Quote:
Originally Posted by crappyjones123 
one possible interpretation of that in simple english is this...even the most basic math is inconsistent. that in itself does not bode well for higher math or for any other form of learning that has a mathematical basis.
|
Incomplete means there are truths about any given logical system that can only be shown by looking into the system from outside. You could say that it's a bit like not being able to paint the entire floor within a closed room - because you always have to leave a bit to stand on. But if there's a door you can open you can stand outside and paint the last piece.
But it's not
inconsistent - that means something else entirely. A logical system may be inconsistent (because some of the axioms - the assumptions - and the rules contradict others). That means you can generally "prove" the same hypothesis to be both true and false depending on how you construct your proof from those axioms & rules - which isn't very useful (unless perhaps you are Schrödinger's cat - but that entity has other problems...)
Gödel was talking about consistent logical systems - where anything that can be proved is known for sure, and all valid reasoning about the same hypothesis must lead to the same conclusion. IIRC prior to his work the belief amongst mathematicians was that mathematics was complete - everything that was true about a system could be proved from within if only you were clever enough. His Incompleteness Theorem came as a great shock to the mathematics world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crappyjones123 
closing remarks - never say "logic is stupid" not because there might be a giant math nerd trolling the forums 
|
And never say "incomplete equates to inconsistent" when there's another maths/comp sci nerd around

But perhaps we should keep the volume down before the philosophy nerds are attracted by the apparent paradoxes...
