What Branch of Mathematics Does Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem Deal With?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bacon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
AI Thread Summary
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem primarily falls under the branch of formal logic, demonstrating that no mathematical theory can simultaneously possess consistency, completeness, the ability to express integer arithmetic, and a computability condition on its axioms. The theorem's implications extend into philosophy, although its philosophical significance is often debated due to frequent misinterpretations. For those seeking to understand the theorem at an undergraduate level, thorough resources are essential. A list of recommended books is available at a provided link for further exploration. Understanding Gödel's work is crucial for grasping foundational concepts in logic and mathematics.
bacon
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
(Apologies if I am in the wrong part of the forum)
What branch of mathematics does Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem deal with?(I'm guessing Logic) and does anyone know any good books at the undergraduate level that would help to lay a foundation for understanding his theorem. I am "teaching myself" so the book(s) would need need to be fairly thorough. His theorem seems to be fairly important and my understanding of it is so poor.
Thanks in advance for any and all responses.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gödel's first incompleteness theorem is a theorem of formal logic -- it proves that no mathematical theory can have all four of the following list of properties:
1. Consistency
2. Completeness
3. Capable of fully expressing integer arithmetic
4. A computability condition on the set of axioms


Aside from certain topics in formal logic / computability theory, I believe it's only real use is in philosophy. Alas, it's so often misquoted that it's hard for me to tell if it's really important philosophically, or if it's just that the misquotes sound important.
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
72
Views
7K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
6K
Replies
18
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top