Reid Nichol wrote on Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:02:19AM -0800: > Duncan Patton a Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Eliah Kagan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> (There are also multiple useful, >>> mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) >> >> Provably so? > > I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent. > Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if this is true.
Eliah has beautifully demonstrated this for both Mathematics and Physics. What is flabbergasting me about such questions is that these are extremely old facts - essentially, known for more than 70 years - and many people still believe that formal science can be both complete and consistent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki - nicely narrating how the attempt to transform mathematics into a single unified and consistent theory miserable failed http://wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem - explaining why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del (1906-1978) - "One of the most significant logicians of all time, GC6el's work has had immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the 20th century, a time when many, such as Bertrand Russell, A. N. Whitehead and David Hilbert, were attempting to use logic and set theory to understand the foundations of mathematics." Still, many people appearantly never heard of the problems he described, even though we are now well into the 3rd millenium... Reply-To: poster set, we are *terribly* off-topic.
