Re: Proof of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem made short
- From: Scott H <zinites_page@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:51:43 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 10, 5:59 pm, LauLuna <laureanol...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Revise step 2.4, for 2.1 and 2.3 do not contradict each other; they
only prove the system inconsistent, and hence w-inconsistent; taking
this into account should help you complete the proof.
Thanks.
Anyway, you don't prove that G is expressible in the system, which is
an important part of the original proof.
What do you mean by expressible?
.
- References:
- Proof of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem made short
- From: Scott H
- Re: Proof of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem made short
- From: LauLuna
- Proof of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem made short
- Prev by Date: Re: #999...999: When is a textbook not a textbook? Was: new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards"
- Next by Date: Re: Arc length of helix formed into a loop
- Previous by thread: Re: Proof of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem made short
- Next by thread: real root of a polynomial
- Index(es):
