Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: sim on 25/12/2019 05:38:17
-
Godel's theorems 1st & 2nd proven to end in meaninglessness
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/GODEL5.pdf
Magister colin leslie dean the only modern Renaissance man with 9 degrees including 4 masters: B,Sc, BA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, MA (Psychoanalytic studies), Master of Psychoanalytic studies, Grad Cert (Literary studies) : who proved Godels theorems to be invalid
1) Godel's 1st theorem is about there being true mathematical statements which cant be proven
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers
But Godel cant tell us what makes a maths statement true thus his 1st theorem is meaningless
2) Godels G statement which he uses to prove his 1st theorem is banned by an axiom of the system he uses to prove his theorem thus his theorem is invalid
2nd theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
but this theorem ends in paradox
since
But here is a contradiction Godel must prove that a system c a n n o t b e proven to be consistent based upon the premise that the logic he uses must be consistent . If the logic he uses is not consistent then he cannot make a proof that is consistent. So he must assume that his logic is consistent so he can make a proof of the impossibility of proving a system to be consistent. But if his proof is true then he has proved that the logic he uses to make the proof must be consistent, but his proof proves that this cannot be done
-
If anyone breaks this rule they will be fined £1000.
This statement is true.
The two examples above illustrate how vacuous statements with no actual payload can appear to be well formed and true. In reality, they are made of nothing, and whenever you treat nothing as if it is something, you are playing with fire. If your system of analysis produces paradoxes, your system of analysis contains an error. This is revealed by "this statement is false". "This statement is undecidable (as to whether it's true or false)" is also a paradox. In all these cases we're dealing with infinite recursion which render the statements deficient in terms of meaning, and the same applies to "this statement is true" which is actually neither true nor false because there's insufficient content there for it to be capable of being true or false. Gödel's original incompleteness theorem appears to be broken by this fault. Whether the rest are also broken, well, I'll leave it for AGI to read up on them and test them properly (without building illegal moves into AGI to make it approve of broken maths). Perhaps he was less slapdash in the way he put them together.