Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem

On Mar 24, 3:53 pm, Peter_Smith <ps...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 24, 7:06 pm, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mar 24, 2:24 pm, Peter_Smith <ps...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Peter Smith claims his book has my proofs, but see my reply - his
statements are not so.  His proofs are an order of magintude longer
and more complex than mine.

Hardly. What I said was that some of the proof ideas you very vaguely
wave your armsat  (e.g. about the unsolvability of the halting problem
entailing that the set of true sentences is not r.e.) are widely
available in the literature in properly worked out versions.

You must be talking about a different quote:

"various short proofs abound, e.g. in my book secs 5.3/5.4, 6.2/6.3,
33.6 to mention three proofs distinct from Gödel's".

As I showed in detail, the very first proof in section 5.3 is about 10
times as long as mine.

C-B

Sigh. It's down to the difference between actually giving a proof and
merely waving your arms at a sketch of a proof.

No, that's just the presentation. My proof takes 2 logical steps and
yours takes about 8.

How would you compare the size and complexity of your proof vs mine?
Same, smaller, larger?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/9fdbfa6bbc337725

If you won't even admit something as obvious as this, then how can you
have a reasonable discussion?

C-B
.

Relevant Pages