Re: Yet another inane amateur Godel question
- From: Ask me about System Design <grpadmin@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 17, 4:31 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[ context snipped to save bandwidth ]
"Essentially undecidable"
sounds more like philosophy, in which case I might be tempted to
direct you to the great, late and lamented, Torkel Franzen's book on
not abusing Goedel.
"Essentially undecidable" is also a technical term. In mathematical
logic a (consistent first-order) theory T is essentially undecidable
if any consistent extension S is also undecidable. So a consistent
set of sentences T is essentially undecidable because we cannot add
any set of new sentences (in the same language I believe) to make a
set S containing T such that S is both consistent and decidable.
Do a Web search to find examples of theories T which are and
which are not essentially undecidable.
In the context of the original post, perhaps "problem" is being
confused with "theory" ?
Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2009.06.17
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Yet another inane amateur Godel question
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Re: Yet another inane amateur Godel question
- References:
- Yet another inane amateur Godel question
- From: Edward Green
- Re: Yet another inane amateur Godel question
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Re: Yet another inane amateur Godel question
- From: Edward Green
- Re: Yet another inane amateur Godel question
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Yet another inane amateur Godel question
- Prev by Date: Re: General topology books
- Next by Date: Re: Understanding the quotient ring nomenclature
- Previous by thread: Re: Yet another inane amateur Godel question
- Next by thread: Re: Yet another inane amateur Godel question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|