Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'

On Oct 22, 12:15?am, Jan Burse <janbu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Jones schrieb:

Following a proof is of no value unless the proof states what it is
attempting to prove. If the method of the proof is sound then this
proof does not show that what it is attempting to prove is sound.

In other words, following a sound method of proof can only fix our
assumptions, it cannot determine their validity.

Still presenting a proof, has some value.

If you say that a proof has no value, then you
missed something fundamental:

1) It is a big effort to find a proof. So
once a proof is found and published, others
can profit from this investment.

2) If the conclusion is rendered false in
a practical situation, then we can follow
that in this situation the premisses must
also render false. This can be exactly the
value for somebody interested in the proof.

3) If the premisse is rendered true in
a practical situation, then we can follow
that in this situation the conclusion must
also render true. This can be exactly the
value for somebody interested in the proof.

4) A proof can be a lemma of another proof.
Thus a proof can be valuable to somebody
in that the proof is included in a more
complex proof.

5) What else?

Whether for example Goedels proof is valuable
you have to decide by yourself. Put yourself
on the marketplace, and watch for yourself.

Hope this helps

Bye

I don't think anyone here can explain or even know about the nature
and limits of proof itself. You see, I am not challenging the
correctness of Godels proof. I am challenging its validity.

.

Quantcast