Thread: Godel has no idea what truth is so theorem is meaningless

the australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown Godel incompleteness theorem is meaningless as he has no idea what truth is

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32970323/G...d-illegitimate


Godels syntactic version of his incompleteness theorem reads

To every ω-consistent recursive class c of formulae there correspond recursive class-signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg (v Gen r) belongs to Flg(c) (where v is the free variable of r).

when we put words to this syntactic/formal theorem we get


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...eness_theorems

Gdel's first incompleteness theorem, states that:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory.

in other words his theorem is
there are true mathematical statements which cant be proven

but godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true
thus his theorem is meaningless

it is as if godel is telling us that there a gibble statements which cant be proven
but cant tell us what a gibble statement is

Now Godel had no idea of what truth is as peter smith of cambridge
admitts

thus his incompleteness theorems is meaningless rubbish

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32970323/G...d-illegitimate


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.l...thread/ebde70b...
de566912ee69f0a8?lnk=gst&q=G%C3%B6del+didn%27t+rel y+on+the+notion+PETER
+smith#de 566912ee69f0a8

Quote:
Gdel didn't rely on the notion
of truth

but truth is central to his theorem
as peter smith kindly tellls us

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218...40_excerpt.pdf
Quote:
Godel did is find a general method that enabled him to take any theory T strong enough to capture a modest amount of basic arithmetic and construct a corresponding arithmetical sentence GT which encodes the claim The sentence GT itself is unprovable in theory T. So G T is true if and only if T cant prove it

If we can locate GT

, a Godel sentence for our favourite nicely ax-
iomatized theory of arithmetic T, and can argue that G T is
true-but-unprovable,
[/quote]

thus godels incompleteness theorem is about true statements which cant
be proven
but godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true

thus his theorem is meaningless

Originally Posted by edam421

the australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown Godel incompleteness theorem is meaningless as he has no idea what truth is

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...phy/GODEL5.pdf


Godels syntactic version of his incompleteness theorem reads

To every ω-consistent recursive class c of formulae there correspond recursive class-signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg (v Gen r) belongs to Flg(c) (where v is the free variable of r).

when we put words to this syntactic/formal theorem we get


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...eness_theorems

Gdel's first incompleteness theorem, states that:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory.

in other words his theorem is
there are true mathematical statements which cant be proven

but godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true
thus his theorem is meaningless

it is as if godel is telling us that there a gibble statements which cant be proven
but cant tell us what a gibble statement is

Now Godel had no idea of what truth is as peter smith of cambridge
admitts

thus his incompleteness theorems is meaningless rubbish

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...phy/GODEL5.pdf


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.l...thread/ebde70b...
de566912ee69f0a8?lnk=gst&q=G%C3%B6del+didn%27t+rel y+on+the+notion+PETER
+smith#de 566912ee69f0a8

Quote:
Gdel didn't rely on the notion
of truth

but truth is central to his theorem
as peter smith kindly tellls us

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218...40_excerpt.pdf
Quote:
Godel did is find a general method that enabled him to take any theory T strong enough to capture a modest amount of basic arithmetic and construct a corresponding arithmetical sentence GT which encodes the claim The sentence GT itself is unprovable in theory T. So G T is true if and only if T cant prove it

If we can locate GT

, a Godel sentence for our favourite nicely ax-
iomatized theory of arithmetic T, and can argue that G T is
true-but-unprovable,

thus godels incompleteness theorem is about true statements which cant
be proven
but godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true

thus his theorem is meaningless[/quote]

You just provided additional convincing proof that Colin Leslie Dean is an idiot. He also appears to be delusional.

Godel's theorem is actually quite deep. What is shallow is the intellect of Colin Leslie Dean.

This guy is truly pitiful.

First you proved that he has no concept of physics. Now you prove that he is incompetent in mathematics.

What is next ? Does this nut have competence in anything ? Can he feed himself ? Who helps him get dressed and cross the street ?

Godel's theorem is actually quite deep. What is shallow is the intellect of Colin Leslie Dean.

This guy is truly pitiful.

First you proved that he has no concept of physics. Now you prove that he is incompetent in mathematics.

you again attack dean without addressing his arguments
fact is godels theorem is about

there being true mathematical statements which cant be proven

yet he cant tell us what makes a maths statement true
thus his theorem is meaningless

he could have said
there are gibble statements which cant be proven
if he cant tell us what a gibble statement is
then he is talking meaningless nonsense

"Gibble" isn't a word. "True" is. Don't you know what truth means?

Gibble" isn't a word. "True" is

untill you tell us what 'true' means it just as meaningless as gibble

Don't you know what truth means

fact is
godel did not know what makes a mathematical statement true

do you know what truth is
take your pick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
[quote
Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars and philosophers. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.


