OT: Let's Take the Religion out of Christmas

[Paul Burke]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

And by the way.... Mother
is waking up -

Better make her a cup of tea then.

Paul Burke

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Torkel Franzen wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> writes:

Therefore it applies to the whole system as the system has no
meaning if it requires arithmetic but cant use such arithmetic.

Again, just what formal system are you referring to in speaking of
"the whole system"?

This is a postulate/axiom of Quantum Mechanics. No one has ever
derived this, despite much effort.
Godel tells us that such an equation *may* be
true, but not provable.

No, Godel doesn't tell you any such thing.

Yep it does. Note it doesnt tell us that the statment *is* non derivable
from existing axioms, only that there if it cant, one shouldn't be
surprised.

What Godel tells you is
that any omega-consistent formal system incorporating a certain amount
of arithmetic will have undecidable arithmetical statements of the
form "for every n, P", where P is a mechanically decidable
property.

Yep, and that is what non-provable means in this context. Not derivable.
Not understandable. Not decidable. You just don't understand that that
is what all those words mean. There are all eqivelent in this context.
I'll repeat, as you just don't seem to have a grasp of English. In this
context, undecidable means exactly the same as improvable and
un-derivable. If you don't agree, please give you arguments as to why
this is not the case.

Godel astounded the mathematically community
because he proved, in maths, that not all things can have a reason,
in principle.

He proved no such thing, nor did he ever claim to have proved
anything of the sort.

Yep he most certainly did, but he simply used different words.
Unfortunately you don't understand what his words actually means in the
bigger picture, due to your lack of basic English comprehension ability.
Hint: if something is "undecidable", i.e. identically equivalent to
improvable in this context, then there is no "reason" for the statement.
That is, in this context, the "reason" for the true statement can't be
discovered, i.e. *derived* , i.e. the statment must be true for some
unknown reason.

Just what the f*&^% do you think "undecidable" means?

Jesus wept dude, for the bloody last time, "undecidable" *means* that
the statement cant be *derived* from the existing axioms, therefore
there is no reason for the statement within the system. That's the whole
bloody point of the theorem dude. This means that the statement cant be
*understood*, i.e. understood in terms of existing axioms. If we could
derive the statement, then we would have a reason for it. Dah...

Your invocation of the incompleteness theorem is typical of many
such invocations in that it doesn't really have anything to do with
the actual content of the theorem. Rather, the incompleteness theorem
serves as inspiration or metaphor.

Nope. You need some remedial English lessons. You will never understand
Godel untill you do. At the moment all yopu can do is parrotrt off:

"will have undecidable arithmetical statements of the form "for every n,
P", where P is a mechanically decidable property"

Without the slightest idea as to what it actually means. You are simply
cluless that "undecidable" means "non derivable", and "non derivable",
means "no reason for", in this context.

If you disagree please explain, specifically and in detail, in this
context, why "undecidable" does *not* mean "non derivable" and "no
reason for".

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Torkel Franzen wrote:

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> writes:

If you have to ask, you aren't ever going to know.

Actually Godel's incompleteness theorem is completely irrelevant to
the trivial observation you read into Kevin Aylward's claim.

For the last time.

Godel shows that statements can be true, but not derivable. Therefore
this inherently means that such statements are not understandable, i.e.
knowable. It is this logic that is trivial. If we cant derive a
statement, then we don't understand it. That's what we *mean* but
"understanding". Being able to explain it terms of something else we
already accept at face value. Dah...

You problem is that you simply don't understand what "understand"
actually means.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Torkel Franzen wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> writes:

Of course, m+n=n+m is intrinsically not provable.

So that's your example of an intrinsically unknowable truth? Most
illuminating!

From this, and your other following quotes, its clear that you are out
of your depth, such that further discussion is futile. This is proven by
your inability to actually address any of my points made, and simply
resort to the vacuous one liner above.

You need to understand how science works. Seriously. You clearly don't
understand how axiomatic systems work. I have gave you an outline. Go
back and read it.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.