- #1
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings !
NOTICE:
O.K. first of all I'd like to say I only
had the MOST superficial look at it as
possible and I'll probably pass out
if I even see the tiniest fraction of
the math involved in the actual proof.
So, since my humble doubts that I wish
to express here are complete BS, this
thread will at least, hopefully, benefit
those of you whoos acqaintance with this
is as pathetic as mine. Enjoy the reading.
Now, to the subject, here's a couple of links :
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/godel.html
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/georgia.html
My pathetic understanding :
As I see it through a partial glance
at the above explanations Godel's Theorem
is basicly a mathematical Liar's Paradox
(A liar says: I'm a liar).
Here's the G sentence (which supposedly contains
it in mathematical form) from the first link :
" G: The arithmoquine of "The arithmoquine of
a is not a valid TNT theorem-number" is not
a valid TNT theorem-number. "
What's unclear to me ?
Well, the following: What is a liar in math ?
How can you use "a" in math if it's not valid ?
I understand you can say 1 does not equal 2.
But, how can you use it for a more constructive
argument ? You're turning a contradiction into
a part of an argument and you can't do that.
To me, it seems like using nothing in physics
to explain physical effects - you just can't do
that, it makes no sense within the system.
A statement/number/whatever in math has definite
values/value ranges - true/false, real number/
natural number/...
BUT, if it's INVALID - it's NOT an axiom.
It can NOT be used to construct an argument
WITHIN that abstract system. Can it ?
Conclusion:
So, you see my pathetic dillema here with
the certain simple solution that I'm simply
too stupid or lazy to get. Feel free to humiliate
me in public so that I may learn something.
Thanks !
Live long and prosper.
NOTICE:
O.K. first of all I'd like to say I only
had the MOST superficial look at it as
possible and I'll probably pass out
if I even see the tiniest fraction of
the math involved in the actual proof.
So, since my humble doubts that I wish
to express here are complete BS, this
thread will at least, hopefully, benefit
those of you whoos acqaintance with this
is as pathetic as mine. Enjoy the reading.
Now, to the subject, here's a couple of links :
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/godel.html
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/georgia.html
My pathetic understanding :
As I see it through a partial glance
at the above explanations Godel's Theorem
is basicly a mathematical Liar's Paradox
(A liar says: I'm a liar).
Here's the G sentence (which supposedly contains
it in mathematical form) from the first link :
" G: The arithmoquine of "The arithmoquine of
a is not a valid TNT theorem-number" is not
a valid TNT theorem-number. "
What's unclear to me ?
Well, the following: What is a liar in math ?
How can you use "a" in math if it's not valid ?
I understand you can say 1 does not equal 2.
But, how can you use it for a more constructive
argument ? You're turning a contradiction into
a part of an argument and you can't do that.
To me, it seems like using nothing in physics
to explain physical effects - you just can't do
that, it makes no sense within the system.
A statement/number/whatever in math has definite
values/value ranges - true/false, real number/
natural number/...
BUT, if it's INVALID - it's NOT an axiom.
It can NOT be used to construct an argument
WITHIN that abstract system. Can it ?
Conclusion:
So, you see my pathetic dillema here with
the certain simple solution that I'm simply
too stupid or lazy to get. Feel free to humiliate
me in public so that I may learn something.
Thanks !
Live long and prosper.
Last edited by a moderator: