Re: Run and hide you girls

From: Will Twentyman (wtwentyman_at_read.my.sig)
Date: 06/14/04 

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:48:17 -0400

|-|erc wrote:

> *for all formula considered true, there must be a proof for it.*
>
> This formula disproves Godels proof, what a bunch of losers trying
> to dismiss it as impossible.

What can be shown true when working in a formal system, becomes much
more difficult to show in an informal system. For example: Godel has a
few proofs, including both a completeness theorem and an incompleteness
theorem. Of course, one applies to First Order Logic and the other
applies to Second Order Logic.

> The whole notion of formal systems was designed around quantifying
> (godel numbers) and referencing formulas to establish the construction of
> the Godel statement.
>
> You wipe out this formula T = ~T saying you only consider subsets of
> godelisable formulas that are "consistent", then you pull out all this
> criteria
> you never back up that any formula that disproves Godels statements are
> not expressible.
>
> What a giant cop out from a bunch of illogical fuckwits. Godels proof
> contains
> this line :
>
> "G has no proof, which itself asserts, therefore it is true"

The proof does not have this line. The proof I saw has precious few
pure English sentences at all. Most of them have a ton of math/logic
symbols in them.

> Wake up and smell the dung, that line of deduction is fricking easy, I
> could deduce it on a chessboard, predicate calculus is overkill for the
> simple *Godel proof of the statement G*.
>
> G = this has no proof ??
> Godel = a proof of G ??

You will probably get further by looking at formal versions of the
proofs you disagree with, rather than by talking about them without the
formal structures they are expressed and proven with. 

-- 
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net
Quantcast