On 12/15/2018 10:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 11:35 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



    On 12/15/2018 6:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


    On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 7:57 PM Brent Meeker
    <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



        On 12/15/2018 5:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

            hh, but diophantine equations only need integers,
            addition, and multiplication, and can define any
            computable function. Therefore the question of whether
            or not some diophantine equation has a solution can be
            made equivalent to the question of whether some Turing
            machine halts. So you face this problem of getting at
            all the truth once you can define integers, addition
            and multiplication.

            There's no surprise that you can't get at all true
            statements about a system  that is defined to be infinite.


        But you can always prove more true statements with a better
        system of axioms. So clearly the axioms are not the driving
        force behind truth.


        And you can prove more false statements with a "better"
        system of axioms...which was my original point.  So axioms
        are not a "force behind truth"; they are a force behind what
        is provable.


    There are objectively better systems which prove nothing false,
    but allow you to prove more things than weaker systems of axioms.

    By that criterion an inconsistent system is the objectively best
    of all.


The problem with an inconsistent system is that it does prove things that are false i.e. "not true".

    However we can never prove that the system doesn't prove anything
    false (within the theory itself).

    You're confusing mathematically consistency with not proving
    something false.


 They're related. A system that is inconsistent can prove a statement as well as its converse. Therefore it is proving things that are false.

But a system that is consistent can also prove a statement that is false:

axiom 1: Trump is a genius.
axiom 2: Trump is stable.

theorem: Trump is a stable genius.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to