Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
F. Waismann Einführung in das mathematische Denken Darmstadt 1996

Waismann I 72 ff
Consistency/Gödel/Waismann: proof that a system is consistent cannot be provided by means of this system.
Gödel: if one adds to the Peanoic axioms that of the logic calculus and calls the resulting system P, then no proof for the consistency of P can be given, which could be formulated in P, provided that P is consistent.
>Proofs, >Provability, >Axioms, >Axiom systems, >Contradictions.
(If P were contradictory, any statement could be proven, e.g. also that P is consistent).
I 73
Gödel: every arithmetic is incomplete, in each of the formal systems mentioned above there are undecidable arithmetic sentences and for each of these systems arithmetic terms can be specified which cannot be defined in this system.
>Arithmetic, >Completeness, >Incompleteness.
Example: a real number that cannot be defined in S can be constructed for each formal system S.
This should not be interpreted as proof that there are unsolvable mathematical problems.
Rather, the term "solvable" or "decisionable" always refers to a certain formal system only. If a sentence is undecidable in this system, there is still the possibility to construct a richer system in which the sentence can be decided.
But there is no system in which all arithmetic sentences can be decided or all terms can be defined.
This is the deeper meaning of Brouwer: all mathematics is essentially intellectual action: a series of construction steps, and not a rigid system of formulas that is ready or could even exist.
Mathematics is incomplete. The statement that System S is consistent cannot be made in S.
I 74
Waismann: can arithmetic be justified at all by such investigations? And geometry: If there are several geometries, how can they be applied to our experience?
Reasons for geometry/Waismann:
a) select a group of sentences that demonstrate independence, completeness and consistency and
b) ensure applicability.
>Independence, >Completeness, >Geometry.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.