zamac

sorry i have just realised that no one here has read godels proof or read the iniatial post at all you say an axiom is vallid untill it contradicts the other axioms in the system that is not correct for i could make up any axioms which are independent of each other and oprove anything ir fermets last theorem e=mc3 anything you cannot just bring ad hoc axioms into a proof as godel did for if you could then every thing can be proved to give a ridiculous example i will make two independent axioms and prove einstiens theories are wrong 1) the proof made by an idiot is wrong 2) einstien was an idiot therefore einsteins theories are wrong or axiom 1+1=7 2 apples + one orange + 3 plums + 1 grape = 2+1+3+1= 2+1+1+3= 12

you say which is bullsh..t as euclids 5th axiom is invalid and is not in contradiction with his other axioms you have absoLutly have no fu..ing idea about the problems of AR you keep talking about this and it has been shown an axiom can be invalid ie euclids 5th without being in contradiction with other axioms The independence of the parallel postulate from Euclid's other axioms was finally demonstrated by Eugenio Beltrami in 1868. but it is invalid so godel could have made up an axiom ie 1+1=7 independent of all his other axioms and you would say his proof was valid- not talk crap you and every one else would say the proof was rubbish so now dont change the gaol post like you all do when proven wrong you said and i showed you that euclids 5th does not contradict the other axioms but is invalid so i have disproven your claim against AR but come on change the goal post but you want say the same about godel proof important mathematician say AR is rubbish and invalid just like 1+1=7 go learn geometry euclids 5th is invalid every heard of non-euclidian geometries for **** sake godel used an axiom that was not in the ed of PM he is using so his proof cannot be about PM it is not about what others have proved but what godel proved and his proof is not about PM or systems related to PM as his proof uses axioms not even in PM for **** sake go learn geometry euclids 5th is invalid every heard of non-euclidian geometries for **** sake godel used an axiom that was not in the ed of PM he is using so his proof cannot be about PM it is not about what others have proved but what godel proved and his proof is not about PM or systems related to PM as his proof uses axioms not even in PM for **** sake dont talk shit even godel new that to show PM is undecidable he had to use the PM system you talk utter crap i dont think you have even read godels prof j you dont know what you are talking about godels proof is about system p P is made up of Peano axioms and axioms from PM

sorry u have not answered the question godels paper is called ON FORMALLY UNDECIDABLE PROPOSITIONS OF PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA AND RELATED SYSTEMS so his proof is about PM and related systems but he uses an ad hoc axiom that is not part of PM thus his proof cannot be about PM and related systems even if it applies to other systems that is just mere chance for it cannot apply to PM and cannot have destroyed the hilbert frege russell proramme even if AR is valid it was not in the ed of PM godel is using so his proof cannt appliy to PM and related systems CANT YOU GET IT IT IS ABOUT WHAT GODEL DID DUMB NUMN..TS AND NOT WHAT OTHERS HAVE SHOWN important mathematician say AR is invalid ramsey and even godels complete works go study up on the problems of AR before you keep spouting crap ramsey and even godels complete works go study up on the problems of AR before you keep spouting crap

sorry no one has said anything except ad hominums no one has offered a reasoned rebutal ie what you got to say about godel using an axiom which is invalid which is not in PM godel tells us AR is in 2nd ED PM but it is not come give a reasoned reply to this fact how about a reasoned reply to this fact godel uses AR in his proof it is his axiom 1v Godels paper is called ON FORMALLY UNDECIDABLE PROPOSITIONS OF PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA AND RELATED SYSTEMS yet it AR is not in PM so his proof cant be about UNDECIDABLE PROPOSITIONS OF PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA how about a reasoned reply to this -if you have the inteligence

you see you show your incompetence by not attacking the arguments by ad hominums you show you have not the intelligence to critique the views come on let see some thinking rather than following the leader

follow the sheep mentality i thought science was about objectivity and facts you show it is only about closed minds and follow the lead SHAME ON YOU ALL no wonder they say our education systems are turning out idiots SHAME with your mentality true science is dead why do i waste my time with fools if you cant see and comment on a revolutionary finding then this is not a science forum at all why do i waste my time with fools if you cant see and comment on a revolutionary finding then this is not a science forum at all

what are you talking about i thought this is a science forum an important finding I thought you all would find interesting regardless of what troll you are talking about i get the impression calling troll is just an attempt to stop discussion

The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean shows that Godel did not destroy the Hilbert Frege Russell programme to create a unitary deductive system in which all mathematical truths can can be deduced from a handful of axioms http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf Godel is said to have shattered this programme in his paper called "On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems" but this paper it turns out had nothing to do with Principia Mathematica and related systems" but instead with a completly artificial system called P Godel uses axioms which where not in his version of PM thus his proof/theorem cannot apply to PM thus he cannot have destroyed the Hilbert Frege Russell programme and also his system P is artificial and applies to no system anyways colin leslie dean shows that Godel constructs an artificial system P made up of Peano axioms and axioms including the axiom of reducibility- which is not in the edition of PM he says he is is using. This system is invalid as it uses the invalid axiom of reducibility. Godels theorem has no value out side of his system P and system P is invalid as it uses the invalid axiom of reducibility godel uses the axiom of reducibility he tell us he is going to use it NOTE HE SAYS HE IS USEING 2ND ED PM -where the axiom of reducibility was repudiated given up and dropped and he uses it in his axiom 1v and formular 40 http://www.math.ucla.edu/~asl/bsl/1302/1302-001.ps. (BUT IT MUST BE NOTED THAT GODEL IS USING 2ND ED PM BUT RUSSELL TOOK THE AXIOM OF REDUCIBILITY OUT OF THAT EDITION – which Godel must have known. The Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1870-1945- page 154 http://books.google.com/books?id=I0...WOzml_RmOLy_JS0 Quote quote page 14 http://www.helsinki.fi/filosofia/gts/ramsay.pdf. http://books.google.com.au/books?id...sh0US6QrI&hl=en Phenomenology and Logic: The Boston College Lectures on Mathematical Logic and Existentialism (Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan) page 43 Godels paper is called ON FORMALLY UNDECIDABLE PROPOSITIONS OF PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA AND RELATED SYSTEMS but he uses an axiom that was not in PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA thus his proof/theorem has nothing to do with PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA AND RELATED SYSTEMS at all Godels proof is about his artificial system P -which is invalid as it uses the ad hoc invalid axiom of reducibility system P is the system from which he derives his incompleteness theorem quote from the van Heijenoort translation Godel tells us and system P contain the axiom of reducibility http://www.math.ucla.edu/~asl/bsl/1302/1302-001.ps. but the axiom of reducibility was dropped from 2 nd ed PM EVERY ONE KNEW THAT AR WAS NOT IN 2ND ED PM EVEN GODEL BUT NO ONE SAID ANYTHING thus Godel could not have destroyed the Hilbert Frege Russell programme in his paper as his proof theorem has nothing to do with PM but only with his artificial system P -that applies to no other system at all