Re: all the incompleteness proofs are worthless untill...
- From: "elsiemelsi" <cyprinsam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:35:55 -0500
you say
Or is the situation one of endless regress: we can prove the
consistency
of S1 in S2, but we can only prove the consistency of S2 with S3, and
forall n, we can only prove S_n in S_succ(n).
i say look at godels self contradiction
to se he proved nothing
GODEL IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY
But here is a contradiction Godel must prove that a system cannot be
proven to be consistent based upon the premise that the logic he uses must
be consistent . If the logic he uses is not consistent then he cannot
make a proof that is consistent. So he must assume that his logic is
consistent so he can make a proof of the impossibility of proving a system
to be consistent. But if his proof is true then he has proved that the
logic he uses to make the proof must be consistent, but his proof proves
that this cannot be done
--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutscience.com/group/sci.logic/
More information at http://www.talkaboutscience.com/faq.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: all the incompleteness proofs are worthless untill...
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: all the incompleteness proofs are worthless untill...
- References:
- all the incompleteness proofs are worthless untill...
- From: elsiemelsi
- Re: all the incompleteness proofs are worthless untill...
- From: Marshall
- all the incompleteness proofs are worthless untill...
- Prev by Date: Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- Next by Date: Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- Previous by thread: Re: all the incompleteness proofs are worthless untill...
- Next by thread: Re: all the incompleteness proofs are worthless untill...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|