]# 2 The major theories of truth

* 2.1 Substantive theories
o 2.1.1 Correspondence theory
o 2.1.2 Coherence theory
o 2.1.3 Constructivist theory
o 2.1.4 Consensus theory
o 2.1.5 Pragmatic theory
* 2.2 Minimalist (deflationary) theories
o 2.2.1 Performative theory of truth
o 2.2.2 Redundancy and related theories
* 2.3 Pluralist theories
* 2.4 Most believed theories

# 3 Formal theories

* 3.1 Truth in logic
* 3.2 Truth in mathematics
* 3.3 Semantic theory of truth
* 3.4 Kripke's theory of truth

# 4 Personifications of truth
# 5 Notable views

* 5.1 Ancient history
* 5.2 Medieval age
o 5.2.1 Avicenna
o 5.2.2 Aquinas
* 5.3 Modern age
o 5.3.1 Kant
o 5.3.2 Hegel
o 5.3.3 Schopenhauer
o 5.3.4 Kierkegaard
o 5.3.5 Nietzsche
o 5.3.6 Whitehead
o 5.3.7 Nishida
o 5.3.8 Fromm
o 5.3.9 Foucault
o 5.3.10 Baudrillard
o 5.3.11 Ratzinger

# 6 See also

* 6.1 Truth in logic
* 6.2 Theories of truth
* 6.3 Major theorists

[/quote]

1+2=3 is not simply a truth you have to know what 1 or 2 or 3 stands for, what it is an abstraction for.
In most cases that will be something identical like marbles or apples
1 apple and add 2 apples you have three apples simple logic so the statement is true as there is a clear relationship. But 1 cm and add 2 seconds how much is that ? It,s not a true question so 1+2=3 is not a true thing to do (logic is not a statement it is taking a consecquence in a situation). So if I ask someone how much is 10 divided by 2 I would have to specify (and be able to show) If 10 stands for meters and 2 for seconds then the question to divide them into each other is not even a question. 10/2 is then expressing a relationship. True or not true is not in the answer in this case but can be found in the - misleading- question. You can,t divide apples by pears as it says even if both are pieces of fruit. With cm,s and seconds both are meassurements for distance (both fruit also) but are not dividable to one number because not the same dimension.
3+2 is not alays logically solveable it sometimes is what it is 3+2 with differences that would disappear with doing the logic.

And then the theorem comes in because if you take 3+2=5 as a truth and think you can follow that truth always because it has been proven true in most specific situations in many other situations it can be a misplaced logic.

So there are arythmatic statements that are true in some cases (and then in similar cases also) but not in all cases.
There is logic but not always a justified logic for "doing the logic" or taking the logic consequence.

So there are arythmatic statements that are true in some cases (and then in similar cases also) but not in all cases.
There is logic but not always a justified logic for "doing the logic" or taking the logic consequence.

fact is godel did not know what makes a maths statement true
thus his theorem is meaningless
when mathematicians go on ad nuseum quoting godels theorem that there are true maths statements which cant be proven
they are talking nonsence
as they cant tell you what make a maths statement true

fact is godel did not know what makes a maths statement true
thus his theorem is meaningless

3+2=5 is not a statement it is an action, "doing the logic" and that is not always possible so the statement stays what it is : 3+2 or you generalize sometimes 3 pears and two apples is 5 pieces of fruit but you can,t go on generalizing either, not always.

So the proove must not ly in prooving 3+2=5 as a statement (it isnm,t a truth on itself in that way) but if it is adecquate to do that type of logic, that must show. Don,t know if Godel meant that but it could be.

Don,t know if Godel meant that but it could be.

as shown
godel did not know what makes a math statement true
so his theorem is meaningless

untill you tell us what 'true' means it just as meaningless as gibble

You can't even tell me what "is" is, thus your claim that anything "is" is meaningless.

Don't you see what you are doing?

True=correct. The expression a = b is true, if a in fact is equal to b. It can be true even if you are unable to test it. When a stealth bomber crashes in the woods and there is nobody to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does. Mathematics is an exercise in logic and logic exists independently of a consciousness able to contemplate it. Whether we know if an objective statement is true or not does not alter the nature of it's state.

a=b the symbol = has a completely different meaning then in 3+2=5.
In the first statement is stands for ecquals in the second it stands for results in.
so the question that goes before the answer is different. Statements like 3+2=5 consist of a question and an answer. Beside the question what is the answer you must always ask is there an answer. For instance Pythagoras relationship of triangles with two sides perpendicular in numbers it means nothing. It will not show itself, one can learn it and accept it as truth but it has no meaning until you do some geometry. In the geometry the math prooves itself as it shows itself.
But proove that it is true just on algebra is impossible (within the system). If godel means something like that I understand him.

You can,t proove the system consisting of the math and the geometry. But you can proof the math within that system. Prooving the system is not necessary as it shows itself.

