Re: Godel's Incompleteness theorem
- From: Neilist <Neilisted@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 07:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 28, 12:57 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Neilist <Neilis...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Complete means that any truthful statement can be derived from the
axioms of the system.
No, it doesn't.
What a lousy response! "No, it doesn't". Childish. I'll just say
"yes it does".
Give the correct definition then, genius (sarcasm)!
Moorthy, read or skim Godel Escher Bach by DouglasHofstadter. It
is excellent - entertaining and informative, and it deserved the
Pulitzer Prize.
It also has the tendency to make people's head swim in confusion.
Confusing for you, apparently. Godel Escher Bach is great fun, and it
eases the reader into Godel's work.
For
a more sober approach I recommend Torkel Franzén's _Gödel's Theorem_,
But is Franzen's work too sober = dry = boring? Or too advanced for
the original poster or to the average person?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Godel's Incompleteness theorem
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: Godel's Incompleteness theorem
- From: Tonico
- Re: Godel's Incompleteness theorem
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Godel's Incompleteness theorem
- Prev by Date: Re: Deconstructing affine transformations into rotation, scale, skew
- Next by Date: Godel Escher Bach is a great book. Two thumbs up!
- Previous by thread: Re: A tiny Collatz-exercise
- Next by thread: Re: Godel's Incompleteness theorem
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
