>>16514653
Because he himself was a midwit who made up a midwit theorem.

>>16514653
because arithmetic naturally extends to other areas of mathematics. You endow natural numbers with an identity and an inverse and you get integers. You define multiplication and get the field of rationals. You algebraically complete them and you get algebraic numbers. You topologically complete them and you get the real/complex numbers. You take Cartesian products and you get vector spaces. You define symmetric bilinear forms and get (pseudo-)Euclidean spaces. You endow those with a metric and you get Riemannian manifolds. And so on and so forth.

>>16514715
Arithmetics is beyond nature and universe, therefore many systems in our world could be complete

>>16514715
i understood some of those words

>>16514653
godels entire theory "proof" is an appeal to probability lmfao

>>16514655
-find exact solution to einstein field equations for rotating universe
-dont believe in quantum mechanics (according to Wheeler)
-become a based schizo in later life
-think poison was being put in his food and starve to death

^^^ arguably non-midwit type things/traits

>>16515275
>-dont believe in quantum mechanics (according to Wheeler)
that explains why the were such buddies with Einstein

>>16515454
No, my computer does Boolean logic and happens to be good at arithmetics(not entirely though)

>>16514653
because his conclusions apply to any formal system capable of encoding arithmetic

>>16515454
>arithmetic
modular arithmetic
unfortunately, computers aren't actually turing machines, but really fat finite-state machines

>>16514653
kind of a loaded question but extrapolation by itself isn't necessarily incorrect. When it gets tangled up with the whole post modern "objective truth is impossible" and they use him for that, I agree though.

>>16515275
You're right, he was a dimwit.

>>16514653
It applies to all formal axiomatic systems, not just arithmetic. Geometry also demonstrably has diagonals that can't never be rationally square to the base unit. Any attempt to formalize any system, you will run into issues of incompleteness according to the theorems.

>>16514892
>Arithmetics is beyond nature and universe
By how much?
How much nature is in one arithmetic or how many universes does it take to fill one arithmetic?

>>16516744
wat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_axioms

>>16516790
Infinity is not actually complete and never possibly could be, though, it is not a specific value, but an ambiguous limit that has an incompletable amount of potential expansion there is no way to completely bridge the gap between the first axiom and the last axiom in a system with infinitely many axioms. You can't actually use his system to predict the last decimal of square root 2, so it definitely is not completely predicative of geometrical implications.

I love how much he makes materialist midwits seethe.

>>16515501
This should have another theorem and proof, if it's truthful

>>16517643
This

Both Gödel and Tarski were charlatans. Oddly, John von Neumann was taken in by the act.
> “Kurt Gödel's achievement in modern logic is singular and monumental – indeed it is more than a monument, it is a landmark which will remain visible far in space and time. ... The subject of logic has certainly completely changed its nature and possibilities with Gödel's achievement."
—John von Neumann” [1]
In fact, the damage Gödel and Tarski did was immense, and we can see the ruinous destruction in the following works:
The New Turing Omnibus by A. K. Dewdney
Elements of Set Theory by Herbert Enderton
Set Theory by Thomas Jech
Language, Proof, and Logic by Dave Barker-Plummer, Jon Barwise, and John Etchemendy
If you want some idea of how mathematics actually proceeds, check out A Shorter Model Theory by Wilfrid Hodges.
If you want to listen to some music by Jonn Serrie, try Planetary Chronicles vol 1 & 2. [2]
I bring this up because the topic has nontrivial intersections with Bolshevism, the film Interstellar (2014), the so-called "four color theorem" and the authority of "truth." [3]
In fact, it's relevant to observe that Judaism is a truth system, and truth in the context of the Seven Laws of Noah refers to the judgements of courts of Justice. [4]
There are essentially two tricks that can be used to absolutely FLAY both Gödel and Tarski: Gödel uses sets of formulas instead of formula schemas, attempting to use infinity to get mathematical logic to eat its own tail and falling victim to
>>16516796
whereas Tarski actually tries to give a mathematical definition of truth that conflicts with the ordinary meta-mathematical definition, "follows from the axioms." [5]
In fact, Eazy-E made a video about these "studio mathematicians." [6]
Truly, Gödel and Tarski are Snoop and Dre.

>>16520287
cont.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7601013-kurt-g-del-s-achievement-in-modern-logic-is-singular-and-monumental
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADnxyLVVZUk "Jonn Serrie - Planetary Chronicles Vol. 1 & 2 [1980s] (Full Compilations)"
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHRLQOGLxR8 "Convert to Judaism or be a Noahide?" and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Tarski's_semantics
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuapp9SORA "Eazy-E - Real Muthaphuckkin G's (Music Video)"

It's all just platos cave. We can only know what we experience, what the human mind can at least and we will never have the whole picture. He didn't come up with anything new.

>>16520289
cont.
If you want some context for the intellectual environment in which Gödel and Tarski existed, as a matter of, as Louis Menand says, taking historical criticism to be a matter of putting history back in the original context in which it occurred, take up Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism. [7]
Here is the scene from Interstellar I'm talking about. [8]
In the film The Matrix (1999) why does The Oracle look like Hannah Arendt, and why does Morpheus look like Danny Tenaglia? [9]
In the book Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, how are Bolshevism and cinema related to military training, simulated combat, and deception?
For an example of the rhetorical trick Arendt refers to, listen to Decepticon. [10]
For more historical context, as well as an example of anti-mythology / anti-folklore, check out Tradition Betrayed, Knowledge and the Sacred, and The Giver by Lois Lowry. [11] [12] [13]
I suspect Nasr is correct in estimating that this brainwashing business goes back to ancient Greece and Egypt, so it is worth turning a critical eye on Hermeticism and Hermetic Philosophy as well in a work such as The Kybalion by Three Initiates. [14]
Zardoz (1974) deals with these themes as well. [15]

>>16520310
cont.
[7] https://archive.org/details/TheOriginsOfTotalitarianism/page/n353/mode/2up
[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgtwCDy3SN0 "I Fear Time - Trying to Solve Equation With Both Hands Tied Behind Back Interstellar Movie 4K Scene"
[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ep50fB1HFc "Danny Tenaglia Boiler Room x Budweiser Miami DJ Set"
[10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voweFL6SXxw "DJ Morgan - Decepticon [Full Mix]"
[11] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_9G95Ozonw "Tradition betrayed ; the false prophets of modernism by Professor Harry Oldmeadow"
[12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPV0RC9CDis "Knowledge and the Sacred"
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giver
[14] https://archive.org/details/kybalionstudyofh00init/page/n7/mode/2up
[15] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4EESnKyRIY "Zardoz, Zed discovers the true nature of the Tabernacle"

>>16520305
Nasr expands Keats' equivalence of truth to beauty by equating or joining knowledge with ecstasy. He might say that you're continuing an intellectual process—which goes back millennia—whereby knowledge was divorced from ecstasy. In fact, your point about the allegory of the cave is apt because it makes essentially the same point: genuine knowledge is joined with the ecstasy of feeling the warmth of the sun. However, I would take it in another direction entirely and paraphrase as follows: we know by association with the ecstasy of feeling the sun's warmth. It is a mistake to take formal wordplay as a genuine method whereby we can arrive at knowing what is true because we already have experiencing the feeling of ecstasy for that purpose.

