/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20380830]

What was the point?

[Anonymous No.20381108]

they thought they could prove math is real

[Anonymous No.20381110]

>>20380830
What 0 pussy does to a mfer

[Anonymous No.20381180]

>>20381110
Russel actually had a lot of pussy.

[Anonymous No.20381487]

>>20380830
To do what any analysis class today does with the smallest possible number of axioms, i.e. to be sufficiently formal about the nature and structure of certain mathematical spaces to make the results of higher mathematics (in particular calculus) meaningful and provable. PM doesn't go that far but it constructs the Reals, and that's enough.

[Anonymous No.20381523]

>>20380830
Buttsets with Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.20381526]

>>20381180
*bussy

[Anonymous No.20381645]

1+1

[Anonymous No.20381685]

>>20380830
The point is unidimentional, anon, if you have a line between 2 points then it is bidimentional.

[Anonymous No.20382057]

>>20381685
Kek

[Anonymous No.20382120]

>>20381487
>it constructs the Reals
this has never been done

[Anonymous No.20382125]

>>20382120
Any undergrad analysis class either Cauchy sequences or Dedekind cuts.

[Anonymous No.20382378]

>>20382120
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.20382382]

>>20380830
Read Whitehead

[Anonymous No.20382451]

>forever btfos formalists
hehe, nothing personal

[Anonymous No.20383323]

>>20382451
I love Gödel so much bros

[Anonymous No.20383604]

>>20380830
I know it is a complete autist of all but it is also known for "the grandfather of modern computer", then it means all the porn and e-girl material is based on this book

[Anonymous No.20383614]

>>20382451
No, he didn’t. He uses the liar paradox which is just a contradiction. Provability and truth of non-axiom statements are the same thing, whereas his proof relies on the distinction that they aren’t. There are no paradoxes but the way

[Anonymous No.20383626]

>>20382451
looks like huxley in this

[Anonymous No.20383633]

>>20383614
>Provability and truth of non-axiom statements are the same thing, whereas his proof relies on the distinction that they aren’t
What do you mean by non-axiom statements? Because things shown to be unprovable are generally added as axioms like the continuum hypothesis or it's negation.

[Anonymous No.20383664]

>>20383633
Axioms are taken from experience, that is their proof. The axiom of infinite sets is not a valid axiom as it is not taken from experience, nor is it well-defined. You can easily imagine that the opposite is true. If a statement is true, then it is true because it is deduced from axioms (provable) or it is proven by pure experience (axiom). You can’t give a real example of a statement that’s true but not provable. If it’s true, it’s necessarily provable, or it’s an axiom, but if it’s an axiom, then it shouldn’t be controversial in the first place.

[Anonymous No.20383697]

>>20383664
>Axioms are taken from experience, that is their proof. The axiom of infinite sets is not a valid axiom as it is not taken from experience, nor is it well-defined.
This is crank shit. Axioms are axioms there is no proof behind them and experience has nothing to do with it. The axiom of infinity is well defined and consistent with the rest of ZFC.
> If a statement is true, then it is true because it is deduced from axioms (provable) or it is proven by pure experience (axiom). You can’t give a real example of a statement that’s true but not provable.
Godel gave an example of an unprovable statement that's the whole point. You obviously have no clue about models or Godel's completeness theorem. Note I said completeness theorem it's different than the incompleteness theorem.
> If it’s true, it’s necessarily provable, or it’s an axiom, but if it’s an axiom, then it shouldn’t be controversial in the first place.
More crank shit. Axioms are whatever you want them to be as long as they aren't inconsistent.

[Anonymous No.20383721]

>>20383697
>Godel gave an example of an unprovable statement that's the whole point
it has nothing to do with realistic mathematical statements, and it’s just the liar’s paradox.
>Axioms are whatever you want them to be
crank shit

[Anonymous No.20383724]

Autism, unironically.

[Anonymous No.20383741]

>>20383721
>it’s just the liar’s paradox.
No it's not. It relies on self-reference and people who don't know what they're talking about jump to the liar's paradox since that's the only other instance of self-reference they can think of.
>>Axioms are whatever you want them to be
>crank shit
You cut off the part about using whatever axioms you want AS LONG AS THEY AREN'T INCONSISTENT. The idea that axioms are somehow self-evident truths has been discredited since the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry in the 1800s. Any logical deduction from whatever consistent set of axioms you come up with is math

[Anonymous No.20383760]

>>20383741
>self-reference
Maybe it’s paradoxical because it doesn’t exist.
>b-but humans talk about themselves
the self doesn’t even exist. There is no “I”
>discovery of non-Euclidean geometry in the 1800s
Give the axiom

[Anonymous No.20383780]

>>20383760
>Maybe it’s paradoxical because it doesn’t exist
Godel's proof goes through the mechanics of self-reference in arithmetic in autistic detail. You're stupid and have no mathematical training I'm not going to waste my time going over it.
>>discovery of non-Euclidean geometry in the 1800s
>Give the axiom
The parallel axiom and it's various alternatives. It's easily searchable you should really learn more about this stuff before talking

[Anonymous No.20383796]

>>20383780
Yeah and Gödel also proved God’s existence in autistic detail. Not.
>The parallel axiom and it's various alternatives
not unintuitive

[Anonymous No.20383824]

>>20383796
>Yeah and Gödel also proved God’s existence in autistic detail. Not.
His modal proof has several axioms that people don't accept.
>>The parallel axiom and it's various alternatives
>not unintuitive
Hyperbolic geometry is extremely unintuitive and essentially fell out of an attempt to break geometry by negating the Euclidean parallel axiom. For two thousand years since Euclid people thought the parallel axiom was intuitively correct the question was whether or not it could be derived from the other axioms. It can't and one of it's alternatives is extremely unintuitive. Heck even spherical geometry requires a pretty unintuitive re-evalutation of what a line is.

[Anonymous No.20383842]

>>20383824
even if self-referential statements were possible, we aren’t interested in these types of statements in mathematics. The proof is a complete sham

[Anonymous No.20383856]

>>20383842
>even if self-referential statements were possible, we aren’t interested in these types of statements in mathematics
There was a massive amount of interest in the question Godel solved namely whether math could prove itself consistent. Godel showed it can't with the second incompleteness theorem and defeated Hilbert's program.