🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 01:56:38 UTC No. 16111456
Godel's incompleteness theorems are as retarded as inter-universal teichmuller theory. Why are they taken seriously?
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 02:03:49 UTC No. 16111462
>>16111456
Because it's correct.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 02:04:00 UTC No. 16111463
>>16111456
They fell for the Cantor's diagonal argument meme. Simple as.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 02:09:09 UTC No. 16111471
>>16111456
Because Godel had already established his reputation with his completeness theorem.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 02:11:22 UTC No. 16111475
>>16111456
Honestly they're taken seriously by mathematicians because they don't understand what godel is saying and don't want to appear stupid. So they accept his words as gospel. Here I'll summarize it
>I added rules to logic
>According to my new rules, your logic is holes in it
>Proof: my logic which obviously can't have any holes in it
It's so fucking stupid. Sometimes I wonder if I'm taking crazy pills, then I listen to mathematicians literally describe what I just said, but steeped in jargon. When I reframe it they get emotional. Like distressingly emotional. I interpret that as cognitive dissonance
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 06:04:46 UTC No. 16111662
>>16111463
Then what is the last digit of the square root of 2 of diagonals don't lead to incompleteness?
>>16111475
No, they were probably just embarrassed by your stupid interpretation concluding that if there will always be things that can not possibly be proven, that means that you don't think you can have any holes in your logic when the exact opposite is the case and it means there will always be holes in every system of logic.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 06:08:41 UTC No. 16111664
Godel is literally just saying there is a mathematical statement which true but also false
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 06:23:47 UTC No. 16111673
>>16111664
Such as that 0 is a negative number, but it is also not a negative number since -0=0?
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 06:51:53 UTC No. 16111683
Based Gödel making midwits seethe.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 06:59:23 UTC No. 16111689
>>16111683
Wait until they find out about the Godel Metric allowing for time travel (G's birthday gift to Einstein), G's proof for the existence of God, his mathematical realist (Platonist) stance, and so on.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 07:03:04 UTC No. 16111693
>>16111689
Gödel is the real Top G
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 07:12:47 UTC No. 16111699
>>16111689
Isn't his proof of god just some semantic wankery about omnipresence that asserts since god exists as a word, it proves that god must exist everywhere else too since the word god implies omnipresence?
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 07:37:02 UTC No. 16111718
>>16111662
>he thinks the diagonal argument has to do with the square root of two
>>16111463
>he fails to realize that cantor's diagonal argument employs the same technique as turing's proof for the non-existence of the program halting detecting machine, and that declaring cantor's to be false is the same as declaring that the program halting detecting machine exist
as jokes go you both are stale
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 07:41:09 UTC No. 16111724
>>16111664
literally not
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ub
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 07:42:33 UTC No. 16111726
>>16111683
indeed, and so is cantor
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 07:48:24 UTC No. 16111733
>>16111718
Yes the square root of 2 is inherently connected to the diagonal argument because the square root of 2 is the diagonal of the unit square and the fact that you can not completely calculate its value with respect to the original unit actively demonstrates the inherently incomplete ability to calculate the value of a unit's diagonal.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 07:55:21 UTC No. 16111736
>>16111662
Not my interpretation. The reason you misunderstood my post is that you misunderstood godels argument. You never read his work. You're just parroting what others have said about him. Absolute pseud.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 07:59:49 UTC No. 16111738
>>16111736
>Not my interpretation
That is why your interpretation is demonstrably stupid and everyone treats you as such since he in no way said that his logic doesn't have holes only that his logic proves that all systems of logic have holes.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:03:03 UTC No. 16111740
>>16111738
Again, not my argument. Here I'll make it clearer.
>[X] is true
>It can't be proven true
Okay, so how do you know it's true? His logical system is flawed because he assumes things must be true without rigorous proof, then generalizes it to say all systems of logic have true statements that cannot be proven true (so how do you know it's true in the first place)?
Reminder that godel was a literal schizo who starved himself to death because he believed (without proof!) everyone was trying to poison him.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:07:49 UTC No. 16111741
>>16111740
>he assumes things must be true without rigorous proof
No, he proved there are some things that can neither be proven true or false by a particular logical framework.
>(so how do you know it's true in the first place)
Because there is more than one system of logic available and you can prove with one, but not with another, so you can use radians to measure by units of pi, but you can't use decimals to completely represent pi, so while all the values can be shown in their respective units, there are also value that are known to be true by one measurement that can't even be assessed at all in a different paradigm of measurement.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:08:17 UTC No. 16111742
>>16111733
Why did you post an asinine GPT 3 reply when GPT 4 is available? It is well known that GPT 3 has no understanding beyond shallow word associations like "diagonal - square - square root" and hence produces garbage like your post.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:11:15 UTC No. 16111747
>>16111741
>Because there is more than one system of logic available and you can prove with one, but not with another,
And yet there is only one set of axioms used to proofs in math. ZF(C). Fancy that.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:12:08 UTC No. 16111748
>>16111742
Why did you use nothing but non-sequitur fallacies to compose your argument instead of actual logic and reason?
