Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem

On Mar 26, 7:40 pm, Peter_Smith <ps...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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).

Another red herring. You said my proofs are in your book and you gave
3 sections. In the very first of those your proof is many times
longer and more complex than mine.

Then you say mine are not presented well. Now you say yours are
longer because your readers find that easier to understand. Longer
and more complex is called "slower" and thus easier (tortured logic.)

But the question wasn't who gives the better presentation or why your
proofs are so long and complex. The assertion was that these were my
proofs. They are not.

However, you seem to be implicitly admitting the obvious now - that
those are NOT my proofs and they are in fact longer and more complex.

So you didn't lie, cheat and steal to the end of time - it only lasted
a couple of days and now you've put that on hold. I hope you will
continue. A red herring is better than a warm and squishy one.

C-B

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