>>16514653
First of all, he didn't prove anything. He made a very abecedarian error in the form of Russel's Paradox. You can't form a valid syllogism with a self-referential term.

>>16520350
What is it about The Giver that makes it anti-mythology and anti-folklore? It foreshadows the 9/11 attack. It mystifies inter-generational teaching / knowledge transfer. In Lethal Speech by Roy Wagner, myth is about bringing novelty under the control of the word. It's about expanding the system whereby what we say gives meaning to experience and integrates it into the tapestry of society. Moreover, this process calms the mind, it brings about a sense of supreme bliss in the reassurance that we are complete and whole in a society that is complete and whole, and moreover mythology and folklore expand and extend the power of the word to conquer all. The Giver is a magic trick. Instead of integrating something into tradition, and thereby making tradition greater, renewing it, The Giver is a model of the trick we know from Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism. It cheapens, debases, and degrades our society the same way totalitarian movements did in the first half of the twentieth century. It then suggests that the way to arrive at some coherent natural and social order is by cursing someone, the Receiver, with a confusing phantasmagoria. By depicting society itself, The Giver falls into the same self-referential trap that Gödel, Tarski, and the twentieth century totalitarians did: we are supposed to take a model of society as Truth.

>>16520412
cont.
This is a matter of enslavement and destruction of society, not a matter of strengthening our traditions and renewing our faith in them. We find in Lowry's depiction of society a problem of self-reference created by our suspicion that she has taken social criticism and rendered it as horror / satire. How does this differ from the choices Voltaire used in penning Candide? Well, for starters, Candide amuses and delights us by lampooning Leibniz and his "best of all possible worlds." Finally, after subjecting the optimistic Dr. Pangloss to a picaresque series of misadventures, Voltaire runs him through by imploring us with the Satanic admonition, "we must cultivate our garden" i.e. we must do the work that corresponds to the original theory of transformation and transcendance of the self, in particular overcoming through faith the limitations we impose on ourselves through doubt, disappointment, setback, and so on, and by internalizing the same that others impose on us. Work transforms us (transmutes, in the language of Hermetic Alchemy) into something greater than we are. If this is the best of all possible worlds, then right now, I, myself, must be the best of all possible selves, suggesting that we need not work as it won't make any difference. Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains why this is a bad attitude and how it's connected to TV in two dharma talks. [1] [2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8M-_Msav1Q "040920 Disenchantment & Dispassion \ \ Thanissaro Bhikkhu \ \ Dhamma Talks"
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnrnbD8GSeI "111222 Counter cultural Values \ \ Thanissaro Bhikkhu \ \ Dhamma Talks"

>>16520413
cont.
By the way, some related material: Thanissaro Bhikkhu recites Ajaan Lee "Consciousnesses"
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/consciousnesses.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w8SVayCess "090106 Ajaan Lee Conciousnesses \ \ Thanissaro Bhikkhu \ \ Dhamma Talks"
To vastly oversimplify: by optimism we understand that everything is perfect, we've already arrived at our greatest self; through this teaching of Ajaan Lee, we come to the contrary understanding that it is by our own effort and persistence that we will transcend our own self, which was just a packet of falsehoods and limitations we either imposed on ourselves or internalized as criticism others gave us, and we understand a self as waste material to be jettisoned.

File: sad_old_pepe.jpg (22 KB, 400x400)

22 KB JPG

>>16514653
Because their understanding is not significatively better than a chimp doing what other chimps do. Simple as.

File: A.K. Dewdney - The New Tu(...).pdf (1004 KB, PDF)

1004 KB PDF

>>16520426
I know I must be breaking some law by comparing mathematical study to buying and selling cocaine, but the fact remains: Eazy-E took Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg to task because there is huge legal risk associated with buying and selling cocaine and then rapping about it and selling records, but if there is no actual criminal miscounduct (i.e. it's all make-believe) then the risk is substantially mitigated. As a mark of its authenticity, Eazy expresses an underlying nervousness and anxiety about the whole endeavor that is simultaneously suppressed and channeled as intimidating aggression in the line, "Don't quote me boy, 'cause I ain't said shit." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDX2eB3IdV8 "Eazy-E (Cruisin' In My 64)"
Anyway, there is a similar boundary in the thread topic: on the one hand we have genuine investigation in the mathematical and logical work that came before Gödel and Tarski, and once Gödel's self-referential logic and Tarski's semantics of truth are introduced, the same error, mistaking a symbol of truth for the genuine article, can be repeated again and again, just as a "studio gangster" can tell a made up story, copying the style and attitude as expressed by others, to cover up make-believe passed off as truthfully transmitted wisdom gained from hard earned experience.
See pdf related for an example of this: A. K. Dewdney is repeating the self-referential logic meme.
Can you imagine? I'm calling skill in buying and selling cocaine "truthfully transmitted wisdom gained from hard earned experience." However, there is one last note that must attend the entire discussion: we can't make this about race in any simple way because of Easy Rider (1969). Yes, we really were so stupid as to lionize a cocaine dealer back then. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlfpTppsR0U "Easy Rider | Original Trailer [HD] | Coolidge Corner Theatre"

File: Jon Ronson - The Psychopa(...).jpg (352 KB, 893x1179)

352 KB JPG

>>16520447
Oh, I can't believe I have to do this, but so it goes: Douglas Hofstadter is another chimp repeating Gödel's self-referential logic meme in his book Gödel, Escher, Bach. What you won't find on Wikipedia, however, is some information revealed in Jon Ronson's The Psychopath Test. See pic related.
The wiki article for A. K. Dewdney, however, reveals this:
> Dewdney was a member of the 9/11 truth movement, and theorized that the planes used in the September 11 attacks had been emptied of passengers and were flown by remote control.
What I'm suggesting now is that we can link a cocaine dealer's lifestyle, sex outside marriage, a harem of beautiful french women, and the 9/11 truth movement to Gödel's self-referential logic, Tarski's semantics of truth, and the propaganda and indoctrination Hannah Arendt details in The Origins of Totalitarianism. It's as if we're being treated to case studies of "if God doesn't exist, then anything is possible / everything is permitted."

