Good book for Gödel's incompleteness theorems

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaser88
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book
AI Thread Summary
Recommendations for textbooks on Gödel's incompleteness theorems include "Gödel's Theorem Simplified" by Harry Gensler. The discussion highlights that Gödel's theorem involves self-referential statements that cannot be proven within a consistent and complete logical system. It emphasizes that any sufficiently expressive system will inevitably contain such self-referential paradoxes, leading to incompleteness. Questions arise about whether all unprovable statements are merely self-referential and why the implications of Gödel's work are considered profound. The thread also directs readers to additional resources for further exploration of these concepts.
phaser88
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Can anyone recommend a good textbook that would include Gödel's incompleteness theorems?

Also I have some basic questions:

From the stuff I read on the web it seems that Gödel's incompleteness theorem, basically just created a statement which is unprovable by its nature of being self-referential. as explained http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29955-godels-theorem-for-dummies/"

Godel found a way of encoding a statement to the effect of "This statement is unprovable" into the symbolic logic system defined in Principia Mathematica (PM). The notable aspect of the statement is that it is self-referential, which Godel managed to accomplish by encoding statements in PM into "Godel Numbers." Thus the actual statement in PM refers to its own Godel Number.

To boil it down into a nutshell, I'd say it means that any system which is expressive enough to be consistent and complete is also expressive enough to contain self-referential statements which doom it to incompleteness.

Is that really all there is to it? In other words, do all of the unprovable statements take the form of a self-referential paradox? In which case, why do people think it is so deep? If that is the case, then it is trivial, because obviously if you construct a self-referential statement designed to paradoxical, then you won't be able to prove it, but so what?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
6K
Replies
72
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top