hi,

--- Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Sarad AV wrote:
> 
> > Does a paradox ever help in understanding any
> thing?
> 
> Yes, it can demonstrate that you aren't asking the
> right questions within
> the correct context.

okay.


> > 2.G�del asks for the program and the circuit
> design of
> > the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it
> can
> > only be finitely long.
> 
> Wrong, there is -nothing- that says the program must
> have finite length
> -or- halt.


An axiom is an improvable statement which is accepted
as true. A Formula is a finite set of algebraic
symbols expressing a mathematical rule. Proofs, from
the formal standpoint, are a finite series of formulae
(with certain specifiable characteristics).Hence any
proof has a deterministic and well defined sequence of
steps. 
So since we are 'proving'  that the oracle does n't
exist-its program has finite.

This is true by the way I define a proof.
You are right in ur context and I am right in my
context.So both of us are right?yes,based on the
*sense* of what  we mean by a proof.



> > The question is it in a formal system,since we
> don't
> > have paradoexes in a formal system.

Any formal system is consistent, i.e. there is no
proposition that can be proved true by one sequence of
steps and false by another, equally valid argument-by
defenition and property of the system (I call the
above defenition a formal system,others might not) we
cant have a paradox in a formal system.


> 
> Godel has demonstrated that this is untrue, that in
> fact you -can- have
> -undecidable- statements in a formal system.
we cannot as reasoned above.If we have-we don't call
it a formal system-it can how ever still be a
*consistent* system

 > * note that Godel uses 'consistent' where we use
> 'complete' *

consistent and complete are not the same.
Complete means-true for all the possible values of all
the domains.
Consistent means-true for some values of domains and
its consistency is uphelid in the domain but  not 
outside.
its the *domain*-which we are concerned about.

> 
> Proposition XI:
> 
> If c be a given recursive, consistent class of
> formulae, then the
> propositional formula which states that c is
> consistent is not c-provable;
> in particular, the consistency of P is unprovable in
> P, it being assumed
> that P is consistent  (if not, then of course, every
> statement is
> provable).

> propositional formula which states that c is
> consistent is not c-provable;
A Formula is a finite set of algebraic symbols
expressing a mathematical rule---its a set of symbols
and certainly we cannot prove a set of symbols.Yes
thats true.

it says proposition formula which states c is
consistent is not provable. 

>the consistency of P is unprovable in
> P, it being assumed
> that P is consistent  (if not, then of course, every
> statement is
> provable).

Yes-thats what godels second incompleteness theorom
says.The following statement is true but not provable.

by the way can you point me to a undecidable problem
in a formal system?

Regards Sarath.



> ...further clarification (original italics/bold
> denoted by -*-)...
> 
> It may be noted is also constructive, ie it permits,
> if a -proof- from c
> is produced for w, the effective derivation from c
> of a contradiction. The
> whole proof of Proposition XI can also be carried
> over word for word to
> the axiom-system of set theory M, and to that of
> classical mathematics A,
> and here too it yields the result that there is no
> consistency proof for M
> or of A which could be formalized in M or A
> respectively, it being assumed
> that M and A are consistent. It must be expressly
> noted that Proposition
> XI (and the corresponding results for M and A)
> represent no contradiction
> of the formalistic standpoint of Hilbert. For this
> standpoint presupposes
> only the existance of a consistency proof effected
> by finite means, and
> there might conceivably be finite proofs which
> -cannot- be stated in P (or
> in M and A).
> 
> 
> In other words, "There are some proofs that can't be
> written".
> 
> 
>  --
>    
>
____________________________________________________________________
> 
>       We are all interested in the future for that
> is where you and I
>       are going to spend the rest of our lives.
> 
>                               Criswell, "Plan 9 from
> Outer Space"
> 
>       [EMAIL PROTECTED]                           
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>       www.ssz.com                              
> www.open-forge.org
>    
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Reply via email to