On 12 Sep 2012, at 14:05, benjayk wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote:Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume I want to attack you (and thus are defensive and not open to my criticism), and I am obviously frustrated by that, which is not conducive to a good discussion. We are not opertaing on the same level. You argue using rational, "precise"arguments, while I am precisely showing how these don't settle orevenadress the issue. Like with Gödel, sure we can embed all the meta in arithmetic, but then we still need a super-meta (etc...).I don't think so. We need the understanding of elementary arithmetic, no need of meta for that. You might confuse the simple truth "1+1=2", and the complex truth"Paul understood that 1+1=2". Those are very different, but withcomp,both can be explained *entirely* in arithmetic. You have the right to be astonished, as this is not obvious at all, and rather counter- intuitive.There is no proof that can change this, and thus it is pointless to study proofs regarding this issue (as they justintroduce new metas because their proof is not written inarithmetic).But they are. I think sincerely that you miss Gödel's proof. There will be opportunity I say more on this, here, or on the FOAR list. It is hard to sum up on few lines. May just buy the book by Davis (now print by Dover) "The undecidable", it contains all original papers by Gödel, Post, Turing, Church, Kleene, and Rosser.Sorry, but this shows that you miss my point. It is not about somesubtleaspect of Gödel's proof, but about the main idea. And I think Iunderstandthe main idea quite well. If Gödels proof was written purely in arithmetic, than it could not be unambigous, and thus not really a proof.

What? this is nonsense.

The embedding is not unique, andthus by looking at the arithmetic alone you can't have a unambigousproof.

`This does not follow either. *Many* embeddings do not prevent non`

`ambiguous embedding.`

Some embeddings that could be represented by this number relationscould"prove" utter nonsense. For example, if you interpret 166568 to mean"!=" or"^6" instead of "=>", the whole proof is nonsense.

`Sure, and if I interpret the soap for a pope, I can be in trouble.`

`That is why we fix a non ambiguous embedding once and for all. What`

`will be proved will be shown independent of the choice of the`

`embeddings.`

Thus Gödel's proof necessarily needs a meta-level,

`Yes. the point is that the metalevel can be embedded non ambiguously`

`in a faithfull manner in arithmetic.`

`It is the heart of theoretical computer science. You really should`

`study the subject.`

or alternatively alevel-transcendent intelligence (I forgot that in my prior post) tobe true,because only then can we fix the meaning of the Gödel numbers.

`Gödel could have used it, like in Tarski theorem, but Gödel ingenuosly`

`don't use meaning or semantic in he proof. It is a very constructive`

`proof, which examplifies the mechanisability of its main`

`diagonalization procedure. This has lead to a very great amount of`

`results, the most cool being Solovay arithmetical completeness theorem`

`for the logic of self-reference.`

You can, of course *believe* that the numbers really exists beyondtheiraxioms and posses this transcendent intelligence,

What do you mean by exists beyond the axiom.? What transcendent intelligence is doing here?

so that they somehowmagically "know" what they are "really" representing. But this isjust abelief and you can't show that this is true, nor take it to begranted thatothers share this assumption.

`No need of that belief. Machine's belief are just supposed to be made`

`of the axioms and the rules generating them, which can include inputs,`

`and other possible machines. It is model by Gödel's provability`

`predicate for "rich" machines.`

I don't see how any explanation of Gödel could even adress theproblem.

You created a problem which is not there.

Itseems to be very fundamental to the idea of the proof itself, notthe proofas such. Maybe you can explain how to solve it? But please don't say that we can embed the process of assigning Gödel numbers in arithmetic itself.

?

`a number like s(s(0))) can have its description, be 2^'s' * 3^(... ,`

`which will give a very big number, s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s...`

`(s(s(s(0))))))))))))...))). That correspondence will be defined in`

`term of addition, multiplication and logical symbols, equality.`

This would need another non-unique embedding of syntax, hence leading to the same problem (just worse).

`Not at all. You confuse the embedding and its description of the`

`embedding, and the description of the description, but you get this`

`trivially by using the Gödel number of a Gödel number.`

For more detail and further points about Gödel you may take a lookat thiswebsite: http://jamesrmeyer.com/godel_flaw.html

`And now you refer to a site pretending having found a flaw in Gödel's`

`proof. (sigh).`

You could tell me at the start that you believe Gödel was wrong.

`Gödel is often misused, but it is a type of result that you can prove`

`in many different ways, like Pythagoras theorem, it is also`

`constructive, so it looks like "Pi is rational because everyone know`

`that Pi = 3,14".`

Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.