FOM: Goedel: truth and misinterpretations
torkel at sm.luth.se
Tue Oct 24 03:31:04 EDT 2000
>Now, how can it be claimed that any given mathematical
>statement is either true or false?
>Not, and exactly by a very
>elementary reason: the Structure is not fully determined.
Sure, but that's no obstacle to statements that refer only to a
determinate part of that indeterminate structure being determinately
true or false.
>Any further reference to "true but not provable" is a misconception,
>whose philosophical nature is the misidentification of the
>Human and ZFC-dweller as Observers.
That's a very odd statement, since after all it is mathematically
provable that if ZFC is consistent then there is a true arithmetical
sentence A such that the canonical translation A* of A into the
language of ZFC is not a theorem of ZFC. Apparently you don't regard
this particular result as even meaningful. Why not?
>Since Euclid, "we *know*" well that a mathematical statement is true
>if there is a (mathematically sound) PROOF of the statement -- this
>is by the way why Mathematics has been called EXACT science.
Right, but what is your view of the axioms used in this proof?
Torkel Franzen, University of Luleå
More information about the FOM