RE: CDR: Re: ...(one of them about Completeness)
Title: RE: CDR: Re: ...(one of them about Completeness) > Mathametics is incomplete,other wise we would have > known every thing about every thing. From our Popping in without the relevant background, I'm afraid, but I'll give my view on this long lasting thread anyway: Mathematics do not have to be incomplete for this reason (note that I only say for this reason). Mathematics are only rules applying on a set of facts (and, arguably, the facts themselves). I would argue that your point would rather imply that other things (eg physics, chemistry) are incomplete. -- Vincent Penquerc'h
Re: CDR: Re: ...(one of them about Completeness)
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Peter Fairbrother wrote: > No he didn't. He proved Mathematics is incomplete, ie that there are > universally valid but unprovable statements within it. That is not the same as being incomplete, not being able to prove something doesn't make it not so. Mathematics may in fact be complete, the -only- way to -prove- it is to step -outside mathematics- itself. It has to do with self-reference not completeness. -- We don't see things as they are, [EMAIL PROTECTED] we see them as we are. www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anais Nin www.open-forge.org