But proove that it is true just on algebra is impossible (within the system). If godel means something like that I understand him

you talk about some maths statement being true

fact is godel had no idea what makes a math statement true
thus when his theorem say
there a true maths statements which cant be proven

this statement is meaningless as we dont know what makes a maths statement true

just as if he said there a gibble statements which cant be proven
if we dont know what gibble statement is then his statement is meaningless

Instead of geometry it can also be a computerprogram together with the algebra on which it funktions it is a system. In that (as it works) the algebra shows itself as true also for godel. But the algebra on itself is not prooven with that outside that system,

As the system can,t proove itself (other then that it funktions) it can either not proove the truths on which it funktions as general thruths.
So the thruths can't proove the system and the system can,t proof the truths (as it can,t proof itself).

Like with cultures some cultures have truths that are true in that culture but not in other cultures, not outside it.

Even in case of Pythagoras the algebra is prooven within the system the system shows this as it shows itself but that system does not proof the math outside the context.
So teaching children the formula as an algebraic truth without the geometry is useless.
But maybe this is just my interpretation, maybe wrong interpretation but it can also be that this philosopher reacts against interpretations of godells theorem,s that exist and those interpretations can also be wrong. But then he should not blame Godell but how Godell is interpreted.

Originally Posted by edam421

But proove that it is true just on algebra is impossible (within the system). If godel means something like that I understand him

you talk about some maths statement being true

fact is godel had no idea what makes a math statement true
thus when his theorem say
there a true maths statements which cant be proven

this statement is meaningless as we dont know what makes a maths statement true

just as if he said there a gibble statements which cant be proven
if we dont know what gibble statement is then his statement is meaningless

Godel was one of the deeper and more important mathematicians of the twentieth century, known as the best logician since Aristotle. He most certainly did know what makes a mathematical statement true. Your statement to the contrary is absolutely absurd.

Colin Leslie Dean is a complete idiot. In fact, I would think that a true idiot might object to the comparison.

The only person who could possibly be more idiotic than Dean is someone who would take him seriously.

He most certainly did know what makes a mathematical statement true

peter smith the cambridge expert on godel tell us godel did not know what makes a maths statement true

peter smith of cambridge
admitts



http://groups.google.com/group/sci.l...566912ee69f0a8

Quote:
Godel didn't rely on the notion
of truth

Originally Posted by edam421

He most certainly did know what makes a mathematical statement true

peter smith the cambridge expert on godel tell us godel did not know what makes a maths statement true

peter smith of cambridge
admitts



http://groups.google.com/group/sci.l...566912ee69f0a8

Quote:
Godel didn't rely on the notion
of truth

Your link didn't even go to Peter Smith's work.

You have about as much idea what you are tallking about as does that idiot Colin Leslie Dean.

You can read Peter Smith's piece here if you are unable to follow Godel's proofs themselves. Personally, I prefer the original work by the original author. Godel most certainly did understand what truth and proof are all about.

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218...40_excerpt.pdf

Your link didn't even go to Peter Smith's work.

You have about as much idea what you are tallking about as does that idiot Colin Leslie Dean.

You can read Peter Smith's piece here if you are unable to follow Godel's proofs themselves. Personally, I prefer the original work by the original author. Godel most certainly did understand what truth and proof are all about.

the link takes you to peter smiths statement which is

. In
1931, in the main body of his paper, Gödel didn't rely on the notion
of truth.

fact is as peter smith says
godel cant tell us what makes a maths statement true
thus his theorem is meaningless[/quote]

Mr edam421, if Mr. Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem is wrong, pick an axiom and prove it.

Mr edam421, if Mr. Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem is wrong, pick an axiom and prove it.

go see the thread

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Godel...iom-24699t.php

even if godels logic/ proof is faultless his theorem is meaningless as he cant tell us what makes a maths statement true

I consider it an axiomatic truth that undeniably, absolutely, irrefutably, Colin Leslie Dean is an idiot, a moron, less sharp than a bag of hammer's.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

I consider it an axiomatic truth that undeniably, absolutely, irrefutably, Colin Leslie Dean is an idiot, a moron, less sharp than a bag of hammer's.

How about we deny we know the truth...

We have x in a bag.
Then we have y in it aswell, which cannot be proven.

We can define what cannot be proven without defining a truth
We can also define a lie, since it is a contradiction.
A truth stands, is my argument, as a non contradiction.

So we have all non contradictions in the bag, are some of the kind cannot be proven?
contradictions are left outside ofcourse.

So, the lie is not the opposite of the truth, that we know, because the opposite of a truth can also be true, -1 for instance.

Argument one is if it isn't contradicting, could it be unproveable?

Ultimately that depends on if unproveable is uncontradictive?

in the case for proveable has the property of contradictive for truths the answer is no

in the case of unproveable has the property of uncontradictive, for truths the answer is not no anymore.

for a truth is a non-lie
and through logic

all lies are non proveable.
lies = non proveable
so
Truths =/= proveable

some truths most definitively are provable, given necessary axioms. But, we must allow some axioms to be considered true sans proof.