4 ms·

wait, so you are casually dismissing Gödel's work as a logical "gotcha"? don't premise opinions about complex proofs on other peoples woefully impoverished and

wait, so you are casually dismissing Gödel's work as a logical "gotcha"? don't premise opinions about complex proofs on other peoples woefully impoverished and misrepresented explanations of said proofs that is disrespectful and very very very short sighted. also, go read up (...on Gödel, Cantor, Turing, Tarski, etc...)

gsinclair 4y ago
I understand precisely what adastra22 meant from the moment I read it. Unfortunately two people now have rushed to unkind characteristics of what that (perfectly sensible) meaning was.
- dudeguy3301 4y ago
  sure, what was written was sensible but has no bearing on the proof. speculation isn't critical thinking, as adastra22 says, be careful to what you are responding to. my point is the lack of rigor and understanding because the proof isnt being discussed, hand waving about an unread and very important mathematical work is irresponsible. thats MY point
adastra22 4y ago
Please try to give the people you talk to the benefit of the doubt, and read carefully what you are responding to. My training is as an applied physicist. We physicists have an interesting relationship with math. Obviously math is essential to the work that we do, but the physical world decides whether the math is right, not the other way around. Our mathematical models technically permit things like negative mass, time flowing backwards, or magnetic monopoles. But that doesn't mean tachyons, time machines, or fundamental magnetic particles exist--they don't, so far as we know. So I'm trained to actively disregard non-physical, not relevant mathematical implications. I'm sorry if this offends a pure mathematicians sensibilities, but pragmatically it is very useful. Or take a different field: in computational semantics, a branch of formal linguistics, there are many models for inferring a formal logical statement from an example written sentence or spoken utterance, and then determining the validity (truth) of the statement. These models get caught up on stuff like "This sentence is false." What's the truth value for that sentence? If it is true then it must be false, and if it is false then it must be true. Error, validity of this statement can't be determined! But hey, it turns out that in practice this basically never happens unless the speaker is really confused, misspeaks, or deliberately evasive. Real sentences don't have this self-referential, circular logic structure because that's not how people think or communicate. Now "this sentence is false" goes back to the greeks, IIRC, and Gödel's theorem is slightly different. Gödel's main work is in the formalization of proofs and proof systems, and I don't want to take away from that in any way. But the incompleteness theorem always seems to be explained through these sorts of self-referential examples and I have yet to ever see it reduced to a practical problem with real-world implications. Hence my question. Does Gödel's incompleteness theorem actually constrain a real world application of proof systems, where we tend to be interested in non-cyclical logical arguments?
- dudeguy3301 4y ago
  still doesn't sound like you have ever read the proof, nor about it. so aren't you engaged in this discussion strictly by speculation? logical fallacy? just because you have some point to make has no bearing on the work you are adjacent to and not actually discussing. making your own points and arguments about logical gotchas is great, has nothing to do with critically understanding a work you haven't read. asking for giving the 'benefit of the doubt' to speculation informed only by a comment section is ridiculous. do your homework before asking for generous responses to your internet quibbling
  - adastra22 4y ago
    And what did your post contribute? Never mind then, I’m sorry I bothered.
- thrwycct123 4y ago
  > Obviously math is essential to the work that we do, but the physical world decides whether the math is right, not the other way arounnd That was the belief before the 1800s. But with the discovery of non-euclidean geometry, math has been divorced from the physical world. Math is simply a system of axioms and proofs. Math is purely abstract and logical. Whatever math that physicists use just simply happens to align with the physical world. Also, the physical world doesn't confirm whether the math is "right". Math is deductive, not inductive. As long as the math is derivable from the axioms, it is right. The physical world/experiments determine whether the mathematical model aligns with the physical world. The physical world has no say in math. Not anymore. > So I'm trained to actively disregard non-physical, not relevant mathematical implications. In the past, when a mathematical model predicted something ( relativity to quantum physics to elements ), experiments were conducted to determine whether the models aligned with the physical world. If the mathematical models make predictions that physicists currently can't verify with experiments, should we disregard it? Do we need technology to advance to where we can conduct experiments. Do we need physics to become more abstract? Perhaps model the physical world in the virtual world. Would experiments in the virtual world be applicable to physics? Seems like physics is both at a dead-end and on the cusp of a revolution.

