Re: Goedel's proof
- From: "Newberry" <newberry@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Jan 2007 18:54:03 -0800
On Jan 27, 3:03 pm, aatu.koskensi...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jan 28, 12:43 am, "Peter_Smith" <p...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 27 Jan, 04:06, "Newberry" <newbe...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let me see if I understand Goedel's proof correctly.
Not a very helpful comment, but what follows is completelyto the informal introduction in Gödel's original article, where we do
unrecognizable to me as a version of *Gödel's* proof.Unrecognizable, perhaps, but not completely. It bears some resemblance
find an enumeration B1, B2, B3, ... of formulas with one free variable
in the language of type theory augmented with arithmetical symbols.
I am not convinced that it is a proof by the diagonal argument.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...@xxxxxxxxx)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Goedel's proof
- From: george
- Re: Goedel's proof
- From: Peter_Smith
- Re: Goedel's proof
- References:
- Goedel's proof
- From: Newberry
- Re: Goedel's proof
- From: Peter_Smith
- Re: Goedel's proof
- From: aatu . koskensilta
- Goedel's proof
- Prev by Date: Re: Definition of AI.
- Next by Date: Re: Definition of AI.
- Previous by thread: Re: Goedel's proof
- Next by thread: Re: Goedel's proof
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|