Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: a logical flaw in godels proof  thus proof meaninglessness
Posted:
Jun 7, 2013 12:15 PM


On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 01:55:56 0700 (PDT), spermatozon@yahoo.com wrote:
>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 > >http://www.scribd.com/doc/32970323/Godelsincompletenesstheoreminvalidillegitimate > >IT SHOULD BE NOTED >Godel sentence G is outlawed by the very axiom he uses to prove his theorem ie the axiom of reducibiility thus his proof is invalidand thus >godel commits a flaw by useing it to prove his theorem > >http://www.enotes.com/topic/Axiom_of_reducibility > > >russells axiom of reducibility was formed such that impredicative >statements where banned > >http://www.scribd.com/doc/32970323/Godelsincompletenesstheoreminvalidillegitimate > > >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 >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems > > >the corresponding Gödel sentence G asserts: G cannot be proved to be >true within the theory T
No, G does not _assert_ anything. It's just a well formed formula.
> >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 >flawed > > >we have a dilemma > >DILEMMA >1) >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



