Logic and
Load the menuLoad the menu

Copyright   James R Meyer    2012 - 2024 https://www.jamesrmeyer.com

A Simplified Explanation of Gödel’s Incompleteness Proof:
Part 10




Demonstrating how contradictions arise from Gödel’s Proof

Page last updated 18 Feb 2022


In Part 7: Another Numbering System the Basic Numbering function, which we called BN, was explained. Gödel defined the Basic Numbering function so that it would always give the same value as the Gödel Numbering function. When he did that, he made a proposition:


‘For any number, the Basic Number of that number is the same as the Gödel Number of that number’


We can also state that as:


‘For every x, where x is a number, BN(x) = GN(x)


It looks innocent enough, but let’s look a bit deeper - BN and GN are defined as relationships. But what language do they belong to?


Let’s look at the Gödel Numbering function, GN(x). The values that the free variable x can take are symbols of the formal language – and combinations of symbols of the formal language. That means that GN(x) is not an expression in the language of number relationships and not an expression in the formal language – it is an expression of the meta-language. And that means that the variable x in GN(x) is a variable of the meta-language.


Now look at the Basic Numbering function, BN(x). Gödel uses this function to get his ‘true but unprovable’ sentence. And again, it’s no coincidence that it also occurs in the ‘true but unprovable’ sentence in our simplified proof.


That sentence was:


‘There is no G‑proof of G‑Substitution (GS, BN(GS))


For the proof to work, that sentence has to be a number relationship. That means that since BN occurs in this sentence BN also has to be a number relationship. And that means that the variable x in BN(x) is a variable of a number relationship.


Now, Gödel has to use the proposition: ‘For every x, BN(x) = GN(x) in order for his proof to work.


But that proposition is nonsensical because it mixes up the meta-language and its sub-languages. In that expression the variable x is at the same time a variable of the meta-language and a variable of a sub-language – the language of number relationships. That is a contradiction that shows that Gödel’s proof is wrong.


In the Gödel Numbering function, x has to be a variable of the meta-language – but in the Basic Numbering function, x has to be a variable of a number relationship. And that means that the expression:


‘For every x, BN(x) = GN(x)


isn’t actually a proposition at all. It is absurd since it doesn’t follow the basic rules for a valid proposition.


And if we use symbols for the variables of the meta-language that are different to the symbols for variable of the language of number relationships, then we can’t even write the expression


‘For every x, BN(x) = GN(x)


since the variable in BN( ) can’t be x. And if we can’t even write the expression as a logical expression, it cannot be used to prove anything. And that is why Gödel’s proof is wrong.


You can see an in-depth examination of this assumption of equivalence at The Flaw in Gödel’s proof of his Incompleteness theorem; note that the function represented on this page by BN(x) is referred to on that page as Z(n), while the function represented on this page by GN(x) is referred to on that page as Φ(n).


See also the page English translation of Gödel’s original proof) 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 Gödel’s Proposition V, which shows that Gödel’s Proposition V leads to a blatant contradiction, and the page Gödel’s contradiction. And for a fully detailed formal analysis of Gödel’s paper, see The Fundamental Flaw in Gödel’s Proof, where there is now an additional section that gives a brief summary of the underlying illogical assumption that the proof relies on, so that the reader can see in a few pages that the proof is flawed.





Interested in supporting this site?

You can help by sharing the site with others. You can also donate at Go Get Funding: Logic and Language where there are full details.



As site owner I reserve the right to keep my comments sections as I deem appropriate. I do not use that right to unfairly censor valid criticism. My reasons for deleting or editing comments do not include deleting a comment because it disagrees with what is on my website. Reasons for exclusion include:
Frivolous, irrelevant comments.
Comments devoid of logical basis.
Derogatory comments.
Long-winded comments.
Comments with excessive number of different points.
Questions about matters that do not relate to the page they post on. Such posts are not comments.
Comments with a substantial amount of mathematical terms not properly formatted will not be published unless a file (such as doc, tex, pdf) is simultaneously emailed to me, and where the mathematical terms are correctly formatted.

Reasons for deleting comments of certain users:
Bulk posting of comments in a short space of time, often on several different pages, and which are not simply part of an ongoing discussion. Multiple anonymous user names for one person.
Users, who, when shown their point is wrong, immediately claim that they just wrote it incorrectly and rewrite it again - still erroneously, or else attack something else on my site - erroneously. After the first few instances, further posts are deleted.
Users who make persistent erroneous attacks in a scatter-gun attempt to try to find some error in what I write on this site. After the first few instances, further posts are deleted.

Difficulties in understanding the site content are usually best addressed by contacting me by e-mail.


Based on HashOver Comment System by Jacob Barkdull

Copyright   James R Meyer   2012 - 2024