Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem

On May 6, 8:07 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Charlie-Boo <shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
There are an infinite number of theorems generated in one step?
How?

Never heard of the axiom scheme of induction?  Or regularity?  Or
separation?

An axiom scheme is not an axiom. Furthermore, if there can be an
infinite number of axioms, then we cannot write a proof generator in
general in the first place, as I said earlier. This was the case I
had in mind.

Then it is not an axiomatic system and if it were you couldn't
program them in general anyway as I said.

Er, right.  Sure.  

It has to be r.e. You are going way beyond a list of axioms and rules
of inference. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitary

C-B

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!"
                                                     -- Lewis Carroll

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GCH vs. Axiom of Choice.
    ... |The axiom of separation says that for every existing sentence and set, ... the axiom scheme of separation doesn't talk about ... quantifier in front. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Peano and first order logic
    ... >>higher order axiom, but merely an axiom scheme. ... between the logic Peano and Peano* where the former is the classical ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Peano and first order logic
    ... >>higher order axiom, but merely an axiom scheme. ... between the logic Peano and Peano* where the former is the classical ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ... An axiom scheme is not an axiom. ... infinite number of axioms, then we cannot write a proof generator in ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Peano and first order logic
    ... I certainly looks like a higher order axiom: ... > higher order axiom, but merely an axiom scheme. ... It uses a successor function mapping ...
    (sci.logic)