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 4:08 PM

Nam Nguyen wrote:
> On 19/10/2013 1:53 PM, Peter Percival wrote:
>> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2013 12:53 PM, Peter Percival wrote:
>>>> 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)?

>>>
>>> "Fom" asked me a very specific DEFINITION-question and I've given
>>> a very specific answer to his question.
>>>
>>> Until you and fom let me know if this definition is understood
>>> by you both, I'm not answering further to your endless postings
>>> resulted from _your not understanding my definition_ .
>>>
>>> So, here it is again:
>>>

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

>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>> 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,

>>>
>>> You forgot another possibility:
>>>
>>> You're too intellectually coward to admit my definition is
>>> sound,

>>
>> It is from your definition that I deduced that PA is incomplete
>> and consistent. So if it's sound then PA is incomplete and
>> consistent. Don't blame me.

>
> I'm not blaming anyone here (yet)! I just want to know if you now
> understand the definition, before blaming or not blaming could be
> proven.
>
> Can you confirm if you understand the definition?

It is from your definition of "impossible to know" that I deduce that
you can prove that neither PA|-cGC nor PA|-~cGC. Hence you have proved
Gödel's incompleteness theorem and you have proved PA is consistent. So
incompleteness theorem being invalid and you are wrong about PA not
being provably consistent.

>>> which would lead to the fact you've been so stupid in this
>>> debate.
>>>

>>>> 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