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.

Cantor published a proof in 1874 that the real numbers are not denumerable, that is, that there cannot be a list that can match every one of the real numbers uniquely to every one of the natural numbers. (Footnote: Georg Cantor,‘*Über eine Eigenschaft des Inbegriffes aller reellen algebraischen Zahlen*’, Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik 77 (1874), pp 258-62, English translation online at Cantor’s 1874 Proof of Non-Denumerability - English Translation. Cantor also published a similar proof in 1884: ‘*Über unendliche lineare Punktmannigfaltigkeiten*’, Mathematische Annalen 6, 23 (1884) pp 453-488.) There is a English translation of Cantor's original proof online at Cantor’s 1874 Proof of Non-Denumerability - English Translation.

In mathematical terms, the proof claims that there can be no mathematical function that will map every natural number to some real number so that every natural number has a corresponding real number. This proof is essentially as follows:

First of all we assume that there actually can be a function matching the natural numbers to all the real numbers; the object of the proof is to prove that this assumption cannot be correct. We call the assumed function ** List(x)**. Whenever we replace the

Now we go through the natural numbers one by one, starting at zero, until we get two values for the function ** List(x)** that are between the values 0 and 1 (which will be real numbers) – we call these first two natural numbers

We repeat this procedure and continue to go through the natural numbers one by one until we find the next two values of ** List(x)** (again, these are real numbers) that are within the interval

We continue this process again and again. As we do so, the interval becomes smaller and smaller. But between any two real numbers there is always another real number, since there is no such thing as a smallest difference between two real numbers. That means that no matter how long we continue the process for, there will still be two real numbers with an interval between them.

The proof now says: Seeing as the interval never vanishes, there must be at least one number (which we will call ** c**) which lies between every interval of every

This is a contradiction, since it must lie between the sequence ** List(n_{1,1,1, …})** and the sequence

The above proof proves, of course, that there cannot be a function that maps the natural numbers to the real numbers, where the function is in the same language as the real numbers.

We note that the proof makes no mention of levels of language - no mention of meta-language or sub-language - and makes no assertions about functions that map natural numbers to real numbers but are not in the same languages as those real numbers (i.e., such function are in a meta-language to the real numbers of the list.

On The Diagonal Proof page, it is shown that if levels of language are ignored and unfounded Platonist assumptions are included, then, by the secondary argument of the Diagonal proof, this generates the result is that there are ‘more’ real numbers than natural numbers.

In this respect, the only difference between the above proof and the Diagonal proof is the difference in the description of the Diagonal number and the number ** c**. So, in the above proof, if it is assumed that the number

As for the Diagonal argument, if we do not include the implicit Platonic assumptions that support the secondary argument, then the proof simply proves that there cannot be a matching function ** List(x)** from all natural numbers to all real numbers,

And as for the Diagonal argument, if the function ** List(x)** is a function is in a meta-language, then we cannot simply assume that there can be a valid mathematical definition of

As in the case of the Diagonal argument, without unfounded assumptions concerning the ‘existence’ of things independently of language, Cantor’s first proof proves that there cannot be any function that maps the natural numbers to the real numbers, where the function is in the same language as the real numbers - but it provides no basis for the secondary argument, that there ‘exist’ undefinable real numbers.

For more details, see the Diagonal proof, the secondary argument of the Diagonal proof, and A List with no Diagonal number.

Footnotes:

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 …

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.

There is a new addition to the page Yet another flawed incompleteness proof, where Berto’s proof of incompleteness in his book *There’s something about Gödel* comes under scrutiny.

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.

16th Mar 2015 Bishops Dancing with Pixies?

23rd Feb 2015 Artificial Intelligence

31 Mar 2015 Cranks and Crackpots

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