/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15206647
Con(...) is always meant in a philosophical or poetic sense. No author actually goes to the trouble of figuring out that complex scoping rules must be defined in order to actually represent the structure of genuine proof. All authors using Con(...) lie and claim that a list of formulas with no explanation of how variable scoping rules are enforced is a proof system that is adequate to handle what we ordinarily call mathematical proof. This started with Gödel. Gödel is lying when he says "there is no proof" because he is claiming that something that is not proof and isn't powerful enough to enforce variable scoping rules is proof. Gödel claims "proof is this" but he's simply incorrect, and part of this stems from his prank: submitting a "theorem" to PNAS that makes reference to make-believe, namely "semiintuitionistic logic"
see for yourself: https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.24.12.556
like other logicians such as Russel, Gödel is selling snake oil
All while Conrad is witnessing a destruction of truth of another kind and channelling it through Heart of Darkness