Square root 2 is the diagonal of the unit square as proven by the Pythagorean Theorem, sorry you are having troubles understanding how that works, but you are clearly the one who needs a vocabulary and math jargon update.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:14:29 UTC No. 16111749
>>16111747
Which is why we know it is definitely incomplete and why that system still has things like irrational numbers since we know that one set of logic can not actually determine all truths and we have a bunch of problems that still can't be answered by only applying the axioms of ZF(C).
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:16:08 UTC No. 16111751
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:17:01 UTC No. 16111753
>>16111749
So why not use another set of logic, genius?
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:21:54 UTC No. 16111755
>>16111751
You people of sci are so stupid. It's too sad to express generally.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:24:33 UTC No. 16111756
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:26:58 UTC No. 16111757
>>16111756
Well. Earth life is one of the stupidest events, everyone's stupid and they use intelligence truism to disguise that. They take off into space using weaponry, brute forcing the act, and every intellectual discussion is actually drivel by retard minds who say stuff like size of brain matters or IQ tests are legit. It's so stupid I agree. You'll not find one man who is smart bar Barkon.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:32:50 UTC No. 16111760
>>16111747
>only one
Peano, you dumb baboon, go back to preschool
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:40:44 UTC No. 16111764
>>16111760
Nobody uses peano axioms in mathematical proofs anymore beyond an introduction to analysis for undergrads.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:52:43 UTC No. 16111772
>>16111751
But i am not pretending that the pythagorean theorem proves that the diagonal of a square is sqrt(2), you are pretending that it doesn't and using your retardation as an argument instead of logic.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:07:47 UTC No. 16111779
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:11:10 UTC No. 16111782
>>16111779
Yes just like that, you know that you can't actually refute the Pythagorean theorem with reason and logic so you just seethe about being retarded by posting silly meme pictures instead.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:14:53 UTC No. 16111783
>>16111782
This has to be the saddest trolling attempt in the history of 4chan.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:17:32 UTC No. 16111785
>>16111783
I would agree if this whole make a stupid post and attach a silly meme image hadn't been your go to pathetic troll strategy for quite a while now.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:23:45 UTC No. 16111789
>>16111785
Oh no, he's getting butthurt and starts projecting.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:26:10 UTC No. 16111792
>>16111789
What's wrong, couldn't find a picture stupid enough to match your retarded words this time?
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:29:39 UTC No. 16111796
>>16111792
Holy shit, you're seething hard. Lmao.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:30:36 UTC No. 16111797
>>16111796
Open wide and let the goyslop in, goy
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:32:29 UTC No. 16111798
>>16111797
>projecting again
I didn't ask about your eating habits, but thanks for letting us know.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:39:37 UTC No. 16111803
>>16111796
Why wouldn't intelligent people seethe about the fact that there are retards like you who will always be dumb and absolutely nothing can be done to help their stupidity?
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:44:33 UTC No. 16111809
>>16111803
>reverse projecting
Lmao, just admit you were wrong, kid.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:47:02 UTC No. 16111812
>>16111809
No, Pythagorean theorem is definitely the proof that demonstrates the diagonal of a square is equal to sqrt(2), if you think Pythagoras was wrong, what do you think the diagonal of the unit square is equal to?
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:53:10 UTC No. 16111819
>>16111812
>red herring ad nauseam
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:01:06 UTC No. 16111823
>>16111819
I accept your concession, thanks for naming your fallacy strategy amid your complete inability to explain why you don't think the Pythagorean theorem shows how to calculate the length of a unit square's diagonal.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:06:08 UTC No. 16111825
>>16111456
Mathematics doesn't have a firm foundation in first order logic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhI
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:18:52 UTC No. 16111842
>>16111823
I know you get paid for shitting up this board with anti-intellectual garbage. But I'll make sure that your job will be as unpleasant as possible.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:26:06 UTC No. 16111849
>>16111842
>t. the anti-intellectual who actively refuses to accept the implications of the Pythagorean theorem and refuses to explain why since its far too easy to hurl insults instead of ever expressing a single logical well reasoned thought
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:28:29 UTC No. 16111850
>>16111849
Is this Pythagorean theorem in the room with you right now?
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:32:16 UTC No. 16111855
>>16111850
Sure, the room I am in is square, so the pythagorean theorem proves that the the diagonal length of the room is square root 2 multiplied by the length of the room.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:33:57 UTC No. 16111856
>>16111855
>Sure, the room I am in is square
Is this the standard size for a padded cell in an assylum?
