3 ms·

I have never finished that book. I’ve started it a dozen times since 1990. I die about 60% of the way through it. Does it ever get to the theorem? Edit: thanks

I have never finished that book. I’ve started it a dozen times since 1990. I die about 60% of the way through it. Does it ever get to the theorem? Edit: thanks for the recommendations, but I have several books that discuss the proof. I was just asking if GEB gets to it.

drivebyadvice 3y ago
There's better resources if you just want to know about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem tbh. GEB is neat because of all the other ideas he ties into it.
markisus 3y ago
I think so. But there are much shorter and more rigorous proofs in textbooks.
tshaddox 3y ago
If you’re not entertained throughout I don’t think there’s any reason to stick with it. It’s not like there’s some huge payoff at the end where “it all clicks.” It’s a fairly meandering journey across several disciplines with a lot of experimental literary techniques, and while it’s certainly intellectually challenging and rewarding, if you’re not enjoying the process there’s no reason to stick with it!
scubbo 3y ago
I don't have an answer for you (I last read it so long ago that I can't actually recall the specific content - though I'd be surprised if it didn't, given the title!), but just echoing that, although I _adore_ GEB (actually, I'm over-due for a re-read!), I've tried-and-failed multiple times to get through "Le Ton Beau De Marot", by the same author. Certain books just don't click with some people, and that's OK!
- demondemidi 3y ago
  I lost track of the equations and theorems, but if when I put it down and come back to it, I've lost momentum! lol. Like "Gravity's Rainbow"... someday I'll make it through that without getting utterly lost.
krukah 3y ago
It "gets to the theorem" without offering a formal proof, but having read both, I find that Hofstadter's short stories and intuitions have done more for my understanding of Gödelian logic than any formal proofs have.
bananaflag 3y ago
Yup the theorem gets proven in the book. It's very very verbose but the content is clearly there. "I am a Strange Loop" elaborates a bit on the parts which may have been confusingly explained, notably both in the proof of the theorem and in the author's AI philosophy.

drivebyadvice 3y ago

There's better resources if you just want to know about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem tbh. GEB is neat because of all the other ideas he ties into it.

markisus 3y ago

I think so. But there are much shorter and more rigorous proofs in textbooks.

tshaddox 3y ago

If you’re not entertained throughout I don’t think there’s any reason to stick with it. It’s not like there’s some huge payoff at the end where “it all clicks.” It’s a fairly meandering journey across several disciplines with a lot of experimental literary techniques, and while it’s certainly intellectually challenging and rewarding, if you’re not enjoying the process there’s no reason to stick with it!

scubbo 3y ago

I don't have an answer for you (I last read it so long ago that I can't actually recall the specific content - though I'd be surprised if it didn't, given the title!), but just echoing that, although I _adore_ GEB (actually, I'm over-due for a re-read!), I've tried-and-failed multiple times to get through "Le Ton Beau De Marot", by the same author. Certain books just don't click with some people, and that's OK!

demondemidi 3y ago
I lost track of the equations and theorems, but if when I put it down and come back to it, I've lost momentum! lol. Like "Gravity's Rainbow"... someday I'll make it through that without getting utterly lost.

krukah 3y ago

It "gets to the theorem" without offering a formal proof, but having read both, I find that Hofstadter's short stories and intuitions have done more for my understanding of Gödelian logic than any formal proofs have.

bananaflag 3y ago

Yup the theorem gets proven in the book. It's very very verbose but the content is clearly there. "I am a Strange Loop" elaborates a bit on the parts which may have been confusingly explained, notably both in the proof of the theorem and in the author's AI philosophy.