You know, this stuff doesn't get any better. You're better off shutting your computer down at this point. A vaporwave album by Internet Club, "Liberated From the World" had a unique trajectory. [1] It produced not only a copycat album, "Floral Shoppe 2" by The Darkest Future, but after the composer sensed it produced extreme backlash, a defense of the album was written. [2] [3]
The crux of the defense is an observation about repetition, familiarity, enjoyment, and pleasure,
>The weirdest thing about this whole experiment is how I have actually grown to enjoy 新しいデラックスライフ - ▣世界から解放され▣ over the past week after listening to it well over ten times in full, finding new things to enjoy about it with every listen.
At issue here is how we distinguish between what is genuine and good from what is artificial and fake.
In fact, what's going on here is an example of what Cronin and Seltzer call a "grand tautology" in Call It Sleep: that which is good exists, and that which exists is good. [4]
The idea here is to explore what happens to our perception of human behavior when there's no quality control.
Actually, Buddhism has a meta-physics that takes this up, it's called the five aggregates. [5]

>>16520505
cont.
The point Cronin and Seltzer make is that there's a possibility for totalitarian values and practice to find its way into consumer society and capitalism via the commodity: when conformity overrides common sense and quality control for purchasing decisions, it is possible to turn a consumer economy into a planned economy. This is a principle that Edward Bernays exploited when he advised corporations to publicly communicate in an essentially hypnotic and subversive way so as to exploit desire when selling products.
From a Buddhist perspective, this amounts to considering the society of the spectacle as a shared hallucination. If your target audience doesn't know what the five aggregates of clinging are, then a talented Wizard of Oz figure can craft a toxic media brew that tantalizes by stimulating form, sensation, perception, influences of a previous life, and consciousness. This is a matter, as Thanissaro Bhikkhu says, of hijacking the parts of the mind that create the world, the Buddhist-naïve experiencer thinking this world creating business is entirely passive, so that to him or her, the manifestation of clinging and craving (which the Buddhist understands as the mechanism that gives the second noble truth its teeth) appears to be a magic trick. [6]
[1] https://internetclub.bandcamp.com/album/- "▣世界から解放され▣ by 新しいデラックスライフ"
[2] https://dreamcatalogue.bandcamp.com/album/floral-shoppe-2 "Floral Shoppe 2 by The Darkest Future"
[3] https://archive.is/To6gW "AN EXPLANATION OF ‘FLORAL SHOPPE 2′"
[4] https://archive.org/details/call_it_sleep_situ Call It Sleep by Isaac Cronin and Terrel Seltzer
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

>>16514653
Because they likely actually understand the philosophical implications of it.

File: 200.gif (122 KB, 266x200)

122 KB GIF

>>16520515
>unspeakable philosophical implications
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMxX_AlUzOQ "Pinky and The Brain - Intro Theme Tune Animated Titles"
obligatory
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.1607/page/n5/mode/2up "Edward L. Bernays - Crystallizing Public Opinion"

>>16514653
Literary everything is based on arithmetics.

>>16521825
No.

>>16515003
Prove it

>>16521984
Yea

>>16516744
Plane geometry is completely axiomatizable and decidable though

>>16522949
no.

>>16522968
yeah, cause it can't into arithmetic

>>16514892
>Arithmetics is beyond nature and universe, therefore many systems in our world could be complete
Not if they can encode arithmetic.

>>16522947
you are a midwit lmfao, if you were 140+ VIQ then you'd know

>>16514653
Test

>>16523844
the underline assumption here is that god is all good

File: Screenshot 2024-12-25 at (...).png (9 KB, 653x35)

9 KB PNG

part of the syntax summarized by chatgpt (i dont know philosophy syntax) just fallacies and shit but this is an appeal to probability

>>16523842
prove your shit, einstein wannabe

>>16523671
Not even arithmetic can encode all arithmetic, its why we have had to come up with nonsense like infinite, infinitesimals, irrational constants, continuous functions, imaginary dimensions and whatnot to fill in some of the numerical gaps left by standard arithmetic.

>>16515275
>become a based schizo in later life
You are an actual moron. Cease posting.

>>16514715
>You topologically complete them and you get the real/complex numbers.
No such thing as topological completion.

>>16524097
I just responded you didnt see it lmfao

>>16514653
>OP considers Roger Penrose a "midwit"
Bold assertion you have there.

>>16515275
>rotating universe
Worthless toy model

>>16524628
Einstein thought it was a great fucking birthday gift

Gödel himself was, in fact, a midwit who extrapolated his philosophical theory (which does not qualify as a genuine mathematical theorem) to everything, in particular society and religion. We should regard Gödel as a philosopher, guru, or saint and his theory as based in Zoroastrian duality.
Perhaps the simplest, most succinct way of refuting his theory as a mathematical theorem is observing that formula schemas are not sets of formulas. Formula schemas are finite and subject to the rewriting rules of meta-mathematics. Sets of objects that have been defined to be "formulas" are infinite and subject to the axioms of set theory, usually taken to be ZFC. In fact, it is unhygienic to use this terminology as it creates confusion arising from whether the ordinary meta-mathematical interpretation of "formula" is correct or the defined mathematical interpretation is. It might be best to refer to such sets as "f-symbols" (where "f" stands for "formula") or, perhaps with more style, "phi-symbols" (where the Greek phi refers to a common variable name for what Model theory calls a formula).
Moreover, Gödel introduced the spurious concept "self-referential sentence" without actually stating the underlying phenomena. This puts him at the same level as Wittgenstein: the self-referntial sentence is a language or symbol game instead of logic per se.
In fact, we can regard Gödel and Wittgenstein as pseudo-totalitarians in this way and read Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism as putting meat on the philosophical bones that Gödel and Wittgenstein uncovered.

File: 骷-skeleton-skeleton-Cover(...).jpg (109 KB, 600x593)

109 KB JPG

>>16524657
[cont.]
Nasr in his book and talk Knowledge and the Sacred provides historical context going back all the way to ancient Greece; to fit him into the discussion, equate the separation of knowledge from ecstasy with confusing symbol with object. If we take a symbol to be the object itself, then we get a meaningless infinite regress of symbols refering to symbols refering to symbols.
Tarski goes even further than Gödel and originates a semantic theory of truth using the same sort of practice.
Edward L. Bernays originated a style of hacking or hijacking the "world / reality generation" of the five aggregates of Buddhism (skandhas) and defended the practice in such works as The Engineering of Consent, Crystallizing Public Opinion, and Propaganda. The principle here is to economically exploit those who are easily manipulated by subliminal advertising: they make purcahses based on feelings and desires planted in the mind of the purchaser by advertising.
Perhaps astonishingly, vaporwave has developed as a sort of antidote or even Islamification (if we regard Islam as containing and limiting the spread of Christianity) that works by recontextualizing and altering parameters such as pitch or playback speed to ridicule and expose such subliminal techniques for the purpose of inoculation, in essence treating subliminal advertisement as the Wizard in The Wizard of Oz and pulling back the mask, revealing the man behind the curtain who operates the machine that creates the Wizard illusion. The VHS LOGOS Marinate Mix is an example of this vaporwave technique. [1] Cronin and Seltzer's Call It Sleep provides some of the intellectual background while showing off an early example of vaporwave's aesthetic style.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLIJ6xlNSEU "VHS LOGOS - Marinate Mix"

>>16514653

1. Epistemology: The Limits of Justification
In epistemology, Gödel’s theorem is metaphorically used to explore the problem of epistemic justification. If you think of a formal system as analogous to a structured system of knowledge or belief, the theorem suggests the following:

There will always be truths that cannot be justified within the system itself.
Translation: No epistemic framework can fully justify itself without external inputs. Foundationalists aim for "basic beliefs," but Gödel’s theorem warns us of the limits of any axiomatic starting point.
Gödel resonates with the Münchhausen Trilemma: A system of justification must ultimately rely on one of three options—circular reasoning, infinite regress, or an unprovable foundation.
So, while Gödel doesn’t directly prove epistemic systems are incomplete, he highlights analogous problems with self-justification in any framework of reasoning.

2. Philosophy of Mind: Human Cognition vs. Formal Systems
Gödel’s theorem is often invoked in debates about the nature of human cognition, particularly in discussions about whether the mind is equivalent to a machine or a formal system.

Roger Penrose famously argued that Gödel’s theorems show human thought transcends formal logic:

A formal system (like a computer) cannot resolve all true mathematical statements.
Yet humans seem capable of grasping truths outside formal systems. This suggests the mind has a non-algorithmic aspect, pointing toward something beyond mechanistic computation.
Philosophical relevance: Gödel challenges materialist views of the mind as a purely computational entity.

3. Metaphysics: Ontological Limits
Gödel’s theorem also feeds into metaphysical debates about the nature of reality, completeness, and truth.

Philosophers like Hilary Putnam and Ludwig Wittgenstein have drawn on Gödel to question whether there can ever be a "complete theory of everything."
Gödel suggests that any sufficiently complex system of thought or knowledge will leave something out—an idea that resonates with concepts of ontological incompleteness.
Gödel in Philosophy Is Valid—When Applied Properly
Here’s the catch: these applications are analogical. Philosophers aren’t saying Gödel’s theorem directly applies to epistemic systems or metaphysics in the strict sense. Rather, they use its structure and insights as a framework to better understand similar limits in their fields.

The problem with "midwit" interpretations is the lack of rigor—they jump to sloppy conclusions like, "All knowledge is incomplete, so nothing matters, lol." Gödel’s ideas are profound because they highlight constraints, but the philosophical use requires careful application—not a hammer to smash every intellectual nail.

tldr : OP is materialist brainlet who cant understand metaphysics. sorry champ, you need an IQ of 140 minimum.

Knowledge -> Ecstasy
When knowledge is separated from ecstasy, we get a meaningless infinite regress of knowledge referring to itself with no end in sight.
Knowledge -> Knowledge -> Knowledge -> ...
Nasr talks about a spiritual crisis in what I've termed the "critical period" bounded by the founding of Rome around 750 BC and the annexation of Egypt in 30 BC. [1]
Compare to the line from Call It Sleep, "The spectacle is the grand totality, it says, ‘that which is good exists and that which exists is good.’" [2]
Here is how this idea presented in Call It Sleep and Knowledge and the Sacred are linked: in a Zoroastrain context (take Roman democracy in the critical period as the exemplar) the fundamental meta-physical activity is bimodal or transistor decision-making, distinguishing between good and bad, light and darkness. Knowledge is good when it is true, and we know truth by ecstasy.

>>16524694
[cont.]
When knowledge is divorced from ecstasy, we have no way to use our feelings to distinguish good from bad. This leads to rejecting decision-making that distinguishes good from bad, and in its place we simply declare everything to be good. Moreover, instead of narrowly treating Zoroastrian bimodal decision-making theory as an operating principle for policy, governance, or election of public officials, a principle of political unity, we are asked to treat the whole world and everything in it that exists as good. In other words we are asked to remove the concept of good from its original context, a meta-physical theory, and treat ordinary living as a Zoroastrian LARP.
If we're really being honest with ourselves, that which is good doesn't exist at all, and we know this because good vs. bad is a concept of voting, and voting is a personal decision, a matter of personal judgement. It is only in the context of voting and tallying the votes that good vs. bad has meaning.
[1] https://youtu.be/IPV0RC9CDis?si=qCcGqfwqGzxNDy1E&t=890 "Knowledge and the Sacred" +15:00
[2] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/isaac-cronin-and-terrel-seltzer-call-it-sleep "Call It Sleep"

>>16524695
If you want an example of Zoroastrian LARPing, look no further than Leibniz's monad and best of all possible worlds. Voltaire reacted to this early form of totalitarian thought with his satire Candide. Satire is still an effective antidote, and Arendt employed it in The Origins of Totalitarianism.
In fact, satire was used again in Idiocracy (2006) to attack the same target. This time around, Dr. Pangloss has been replaced by the state and society. If we're being cute, then we could say that Idiocracy is Candide plus Le Guin's science fiction extrapolation technique from the introduction to The Left Hand of Darkness.
>In the introduction to her book The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin writes that “Science fiction is often described, and even defined, as extrapolative. The science fiction writer is supposed to take a trend or phenomenon of the here-and-now, purify and intensify it for dramatic effect, and extend it into the future. ‘If this goes on, this is what will happen.'” [1]
[1] https://mechanicaldolphin.com/2021/01/06/its-not-about-tomorrow-1-ursula-le-guin/

File: harvard_shield.jpg (151 KB, 984x899)

151 KB JPG

>>16524703
Suppose this isn't 4chan and we're taking a First-Year Seminar on the thread topic titled, "From Zoroaster to Gödel: a Grand Tour of Bimodal Decision-Making" at Harvard. The midterm consists of a single prompt: relate Fredric Brown's short short story Answer to the concepts, ideas, and themes that have been introduced so far.
---cut here---
Dwan Ev ceremoniously soldered the final connection with gold. The eyes of a dozen television cameras watched him and the subether bore throughout the universe a dozen pictures of what he was doing.
He straightened and nodded to Dwar Reyn, then moved to a position beside the switch that would complete the contact when he threw it. The switch that would connect, all at once, all of the monster computing machines of all the populated planets in the universe -- ninety-six billion planets -- into the supercircuit that would connect them all into one supercalculator, one cybernetics machine that would combine all the knowledge of all the galaxies.
Dwar Reyn spoke briefly to the watching and listening trillions. Then after a moment's silence he said, "Now, Dwar Ev."
Dwar Ev threw the switch. There was a mighty hum, the surge of power from ninety-six billion planets. Lights flashed and quieted along the miles-long panel.
Dwar Ev stepped back and drew a deep breath. "The honor of asking the first question is yours, Dwar Reyn."
"Thank you," said Dwar Reyn. "It shall be a question which no single cybernetics machine has been able to answer."
He turned to face the machine. "Is there a God?"
The mighty voice answered without hesitation, without the clicking of a single relay.
"Yes, now there is a God."
Sudden fear flashed on the face of Dwar Ev. He leaped to grab the switch.
A bolt of lightning from the cloudless sky struck him down and fused the switch shut.
(Fredric Brown, "Answer")

I don't understand Gödels incompleteness theorem. What does it imply?

>>16524716
[via chatgpt]
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems are two landmark results in mathematical logic that show fundamental limitations in formal systems, especially those that are powerful enough to describe arithmetic (like Peano arithmetic). Here's a breakdown of what these theorems imply:
1. Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem:
This theorem states that in any consistent formal system that is capable of expressing basic arithmetic (like addition and multiplication), there will always be true statements that cannot be proven within the system.
Implication: There are truths about numbers (and other mathematical structures) that cannot be derived from the system’s axioms. No matter how complete or sophisticated the system, it will never be able to prove everything that is true within its scope.
For example, there might be a statement about natural numbers that is true, but there is no sequence of logical steps (according to the system’s rules) that can prove it.

>>16524743
[cont.]
2. Gödel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem:
This theorem goes even further, showing that no consistent system of arithmetic can prove its own consistency. In other words, if a system is consistent (meaning it doesn't lead to contradictions), it cannot prove that it is consistent using only its own rules and axioms.
Implication: A formal system cannot internally guarantee its own reliability if it's capable of arithmetic. For instance, you can’t use the rules of arithmetic to prove that you won’t accidentally derive a contradiction within the system itself. The only way to prove the consistency of the system would be to step outside the system, which leads to a paradox of sorts.
What do these theorems mean for mathematics and logic?
Limitations of Formal Systems: Gödel’s theorems show that no single formal system (like set theory or Peano arithmetic) can ever be both complete and consistent if it is rich enough to encompass arithmetic. This is a major blow to the idea of a complete, fully self-contained system for all of mathematics.
Truth vs. Proof: The theorems highlight a distinction between truth and provability. A statement can be true in a mathematical sense, but it may not necessarily be provable using the system’s axioms and rules. This reveals that mathematical truth is bigger than formal proof. There are true mathematical facts that lie beyond the reach of formal systems.

>>16524746
[cont.]
Philosophical Impact: The Incompleteness Theorems have philosophical implications, especially in the philosophy of mathematics. They challenge the notion of mathematical Platonism (the belief that mathematical objects exist independently of human thought) and the idea that all mathematical truths can, in principle, be discovered via logical deduction from a fixed set of axioms.
Analogy to Help Understand:
Imagine a book that contains all the rules of a game and all the ways to play it. Gödel’s First Theorem says that no matter how many rules you write down, there will always be some moves or strategies that are true but cannot be derived from the rules in the book. Gödel’s Second Theorem says that you cannot use the book’s own rules to prove that the book doesn’t contain any contradictions—this would require looking outside the book for proof.
In Summary:
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems reveal deep limitations of formal logical systems:
There are true statements that can't be proven within the system.
The system can't prove its own consistency if it's powerful enough to express arithmetic.
These results emphasize that formal systems, no matter how sophisticated, are always incomplete and their reliability cannot be guaranteed by the system itself.

File: 6c94142c-9903-4651-a98a-f(...).jpg (190 KB, 1024x1024)

190 KB JPG

Prompt: Godel incompleteness theorem
Style: Photograph

>>16514653
>implies veritasium is a midwit
unfathomably based

>>16524523
>chatgpt

>>16524667
>Word salad without a point
>Op is a midwit

>>16524628
>rotating universe
>Worthless toy model
No, getting time travel out of GR was a neat first

>>16525257
Yeah, the Godel Metric is mentioned in many big GR texts, Hawking discussed it in "The Large Scale Structure of Space-time" and also wrote the intro to G's paper on it included in "The Collected Works of Kurt Godel".

>>16525206
its to confirm my reason, if you were high iq youd know im right

>>16523395
yes.
name something not based on arithmetics

His theorem only applies to diagonal arguments, self referencing nonsense. Those do not work.

>>16524274
finitists on suicide watch

According to Roger Penrose, Godel's work supports Penrose's view that the human mind is non computational...much like how G himself asserted that the mind surpasses any machine and supported that with his theorems (as mentioned in Hao Wang's definitive work Recollections of Kurt Godel). I would say those assertions are claiming a bit more than skeptics in this thread can cope with.

File: DealWithIt.jpg (13 KB, 300x168)

13 KB JPG

>>16525700
If you read "THE CONSISTENCY OF THE AXIOM OF CHOICE AND OF THE
GENERALIZED CONTINUUM-HYPOTHESIS" then you can see that Gödel was completely full of shit. [1] We shouldn't be all that surprised, either, PNAS is where you go to publish your crap if nobody else will take it. I wouldn't be surprised if Gödel submitted this short note to real mathematical journals, but they wouldn't take it because it's meaningless nonsense.
Gödel was a fraud. Deal with it.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.24.12.556

File: JechPage157.pdf (136 KB, PDF)

136 KB PDF

>>16525762
Jech never defines "formal proof of contradiction." Why is this? Instead of doing the work, defining the terms he is going to use, he just waves his hands.
WHY DOESN'T JECH DEFINE HIS TERMS?

>>16525664
you do know that turing's proof for the halting problem relies on a diagonal argument, right?

>>16525597
See:
>>16516790

>>16525664
You're confusing self-referential language games with a diagonal argument like "P(X) does not have the same cardinality as X."
Here is a short proof that P(X) has greater cardinality than X: suppose on the contrary that f : X <-> P(X) is a bijection. Let Y = { x <- X : x </- f(x) }. Let t = f^-1(Y). Now consider the cases t <- f(t) and t </- f(t).
Case 1. If t <- f(t), then t <- Y, so by definition of Y, t </- f(t) = Y, a contradiction.
Case 2. If t </- f(t), then t <- Y, also by definition, so t <- f(t), hence t </- Y, again a contradiction.

>>16524755
Povverfull

>>16514892
>Arithmetics is beyond nature and universe
lol no
math cannot violate the laws of termodynamics

>>16528185
0 kelvins minus 6 kelvins equals negative 6 kelvins

>>16525664
You say bullshit

>>16514653
Because most people are retarded and have a surface level understanding of mathematics. I can't wait for the neo-feudalists to bring the middle class to heel and make them do jobs that aren't tied to academia.

>>16514653
Anything that can be encoded in terms of arithmetic would be affected as well, which includes computation-related stuff and hence "the world outside".

>>16528185
There are infinitely more digits in a single irrational number than there are atoms in the universe, you could literally fill up the universe trying to represent a decimal expansion of sqrt(2).

>>16532564
>>16514892

It's worth pointing out that Gödel's error is a matter of unhygienic math research, selling snake oil, and wordplay. The latter two he has in common with the German nazi regime, later exposed through Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism. The first is carried over to this day in model theory via 1. referring to meta-mathematical object formulas (the ordinary meaning of formula) and mathematical object formulas (only introduced in model theory) using the same term, namely formula 2. referring to meta-mathematical true (ordinary meaning) and mathematical definition phi is true in x (only taught in model theory) using the same term, namely true. The C compiler catches such errors and returns them to the user as "reserved keyword may not be used for an identifier" where we liken reserved C keywords to terms with meta-mathematical meaning such as formula, variable, true, and false and C identifiers such as names of variables, constants, and routines to terms with mathematical definitions such as group and identity element.
Since the unhygienic approach or some other debasement of work is used when covering Gödel's theory, and since Gödel's own work is so shoddy and of such poor quality, we can hypothesize that Gödel's standard is on par with Freud's, namely Gödel's work is cocaine-addict tier and not to be trusted. It's remarkable how many authors have tried to make sense of his work while falling victim to his unhygienic approach.
We can conclude that, without a hygienic math research approach, efforts to elucidate Gödel's work will fall flat.
However, as a matter of poetry, meta-physics, and science fiction, there are plenty of rich sources for ironic or dramatic effect to be found in his work, semi-intuitionistically, of course.

>>16515275
>-think poison was being put in his food and starve to death
Woman trait

>>16533696
> atoms in the universe
>>16532564
> "the world outside".
>>16528185
> the laws of termodynamics
>>16514892
> beyond nature and universe
the meta-physics boards are /lit/ and /his/, and you will find anons there who are well-read and knowledgable

>>16535987
It's just physics at this point, you should be a fool to believe that the entirity of arithmetics is present in our universe

>>16536012
you have /lit/ and /his/ for discussion of this meta-physical point, so take it there, and you will find people who are both well-read and knowledgeable
there is no point to discussing a topic in the company of people who are not learned in its background
Gödel, for example, was both a mathematical and meta-physical poseur / provocateur
I suppose he could be compared to Nietzsche.
Gödel refused to keep meta-physics out of his work; his work wasn't rigorous at all, actually, as it was a product of misunderstanding, a linguistic magic trick intended to fool others into drinking his snake oil.
The reason to avoid discussing meta-physics on /sci/ is that scientists and mathematicians aren't well read, learned, or knowledgable in the relevant background material.
Gödel was trying to fool people, like a totalitarian despot or cult leader. A lot of people who should've known better fell for his tricks. Why didn't they? Well, they didn't learn about the history of such tricks and how they've been used over the millennia.
The reason to avoid discussing the topic here is that you will find plenty of fools who have spent their time doing something other than learning the tricks of the crystal ball business, and are thus ill-equipped to handle discussion of meta-physics.
> the entirity of arithmetics is present in our universe
this is a meta-physical point; it isn't a matter of physics or science

>>16536039
Physics and metaphysics borders are very vague

>>16535983
WRONG! He was such a man that he relied on his woman to cook for him and when she was in the hospital died of starvation because he would never do such woman work himself.

>>16514653
Doesn't his theorem just state that if you can count, add, and multiply numbers in the usual mathematical way, then there must be a pesky theorem that can't be proven by manipulating symbols in theorems about numbers?

But in any field other than math, we have units, and we don't multiply in the usual way, so Godel is irrelevant, right?

As an exercise, try finding a Godel statement in compass, straight-edge euclidean geometry.

>>16536540
>But in any field other than math, we have units, and we don't multiply in the usual way, so Godel is irrelevant, right?

I suppose Godel puts an upper bound on how meaningful mixed units can be in physics.

