The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: a logical flaw in godels proof - thus proof meaninglessness
Replies: 6   Last Post: Jan 8, 2014 9:09 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 891
Registered: 3/3/09
a logical flaw in godels proof - thus proof meaninglessness
Posted: Jun 7, 2013 4:55 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean points out
a logical flaw in godels proof which makes his proof meaninglessness
an axiom in the system godel uses ie axiom of reducibility AR bans his G statement

Godel sentence G is outlawed by the very axiom he uses to prove his theorem ie the axiom of reducibiility -thus his proof is invalid-and thus
godel commits a flaw by useing it to prove his theorem

russells axiom of reducibility was formed such that impredicative
statements where banned

but godels uses this AR axiom in his incompleteness proof ie axiom 1v
and formular 40

and as godel states he is useing the logic of PM ie AR

?P is essentially the system obtained by superimposing on the Peano
axioms [b]the logic of PM[/b]? ie AR

now godel constructs an impredicative statement G which AR was meant
to ban

The impredicative statement Godel constructs is

?the corresponding Gödel sentence G asserts: ?G cannot be proved to be
true within the theory T??

now godels use of AR bans godels G statement

thus godel cannot then go on to give a proof by useing a statement his
own axiom bans
but by doing so he invalidates his whole proof and his proof/logic is

we have a dilemma

if godel is useing AR then he cannot use G as it is outlawed
thus his proof collapses
2) if godel is not useing AR then he is lying when he tells us he is
and thus his theorem cannot be about PM and related systems

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.