| Philosophy Now Forum http://forum.philosophynow.org/ |
|
| Godels incompleteness theorem proven invalid http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=86 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | eloise [ Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Godels incompleteness theorem proven invalid |
The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean points out that Godel incompleteness theorem is invalid for a number of reasons :he uses invalid axioms, he constructs self referential statements,he miss uses the theory of types, he falls into internal paradox all of which make his proof invalid -but as dean points out this does not say Godel is wrong only that his proof is invalid http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf GÖDEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM. ENDS IN ABSURDITY OR MEANINGLESSNESS GÖDEL IS A COMPLETE FAILURE AS HE ENDS IN UTTER MEANINGLESSNESS CASE STUDY IN THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS By COLIN LESLIE DEAN B.SC, B.A, B.LITT (HONS), M.A, B,LITT (HONS), M.A, M.A (PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES), MASTER OF PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES, GRAD CERT (LITERARY STUDIES) GAMAHUCHER PRESS WEST GEELONG, VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 2007 1) He uses impredicative statements which make his incompleteness theorem invalid Godel states “ The solution suggested by Whitehead and Russell, that a proposition cannot say something about itself , is to drastic... We saw that we can construct propositions which make statements about themselves,… What Godel understood by "propositions which make statements about themselves",… is the sense Russell defined them to be 'Whatever involves all of a collection must not be one of the collection.' Put otherwise, if to define a collection of objects one must use the total collection itself, then the definition is meaningless. This explanation given by Russell in 1905 was accepted by Poincare' in 1906, who coined the term impredicative definition, (Kline's "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty" Note Ponicare called these self referencing statements impredicative definitions texts books on logic tell us self referencing ,statements (petitio principii) are invalid even Godel said they make mathematics false as he states "consider this rather as a proof that the vicious circle principle is false than that classical mathematics is false” It for this reason as well us others ie useing the axiom of reducibility, paradoxes miss use of the theory of types that colin leslie dean argues that Godels incompleteness theorem is invalid - irrespective of what others have proved Godels proof is invalid (being invalid does not mean it is wrong only that Godels proof is invalid) 2) He uses the axiom of reducibility which make his incompleteness theorem invalid Godel states about axiom 1v “this axiom represents the axiom of reducibility (comprehension axiom of set theory)” Godel uses axiom 1V the axiom of reducibility in his formula 40 where he states “x is a formula arising from the axiom schema 1V.1 Russell abandoned this axiom and many beleive it is illegitimant and must be not used in mathematics Ramsey says Such an axiom has no place in mathematics, and anything which cannot be proved without using it cannot be regarded as proved at all. This axiom there is no reason to suppose true; and if it were true, this would be a happy accident and not a logical necessity, for it is not a tautology. (THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS* (1925) by F. P. RAMSEY ) it for this reason as well us others ie useing impredicative statements paradoxes miss use of the theory of types that colin leslie dean argues that Godels incompleteness theorem is invalid - irrespective of what others have proved Godels proof is invalid (being invalid does not mean it |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|