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:35:19 UTC No. 16111858
>>16111856
I have no idea, do you have access to a tape measure for your room or can you ask your nurse the next time they check on you?
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:39:06 UTC No. 16111862
>>16111662
What a fucking retard.
>>16111718
LMAO, you are just repeating like a parrot stuff you don't even understand.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:40:30 UTC No. 16111863
>>16111856
Square is a shape, not a size.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:42:42 UTC No. 16111864
>>16111858
Last time I saw a nurse with a tape measure was on penis inspection day.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:44:09 UTC No. 16111866
>>16111864
You shouldn't have wandered into a room where people's penises were being measured, naughty little girl.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:44:55 UTC No. 16111867
>>16111718
>declaring cantor's to be false is the same as declaring that the program halting detecting machine exist
That is complete stupidity. There are proofs by contradiction that don't need or even mention the diagonal argument.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:56:52 UTC No. 16111875
>>16111764
>not used=the point that godel's incompleteness theorem makes is null and void and gay and dumb
you haven't even tried to make an argument
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:58:58 UTC No. 16111877
>>16111867
actually you'd be the one that is completely stupid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwN
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 11:02:53 UTC No. 16111879
>>16111877
Sure, posting a youtube video because you can't make an argument on your own or even summarize the video in your own words is total proof you aren't a stupid person.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 11:15:21 UTC No. 16111890
>>16111879
concession accepted
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 11:18:07 UTC No. 16111894
>>16111890
Thanks, but you could have accepted the concession that you are clearly just a stupid person who can't absorb new information or summarize information on your own much earlier in the conversation.
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 11:52:01 UTC No. 16111931
>>16111875
Yes I did. Your inability to understand it isn't my problem. Maybe if you pray to godel he'll help you understand
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 18:40:54 UTC No. 16112353
Sad how this thread is full of bickering retards. Anyways, here's my recommendation for Hao Wang's books on Godel - Wang was a close associate and eminent logician in his own right with extensive work in early AI and with Godel's aloofness it's rare to find shit from someone who knew him. So I hope I've redeemed this dumpster fire slightly.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 10:12:18 UTC No. 16113462
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 10:34:03 UTC No. 16113483
>>16111475
What rules of logic did he add and why is that a problem. Do you suppose there are rules of logic that allow math to be complete?
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 10:45:30 UTC No. 16113492
>>16113483
That was obviously a stupid troll post from someone claiming that the guy who proved all systems of logic are incomplete thought his logic was complete.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 10:48:41 UTC No. 16113495
>>16113492
>all systems of logic are incomplete
False. Please read at least the Wikipedia before commenting on a topic you never studied.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 10:50:52 UTC No. 16113499
>>16113492
Can you explain godel numbering and how it proves something liked the unprovability of axioms;assumed to be self evident, in nth order logic, where n is greater than one, . Are they some sort of zero order logic? Let's take the peano axioms for instance, that's a relatively small number of axioms, can you encode this using godel numbers and show how that leads to incompleteness?
bodhi at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:22:15 UTC No. 16113554
>>16111755
the people (some anyhow) on this board commonly bitch and moan about "/pol/" bringing down the quality of the board but the reality is this board was always full of egocentric dunning-Kruger psueds. It just took a few people who are actually smart and educated to come here and expose their pop sci midwit circle jerk
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 04:08:12 UTC No. 16114752
>>16111475
Nah, is more like this:
1. You have a set of rules.
2. You want to demonstrate the set of rules is consistent, but there are few things you can't demonstrate using only the current set of rules.
3. You add rules to cover the holes in 2. You end with an expanded set of rules.
4. Goto 2.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 07:21:45 UTC No. 16114913
>>16114752
>few things you can't demonstrate using only the current set of rules.
I asked this question and nobody bothered to answer >>16113499, can you apply the same to peano's axioms and show what it is you can't demonstrate without them?
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 07:53:53 UTC No. 16114925
>>16112353
that you have, thank you
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 08:35:39 UTC No. 16114964
>>16111463
>he fell for the axiom of infinity meme
lol
lmao
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:18:40 UTC No. 16115025
>>16111748
to speak of the “square root of 2” is like speaking of unicorns or Santa Claus. everything is both true and false about them because to speak of a referent without a referand is to violate the Completeness of cantor’s Set Theory, to name just one
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 11:19:53 UTC No. 16115076
>>16115025
>the Completeness of cantor’s Set Theory
its not complete, you ass-breather
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 11:24:28 UTC No. 16115078
>>16115076
It is though. It is complete and utter bullshit.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 11:26:07 UTC No. 16115080
>>16115078
seething category theorist