In summary, mathematics is not known to be consistent.

Scientists have faith in the consistency of mathematics.

Dapo777:
What is/are the inconsistencies noticed in godels theorem?

sinequanon:
There is a very vocal stratum of lay wannabe academics, who think they can "educate" everybody with their naive understanding of the nature of mathematics. They say naive things like "mathematics is totally consistent", "mathematical proof is incontrovertible evidence in physics", etc. etc.

This is what real mathematicians know..

One legendary mathematician to another:

[size=16pt]"there is no rigorous foundation for classical mathematics"[/size]

The following video is EXCELLENT! Don't be put off by the guy who introduces the speaker. You can skip to the fourth minute -- 4:00.

This is the clearest description of the foundations of mathematics that I have come across. Anybody willing to learn would do well to see it.

He breaks down the statement and meaning of Gódel's first and second theorems in as simple a way as I have ever seen.

I majored in mathematics, but I think this talk is totally accessible to a non-mathematician of normal intelligence.

Never again will you be paying attention to the ignorant regurgitation of uncritical noise makers.

[size=16pt]What if Current Foundations of Mathematics are Inconsistent? | Vladimir Voevodsky[/size]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O45LaFsaqMA

[size=16pt]In summary, mathematics is not known to be consistent.

Scientists have faith in the consistency of mathematics.[/size]

sinequanon:


It is not about an inconsistency in his theorem, itself.

His 2^nd theorem proves that there is no way of proving that classical mathematical systems are consistent.

(gotta read it slowly, it's quite subtle)

i.e it proves that classical mathematical systems MAY be inconsistent. We can never prove consistency, only inconsistency.

sinequanon:


It is not about an inconsistency in his theorem, itself.

His 2^nd theorem proves that there is no way of proving that classical mathematical systems are consistent.

(gotta read it slowly, it's quite subtle)

i.e it proves that classical mathematical systems MAY be inconsistent. We can never prove consistency, only inconsistency.

asalimpo:


the op needs to go back to school.

@dapo(the bladdy atheist)

a math theorem cannot be fallible.
A math theorem is a truth.
Any mathematical propsition elevated to d height of a theorem is unfaultable.
So "inconsistency" in a math theorem is a joke. Crap talk.
Godel's theorem has no loopholes.

It is not about an inconsistency in his theorem, itself.

PastorAIO:

You need to read the OP again. He doesn't say Godel's theorem is inconsistent. He says :

PastorAIO:


You need to read the OP again. He doesn't say Godel's theorem is inconsistent. He says :

op:
They say naive things like "mathematics is totally consistent", "mathematical proof is incontrovertible evidence in physics", etc. etc.

wiegraf:
Person go tire, intellectual masturbator thinking his audience has never heard of Godel etc

So, Godel's theories prove mathematical systems are inconsistent? Wow, I never knew that. But I somehow, magically, know he meant that one could always pull out an inconsistency within that particular system. One can always be clever and input some ambiguity into whatever formal system. Doesn't mean the other statements in the system are flawed, just that some statements can never be shown to be either of true or false universally. That is, in all systems. Simple.

So when our hero says



Err, yes, especially the bold. Just that there would always be ways, so long as the system contains some basic elements, to force a system into a corner and provoke contradictions like "This sentence is false" out of it. Doesn't make the statement "This sentence is true" invalid or any less true. Doesn't void the framework the statement was derived from, etc. The framework remains consistent, these particular statements/axioms, however, do not.

Actually, this his whole exercise is a nice example perhaps. I mean, he says mathematics is inconsistent while using the same inconsistent mathematics to show how. See? Maybe it's hypocrisy day or something. Why should we take op seriously if mathematics is inconsistent??

Then again, he also happens to be, within his system (at least to a degree, and not in the way he implies), true.

Nothing new to see here. Another failed tap dancer

sinequanon:
Anybody who is serious about improving their understanding should ignore Kay17, Dapo777, asalimpo, wiegraf and plaetton.

Apart from their appalling understanding of simple logic and a host of other hopeless misconceptions, none of them have even been able to state Cantor's assertions correctly, let alone discuss them. Discussing with them is a completely lost cause.

Just don't let them hold you back. They are the type of folk, where you come back in a year's time, and they have learned nothing.

The topic of the video can be quite challenging, but it is accessible to anyone with a mature and balanced frame of mind.

sinequanon:
Anybody who is serious about improving their understanding should ignore Kay17, Dapo777, asalimpo, wiegraf and plaetton.

