Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
www.logicmatters.net | ||
| | | | |
neilmadden.blog
|
|
| | | | | I saw another article on Gödel's incompleteness theorems linked from Reddit today. It's a topic I've wanted to write about for some time. Although many articles do a decent job in giving an idea of what the big deal is (and this one is pretty good), they can sometimes give a misleading impression of what... | |
| | | | |
jdh.hamkins.org
|
|
| | | | | Philosophy of Mathematics, Exam Paper 122, Oxford University Wednesdays 12-1 during term, Radcliffe Humanities Lecture Room Joel David Hamkins, Professor of Logic Lucy, Charles - Personifications o... | |
| | | | |
xorshammer.com
|
|
| | | | | Let $latex \mathrm{PA}$ be Peano Arithmetic. Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem says that no consistent theory $latex T$ extending $latex \mathrm{PA}$ can prove its own consistency. (I'll write $latex \mathrm{Con}(T)$ for the statement asserting $latex T$'s consistency; more on this later.) In particular, $latex \mathrm{PA} + \mathrm{Con}(\mathrm{PA})$ is stronger than $latex \mathrm{PA}$. But certainly, given that... | |
| | | | |
scottaaronson.blog
|
|
| | | In Michael Sipser's Introduction to the Theory of Computation textbook, he has one Platonically perfect homework exercise, so perfect that I can reconstruct it from memory despite not having opened the book for over a decade. It goes like this: Let f:{0,1}*?{0,1} be the constant 1 function if God exists, or the constant 0 function... | ||
