Logic and Language

Logic and Language

Copyright © James R Meyer 2012 - 2017 www.jamesrmeyer.com

This page is keyboard accessible:

• Use**Tab**, **Shift + Tab **keys to traverse the main menu. To enter a sub-menu use the **Right Arrow** key. To leave a sub-menu use the **Left Arrow** or the **Escape** key.

• The**Enter** or the **Space** key opens the active menu item.

• To skip the menu and move to the main content, press**Tab** after the page loads to reveal a skip button.

• To get back to the top of the page anytime, press the**Home** key.

• For more information, click here: Accessibility Close this tip.

• Use

• The

• To skip the menu and move to the main content, press

• To get back to the top of the page anytime, press the

• For more information, click here: Accessibility Close this tip.

Note: Full functionality of this web page requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser.

This simplified explanation of Gödel’s incompleteness proof (see online at English translation of Gödel’s original proof or as a PDF file at English translation of Gödel’s original proof, PDF) has been written in an attempt to make the proof as accessible as possible to as many people as possible, using straightforward English language with a few simple symbols. I have deliberately avoided any need for knowledge on the part of the reader of any complex mathematics. Please note that this simplified explanation is not intended to be a substitute for my detailed explanation of the flaw in Gödel’s proof, which can be found at The Flaw in Gödel’s proof

The simplified explanation is broken down into ten parts:

This is a brief survey of variables, what is meant by free and bound variables, and the concept of the substitution of a variable, and the concepts of propositions and functions.

This is a brief explanation of what is meant by a formal language system, its axioms and its rules, and what we mean by a proof in a formal language system – and what we mean by saying that a formal system is consistent, complete or incomplete.

This part explains how Gödel was able to use numbers to capture all the information of any expression of formal language system. This was essential for his proof.

This part explains how Gödel came up with the idea of creating a special number relationship that would correspond to the concept that one expression in a formal language system can be a proof of another expression in that formal language system

This part explains how Gödel came up with the idea of creating number relationship that would correspond to the concept of the substitution of a variable in a formal language expression.

In this part Gödel shows how number relationships can have corresponding formal sentences.

Here we explain how Gödel defined another numbering system that is similar but not quite the same as his special numbering system as seen in Part 3

Here we show how Gödel creates his special ‘true but unprovable’ sentence, using the previous steps in the proof.

This part shows how Gödel confuses the languages that he is talking about and the language that is talking about these languages.

Once you see that Gödel’s can only get the result that he does by confusing languages, there are several ways you can show that the proof is logically absurd. This part shows just one such logical contradiction.

Diverse opinions and criticisms are welcome, but messages that are frivolous, irrelevant or devoid of logical basis will be blocked. Difficulties in understanding the site content are usually best addressed by contacting me by e-mail. Note: you will be asked to provide an e-mail address - any address will do, it does not require verification. Your e-mail will only be used to notify you of replies to your comments - it will never be used for any other purpose and will not be displayed. If you cannot see any comments below, see Why isn’t the comment box loading?.

Please wait for comments to load …

There is now a new page Halbach and Zhang’s *Yablo without Gödel* which demonstrates the illogical assumptions used by Halbach and Zhang.

It has come to my notice that, when asked about the demonstration of the flaw in his proof (see A Fundamental Flaw in an Incompleteness Proof by Peter Smith PDF), Smith refuses to engage in any logical discussion, and instead attempts to deflect attention away from any such discussion. If any other reader has tried to engage with Smith regarding my demonstration of the flaw, I would be interested to know what the outcome was.

I found that making, adding or deleting footnotes in the traditional manner proved to be a major pain. So I developed a different system for footnotes which makes inserting or changing footnotes a doddle. You can check it out at Easy Footnotes for Web Pages (Accessibility friendly).

I have now added a new section to my paper on Russell O’Connor’s claim of a computer verified incompleteness proof. This shows that the flaw in the proof arises from a reliance on definitions that include unacceptable assumptions - assumptions that are not actually checked by the computer code. See also the new page Representability.

There is now a new page on Chaitin’s Constant (Chaitin’s Omega), which demonstrates that Chaitin has failed to prove that it is actually algorithmically irreducible.

8 Apr 2016 Are we alone in the Universe?

13 May 2015 Good Math, Bad Math?

31 Mar 2015 Cranks and Crackpots

16th Mar 2015 Bishops Dancing with Pixies?

For convenience, there are now two pages on this site with links to various material relating to Gödel and the Incompleteness Theorem

– a page with general links:

– and a page relating specifically to the Gödel mind-machine debate:

All pages on this website are printer friendly, and will print the main content in a convenient format. Note that the margins are set by your browser print settings.

Note: for some browsers JavaScript must be enabled for this to operate correctly.

Comments on this site are welcome, please see the comment section.

Please note that this web site, like any other is a collection of various statements. Not all of this web site is intended to be factual. Some of it is personal opinion or interpretation.

If you prefer to ask me directly about the material on this site, please send me an e-mail with your query, and I will attempt to reply promptly.

Feedback about site design would also be appreciated so that I can improve the site.

Copyright © James R Meyer 2012 - 2017

www.jamesrmeyer.com