Apart from their appalling understanding of simple logic and a host of other hopeless misconceptions, none of them have even been able to state Cantor's assertions correctly, let alone discuss them. Discussing with them is a completely lost cause.

Just don't let them hold you back. They are the type of folk, where you come back in a year's time, and they have learned nothing.

The topic of the video can be quite challenging, but it is accessible to anyone with a mature and balanced frame of mind.

wiegraf:
So, Godel's theories prove mathematical systems are inconsistent? Wow, I never knew that. But I somehow, magically, know he meant that one could always pull out an inconsistency within that particular system.

plaetton:

Abi oo .

asalimpo:
I'm not a mathematician, but i think Godel proved tht all the truths tht can be discovered logically/mathematically cannot be achieved thru any formal symbolic system (which mathematics is).

Dapo777:
What is/are the inconsistencies noticed in godels theorem?

Kay17:

This itself is inconsistent.

sinequanon:
Anybody who is serious about improving their understanding should ignore Kay17, Dapo777, asalimpo, wiegraf and plaetton.

Apart from their appalling understanding of simple logic and a host of other hopeless misconceptions, none of them have even been able to state Gódel's assertions correctly, let alone discuss them. Discussing with them is a completely lost cause.

Just don't let them hold you back. They are the type of folk, where you come back in a year's time, and they have learned nothing.

The topic of the video can be quite challenging, but it is accessible to anyone with a mature and balanced frame of mind.

sinequanon:
Gódel's second theorem proves that there is no way of proving consistency of a mathematical system.

i.e, even if a mathematical system is consistent, you can't prove it -- you cannot distinguish it from a system which has unknown inconsistencies.

The only person who took his time to understand is PastorAIO.



Clueless.



plaetton agrees with wiegraf's clueless summary.



Meaningless.

Also a failed attempt at the wrong theorem. The thread is about Gódel II not I.



Can't read.



Comprehension problems.

These are the trolls who have set themselves up to educate us all: plaetton and wiegraf, the halfwits + 1 clueless ranter + 2 illiterates.

Don't let these folks hold you back with their disease of wanton ignorance.

sinequanon:
Anybody who is serious about improving their understanding should ignore Kay17, Dapo777, asalimpo, wiegraf and plaetton.

Apart from their appalling understanding of simple logic and a host of other hopeless misconceptions, none of them have even been able to state Gódel's assertions correctly, let alone discuss them. Discussing with them is a completely lost cause.

Just don't let them hold you back. They are the type of folk, where you come back in a year's time, and they have learned nothing.

The topic of the video can be quite challenging, but it is accessible to anyone with a mature and balanced frame of mind.

Dapo777:


This guy really can't handle his opinion being proved wrong,you need to grow up psychologically, you could be an old person chronologically,but psychologically you are not matured enough to handle people's oppositions to your beliefs, I have been studying you. I also noticed every time you bring up an argument you aim is always to mock atheist,you don't bring up arguments to learn,in fact most of the argument you bring up,you don't talk about them,you simply start accusing others of not understanding you when you haven't even given any point to support your claims,man you have low self esteem,you need others to be patting you on your back to feel good,you can't handle criticism, right now you are fuming with anger because of the truth I am telling you about yourself,you just can't handle opposition in a matured way.

Whenever anybody says anything, especially if you have had a fight with that person recently, your brain switches to autopilot and assume the person want to attack your opinion,learn how to handle opinions that are different from yours without being cynical or unnecessarily belligerent.
I simply asked a simple question:
What is/are the inconsistencies noticed in godels theorem?

And you took that question as an attack on your opinion or as a mockery,I don't understand how you interpret things. You are So unreasonable, man.

Dapo777:

learn how to handle opinions that are different from yours without being cynical or unnecessarily belligerent.
I simply asked a simple question:
What is/are the inconsistencies noticed in godels theorem?

PastorAIO:

You need to read the OP again. He doesn't say Godel's theorem is inconsistent. He says :

It is not about an inconsistency in his theorem, itself.

plaetton:

He is like woman running naked in the market place, while we are pursuing her. She running faster because she is paranoid and thinks we are trying to harm her, whereas, we only trying to cover her unclothedness.

sinequanon:


See what I am saying folks. They are hopelessly stuck.

DON'T GET LIKE THEM.

sinequanon:
My work here is done!

I'll leave the trolls to further confirm what I have said.

Anyone serious about the subject matter in the video, please feel free to comment or ask questions.