Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Topic: The Invalidity of Godel's Incompleteness Work.
Replies: 87   Last Post: Oct 25, 2013 2:44 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Peter Percival Posts: 2,623 Registered: 10/25/10
Re: The Invalidity of Godel's Incompleteness Work.
Posted: Oct 19, 2013 2:53 PM

Nam Nguyen wrote:
> On 19/10/2013 12:10 PM, Peter Percival wrote:
>> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2013 11:32 AM, fom wrote:
>>
>>>> And, the meaning of "impossible to know"?
>>>
>>> Right there: right in front of you.
>>>
>>> _A meta truth_ is said to be impossible to know if it's not in the
>>> collection of meta truths, resulting from all available definitions,
>>> permissible reasoning methods, within the underlying logic framework
>>> [FOL(=) in this case].

>>
>> We don't yet know if PA|-cGC or PA|-~cGC, so we don't know if "PA|-cGC"
>> or "PA|-~cGC" is in the collection of meta truths. So we don't know if
>> it's impossible to know cGC (or ~cGC). Why, then, do you claim that
>> it's impossible to know cGC (or ~cGC)?
>>
>> Do you know that both cGC and ~cGC are not in the collection of meta
>> truths? If so you must know that neither PA|-cGC nor PA|-~cGC. You
>> should publish your proof. And stop claiming that Gödel's
>> incompleteness theorem is invalid, because if neither PA|-cGC nor
>> PA|-~cGC, then that is an example of incompleteness.
>>
>> Also if you know that neither PA|-cGC nor PA|-~cGC, then you've proved
>> PA consistent. So you should stop claiming that its consistency is
>> unprovable.

>
> _Do you first understand the definition itself_ ?
>
> Would you please confirm you now do or still don't? Thanks.

If I've understood it (the definition of "impossible to know") then my
argument above is valid. If it's valid then you're wrong about Gödel.
So you should be careful about what you ask to be confirmed.

You have been caught out in a contradiction. Now, what's it to be:
i) you are too dim to recognize it,
ii) you are too dishonest to recognize it,
iii) you admit that your claims about cGC and Gödel are wrong?
Not iii) I bet.

--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Lincoln at Gettysburg

Date Subject Author
10/4/13 namducnguyen
10/5/13 Peter Percival
10/6/13 LudovicoVan
10/6/13 LudovicoVan
10/9/13 fom
10/18/13 Peter Percival
10/18/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 fom
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 fom
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 fom
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 fom
10/19/13 fom
10/20/13 namducnguyen
10/20/13 fom
10/20/13 namducnguyen
10/20/13 fom
10/20/13 fom
10/20/13 namducnguyen
10/20/13 fom
10/20/13 namducnguyen
10/20/13 fom
10/20/13 fom
10/20/13 namducnguyen
10/20/13 fom
10/20/13 namducnguyen
10/20/13 fom
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 fom
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 fom
10/19/13 fom
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 fom
10/19/13 fom
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 namducnguyen
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/20/13 namducnguyen
10/20/13 fom
10/20/13 namducnguyen
10/20/13 namducnguyen
10/20/13 fom
10/20/13 namducnguyen
10/20/13 fom
10/20/13 namducnguyen
10/20/13 fom
10/20/13 namducnguyen
10/20/13 fom
10/24/13 namducnguyen
10/24/13 fom
10/24/13 namducnguyen
10/24/13 Peter Percival
10/24/13 namducnguyen
10/24/13 Peter Percival
10/24/13 fom
10/24/13 fom
10/20/13 fom
10/25/13 Rock Brentwood