Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
- From: Peter_Smith <ps218@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:09:33 -0700
On 6 Oct, 06:21, Newberry <newberr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have never seen any proof of this. I also remember that some time
ago Rupert wrote that if the theory has canonical valuation then it
will also be semantically incomplete. It implies that if the theory
does not have canonical valuation then it will not necessarily be
semantically incomplete.
Sorry, perhaps I'm misunderstanding. What do you mean by "semantically
incomplete"?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidate Godel
- From: elsiemelsi
- Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
- From: elsiemelsi
- Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
- From: Peter_Smith
- Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
- From: Newberry
- Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
- From: Peter_Smith
- Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
- From: Newberry
- Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
- From: Peter_Smith
- Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
- From: Newberry
- Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
- From: Peter_Smith
- Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
- From: Newberry
- A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidate Godel
- Prev by Date: Re: Countable models of ZFC
- Next by Date: Re: Countable models of ZFC
- Previous by thread: Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
- Next by thread: Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
- Index(es):
Loading