The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gamel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paradox Zfc
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Skolem paradox and its implications for the consistency and incompleteness of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC). Participants explore the relationship between the Skolem paradox and the foundational aspects of set theory, including the existence of uncountable sets and the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the Skolem paradox demonstrates that ZFC is inconsistent, claiming that this undermines proofs of its incompleteness.
  • Others reference the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem to illustrate how a model of set theory can contain uncountable sets while being countable, suggesting a contradiction.
  • Quotations from notable figures like John von Neumann and Abraham Fraenkel are presented to highlight ongoing reservations and debates regarding set theory and its axiomatization.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the credibility of the original claims made by Colin Leslie Dean, questioning his qualifications and the validity of his arguments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit significant disagreement regarding the implications of the Skolem paradox on ZFC, with some asserting it reveals inconsistencies while others challenge the credibility of these claims and the author proposing them.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the interpretation of the Skolem paradox and its implications for set theory. The discussion reflects a lack of consensus on the validity of the claims made by some participants.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in foundational mathematics, set theory, and philosophical implications of mathematical theories may find this discussion relevant.

gamel
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean argues that
The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC

Crackpot link removed[/color]

The Skolem pardox shows ZFC is inconsistent
Undecidability of ZFC is based on the assumption that it is consistent
therefore
the presence of the Skolem paradox shows ZFC is not consistent
so all those proofs that show the incompleteness of ZFC are destroyed
undermined and complete rubbish
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
from colin leslie dean

Crackpot link removed[/color]

The paradox is seen in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. One of the earliest results, published by Georg Cantor in 1874, was the existence of uncountable sets, such as the powerset of the natural numbers, the set of real numbers, and the well-known Cantor set. These sets exist in any Zermelo-Fraenkel universe, since their existence follows from the axioms. Using the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem, we can get a model of set theory which only contains a countable number of objects. However, it must contain the aforementioned uncountable sets, which appears to be a contradiction


"At present we can do no more than note that we have one more reason here to entertain reservations about set theory and that for the time being no way of rehabilitating this theory is known." – (John von Neumann)

"Skolem's work implies 'no categorical axiomatisation of set theory (hence geometry, arithmetic [and any other theory with a set-theoretic model]...) seems to exist at all'." – (John von Neumann)

"Neither have the books yet been closed on the antinomy, nor has agreement on its significance and possible solution yet been reached." – (Abraham Fraenkel)

"I believed that it was so clear that axiomatization in terms of sets was not a satisfactory ultimate foundation of mathematics that mathematicians would, for the most part, not be very much concerned with it. But in recent times I have seen to my surprise that so many mathematicians think that these axioms of set theory provide the ideal foundation for mathematics; therefore it seemed to me that the time had come for a critique." – (Skolem)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Australian "philosopher" colin leslie dean seems to have been extremely drunk when he wrote this paper.
 
I suspect that anyone who publishes through something called the "gamahucher press" spends a fair amount of time drunk.

I also suspect, though not as surely, that "gamel" is "The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean" and runs that press.
 
WHAT DOES gamahucher MEAN i wonder
 
CLD is a crackpot, and you were banned once already for this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K