A "Proof Formula" for all maths or formal logic?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter moriheru
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Logic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of a "master formula" or "proof formula" that could potentially allow mathematicians to prove statements by simply inputting values into a mathematical expression. The inquiry touches on the relationship between the validity of a theorem's statement and its Gödel number, particularly in the context of first-order logic and other formal theories, while also considering the implications of incompleteness in formal systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes the idea of a "master formula" that could simplify the proof of mathematical statements by relating them to their Gödel numbers.
  • Another participant references automated theorem proving and proof assistants, suggesting these tools may relate to the discussion but does not directly address the main inquiry.
  • A participant clarifies that their interest lies specifically in the connection between the validity of statements in formal languages and their Gödel numbers, questioning how incompleteness might affect this relationship.
  • One participant suggests that it is possible to list all valid statements in a specific order and find Gödel numbers for proofs of a certain length, questioning the utility of this approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility and implications of a "proof formula." While some explore the concept, others challenge its practicality and relevance, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of mathematical languages and formal theories, noting that different areas of mathematics may have distinct rules. It also acknowledges the limitations imposed by Gödel's incompleteness theorems on formal systems.

moriheru
Messages
273
Reaction score
16
I was wondering whether or not there could be a "master formula" . What I mean by a master formula is, maybe not even a formula, some mathematical expression that would allow mathematicians to prove statements simply by plugging in some numbers into a formula.

So I guess in a way a I am talking about a " proof formula" . To be more precise: shouldn't it be possible to find for example by interpolation, a formula that relates the validity of a theorems statement to its Gödel number. I am aware that mathematics is a vast and complicated language, but would this be possible for first order logic or other simpler formal theories .

I believe the reverse process is certainly easier though. I can easily set up a formal theory in which I choose my axioms and inference rules in such a way that for example every theorem with a Gödel number divisible by 17 and 2 is true.

I am aware that I have used the term maths in a rather loose fashion. I am no expert, but there surly is no one mathematical language. Topology may have different rules than Order theory and hence be a different formal theory. Additionally, what about the incompleteness of forma, theory such as arithmetic. Any thoughts...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I am a aware of automated proofs such as the W-Z method, but that wasn't quite the point I was trying to make or inquire upon. I was more specifically asking whether a connection can be made between the validity of a statement in a formal language and it's Gödel number and how incompleteness may effect this. Nevertheless the Isabel link was very interesting thank you!
 
You can list all valid statements in a specific order. With sufficient resources, you'll find the Gödel number of every proof of length < N for large N. How does that help?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
980
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
8K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
9K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K