- 14,605
- 7,213
Very nice article on this stuff:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MLq...ss-incompleteness-and-what-it-all-means-first
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MLq...ss-incompleteness-and-what-it-all-means-first
Nice. I only wished he would have mentioned AC when he wroteDemystifier said:Very nice article on this stuff:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MLq...ss-incompleteness-and-what-it-all-means-first
as his basic phrase to describe second-order language or that he would have called it"Every (non-empty) set of numbers has a least element."
especially as he mentioned the reals. I liked his emphasis on semantics very much."Every (non-empty) set of natural numbers has a least element."
I'm just wondering if something as simple as the Goldbach's conjecture falls under these unprovable truths.Demystifier said:...
All these statements are considered true, but cannot be formally proved within the system to which they refer. ...
No. I think it is only a matter of time before we can prove (or disprove) it. If it were provably undecidable, people wouldn't still work on attempts to prove it, and we have already achieved partial results. Fermat took over 350 years, Goldbach is currently at 283.Bosko said:I'm just wondering if something as simple as the Goldbach's conjecture falls under these unprovable truths.
"every even natural number greater than 2 is the sum of two prime numbers"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach's_conjecture
Can it be proven that it is undecidable? That there is no proof whether it is true or not.