Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem

On Mar 26, 7:52 pm, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You
say you have my proof in your book and it bears no resemblance to my
proof.  You say you have proofs as simple and the very first one goes
through 7 or 8 logical steps vs. 2 steps in mine.  

Two steps? Why so very many?? Here's a one-step proof that the truths
of PA are not r.e. (or adjust to whatever you want):

Premiss. The truths of PA are not r.e.
Conclusion. The truths of PA are not r.e.

Which is a valid inference from a logically true premiss. What more
can you possibly want?

Oh, something illuminating and explanatory that starts from something
more basic? Fine: then we'll need to fill in some background and make
some argumentative moves. How much will depend on what we can take for
granted. If you are writing for beginners, you have to go slowly.

I have plenty of evidence, because I've trialled it over the years,
that the explanatory proofs in my book work with beginners (as of
course do those in other standard texts, though I like to think mine
is particularly accessible). You have plenty of evidence that your
"proofs" in CBL fail to get through to anyone else (beginners or
otherwise) because the formalism is ill-explained as dozens have
complained to you with more or less patience.

Go figure.


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast