3 ms·
Also I don’t understand the impact of Wittgenstein‘a work on Godel’s discovery, could you clarify for me? What are the implications. The consensus I’ve read ind
by monstersinF 6y ago
Also I don’t understand the impact of Wittgenstein‘a work on Godel’s discovery, could you clarify for me? What are the implications. The consensus I’ve read indicates it’s a misguided interpretstion
- ProfHewitt 6y agoWittgenstein's devastating critique of [Gödel 1931] came afterward. See the article referenced in this discussion.
- monstersinF 6y agoThanks for the response Professor. What do you make of the following article though? It concludes that the critique is not devastating to Gödel http://wab.uib.no/agora/tools/alws/collection-6-issue-1-article-6.annotate http://wab.uib.no/agora/tools/alws/collection-6-issue-1-arti...
- ProfHewitt 6y agoUnfortunately, the author Timm Lampert did not quote the most powerful Wittgenstein proof that existence of I'mUnprovable means that mathematical foundations are inconsistent. Wittgenstein's more powerful version is much more devastating. As mentioned previously in this discussion, the following article explains why I'mUnprovable must not and does not exist in foundations: "Recrafting Foundations of Mathematics" https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3603021 https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3603021