gsinclair 4y ago

I understand precisely what adastra22 meant from the moment I read it. Unfortunately two people now have rushed to unkind characteristics of what that (perfectly sensible) meaning was.

dudeguy3301 4y ago
sure, what was written was sensible but has no bearing on the proof. speculation isn't critical thinking, as adastra22 says, be careful to what you are responding to. my point is the lack of rigor and understanding because the proof isnt being discussed, hand waving about an unread and very important mathematical work is irresponsible. thats MY point

adastra22 4y ago

Please try to give the people you talk to the benefit of the doubt, and read carefully what you are responding to. My training is as an applied physicist. We physicists have an interesting relationship with math. Obviously math is essential to the work that we do, but the physical world decides whether the math is right, not the other way around. Our mathematical models technically permit things like negative mass, time flowing backwards, or magnetic monopoles. But that doesn't mean tachyons, time machines, or fundamental magnetic particles exist--they don't, so far as we know. So I'm trained to actively disregard non-physical, not relevant mathematical implications. I'm sorry if this offends a pure mathematicians sensibilities, but pragmatically it is very useful. Or take a different field: in computational semantics, a branch of formal linguistics, there are many models for inferring a formal logical statement from an example written sentence or spoken utterance, and then determining the validity (truth) of the statement. These models get caught up on stuff like "This sentence is false." What's the truth value for that sentence? If it is true then it must be false, and if it is false then it must be true. Error, validity of this statement can't be determined! But hey, it turns out that in practice this basically never happens unless the speaker is really confused, misspeaks, or deliberately evasive. Real sentences don't have this self-referential, circular logic structure because that's not how people think or communicate. Now "this sentence is false" goes back to the greeks, IIRC, and Gödel's theorem is slightly different. Gödel's main work is in the formalization of proofs and proof systems, and I don't want to take away from that in any way. But the incompleteness theorem always seems to be explained through these sorts of self-referential examples and I have yet to ever see it reduced to a practical problem with real-world implications. Hence my question. Does Gödel's incompleteness theorem actually constrain a real world application of proof systems, where we tend to be interested in non-cyclical logical arguments?

dudeguy3301 4y ago
still doesn't sound like you have ever read the proof, nor about it. so aren't you engaged in this discussion strictly by speculation? logical fallacy? just because you have some point to make has no bearing on the work you are adjacent to and not actually discussing. making your own points and arguments about logical gotchas is great, has nothing to do with critically understanding a work you haven't read. asking for giving the 'benefit of the doubt' to speculation informed only by a comment section is ridiculous. do your homework before asking for generous responses to your internet quibbling
- adastra22 4y ago
  And what did your post contribute? Never mind then, I’m sorry I bothered.
thrwycct123 4y ago
> Obviously math is essential to the work that we do, but the physical world decides whether the math is right, not the other way arounnd That was the belief before the 1800s. But with the discovery of non-euclidean geometry, math has been divorced from the physical world. Math is simply a system of axioms and proofs. Math is purely abstract and logical. Whatever math that physicists use just simply happens to align with the physical world. Also, the physical world doesn't confirm whether the math is "right". Math is deductive, not inductive. As long as the math is derivable from the axioms, it is right. The physical world/experiments determine whether the mathematical model aligns with the physical world. The physical world has no say in math. Not anymore. > So I'm trained to actively disregard non-physical, not relevant mathematical implications. In the past, when a mathematical model predicted something ( relativity to quantum physics to elements ), experiments were conducted to determine whether the models aligned with the physical world. If the mathematical models make predictions that physicists currently can't verify with experiments, should we disregard it? Do we need technology to advance to where we can conduct experiments. Do we need physics to become more abstract? Perhaps model the physical world in the virtual world. Would experiments in the virtual world be applicable to physics? Seems like physics is both at a dead-end and on the cusp of a revolution.