Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 237 views

    Godel Proof

    Uploaded by

    Leonardo Barbosa
    Kurt Gödel's first incompleteness theorem proved that within any consistent formal system, there are statements that cannot be proved or disproved within the system. His second incompleteness theorem showed that the consistency of a formal system cannot be proved within that system itself. These theorems had profound implications, such as that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics could not be achieved. They also showed the limitations of formal logical systems and the need for creativity and intuition in mathematics.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Godel Proof

    Uploaded by

    Leonardo Barbosa
    237 views31 pages
    Kurt Gödel's first incompleteness theorem proved that within any consistent formal system, there are statements that cannot be proved or disproved within the system. His second incompleteness theorem showed that the consistency of a formal system cannot be proved within that system itself. These theorems had profound implications, such as that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics could not be achieved. They also showed the limitations of formal logical systems and the need for creativity and intuition in mathematics.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Kurt Gödel's first incompleteness theorem proved that within any consistent formal system, there are statements that cannot be proved or disproved within the system. His second incompleteness theorem showed that the consistency of a formal system cannot be proved within that system itself. These theorems had profound implications, such as that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics could not be achieved. They also showed the limitations of formal logical systems and the need for creativity and intuition in mathematics.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    237 views31 pages

    Godel Proof

    Uploaded by

    Leonardo Barbosa
    Kurt Gödel's first incompleteness theorem proved that within any consistent formal system, there are statements that cannot be proved or disproved within the system. His second incompleteness theorem showed that the consistency of a formal system cannot be proved within that system itself. These theorems had profound implications, such as that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics could not be achieved. They also showed the limitations of formal logical systems and the need for creativity and intuition in mathematics.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 31
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The key takeaways are that Gödel proved that within any sufficiently powerful formal system, there are statements that are true but cannot be proved, and statements that cannot be determined as true or false. This has far-reaching consequences in mathematics, logic and the philosophy of mathematics.

    Gödel's first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent formal system can prove its own consistency. His second incompleteness theorem states that for any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out, F cannot prove that F is consistent.

    The continuum hypothesis states that there is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and the real numbers. In other words, there is no set with a number of elements in between the countable infinity of the integers and the uncountable infinity of the real numbers.

    Gdels Proof

    Henrik Jeldtoft Jensen Dept. of Mathematics Imperial College

    Kurt Gdel 24.4.06-14.1.78


    1

    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    ON FORMALLY UNDECIDABLE PROPOSITIONS OF PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA AND RELATED SYSTEMS 11 by Kurt Gdel, Vienna 1 The development of mathematics in the direction of greater exactness hasas is well knownled to large tracts of it becoming formalized, so that proofs can be carried out according to a few mechanical rules. The most comprehensive formal systems yet set up are, on the one hand, the system of Principia Mathematica (PM)2 and, on the other, the axiom system for set theory of Zermelo-Fraenkel (later extended by J. v. Neumann).3 These two systems are so extensive that all methods of proof used in mathematics today have been formalized in them, i.e. reduced to a few axioms and 27. rules of inference. It may therefore be [($u,v)u,v & x = u * R(b Gl rules & Su x(n|y) ez {z [Pr(l(x)+l(y))]x+y & surmised thatxthese axioms and x) * v of inference are & n = l(u)+1]} to decide all mathematical questions which can in any z = u * y * v also sufficient way at all be expressed formally in the systems concerned. It is shown below that this is x(n|y) derivesand thaton both the systems mentioned n-th term of fact relatively Su not the case, from x in substituting y in place of the there are in x (it simple problems in l(x)). being assumed that 0 < n the theory of ordinary whole numbers4 which [174] 28. cannot be decided from v Fr n,x & not ($p)[n < p is not due in p,x]} 0 St v,x en {n l(x) & the axioms. This situation l(x) & v Fr some way to the specialSt v,x of the systems set up, but holds for a < p <extensive& v Fr of formal (k+1) nature en {n < k St v,x & v Fr n,x & ($p)[n very k St v,x class p,x]}2 systems, including, in particular, all those arising from

    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    The essence
    First theorem of undecidability: If axiomatic theory is consistent, there exist theorems which can neither be proved or disproved

    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    The essence
    Second theorem of undecidability: There is no constructive procedure which will prove axiomatic theory to be consistent.
    4

    Euclids Elements
    23 definitions 5 postulates

    lived circa 300 BC

    465 propositions

    5
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    Euclids Elements
    The axioms

    It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any point. to produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line. to describe a circle with any centre and radius. That all right angles equal one another. Parallel lines dont cross
    6
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    Euclids Elements

    Consistency
    Can mutually inconsistent statements be derive from a set of axioms. Say in Euclids geometry

    7
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    Euclids Elements

    In other words
    Can we be sure no one some day derives a proposition which contradicts another proposition.

    8
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    PM

    9
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    Undecidable
    Russells paradox:

    Two types of sets: Normal those who dont contain themselves:

    &

    Non-normal those who do contain themselves

    B
    10

    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    Undecidable

    Examples:
    Normal set:

    A = the set of MPhys 2 student


    A A

    Non-normal: B = the set of all thinkable things


    B
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    B
    11

    Undecidable

    Define:

    N = Set of all Normal sets

    Question: Is N normal?
    Assume N is Normal then N is member of itself, since N contains all Normal Sets per its definition i.e., N N. But if N N then N is non-Normal

    So N being Normal implies N being non-Normal !


    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    12

    Undecidable

    Define:

    N = Set of all Normal sets

    Assume N is non-Normal then N is member of itself per definition of non-Normal. But if N is non-Normal it is a member of itself, and N contains per definition Normal sets, i.e., N is Normal .

    So N being non-Normal implies N being Normal !


    13
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    The problem is

    Self-reference
    14
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    How to determine the truth of:

    I am a liar!
    Epimenides paradox
    15
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    The strategy of Gdels proof

    Distinguish between: mathematics &


    x = x, x2 = 9

    meta-mathematics

    x=4 is not a solution of x+2=3, PM is consistent


    16

    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    The strategy of Gdels proof


    Enumeration of formalised system: Signs:

    mb del nu G er

    1 2 3 4

    not or If then there is an equals zero immediate successor


    17
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    = 0 s

    5 6 7

    The strategy of Gdels proof


    Enumeration of formalised system: Math formulas:
    um del n G ber

    ( x )( x = sy )

    28 34 L

    There is a number x following right after y

    18
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    The strategy of Gdels proof


    Enumeration of formalised system: Meta-maths:

    The formula G is not demonstrable using the rules of PM

    ber l num de G

    19
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    The crunch
    Gdel constructed a formula G for which he showed that:

    G is demonstrable

    non G is demonstrable

    20
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    More crunch
    The meta-mathematical content of G is:

    G= The formula G is not


    demonstrable Or formally within PM:

    ( x ) Dem( x, Sub(n,17, n))


    21
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    And more crunch


    G= The formula G is not
    demonstrable So since G cannot be demonstrated, it is, per definition, TRUE, though its TRUTH cannot be proved within PM
    22
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    The Conclusion
    All axiomatic systems will contain true propositions which cannot be proved within the system And contain propositions which cannot be determined whether true of false
    23
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    Some consequences:
    The continuum hypothesis:
    Cantor

    No set can have a number of elements between the cardinality of the natural numbers and the cardinality of the real numbers
    24
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    Cardinality:
    The real numbers cannot be countered
    Proof: assume the opposite
    Cantor

    r1 = 0. x11 x12 x13 L r2 = 0. x21 x22 x23 L r3 = 0. x31 x32 x33 L M


    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    r = 0. x11 x22 x33

    r = 0. ~11 ~22 ~33 x x x


    25

    Cardinality:
    So clearly: # reals > # integers
    But: is there a set with a number of elements in between? Cantor said: No - but could not prove it.
    26
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    Cantor

    Consequences continued:
    The continuum hypothesis:
    Was the first problem in Hilberts list of 23 unsolved important problems.

    Paul Cohen showed in 1963 that the continuum hypothesis is undecidable


    27
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    More consequences:
    Truth cannot be identified with provability

    Roger Penrose: Creative mathematicians do not think in a mechanistic way. They often have a kind of insight into the Platonic realm which exists independently of us.
    28
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    More consequences:
    We cannot build one all embracing explanation of everything based on one finite set of axioms. There exist more true statements than the countable number of truths that can be recursively deduced from a finite set of axioms.
    29
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    The world is too complex for a `finitistic axiomatic approach to suffice.

    Creativity is needed at all levels of description.


    30
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    So where does this leave

    The Theory of Everything

    ?
    31
    H.J. Jensen, Dept. of Math., IC

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy