Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem

On Mar 17, 2:28 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:58:29 -0700 (PDT), MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
said:





On Mar 16, 8:01 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:25:35 -0700 (PDT), Charlie-Boo
<shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> said:

...
...the ZF axioms aren't used to prove anything outside of simple,
fairly obvious, statements about sets.

Ignorant codswallop. I gave you three examples (of thousands):

1. Every singular limit ordinal k with cofinality < card(k) lacks the
Souslin property.

2. The Stone Representation theorem (every Boolean Algebra is isomorphic
to a field of sets)

3. Every normal function on the ordinals has arbitrarily large fixed
points.

(Refutations welcome.)

Where "welcome" = "ignored".

Wow, Charlie-Boo is STILL making that challenge and IGNORING replies.

And still unable to see that CBL is just Magickal Thinking.  E.g., in
CBL, "P(I)" just *means* "P is recursive", where "recursive" appears to
be an undefined primitive;

You need "recursive" defined???

"YES(x,y)" just *means* "Turing Machine x
halts yes on input y", but one looks in vain for the definition of a
Turing Machine

You gotta get out more often.

and what it is for one to halt on a given input.  Simply
*declaring* those expressions to mean the complex concepts that he
intends them to mean is his idea of an adequate formal theory, simply
because he has no clue what a formal theory *is*.

Half the proofs in the world involve defining things such as a name
given to a particular relation.

 But instead of
educating himself

Which of the dozen or so proofs that I have posted are not valid
proofs?

C-B

-- he certainly seems smart enough to learn the
material -- he appears to be stuck in the illusion that his work is
simply too innovative and original to be accepted by a mathematical
community that is blinded by its ossified traditions.  Pity that.  I
mean, I'd really *like* the guy to have the pleasures of learning and
appreciating the actual mathematics he's groping toward.  I guess that's
why I keep responding in off moments.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ... ...the ZF axioms aren't used to prove anything outside of simple, ... And still unable to see that CBL is just Magickal Thinking. ... because he has no clue what a formal theory *is*. ... appreciating the actual mathematics he's groping toward. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... most of the standard axioms would get scrapped ... you claim that set theory is ... theory in which to express virtually all of mathematics. ... S (call this function 'omega pre S'). ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Robot Evolution
    ... no. Goedel proved a very limited thing about ... generated from systems of axioms "at least as ... accomplish mathematical reasoning. ... "If human reasoning about mathematics is ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Skolems Paradox and why is math the way it is?
    ... > This is not a job the axioms were ever meant to do. ... other person's interpretation require a winning strategy, no more, no ... I'm pretty sure than any model of set theory is intuitively ... figuring out how I tell what is real in mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ... It's the *axioms* ... Otherwise it's not an axiomatic system. ... generator to compare to a proof checker in the first place. ... The program was to be able to rewrite all mathematics starting using ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading