4 ms·
My guess is that Raymond Smullyan is not confused about this. The explanation isn't presented as proof, it's an explanation of the theorem and its consequences.
by jimfl 17y ago
My guess is that Raymond Smullyan is not confused about this. The explanation isn't presented as proof, it's an explanation of the theorem and its consequences.
- anatoly 17y agoI'm sure that Smullyan's not confused. In fact, his _Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems_ is the most lucid and brillian exposition (a mathematical and rigorous one) of the theorems I've ever seen. I absolutely adore that book. However, I also doubt that Smullyan presented the NPR* story as a proof of Goedel's theorem. He probably said something to the effect of it being a good demonstration of the relevant issues. And that's probably right.