fom
Posts:
1,968
Registered:
12/4/12


Re: The Invalidity of Godel's Incompleteness Work.
Posted:
Oct 20, 2013 7:29 PM


On 10/20/2013 6:06 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote: > On 20/10/2013 5:01 PM, fom wrote: >> On 10/20/2013 5:52 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote: >>> On 20/10/2013 1:40 PM, fom wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Start reading more and using your mouth less. >>> >>> You're a fucking hypocrite. >>> >> >> What did I do when asked to provide my formal system? >> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.math/ZmeoaTpI28A/VuyUSrWOt0J >> >> >> >> I provided it. >> >> Do you see how that works? >> >> By the way, I read quite a bit. > > What did you constructively provide with your "Start reading more and > using your mouth less", prior to which I had been very polite and > technical in responding to you? >
A suggestion which might improve your understanding of the issues here.
Outside of your readings dedicated to firstorder logic with identity, can you answer the question:
"What is logic?"
Perhaps that is too vague. Here is another small batch of questions:
Apparently, Alonzo Church described Bertrand Russell's logic as "intensional". Can you explain that term? Is mathematical logic "intensional"? If so, why? If not, then what kind of logic is it, and, why is it classified as it is?
I am guessing that you cannot answer these questions without some research.
Historically, I have focused very little attention to arithmetic. I might even give credence to the statements in your "metaproofs". But, this is only because my sense of logical priority tells me it is a mistake to use numbers from within a theory to skeptically discount the statements of a theory.
Nevertheless, metamathematics has done precisely that. As a consequence, one may only ask if a metamathematical result such as Goedel's incompleteness theorem is faithful to the task toward which it had been directed. There is simply no reason to think otherwise. To the contrary, it an unparalleled success.
So, do you understand Hilbert's program of metamathematics toward which Goedel's efforts had been directed?
If not, how do you know that your assumptions are not in error concerning the meaning of the theorem?

