Skip to main content

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems: Background

Background to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems

This post is part of a series on Gödel's incompleteness theorem. You may find all of them here:
  1. Gödel's incompleteness theorem: Background.

  2. Gödel's incompleteness theorem: Foreground.

  3. Gödel's incompleteness theorem: Underground.

One of my hobbies is to throw myself in at the deep end somewhere exotic and to see if I can swim, metaphorically speaking. It turns out that doggy paddling makes up for a lack of flamboyance with efficacy in buoyancy. Recently, I wondered how we can know that something is true?

Ayn Rand, who believed that something is true when it obeyed Aristotle's laws of thought. That is, the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction and the law of excluded middle.

Something is true because you can prove that it is true

Being a Randroid, the short and sweet answer is of course that something is true because it is proved to be true. We prove that something is true with reason. Reason rests on logic. Logic rests on axioms. This is all good and well, but how do we know that axioms are true? That is, what proves axioms true?

The trouble with axioms

An axiom is a self-evident statement. Naturally, it has to be self-evident to someone who'd like to make use of the axiom. But if it relies on someone to recognise it as self-evident, then it's not all that self-evident after all. Thus we get more people involved and the truth value of an axiom is determined by some kind of democracy whereby:
  • An axiom is true if it is self-evident to enough people.

  • An axiom is false if it is not self-evident to enough people.

  • All axioms are equally true, but some axioms are more true than others.

This is dangerously close to faith, which would make axioms true because we believe them to be true. Faith alone inevitably leads to a dangerous mindfield of paradoxes and inconsistencies because it is a curiosity stopper. Faith alone was certainly not enough for David Hilbert, who wanted at the very least to have maths axioms that are more true than others.

Hilbert's program

Hilbert suggested that maths axioms could show itself to be more true than other axioms by showing that:
  • There is a finite number of mathematical axioms, which would make maths complete.

  • Each axiom has a definite true or false answer, which would make maths consistent.

The purpose of Hilbert's program is to formalise all of mathematics. That is, it would give mathematicians the language they need to express anything with the knowledge that it is either true or false, but at least it is not wronger than wrong.


Popular posts from this blog

Fist bump the Trump

I must confess that I did not follow this election as it unfolded, because I have no skin in this game. I only became interested when I saw the crocodile tears on Facebook.

What fascinated me more was that the Trump supporters came out of the closet for the first time to voice their opinions. Virtually none of these Trump supporters espoused racist, misogynistic or any of those kind of deplorable views. Most of them were just pointing fingers at the know-it-all Clinton supporters.

What characterised this election? Rather than enlightened liberals waging a culture war with backward rednecks and hayseeds, three things characterised this election for me:
Shared hubris: Our candidate is bad, but the other candidate is even worse. Both parties seemed to espouse this sentiment.Joe Sixpack's Revenge: Based on voter turnout and based on for whom the largest voting group voted, this election was the revenge of the average American. That is average American by sheer number. Nobody bothered t…

Why has outrage come to dominate platforms like Twitter?

This question was posted on twitter by Sarah Britten Pillay. I shall try to answer that here, or at least address some of the topics surrounding this notion.

What makes a platform like Twitter more outrageous than the next? A brief summary of my thoughts on the topic: It would be interesting to contrive some outrage meter that could detect outrage levels in a piece of text.Plenty if not most of social media outrage is manufactured as a distraction.Outrage that isn't manufactured can be analysed by means of kin selection concepts from biology.If you aren't entirely sold on the sociobiology idea, then the balance of risk and incentive from game theory can also shed some light on the rationale behind social media outrage. Outrage levels are too damn high I do agree that social media platforms tend to be filled with more outrage than others, but as far as I know there is no means of detecting or measuring outrage. The need exists for some outrage quotient or some method of classify…

White tears the most valuable currency but not as valuable as fauxtrage

This formerly glorious publication which I shall not even bother naming has also fallen into the habit of censoring its comments section, at least when it comes to white tears. Fortunately, I could still save this obviously far superior comment from the rather myopic agitprop from whence it came. I know it is superior because the quality of your commentary is inversely proportional to how long it stays unscathed. That's why the sanctimonious finger-wagging op-eds rarely get deleted, but the comments rarely last long.
Anyone - black or white or of any other pigmentation persuasion - with a Rhodes Scholarship can but only cry White Tears. Someone with a Rhodes Scholarship is in the very lap of privilege, the likes of which not even the majority of pale South Africans born with a silver spoon will ever see. That is why it is not uncommon to see their ilk waiting on tables instead of whipping their slaves on their ill-begotten land, which they refuse to give up, you see.
A similar campa…