What Branch of Mathematics Does Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem Deal With?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bacon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem primarily falls under the branch of formal logic, demonstrating that no mathematical theory can simultaneously possess consistency, completeness, the ability to express integer arithmetic, and a computability condition on its axioms. The theorem's implications extend into philosophy, although its philosophical significance is often debated due to frequent misinterpretations. For those seeking to understand the theorem at an undergraduate level, thorough resources are essential. A list of recommended books is available at a provided link for further exploration. Understanding Gödel's work is crucial for grasping foundational concepts in logic and mathematics.
bacon
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
(Apologies if I am in the wrong part of the forum)
What branch of mathematics does Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem deal with?(I'm guessing Logic) and does anyone know any good books at the undergraduate level that would help to lay a foundation for understanding his theorem. I am "teaching myself" so the book(s) would need need to be fairly thorough. His theorem seems to be fairly important and my understanding of it is so poor.
Thanks in advance for any and all responses.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gödel's first incompleteness theorem is a theorem of formal logic -- it proves that no mathematical theory can have all four of the following list of properties:
1. Consistency
2. Completeness
3. Capable of fully expressing integer arithmetic
4. A computability condition on the set of axioms


Aside from certain topics in formal logic / computability theory, I believe it's only real use is in philosophy. Alas, it's so often misquoted that it's hard for me to tell if it's really important philosophically, or if it's just that the misquotes sound important.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
7K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K