ?
it that mean the system of mathematics will never be complate??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I doubt that anyone can show you how to prove Goedel's incompleteness theorem- its very long and very deep. There are a number of books written on it alone.

Yes, Goedel's theorem says that any system of axioms (large enough to encompass the natural numbers) is either inconsistent (in which case it's useless) or incomplete (in which case it's not perfect!).

Saying that a system is incomplete means there exist some theorem, statable in terms of the system which can be neither proven nor disproven. Of course, you could always add that theorem itself as an axiom but then you would have some other theorem that can be neither proven nor disproven.

One cannot prove, in absolute terms, that most of the systems used in mathematics are consistent- it is possible to prove, for example, that Euclidean geometry is consistent if and only if hyperbolic geometry is, or that Euclidean geometry is consistent if and only if algebra is, which is consistent if and only if the natural numbers are, which is true if and only if set theory is consistent...

Since there are one heckuva lot of things we don't know HOW to prove, most mathematicians are willing to live with the knowledge that they can't prove EVERYTHING!
 
i see...
are this theorem include the other science system like physics system??
 
It applies only to logical systems based on axioms. That includes all of mathematics. It does not apply to physics or other sciences that are based on experimental evidencel.

It is conceivable that, if a particular axiomatic system used to model physics were inconsistent, the mathematical foundation would be in trouble. The experimental evidence, of course, would still be valid. I will point out that there is no evidence that any important mathematical system is inconsistent.
 
what i mean is theoretical physics...
some theory was create by scientist before they have the experimental evidence
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
12K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
748
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K