Talk:First principles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Incorrect Godel reference?

I've not directly modified it since my comprehension of the implications of Godel's theorems isn't probably perfect, but from my understanding the sentence:

contending that any logical system that was consistent could not be complete, and any system that was complete could not be entirely self-consistent.

is rather incorrect. Shouldn’t it be something like:

contending that any logical system in which basic arithmetical facts are provable that was consistent could not be complete, and any system in which basic arithmetical facts are provable, cannot prove its own consistency

Please see Gödel's incompleteness theorem, in particular the chapter "Misconceptions about Gödel's theorems"

The specification of "in which basic arithmetical facts are provable " maybe can be seen as a detail in the context, but the second result seems completely incorrect to me.

--GozzoMan

I'm not an expert on the topic either, but to me not only the use of Gödel, but the whole article seems to be iffy.