Re: Goedel's proof




On Jan 27, 3:03 pm, aatu.koskensi...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
It bears some resemblance
to the informal introduction in Gödel's original article, where we do
find an enumeration B1, B2, B3, ... of formulas with one free variable
in the language of type theory augmented with arithmetical symbols.

On Jan 27, 9:54 pm, "Newberry" <newbe...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am not convinced that it is a proof by the diagonal argument.

What is the antecedent of "it" here? Do you mean that Godel's
original is not a proof by the diagonal argument, or that your summary
is not a proof by the diagonal argument?

Your summary is more of a fixpoint argument.
But that "is ultimately" similar to a diagonal argument.

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast