The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Pathological Self-Reference and the Halting Problem [was:The
empty string as a code]

Replies: 4   Last Post: Jun 2, 2012 5:20 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 117
Registered: 11/1/11
Re: Pathological Self-Reference and the Halting Problem [was:The empty string as a code]
Posted: Jun 2, 2012 4:36 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

> > Yes. The notion of "provability" is mathematical. The notion
> > of "knowability" isn't.

> You're incorrect (at least) in the context of model-theoretical
> proof/provability. For instance, if you didn't _know_ the universe U
> of a model M is a singleton, you couldn't prove Axy[x=y] to be true
> or false.

Daryl doesn't know that this is a Godel Statement!



He'll whine about it not being maths or being a crank or something.

Daryl can you make out any DIFFERENCE between these 2 formula?

T1|-!(PRV(GS-GN)) & T2|-PRV[ T1|-!(PRV(GS-GN)) ]
-> T1=/=T2

If a theory T1 has a statement GS !Prove(GS)
then it cannot be proven in that same theory.

A stronger version that G is in every theory.
A(T1)E(G)E(T2) T1=/=T2 & T1|-G & T2|-PRV( T1|-G )

Also Daryl, how do you remove RUSSELL'S SET from invoking in ZFC?


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.