No, should I? I would be surprised if my insights are new
-
New conversation
-
-
-
lol wouldn’t such a proof, done using math, be inconsistent with the validity of itself as a trustworthy proof? like what would a ‘proof’ even mean if it proves that you cant trust proof
-
For most people Gödel's Undecidability Theorem means: if some genius mathematicians has proven in ways that mere mortals cannot fully comprehend that mathematics cannot grasp the world as well as my intuition, then that's good enough for me.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But Gödel does put limits on mathematically based epistemological systems. Math is a tool, and physics is a model, but neither is a complete reality.
-
Are you sure that you fully understand the implications of Gödel’s and Turing’s proof in the contrxt of Hilbert and constructivist math? —Mathematics is simply the domain of all languages. There is nothing perceivable, thinkable or provable outside of it.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The other Gödel and the other Einstein. (Reminds me of Thomas Kuhn's quip "I've often said I'm much fonder of my critics than my fans.") Analyzing limitations or imperfections of one's own group always runs the risk of being construed as fundamentally antagonistic to the group
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Didn't Gödel proof a large set of models (if not all) to be impossibly, perfectly verifable?
-
I think his proof was restricted to finite models. But I'm unaware of any infinite model.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.