The explanation of Godel's incompleteness theorem is extremely bad in this post. It simply states that a logical system that is consistent can't prove everythin

The explanation of Godel's incompleteness theorem is extremely bad in this post. It simply states that a logical system that is consistent can't prove everything, and if it ever does prove everything it can only do so by being inconsistent. Likewise, a logical system cannot be used to prove it's own consistency. Basically it just means if you want to prove that a logical system is consistent, you need to use a more powerful logical system, and you can't formulate a consistent logical system that proves everything. It has absolutely goddamned nothing to do with failing, unless you consider a logical system only succeeding when it has proven everything in the universe, including its own consistency, which is just silly. We don't NEED to do that. His theorem is of extreme importence in proofs and mathematics, because it means that one can't prove that math is consistent using math, but it has nothing to do with computer programs /crashing/. That is a gross misinterpretation. It's made worse because all computer programs COULD crash simply because they are implemented on imperfect devices. But this has nothing to do with Godel's theorem, it has to do with physical limitations. Saying Godel's theorem proves all programs eventually crash is like saying Einstein's relativity is why time moves slower when you're bored.