| Science Forum Index » Mathematics Forum » Godel has no idea what truth is so incompleteness... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| melsi... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
the australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown Godel incompleteness theorem meaningless as he has no idea
what truth is
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
[quote]Gdel's first incompleteness theorem, states that:
Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic [b]truths[/b], there is an arithmetical
statement that is[b] true,[/b][1] but not provable in the theory. [/
quote]
but Godel had no idea of what truth is as peter smith of cambridge
admitts
thus his incompleteness theorems is meaningless rubbish
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf
[quote]mathematician have so much invested in godels incompleteness theorem much maths is reliant on it but at the time godel wrote his theorem he had no idea of what truth was as peter smith the Cambridge expert on Godel
admitts
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/ebde70b...
de566912ee69f0a8?lnk=gst&q=G%C3%B6del+didn%27t+rely+on+the+notion+PETER
+smith#de 566912ee69f0a8
Quote:
[b]Gdel didn't rely on the notion
of truth[/b]
but truth is central to his theorem
as peter smith kindly tellls us
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218...40_excerpt.pdf
Quote:
Godel did is find a general method that enabled him to take any theory T strong enough to capture a modest amount of basic arithmetic and construct a corresponding arithmetical sentence GT which encodes the claim The sentence GT itself is unprovable in theory T. So G T is
[b]true[/b] if and only if T cant prove it
If we can locate GT
, a Godel sentence for our favourite nicely ax-
iomatized theory of arithmetic T, and can argue that G T is
[b]true[/b]-but-unprovable,
[/quote]
thus godels incompleteness theorem is about true statements which cant
be proven
but godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true
thus his theorem is meaningless
Abram Demski
notes
http://omgili.com/newsgroups/sci/logic/5f72458d70b444f3fa127507e37747...
With no working definition of truth, Godels proof cannot be taken through the last step which converts the formal result about sentences that can and can't be proven into one about truth and incompleteness.The formal result still holds, though; it is just of questionable interest. Right?
in fact his theorem is meaningless as he cant tell us what truth is |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| melsi... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Daryl McCullough
says
The Australian philosopher Colin Leslie Dean has no idea what he's
talking about.
fact is godels incompleteness theorem ie there are true statements which cant be proven
is meaningless as godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true
as
Abram Demski
notes
http://omgili.com/newsgroups/sci/logic/5f72458d70b444f3fa127507e37747...
With no working definition of truth, Godels proof cannot be taken through the last step which converts the formal result about sentences that can and can't be proven into one about truth and incompleteness.The formal result still holds, though; it is just of questionable interest. Right?
-- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Daryl McCullough... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
melsi says...
[quote]the australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown Godel
incompleteness theorem meaningless as he has no idea what truth is
[/quote]
The Australian philosopher Colin Leslie Dean has no idea what he's
talking about.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| melsi... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Abram Demski
notes
http://omgili.com/newsgroups/sci/logic/5f72458d70b444f3fa127507e37747...
With no working definition of truth, Godels proof cannot be taken through the last step which converts the formal result about sentences that can and can't be proven into one about truth and incompleteness.The formal result still holds, though; it is just of questionable interest. Right?
but
in fact his theorem is meaningless as he cant tell us what truth is |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| contact080501 at (no spam) jamesrmeyer.com... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
If you don't agree with what Dean is saying why don't you analyze his argument and make some logical rebuttal of what he is saying? - instead of making infantile remarks?
It's actually very simple to show the errors in Dean's argument, as you can see here:
http://jamesrmeyer.com/ffgit/show_error.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David C. Ullrich... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:38:56 EST, melsi <cyprinee at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]the australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown Godel incompleteness theorem meaningless as he has no idea
what truth is
[/quote]
Fascinating. If, as you yourselve claim, the australian philosopher
colin leslie dean has no idea what truth is, then why should we
listen to what he has to say about Godel's theorem? He could
be lying without realizing it.
[quote]http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
[quote]Gdel's first incompleteness theorem, states that:
Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic [b]truths[/b], there is an arithmetical
statement that is[b] true,[/b][1] but not provable in the theory. [/
quote]
but Godel had no idea of what truth is as peter smith of cambridge
admitts
thus his incompleteness theorems is meaningless rubbish
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf
[quote]mathematician have so much invested in godels incompleteness theorem much maths is reliant on it but at the time godel wrote his theorem he had no idea of what truth was as peter smith the Cambridge expert on Godel
admitts
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/ebde70b...
de566912ee69f0a8?lnk=gst&q=G%C3%B6del+didn%27t+rely+on+the+notion+PETER
+smith#de 566912ee69f0a8
Quote:
[b]Gdel didn't rely on the notion
of truth[/b]
but truth is central to his theorem
as peter smith kindly tellls us
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218...40_excerpt.pdf
Quote:
Godel did is find a general method that enabled him to take any theory T strong enough to capture a modest amount of basic arithmetic and construct a corresponding arithmetical sentence GT which encodes the claim The sentence GT itself is unprovable in theory T. So G T is
[b]true[/b] if and only if T cant prove it
If we can locate GT
, a Godel sentence for our favourite nicely ax-
iomatized theory of arithmetic T, and can argue that G T is
[b]true[/b]-but-unprovable,
[/quote]
thus godels incompleteness theorem is about true statements which cant
be proven
but godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true
thus his theorem is meaningless
Abram Demski
notes
http://omgili.com/newsgroups/sci/logic/5f72458d70b444f3fa127507e37747...
With no working definition of truth, Godels proof cannot be taken through the last step which converts the formal result about sentences that can and can't be proven into one about truth and incompleteness.The formal result still holds, though; it is just of questionable interest. Right?
in fact his theorem is meaningless as he cant tell us what truth is
[/quote]
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Frederick Williams... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David C. Ullrich" wrote:
[quote]Fascinating. If, as you yourselve claim, the australian philosopher
colin leslie dean has no idea what truth is, then why should we
listen to what he has to say about Godel's theorem? He could
be lying without realizing it.
[/quote]
Can one lie without realizing it? Some think that to lie one must at
least intend to deceive.
--
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David C. Ullrich... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:13:32 EST, "contact080501 at (no spam) jamesrmeyer.com"
<contact080501 at (no spam) jamesrmeyer.com> wrote:
[quote]If you don't agree with what Dean is saying why don't you analyze his argument and make some logical rebuttal of what he is saying? - instead of making infantile remarks?
[/quote]
Erm, that's been done many times, by me and others. It has no effect.
[quote]It's actually very simple to show the errors in Dean's argument,
[/quote]
Well duh.
[quote]as you can see here:
http://jamesrmeyer.com/ffgit/show_error.html
[/quote]
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
