Copyright © James R Meyer 2012 - 2017 www.jamesrmeyer.com
Some people assert that when Gödel stated in his incompleteness proof that his Proposition V was ‘intuitionistically unobjectionable’, that what he meant by that was that it was in accordance with what is called ‘intuitionistic logic’. Intuitionistic logic arose from the philosophy of intuitionism, but there is more to intuitionism than intuitionistic logic alone. In intuitionism all mathematical entities are ‘constructed’ from primitive fundamental entities that arise from intuitive concepts of the mind.
It is reasonable to infer that Gödel meant that his Proposition V was in accordance with the principles of intuitionism rather than what is now called ‘intuitionistic logic’, since
As such, it is reasonable to infer that Gödel was making the distinction that, rather than his proof only asserting that a certain unprovable proposition must exist without actually constructing one, his proof provided a proposition which could be seen to be constructible according to the principles of intuitionism – and that this applied to the entities referred to in his Proposition V.
And if the entities referred to in a proof of Gödel’s Proposition V were constructible according to the principles of intuitionism, they had to be ‘easily seen’ to be ‘constructible’ according to the principles of intuitionism – from the fundamental mathematical concepts that are given by the intuition of the mind – so plainly apparent to require no detailed consideration.
However, this is where there are fundamental difficulties that Gödel failed to address, leaving them to the vagaries of what might be meant in the philosophy of intuitionism by the fundamental mathematical concepts that are given by the intuition of the mind. Intuitionism, according to Brouwer, involved the notion that intuitionistic mathematics is an activity of the mind that is over and above any considerations of language – that language is used to communicate mathematical ideas, rather than creating them. That raises several questions in relation to Gödel’s proof.
For example, in Gödel’s paper, the symbols of the formal system are simply assumed to exist; they are not constructed from other more primitive entities. One might debate whether from the intuitionist stance, the symbols of the formal system that Gödel refers to are themselves entities given by the intuition of the mind, or whether the symbols of the formal system are actually abstract intuitive mind concepts to which we later attach symbols of language. Gödel does not state his position on this, but it does not affect the following paragraphs.
For the formal system, the symbols and combinations of symbols of the formal system have no meaning until the axioms and the rules of inference are given. And since the symbols of the formal system are more primitive concepts than those axioms and rules of inference, it follows that if we attach a meaning to the symbol combinations of the formal system, that must occur subsequent to the initial act of intuiting the symbols of the formal system.
So that raises the question, for example, why is there a symbol of the formal system that Gödel refers to as 0, and which denotes zero? Why would the primitive intuitive mind concept of a formal system symbol, by mere coincidence, happen to be referred to by the very same symbol as that used for the concept of zero? Why is it the case that Gödel’s proof relies on this rather fortuitous ‘coincidence’ (among others)?
It follows that when Gödel asserts that his Proposition V is ‘intuitionistically unobjectionable’, he makes assumptions about the intuitive aspect of intuitionism, which far from making the intuitionistic aspect of any putative proof ‘easily seen’, raises more questions than it answers. In making that assertion, Gödel was himself making intuitive assumptions about the intuitive aspects of intuitionism, so that not only was he assuming that any proof of his Proposition V had to be correct, but also that it would also be in accordance with the principles of intuitionism, and in accordance with the principles of intuition on which intuitionism was based.
The irony is that when Gödel appealed to the principles of intuitionism in support of his Proposition V without any detailed consideration of what that might involve, he thereby sidestepped the considerations of language that give rise to the innate error of his paper.
Finally, it should be noted that we cannot rely on Gödel’s assertions made several years subsequent to the publication of his proof. Although intuitionistic logic became more and more acceptable, the notion that intuition and intuitionism might be a valid basis for a philosophy of mathematics fell out of favour. Gödel, like anyone else, was quite capable of changing his position depending on circumstances.
Diverse opinions and criticisms are welcome, but messages that are frivolous, irrelevant or devoid of logical basis will be blocked (comments will be checked before appearing on this site). 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 - this will only be used to notify you of replies to your comments - it will never be used for any other purpose, will never be displayed and does not require verification. Comments are common to the entire website, so please indicate what section of the site you are commenting on.
If you cannot see any comments below, it may be that a plug-in on your browser is blocking Disqus comments from loading. Avast anti-virus in particular is known to do this, especially with Internet Explorer and Safari. See Disqus Browser plug-in/extension conflicts or Why isn’t the comment box loading?.
Please wait for comments to load …
There is now a new page on Lebesgue measure theory and how it is contradictory.
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.
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.
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