Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.logic    |    Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa    |    262,912 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 262,304 of 262,912    |
|    olcott to All    |
|    Re: have we been misusing incompleteness    |
|    01 Jan 26 21:33:59    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.math       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 1/1/2026 8:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:       > On 2026-01-01 16:48, Richard Damon wrote:       >> On 1/1/26 6:13 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:       >>> On 01/01/2026 22:40, Richard Damon wrote:       >>>       >>>> But it IS a theorem of the base system, as it uses ONLY the       >>>> mathematical       >>>> operations definable in the base system. What makes you think it       >>>> isn't a       >>>> Theorem in the base system.       >>>       >>> It has no derivation in the base system, if it had you wouldn't think       >>> the base system were incomplete.       >>>       >>       >> It has no PROOF in the base system.       >       > Which means it is not a theorem of the base system. A theorem is a       > statement which can be proven in a particular system.       >              This is the kind of clarity that we need.       True in the base system essentially means       a theorem of the base system.              >> The statement is surely a statement in the base system.       >       > Sure, but being a statement and being a theorem are two different things.       >       >> It is shown to be true there, by a proof in the meta-system.       >       > It is shown to be true in the base system, but only within the       > metasystem. Within the base system it cannot be so shown, which       > precludes it from being a theorem. That's the entire point of Gödel:       > truth and theoremhood cannot be made to coincide except in very trivial       > systems.       >       >> I think you are confused about what you talk about.       >       > I think you are both somewhat confused here.       >       > André       >                     --       Copyright 2025 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca