Date: Jul 20, 2013 1:42 PM
Author: Peter Percival
Subject: Re: Ordinals describable by a finite string of symbols

apoorv wrote:

> I know; i was on threads dying out. Godels theorem gives a specific self referential sentence.
> And all I wanted to know is what is its number per the coding used by him. But that is not to be
> Found anywhere ,not in texts, not on the net, and not in this group. So I guess my question
> Is Ilframed, maybe it is some uncomputable number,

No, it is computable, but you would need to take his "this is not
provable" statement, re-express it using primitive notation (i.e. get
rid of all defined symbols) and then assign numbers to its constituents,
and so on. Getting rid of the defined terms is already a daunting task.


Nam Nguyen in sci.logic in the thread 'Q on incompleteness proof'
on 16/07/2013 at 02:16: "there can be such a group where informally
it's impossible to know the truth value of the abelian expression
Axy[x + y = y + x]".