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 ]
 namducnguyen Posts: 2,777 Registered: 12/13/04
Re: The Invalidity of Godel's Incompleteness Work.
Posted: Oct 20, 2013 9:09 PM

On 20/10/2013 5:29 PM, fom wrote:
> 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:
>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>
>>>> You're a fucking hypocrite.
>>>>

>>>
>>> What did I do when asked to provide my formal system?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> 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?

So, now we seem to have reversed the roles: you play the "nasty" Nam
Nguyen keep asking questions in the middle of explanation and I play
the role of "nice" fom who wouldn't ask questions in his explaining
issues.

Any rate, this conversation started from your:

> Well, one interpretation of the problem is
> that anything based upon "what is prior" and
> "what is posterior" with a first step is
> interpretable relative to the ordinal sequence
> of natural numbers.

to which you I responded:

>> Kindly let me and the fora know what your _FORMAL definition_
>> of the "natural numbers". I don't know what your definition
>> is so I don't see any relevance between your paragraph above and my
>> thesis here. (For the record, my definition of the concept of natural
>> numbers is such that it could be only of _informal knowledge_ ).

The issue is I would like to examine the state of _formality_ of your
"natural-numbers" definition, since according to my definition the
concept would be _informal_ .

Now you did give a link defining _your_ definition of "natural-numbers".
I'm always critical of any idea to claim the definition of "natural
numbers" be formal.

But before I open my criticism to your claimed "formal" definition
system (rivaling PA) describing the concept of the "natural numbers".

--
-----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI

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