Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Topic: Skepticism, mysticism, Jewish mathematics
Replies: 115   Last Post: Aug 7, 2006 1:30 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 herbzet Posts: 49 Registered: 7/1/06
Re: Skepticism, mysticism, Jewish mathematics
Posted: Jul 26, 2006 5:53 AM

david petry wrote:
>

[...]

>
> 2) Godel's Theorem (loosely, no consistent formalism can prove its own
> consistency) Informally, our skeptic claims, a proof is a compelling
> argument. It seems clear to our skeptic that if we are to believe that
> the formal theorems in our formalism should be accepted as compelling
> arguments, then at the very least it must be the case that we already
> believe that our formalism is consistent, and hence, no possible formal
> proof within that formalism could be considered to be the evidence that
> compels us to believe that the formalism is consistent.

This last sentence is well-written. I strongly agree with it,
though it's possible that I might consider such a proof to be
in the nature of corroborating evidence.

> And our skeptic
> asks, is that not already the essential content of Godel's theorem?

No.

> Even if you argue that Godel's proof is superior because it is actually
> formal, you still have to deal with the informal notion of proof: does
> Godel's proof compel us to believe that Godel's theorem is actually
> true?

Yes. To a mathematical certainty.

> So, our skeptic asks, what is the concrete content to Godel's
> theorem?

Godel's First Incompleteness theorem states that if arithmetic
(number theory, Peano arithmetic, the theory P which Godel
actually was using) is (omega) consistent, then it is incomplete:
there will be formulae phi such that neither phi nor not-phi are
provable in arithmetic.

The Second Incompleteness theorem states that one of those
undecideable-in-P formulae is the formula that formalizes
the proposition "P is consistent".

> What does it tell us that is not implicit in the definition of
> "proof"?

The question is mis-asked, and has no answer, since it is based
on a false assumption.

> How can it be tested?

It doesn't need to be tested, IMO, any more than any other theorem
needs to be tested. In any case, it could be falsified by
giving a proof in P (or PA, or any equivalent theory) of the
formula Con-P (or, respectively, Con-PA, or Con-(eqivalent T)).

Is it anything more than clever
> argumentation?

No more or less than any other mathematical theorem.

> How can such a theorem be regarded as one of the most
> important theorems in all of mathematics?

That's a good question. The significance of the theorems is
still being investigated, 75 years later. I personally think
it may not be as significant as its reception has suggested.
( see http://tinyurl.com/zyzzu )

> Why don't mathematicians
> raise these kind of questions?

They do.

> Why aren't they at least a little bit
> skeptical?

They are.

--
hz

'Even the crows on the roofs caw about the nature of conditionals.'

-- Callimachus --

Date Subject Author
7/25/06 David Petry
7/25/06 fishfry
7/25/06 Dr. David Kirkby
7/25/06 Dr. David Kirkby
7/25/06 lloyd
7/25/06 Doug Schwarz
7/25/06 Virgil
7/26/06 Mike Kelly
7/26/06 David Petry
7/26/06 Gene Ward Smith
7/26/06 Brian Quincy Hutchings
7/26/06 dkfjdklj@yahoo.com
7/26/06 herbzet
7/26/06 David Petry
7/28/06 herbzet
7/26/06 herbzet
7/26/06 lloyd
7/26/06 herbzet
7/26/06 dkfjdklj@yahoo.com
7/26/06 herbzet
7/26/06 Gene Ward Smith
7/26/06 Gerry Myerson
7/26/06 David Petry
7/26/06 Randy Poe
7/26/06 mensanator
7/27/06 Richard Herring
7/27/06 mensanator
7/27/06 Richard Herring
7/26/06 Gene Ward Smith
7/26/06 David Petry
7/26/06 Patricia Shanahan
7/26/06 Gene Ward Smith
7/28/06 herbzet
7/26/06 Dr. David Kirkby
7/26/06 Randy Poe
7/27/06 Rotwang
7/28/06 herbzet
7/30/06 Han de Bruijn
7/30/06 Barb Knox
7/30/06 zr
7/30/06 Virgil
7/30/06 Gene Ward Smith
7/30/06 zr
8/1/06 Virgil
7/30/06 T.H. Ray
7/31/06 Brian Quincy Hutchings
7/31/06 T.H. Ray
8/1/06 Brian Quincy Hutchings
8/1/06 David R Tribble
7/30/06 Gene Ward Smith
7/30/06 Ioannis
7/30/06 Dr. David Kirkby
7/30/06 zr
7/30/06 Dave Rusin
8/1/06 David Bernier
8/1/06 David R Tribble
8/2/06 Ioannis
7/31/06 Han de Bruijn
8/2/06 R. Srinivasan
8/3/06 Rupert
8/4/06 R. Srinivasan
8/4/06 R. Srinivasan
8/4/06 Rupert
8/4/06 R. Srinivasan
8/4/06 Rupert
8/4/06 R. Srinivasan
8/4/06 Mike Kelly
8/4/06 R. Srinivasan
8/4/06 Mike Kelly
8/4/06 R. Srinivasan
8/4/06 R. Srinivasan
8/4/06 Mike Kelly
8/4/06 R. Srinivasan
8/4/06 herbzet@cox.net
8/4/06 R. Srinivasan
8/6/06 Newberry
8/4/06 Jack Markan
8/4/06 Brian Quincy Hutchings
8/7/06 R. Srinivasan
8/4/06 Mike Kelly
8/5/06 R. Srinivasan
7/28/06 herbzet
7/28/06 Gene Ward Smith
7/28/06 herbzet
7/28/06 mensanator
7/28/06 herbzet
7/27/06 T.H. Ray
7/28/06 herbzet
7/29/06 David Petry
7/30/06 herbzet@cox.net
8/4/06 Jack Markan
8/4/06 T.H. Ray
7/26/06 David R Tribble
7/26/06 Gene Ward Smith
7/26/06 T.H. Ray
7/26/06 toni.lassila@gmail.com
7/26/06 Bennett Standeven
7/26/06 Brian Quincy Hutchings
7/27/06 Rotwang
7/27/06 Craig Feinstein
7/27/06 Toni Lassila
7/27/06 Craig Feinstein
7/27/06 Brian Quincy Hutchings
7/27/06 Rupert
7/28/06 zr
7/28/06 herbzet
7/28/06 T.H. Ray
7/29/06 zr
7/29/06 Virgil
7/29/06 zr
7/29/06 Virgil
7/30/06 herbzet@cox.net
7/30/06 T.H. Ray
7/30/06 LauLuna
7/30/06 LauLuna