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:
Matheology § 224
Replies:
6
Last Post:
Apr 11, 2013 12:51 AM




Re: Matheology § 224
Posted:
Apr 9, 2013 9:21 PM


On 09/04/2013 3:06 AM, Alan Smaill wrote: > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes: > >> On 08/04/2013 8:30 AM, Alan Smaill wrote: >>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes: >>> >>>> Seriously, we should begin to abandon the idea that whatever is true >>>> or false in the naturals can be structure theoretically proven, >>>> verified. >>>> >>>> If we don't, we'd be in _no_ better position than where Hilbert >>>> was with his Allmightyformalsystem, proving all arithmetic >>>> true formulas. >>>> >>>> We'd be simply change the name "Allmightyformalsystem" >>>> to "Allmightylanguagestructure". But it's still an Incompleteness >>>> (of the 2nd kind) that we'd encounter: the Incompleteness of language >>>> structure interpretation of the abstract (nonlogical) concept known >>>> as the natural numbers. >>> >>> But it is known structure theoretically that if we have any 2 structures >>> that satisfy Peano axioms, then they are isomorphic: a statement >>> is true in one if and only if it's true in the other. >> >> Provided that the statement is trueable, or falseable, in the first >> place. > > What reasoning steps are allowed in showing properties of > language structures?
A structure theoretical property is just an nary predicate set of (ntuples). Hence, the step of showing the property is quite simple: to structure theoretically verify that, per a given formula F, a certain set of ntuples _is a subset of the underlying predicate set_ . (Note a function set is also a predicate set).
If we don't know how to verify whether or not a set is a subset of another set, it's very much a forgone conclusion we simply can't argue anything about language structure: about the natural numbers, about Goldbach Conjecture, about cGC, etc... .
> >> And cGC isn't that kind of statement. > > You already said IIRC that you can express cGC using the language > of firstorder Peano arithmetic. That means that if cGC is true > in *any* one language structure where the PA axioms are true, then > it's true in *every* such structure; it cannot be true in one > such structure and false in another.
If the set of ordered pairs you perceived as a language structure can be used to verify the truth of cGC at all.
Remember, a language structure is something you must create per the FOL definition of language structure. And until you _verify_ what you've created is indeed a language structure, some bets will be off (so to speak).
So, can you verify that what you perceive as the natural numbers be indeed a language structure for L(PA)?
  There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
NYOGEN SENZAKI 



