Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.logic    |    Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa    |    262,936 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 261,611 of 262,936    |
|    Tristan Wibberley to olcott    |
|    Re: A new category of thought    |
|    02 Dec 25 01:13:51    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.lang       From: tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk              On 29/11/2025 23:19, olcott wrote:              > Gödel, Kurt 1931.       > On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica And       > Related Systems              Do you have a reference to the original and also English translation of       his 1938 paper "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia       Mathematica And Related Systems II"?        ^^              His 1931 paper says he'll followup with a completed proof and       generalisation to more systems - so I think that's what we have to look       at to understand what people refer to as his first incompleteness proof       and theorem. I've been told (albeit by a chatbot) that the title and       year above is what I should look for.                     > If you think that I am wrong then don't fucking guess       > show exactly what his sentence actually says without       > the ruse of Gödel numbers in a language has its own       > self-reference operator and provability operator.              You've gone off the deep end there.                     > I say it says this:       > G := (F ⊬ G) // G says of itself that it is unprovable in F                     It says that G is not a theorem of F, and perhaps it does so       epitheoretically because of the use of ":=" which often nominates a       substitution to apply to get an object of F, and that would /almost/       trivially make it true, albeit not for all possible F.              "[fact] in [a system]" conventionally can mean [fact] for all definition       extensions of [a system] when mathematicians are talking because they       add definitions when using the system and examine the consequences "/in/       the system". The prepositions are ambiguous across specialisms, clearly.              There are some more ambiguities so reflecting and responding usefully on       Olcott's expression is difficult and nondeterministic.              --       Tristan Wibberley              The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except       citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,       of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it       verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to       promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation       of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general       superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train       any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that       will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca