Biggest maths fraud in history

[gimel]

The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean points out Godels theorem is invalid because it uses invalid axioms ie axiom of reducibility it is the biggest fraud in mathematical history

everything dean has shown was known at the time godel did his proof but no one meantioned any of it

 

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf

 

look

godel used the 2nd ed of PM he says

 

“A. Whitehead and B. Russell, Principia Mathematica, 2nd edition, Cambridge 1925. In particular, we also reckon among the axioms of PM the axiom of infinity (in the form: there exist denumerably many individuals), and the axioms of reducibility and of choice (for all types)”

 

note he says he is going to use AR

but

Russell following wittgenstien took it out of the 2nd ed due to it being invalid

godel would have know that

russell and wittgenstien new godel used it but said nothing

ramsey points out AR is invalid before godel did his proof

godel would have know ramseys arguments

ramsey would have known godel used AR but said nothing

 

Ramsey says

 

Such an axiom has no place in mathematics, and anything which cannot be

proved without using it cannot be regarded as proved at all.

 

This axiom there is no reason to suppose true; and if it were true, this

would be a happy accident and not a logical necessity, for it is not a

tautology. (THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS* (1925) by F. P. RAMSEY

 

every one knew AR was invalid

they all knew godel used it

but nooooooooooooo one said -or has said anything for 76 years untill dean

the theorem is a fraud the way godel presents it in his proof it is crap

[Mr Skeptic]

What are you on about? Axioms are always valid by definition, unless they contradict themselves.

[gimel]

What are you on about? Axioms are always valid by definition, unless they contradict themselves.

 

read ramsey lips

 

Ramsey says

 

Such an axiom has no place in mathematics, and anything which cannot be

proved without using it cannot be regarded as proved at all.

 

This axiom there is no reason to suppose true; and if it were true, this

would be a happy accident and not a logical necessity, for it is not a

tautology. (THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS* (1925) by F. P. RAMSEY

 

and note- he said nothing when godel used it

 

AND NOTE

Russell following wittgenstien took it out of the 2nd ed due to it being invalid

godel would have know that

russell and wittgenstien new godel used it but said nothing

ramsey points out AR is invalid before godel did his proof

godel would have know ramseys arguments

ramsey would have known godel used AR but said nothing

[Lasse]

On 2008. 01. 02. at 8:19 AM, Mr Skeptic said:

What are you on about? Axioms are always valid by definition, unless they contradict themselves.

Could you say an example? What do you mean by contradicting themselves? What would/could a contradiction be?

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Could you say an example? What do you mean by contradicting themselves? What would/could a contradiction be?

As Mr Skeptic hasn't visited for 7 years, let me have a go...

Axiom 1: The natural numbers are defined to start at 1

Axiom 2: 0 is defined to be the first natural number.

There you go. Two reasonable axioms that contradict one another and so can't be used at the same time.

[Lasse]

Thank you Strange. Kind of expexted you

You are a special kind of angel Strange

I wonder where from the energy!? 

[taeto]

Is the Ramsey quote really correct, did Ramsey write anything that stupid?

A "tautology" is usually a statement that is always true. If you build a theory axiomatically, then the axioms are always true, by construction, in that theory.

And anyway, supposing you throw out a number of axioms, it of course would make arithmetic statements even more undecidable than they are already. Eventually you might no longer be able to prove that this is so. But if that is your intention, then you could instead also close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALA and avoid being disturbed by facts that way.