colin leslie dean claims that all views end in meaninglessness. As an example of this is Godels theorem
Godel proved that mathematics was self contradictory
but he proved this with flawed and invalid axioms- axioms that either lead to paradox or ended in paradox
all that he proved was in terms of zemelio axioms-there are other axiom systems -so his proof has no bearing outside that system he used
Russell rejected some axioms he used as they led to paradox
all that godel proved was the lair paradox -which Russel said would happen
godel used impedicative definitions- Russell rejected these as they lead to paradox
godel used the axiom of reducibility -Russell abandoned this as it lead to paradox
godel used the axiom of choice mathematicians still hotly debet its validity- this axiom leads to the Branch-Tarski and Hausdorff paradoxes
godel used zemelo axiom system but this system has the skolem paradox which reduces it to meaninglessness or self contradiction
from nagel -"Godel" Routeldeg & Kegan, 1978
Quote:godel also showed that G is demonstrable if and only if its formal negation ~G is demonstrable. However if a formula and its own negation are both formally demonstrable the mathematical calculus is not consistent (this is where he adopts the watered down version noted by bunch) accordingly if (just assumed to make maths consistent )the calculus is consistent neither G nor ~G is formally derivable from the axioms of mathematics. Therefore if mathematics is consistent G is a formally undecidable formula Godel then proved that though G is not formally demonstable it nevertheless is a true mathematical formula
from bunch
"Mathematical fallacies and paradoxes Dover 1982"
Godel proved
Quote:~P(x,y) & Q)g,y)
in other words ~P(x,y) & Q)g,y) is a mathematical version of the liar paradox. It is a statement X that says X is not provable. Therefore if X is provable it is not provable a contradiction. If on the other hand X is not provable then its situation is more complicated. If X says it is not provable and it really is not provable then X is true but not provable Rather than accept a self-contradiction mathematicians settle for the second choice
Godel proved nothing as it was totaliy built upon invalid axioms
it is just another myth mathematicians foist upon an ignorant population to bequile them into believing mathematician know what they are talking about and have access to truth
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace