3 ms·
I'm not sure Gödel's incompleteness theorems have anything to do with this. After all, they don't show that any system of reasoning is inconsistent - just that
by Tainnor 6y ago
I'm not sure Gödel's incompleteness theorems have anything to do with this. After all, they don't show that any system of reasoning is inconsistent - just that it can't prove its own consistency and that there are statements that can be neither true nor false. Even then, it only applies when your system is able to express arithmetic - for basic syllogisms (like "all men are mortal. socrates is a man. therefore socrates is mortal.") this doesn't apply, as far as I understand.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoAlso, the field of formal methods exists, and is successfully used to develop ultra-low-defect software. The Incompleteness Theorem doesn't stop it dead.
- yowlingcat 6y ago"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." - Ludwig Wittgenstein
- alextheparrot 6y agoWhat was being trying drawn was a parallel from “A numerical system can be hard to prove correct, in unexpected ways” to “A human system can be hard to prove correct, in unexpected ways”. Recognising this is part of accepting ones own limits. Gödel in no way proves this, as you note, and my wording should have made it more clear that I understand that. The essence of his result is easily analogised, though.