Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: A HARD FLAW in Godel's Proof
Replies: 7   Last Post: Dec 8, 2012 2:27 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Graham Cooper

Posts: 4,253
Registered: 5/20/10
Re: A HARD FLAW in Godel's Proof
Posted: Nov 18, 2012 4:08 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Nov 19, 1:14 am, forbisga...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:46:17 AM UTC-8, Graham Cooper wrote:
> > > On Nov 17, 10:10 pm, "INFINITY POWER" <infin...@limited.com> wrote:
> > > > STEP 1:  DEFINE a 2 parameter predicate DERIVE(THEOREM, DERIVATION)
> > > > DERIVE(T,D) is TRUE IFF

> > OK so the T/F PREDICATE
>
> > DERIVES(T,<t1, t2, t3, t4,,,,T>)
> > is easy to program!

>
> > ...As long as D is a given argument, for now.
>
> And always,
>



D is a finite length string, all the terms in D are from a fixed
alphabet or atleast countable.

The HYPOTHESIS which goes against "G=!proof(G)" being significant

is that:

for some suitably rich set of Axioms,
for every well formed formula F
exist <t1,t2,t3,,,,F>
or exist <t1 t2 t3,,,~F>

which would imply the existence of a halting thoerem decider.

Though it's complexity might be exponential anyway.

Herc



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.