Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem

On Mar 14, 9:09 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Charlie-Boo <shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Mar 14, 3:27 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Charlie-Boo
<shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> said:

...You can say that finite sets have their own individual
cardinalities if you want (number of elements), but I have found it
easier if you treat the finite sets as one class, the r.e. sets as the
second, the reals/subsets as the 3rd., etc.

Finite sets are r.e.  Does this mean your first class is included in
your second class?  Also, where do denumerable non-r.e. sets fit into
your picture?  (NB: For mathematicians, "denumerable" = "has cardinality
aleph_0", so you'll need to be careful when you frame your answer, given
that, in your unique idiolect, "aleph_0" = "finite".)

Is that the best you can some up with?

How about telling us the very best theorem that you have ever
discovered yourself?

Right.  You've got him beat.  You've come up with *lots* of great
theorems, so what does it matter that your logic is an utterly
incoherent mess?  

That's right. The proof is in the pudding. CBL generates incredibly
short proofs, incredibly large numbers of proofs, new proofs, and
nobody has found anything wrong with any of the proofs. All you can
say is you don't like the way it's described?

If a system somehow comes up with all of the above, doesn't that tell
you there is something to it? Doesn't that make you consider the
possibility that instead of condemning the system because you don't
like the way it created its dozens of proofs, that maybe there is some
value to how it produced them?

The proof is in the pudding. You can't knock success.

If you can find something wrong with the theorems and proofs that it
produces, then the system is not good. But if you can't, and the
theorems and proofs are real, then is it a coincidence? Or must it
have some way of logically coming up with these results? And instead
of trying to tear it down because of how it's described, see the value
in the results - maybe even be interested in how it actually works
(how it comes up with these proofs)? Wouldn't that be more
productive?

And if my description is in fact poorly written, tell me what wording
is unclear. I will glady - eagerly - try to make it more
intelligible. But don't say that because the description is hard to
understand, the system shits. Not cool.

C-B

--
"Memoirists like Frey and Augusten Burroughs belong to the long list of
those who should never have stopped using drugs. The drugs might have
made Frey more interesting, or they might have killed him. Either way,
American literature would have benefited." --John Dolan,www.exile.ru- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Loading