Timeline for Are inference laws consistent?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2011 at 16:19 | comment | added | Gyorgy Sereny | @unknowngoogle: The formulation 'so that nobody is able to "prove"' seemed to suggest that you think that the theorem is DIRECTLY about our possibilities. @SNd: The non-existence of some object DOES NOT imply directly that we cannot do something. This fact depends also on the interpretation of this mathematical result. | |
| Jun 23, 2011 at 12:22 | comment | added | SNd | I don't understand your remark. From Goedel's incompleteness theorems it follows that we cannot prove consistency of arithmetic finitisticaly (there could be no such proof, therefore we cannot find it or in other words we cannot prove etc.) as well as the fact that we cannot formalize natural numbers completely(there is no complete formalization for naturals, therefore we cannot find it).The non-existence of some object implies that we cannot do something. Mathematics is connected with our practical life as well as with intellectual one. | |
| Jun 22, 2011 at 19:26 | comment | added | Qfwfq | (By "we cannot prove" of course I meant "it's impossible to prove") | |
| Jun 22, 2011 at 18:21 | history | edited | Gyorgy Sereny | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jun 22, 2011 at 18:14 | history | edited | Gyorgy Sereny | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Jun 22, 2011 at 18:09 | history | answered | Gyorgy Sereny | CC BY-SA 3.0 |