>>16535983
U are idiot

>>16514653
It's simple logic and reason: person A living in a box can never have the overview of person B living outside the box. A thing can only be fully understood in relationship to something else. A knife can never fully understand itself because a knife isn't an object of its own cutting. A mind can not fully understand the mind because it has nothing outside itself to compare itself to. This not rocket science. This is not woo-woo. This is just how logic, reason and language function: by comparison and therefore can't grasp a thing-in-itself.

>>16536540
>As an exercise, try finding a Godel statement in compass, straight-edge euclidean geometry.


dont you just take the five basic constructions in compass geometry as transfer rules in a language along with the valid starting conditions, interpret every possible ruler-and-compass construction as a string of these basic construction rules on these starting conditions, and then godel number them such that some string has the same number-theoretic properties that is impossible when translated back into geometry

File: images.png (8 KB, 225x225)

8 KB PNG

>>16537720
don't you just take the artificial intelligence and put it in the blender, hit frappe and pour it into a cup and put a straw in the cup and drink your thoughts out of the straw

Why are you so mad?

>>16525762
It's a note, not a proof, he describes what he did in the actual paper. The actual paper was published in the Annals and is over 50 pages long https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Consistency_of_the_Axiom_of_Choice_a.html?id=rXjGFI6IvvkC
You must be a troll.

>>16525765
>Why is this?
Because this is not a textbook on basic mathematical logic which covers theses things. It's only an extremely broad overview.
If you want to see those terms defined open an actual textbook on mathematical logic.
>Instead of doing the work, defining the terms he is going to use, he just waves his hands.
If you had the relevant background in mathematical logic you would know what he meant and how to make sense of the hand waving (and I agree with you it's hand waving).

>>16535981
>The first is carried over to this day in model theory via 1. referring to meta-mathematical object formulas (the ordinary meaning of formula) and mathematical object formulas (only introduced in model theory) using the same term, namely formula 2. referring to meta-mathematical true (ordinary meaning) and mathematical definition phi is true in x (only taught in model theory) using the same term, namely true. The C compiler catches such errors and returns them to the user as "reserved keyword may not be used for an identifier" where we liken reserved C keywords to terms with meta-mathematical meaning such as formula, variable, true, and false and C identifiers such as names of variables, constants, and routines to terms with mathematical definitions such as group and identity element
It's not just logicians and godel, all mathematicians do this. They refer to a matrix as an actual square of numbers, and as an idealized mathematical object. They refer to a binary expansion as both a metamathematical actual string of binary digits, and an idealized expansion which may not have a physical representation.

>>16536039
>Gödel refused to keep meta-physics out of his work
Wrong.
>his work wasn't rigorous at all
Wrong.
> as it was a product of misunderstanding, a linguistic magic trick intended to fool others into drinking his snake oil.
Wrong.
>Gödel was trying to fool people, like a totalitarian despot or cult leader
Wrong.
>A lot of people who should've known better fell for his tricks
There are no tricks.
You have no argument. You just keep seething about Godel because you refuse to actually try to understand him.

File: Tower.gif (2.39 MB, 240x135)

2.39 MB GIF

>>16538335
Gödel is the troll. In the first paragraph of the work you cite, he begins treating non-existent formulas as thought they existed. A class is a unary formula. Classes don't exist because they're formulas. Formulas are meta-mathematical objects. Sets are mathematical objects. You can say x = x when x is a set. It is meaningless to use the equals sign when either side is a formula; the equals sign does not indicate that two formulas (meta-mathematically, strings of symbols) are identical in the sense of having the same length and the same symbol at each ordinal position 1,2,...,n in the string, where n is the common length of the strings.
>>16538339
That isn't how math works, and you know it. You're simply refusing to admit that Jech abruptly inserts some bad philosophy into his math textbook. Why is this? I suppose it's for meme cred. I don't really know.
> If you want to see those terms defined open an actual textbook on mathematical logic.
No, the burden is on the author to define terms. You are treating the omission of a defined term as if it weren't suspicious. It is. Philosophy does not adhere to mathematical strictness in this way; there is much more leeway in philosophy to define some terms and not others; not so in mathematics. In math, a strict, exhaustive approach is used for defined terms. You don't get to simply skip the definition of some terms.
>>16538341
This is simply false, and moreover, you've refused to provide even a single instance of your claim. That's because you're full of it. You're desperately trying to save Gödel by resorting to weaker and weaker arguments, and it's clear that you're failing.
>>16538342
Here are Gödel's crimes: treating formulas as if they really existed, treating formula schemas as sets, and using the same term to refer to both meta-mathematical (non-existent from the point of view of mathematics) and mathematical objects, producing confusion.
> You just keep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vimZj8HW0Kg

>>16538515
>Classes don't exist because they're formulas. Formulas are meta-mathematical objects
Correct. Classes are a metamathematical things. You cannot quantify over all classes in mathematical claims. However, once you pick an individual class you can make mathematical claims related to it by substituting with the formula.
>You can say x = x when x is a set. It is meaningless to use the equals sign when either side is a formula
Technically correct. However, you can define X=Y to be a shorthand for the claim that for every x in X, x in Y and vice versa. Thus you're enabled to talk between sets and particularly chosen classes, or two particularly chosen classes.
>That isn't how math works, and you know it.
It's actually very common in math to skip things that the reader is assumed to have already covered.
>Here are Gödel's crimes: treating formulas as if they really existed
Formulas can be treated as mathematical objects and studied using mathematical methods. What is wrong with this?
>treating formula schemas as sets
Like where?

>>16538526
>>16538515
Actually I just opened the paper and it seems like he's treating classes as primitive objects of the theory. So in fact classes for him are not just formulas but mathematical objects, unlike in ZFC, where classes are simply formulas and not objects of the theory.
He's probably working in something like Von Neumann-Bernays-Godel set theory where classes are given citizen status
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Bernays%E2%80%93G%C3%B6del_set_theory
So your point about classes seems invalid to me.

>>16538526
> Like where?
I would restate what I typed thus: it is the practice of model theory to use sets of formulas, and you can find this in, for example, A Shorter Model Theory by Wilfrid Hodges. This means that the results of model theory pertain to a sort of math squared instead of modeling the way formulas and formula schemas are actually used in practice.
>>16538531
The use of NBG is suspicious, and that wiki article is even more suspicious.

>>16520305
He proved demonstrably that formal systems are either self-contradictory or contain ineffable truths. It's less a limitation of the human mind and more of a limitation of the system itself.

>>16538578
> He proved
You don't have a mathematical statement. You haven't defined any of
- formal system,
- self-contradictory, or
- ineffable truth.
In addition, you haven't said whether the theorem assumes the ZFC or NBG axioms.
This board is for science and math. Go to /lit/ or /his/ to indulge your hero worship.
If you want to define the terms here, then go right ahead; please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that a mathematical proof can demonstrate a non-mathematical statement that is vague and open to interpretation. If you only have an NBG proof and not a ZFC proof, that should also be stated at the outset.
The /lit/ and /his/ anons here are knowledgable in philosophy / meta-physics. If you don't want to define your terms or state your axioms, then you should go there.

>>16514653
Doesn't everything still work if you just say division is a social construct?

>>16538626
what? are we really on the timeline where anons claim that godel didnt do anything? if you have a computer program then the computer program cant talk about itself in its totality, not sure if you are literally denying this, or playing language games.

File: madG.jpg (33 KB, 220x296)

33 KB JPG

>>16538857
precode = """
code = 'precode = \\"\\"\\"' + precode.replace(chr(92),2 * chr(92)) + '\\"\\"\\"' + precode
print code,
"""
code = 'precode = \"\"\"' + precode.replace(chr(92),2 * chr(92)) + '\"\"\"' + precode
print code,

File: Willard_Van_Orman_Quine_o(...).jpg (137 KB, 649x829)

137 KB JPG

>>16538873
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing)

>>16514653
All systems are based on axioms that cannot be proven, no exceptions.

>>16514653
>>16514892
Because all of higher maths, physics and the physical universe, are all ontologically dependent on arithmetic

>>16514653
Gödel assumes that logic as we know it is consistent, using its supposed consistency to prove math is inconsistent. I'd argue however that not only is math inconsistent, but also logic itself. Think about this for example, in logic an object cannot both have a property p and have the property not p at the same time, (example: A chair is made of wood but also not made of wood). Yet in physical reality we can totally have that, a particle can be in two different places at the same time until observed, Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead until observed etc, so the world fundamentally does not obey the logic we or Kurt formulated.

>>16538569
>it is the practice of model theory to use sets of formulas
Yes.
>This means that the results of model theory pertain to a sort of math squared instead of modeling the way formulas and formula schemas are actually used in practice.
Huh? The results of model theory pertain to math, not math squared. Formulas become mathematical objects.
>The use of NBG is suspicious
How? NBG is known to be a conservative extension of ZF.
>and that wiki article is even more suspicious
How?

>>16538857
>are we really on the timeline where anons claim that godel didnt do anything?
No, it's just one anon who has been posting this for over a year now.
>if you have a computer program then the computer program cant talk about itself in its totality, not sure if you are literally denying this, or playing language games.
That's kinda meaningless?

>>16538956
Prove it. You can't, because you're wrong.
>>16538949
If you mean a formal proof then that's wrong, all axioms in any formal system can be given a formal proof.
If you mean an informal proof, that's also wrong. Axioms are often given justifications.
>>16538962
>Gödel assumes that logic as we know it is consistent
He doesn't.
>using its supposed consistency to prove math is inconsistent
He didn't prove math is inconsistent.
>Yet in physical reality we can totally have that, a particle can be in two different places at the same time until observed, Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead until observed etc, so the world fundamentally does not obey the logic we or Kurt formulated.
That's just being silly.

>>16538626
You seem to be bothered by Godel's results. Have you tried reading a textbook on mathematical logic?
I genuinely think you are simply confused and I would like to help you understand Godel's achievements (and their modern interpretation). Would you like to pick a textbook which covers these sorts of results and point out the place where you got confused?
Examples of textbooks: Enderton, Schonfield, Manin. Or you can pick a textbook that you like instead.

>>16538981
Give me a formal proof that zero has a successor.

>>16539015
-> S0=S0 (equality axiom)
-> exists x x = S0 (existential intro)

>>16539021
That's an assertion, not a proof.

>>16515282
If Einstein was alive today he would believe because there is overwhelming evidence for it. When he was alive it was very contentious.
Special relativity itself arose from the ashes of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein himself admitted that while he developed his framework by implicitly assuming lack of an underlying light medium, the failed experiment is what legitimized it.

If anything it's intuitionists who are hopeless sophists and want to throw away useful maths because it doesn't fit with their philosophical outlook on the world.
Gödel appeals to midwits because his results have a shock value and are counterintuitive in a similar vein to quantum mechanics which some people equate to mysticism. Midwits love the idea of things being esoteric and unknowable because it levels the plating field between midwits and smart people. That is obviously BS but this is what they cope with.

>>16539025
It's a formal proof in sequent calculus with arithmetic language.

Godel being godel

File: LordsOfConfusion.jpg (367 KB, 850x1320)

367 KB JPG

>>16538979
>Formulas become mathematical objects.
...and Gödel, Tarski, you, and your readers become confused. This practice of overloading terms is just as bad in programming / computer science as it is in mathematics, if not worse. Python and C++ have function overloading. If the programmer wants to avoid confusing himself when reading his own code, he has to exercise more discipline when typing his programs in than the interpreter / compiler holds him to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_overloading
If you want to be precise, type "a tuple of integers encoding a 2-formula" or "2-formula" so we can tell the difference. A formula is meta-mathematical. A 2-formula is mathematical. You have to say "2-true" and "2-proof" and "2-consequence" and "2-holds" and "2-follows" also.

File: honk-clown-honker-pepe-pepe.gif (306 KB, 220x220)

306 KB GIF

>>16538984
Enderton literally goes, and this is a direct quote or a paraphrase, "Well, if we used two terms to refer to the same thing in last chapter, you'd be confused, but because that was last chapter, and this is this chapter, It's totally safe for me to use the same term to refer to two different things."
It's on p. 226 of A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. I actually think he knows he's cheating, and he wants to sweep it under the rug. The reason I think this is that he repeatedly mentions confusion throughout the text.
Geometric Measure Theory by Federer has the same problem, using the circled times symbol to refer to two different things.
To be quite honest, anon, I think risking confusion like this is a sign that you've reached a dead end. If there were a path forward worth pursuing, then the risk of confusion would've been avoided prior to publication.
A criminal who confesses still needs correction, anon. The mere act of confession does not forgive the crime.

>>16541006
>>16541028
im really glad you are mentally ill, you realy do not deserve a good life