#### drag

Science Advisor

- 1,055

- 0

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 [Broken]

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 [Broken]

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: