Copyright © James R Meyer 2012 - 2017 www.jamesrmeyer.com
Note: Full functionality of this web page requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser.
Note that (provided you have JavaScript enabled) clicking on (show) will reveal further details, while clicking again will hide it. Also, clicking on (show Gödel’s) will reveal relevant parts of Gödel’s text (shown in green), while clicking again will hide it. Please note that older browsers may not display some symbols correctly.
From this point onwards we will only be referring to Part 2 of Gödel’s paper, which contains the proof proper (the paper can be viewed online at English translation of Gödel’s original proof or as a PDF file at English translation of Gödel’s original proof, PDF file). To understand the guide from this point on, you will need to already have a good understanding of the fundamentals of what is called propositional logic and predicate logic (including the meaning of free variables and bound variables). A fairly good online guide that covers the basics can be viewed Propositional and Predicate Logic: here.
If there is any difficulty in following any part of the proof, please contact me and I will try to help. And if you have any suggestions as to how this guide might be improved, please contact me. This guide is intended to be read alongside the English translation of Gödel’s original proof which can be viewed Gödel’s Proof - English translation: here.
NB: It is important to bear in mind that, in Meltzer’s translation, the term ‘sign’ is used to refer (in general) to strings of symbols of the formal system. The proof also uses some distinctive terms (number‑signs, type‑n signs, relation‑signs, class‑signs, see below) to refer to certain kinds of strings of symbols.
But note that a single symbol is also referred to as a ‘sign’; it is a string with just one symbol. The term ‘basic sign’ is used to refer to either a single symbol or a string of symbols that represents a variable, see below. When you are reading the proof you need to be familiar with this terminology.
When reading Gödel’s proof, one should remember that Gödel is a proof of incompleteness for one specific formal system which Gödel defines in detail and which he calls the system P. Bear in mind that Gödel’s method, which he applies to this one particular system P, can in principle be applied to any formal system (provided it contains a certain amount of basic arithmetic, such as defining natural numbers and basic operations on those numbers).
From that point of view, you might say that the precise details of the formal system that Gödel uses in his proof are not of overriding importance, since Gödel’s argument could be applied to any formal system. But, having said that, if you don’t spend the time to become familiar with the terminology of the details below (and the corresponding parts of Gödel’s paper), you may have difficulty following the subsequent argument.
In the paragraph beginning “We proceed now to the rigorous development…”. Here Gödel sets out the definition of the formal system he will use for his proof. He calls this the system P.
Every formula of the system P is constructed using seven single symbols (show Gödel’s) along with symbols for variables (see below). The seven symbols are:
0 and f are used to represent the natural numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, … as 0, f0, ff0, fff0, …
~ is used to represent ‘not’ (note: in modern notation this would be ¬)
∨ is used to represent ‘or’
∀ is used to represent ‘for all’ (note: where a is some formula, v∀(a) represents ‘for all v, a’; whereas the common equivalent modern notation is ∀v (a) )
‘(’ and ‘)’ are used as opening and closing brackets.
Note that the above symbols of the formal system P are sometimes referred to as ‘basic signs’ (the variables of the system are also referred by the same terminology, so you should be aware of this).
The other symbols that the formal system P uses are for variables. Before we consider the symbols used for variables, we need to know that the formal system P is defined as including a hierarchy of ‘classes’, where the lowest class is a collection of natural numbers, the next level of class is a class that contains classes of classes of natural numbers, and so on. The different levels of classes are referred to as different types of classes, and the lowest class is a type 1 class. These details of how the formal system manipulates classes are for the most part peripheral to the main argument of the proof, so when trying to understand how the proof operates, one should not get bogged down by these details. However, you do need to know what Gödel is referring to when he uses certain terms.
Note that in the system P brackets can have two purposes
Type 1 class:
The ‘type 1’ class (also called ‘first type’) refers to classes that contain natural numbers (symbol strings such as 0, f0, ff0, fff0, …), or variables for natural numbers. For the detailed definition of what this class contains see Signs of type 1 below.
Type 2 class:
The ‘type 2’ class (also called ‘second type’) refers to classes that contain type 1 classes.
Type 3 class:
The ‘type 3’ (also called ‘third type’) refers to classes that contain type 2 classes.
And so on, giving, in general,
Type n class:
This class refers to classes that contain classes of the next lower type (that is, classes whose type is n ‑ 1) - and these in turn contain classes of the next lower type (that is, classes whose type is n ‑ 2) - and so on, until you reach the class that contains natural numbers.
We can now define the symbols that are used for the variables of the system P.
Variables of type 1 have the domain of symbol strings of the form 0, f0, ff0, fff0, … (show Gödel’s).
Represented by x_{1}, y_{1}, z_{1}, …
Note that variables of type 1 are also called type 1 variables or variables for natural numbers.
Variables of type 2 have the domain of classes that contain symbol strings of the form 0, f0, ff0, fff0, … .
Represented by x_{2}, y_{2}, z_{2}, …
Variables of type 3 have the domain of classes of classes of symbol strings of the form 0, f0, ff0, fff0, … .
Represented by x_{3}, y_{3}, z_{3}, …
Variables of type n have the domain of classes of classes of classes … . (n‑1 levels).
Represented by x_{n}, y_{n}, z_{n}, … (Footnote: Note: It might be observed that there are a finite number of alphabetical symbols such as x, y, z, and that in the actual formal system, there are no symbols 1, 2, 3. However, there are several ways that the variables can be represented using only the symbols x, f and 0, for example: xf0, xf0f0, xf0f0f0, for x_{1}, y_{1}, z_{1}, …, and xff0, xff0ff0, xff0ff0ff0, for x_{2}, y_{2}, z_{2}, …, and so on. Hence there is no limit on the number of possible variables.)
Note that variables in the formal system P are sometimes referred to as ‘basic signs’ (as are the single symbols of the system, see above).
This is a string of symbols of the form:
0, f0, ff0, fff0, …
i.e., a number‑sign is a string of symbols that represents a number.
sign of type 1 (also called type 1 sign, or a sign of the first type)
This is either a number-sign (as defined above) or a string of symbols of the form
x_{1}, fx_{1}, ffx_{1}, fffx_{1}, … or y_{1}, fy_{1}, ffy_{1}, fffy_{1}, …
where x_{1}, y_{1}, etc are variables for natural numbers.
i.e., A sign of type 1 is a string of symbols that can either represent a specific number, or a variable quantity (show Gödel’s).
sign of type n (also called type n sign, or a sign of the n^{th} type)
In Gödel’s proof, a sign of type n, where n > 1, is the same as a variable of type n. Note that this means that in the system P there are no symbols that represent specific classes (show Gödel’s).
n‑place relation‑sign
This is a formula with n different free variables (formulas are defined below). Note that the symbol for the same free variable may occur several times in a formula, but this does not determine the n-place of the formula. It is the number of different free variables that determines the n-place of the formula (show Gödel’s).
class‑sign
A class‑sign is a 1‑place relation‑sign, that is, a formula with only one free variable. As indicated above, note that this same variable may occur several times in the formula.
Gödel defines what constitutes a formula in the formal system (show Gödel’s). This is required to ensure that a formula is a valid string of symbols of the formal system.
These are of the form a(b) (as indicated above, this signifies ‘b is a member of the class a’)
where b is a type n sign
and a is the next higher type, i.e., a type n+1 sign. Elementary formulas may be thought of as the fundamental building blocks that all formulas are built of.
Formula
A formula can be one of the elementary formulas as defined above, or a formula of the form
~ (p) | (which means ‘not’ p) | |
(p) ∨ (q) | (which means p ‘or’ q) | |
x∀(p) | (which means ‘for all’ x, p) |
where p and q are any formulas, and x is any variable. Note that this is a recursive definition since a formula is defined in terms of formulas; this means that when it is stated that p is a formula, then p itself must be either an elementary formula or a formula of the form ~ (p_{2}), (p_{2}) ∨ (q_{2}) or x∀(p_{2}), where p_{2}and q_{2} themselves must be either elementary formulas or a formula of the form ~ (p_{3}), (p_{3}) ∨ (q_{3}) or x∀(p_{3}), and so on, until every p_{n} or q_{n} is an elementary formula.
Note that ‘n‑place relation‑signs’ and ‘class‑signs’ are particular types of formulas, see above.
Propositional formula
This is a formula with no free variable.
Gödel introduces a term Subst a(v|b) to refer to the substitution of the variable v in the formula a by some symbol string of the formal system (represented here by b). By the definition, b must be of the same sign as the variable v (show Gödel’s).
Note that, depending on what version of the translation you are using, Subst may be represented in this format:
which is the format used in Gödel’s original paper. The same applies to the format of the related Sb function which we will encounter later.
Gödel says that given any valid formula, if we replace every variable of that formula by a variable that is one type higher, then we have created another valid formula. So if a formula contained only type 1 and type 2 variables, and we replace every type 2 variable by a type 3 variable, and we replace every type 1 variable by a type 2 variable, we then have another formula (show Gödel’s)
Note: The notion of type‑lift is peripheral to the main argument of the proof.
Footnotes:
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