FOM: Goedel: truth and misinterpretations
torkel at sm.luth.se
Fri Oct 27 03:42:13 EDT 2000
>Now you claim the same in different words.
I see that I inadvertently gave the impression that my questions
were rhetorical. They were not. I am in fact inquiring just what it
is you think we are asked to "take on trust" in accepting
"that either CH is true or CH is false". If "CH is true or false"
doesn't really say anything, there is nothing to take on trust.
As for your claim that it is "wrong and basically meaningless" to
say that there are true but unprovable sentences, I don't think I
understand it. You agree that it is a mathematical theorem that there
are true arithmetical sentences not provable in T, for any consistent
extension T of PA, but you seem to be saying that we must not take
this theorem at face value, but regard it from some purely formal
standpoint. Why is that?
Torkel Franzen, Luleå university
More information about the FOM