Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon logic.svg

This mathematics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately.

This article is of MID importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

I think that when I created this earlier (effing rollback) I did call it theory but wp uses theorem. SJGsjg 20:16, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Number theory

I thought the theorem applied to ZFC set theory. - π 22:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It applies to all theories, including ZFC set theory, which include arithmetic. (Provided that they are formalized in the appropriate way.) There are other theorems which apply specifically to set theory, such as the theorems that the axiom of choice and the continuum hypothesis can neither be proved nor disproved. I'll see if I can add a line or to the article which clarifies that. Thanks. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Multiplication?

I always thought induction (or in ZFC, replacement and specification) was the big "gotcha" in this, since it's impossible to express in first-order logic, so you're left with statements that can't be finitely defined. Sake Fueled (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Godel Unknotted

You might want to check out my refutation of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem at: Godel Unknotted. It's kind of interesting. — Unsigned, by: 208.83.126.102 / talk / contribs 19:51, 7 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Ugh, the formatting on that wiki was just too awful. I know this sounds immature, but the way the text was structured undermined my ability to take it seriously. If you weren't claiming to refute one of the most famous theorems in mathematics, I'd probably have made more effort to try to figure out what you were saying, but as it stands, I just couldn't bring myself to try. Is that unfair? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Given as none of the brand new notation is defined, I'd call that an acceptable request for clarity. Like that is so unreadable I don't even know WHICH of the two you're claiming to refute. PacWalker 20:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This may be of use. PacWalker 20:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm hoping (or maybe !hoping) this is just an artifact of your formatting, but does the final "look what I did!" read something like
( \lnot (A \leftrightarrow B)) \leftrightarrow (A \nleftrightarrow B)
^this? PacWalker 20:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support