[FOM] Is Godel's Theorem surprising?
friedman at math.ohio-state.edu
Sun Dec 10 15:53:56 EST 2006
On 12/10/06 9:19 AM, "Charles Silver" <silver_1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> First, thanks very much for all the interesting and enlightening
> responses to my question. A couple of comments:
> Diagonalization is not central to Godel's (first) theorem, as shown
> by Kripke's proof of G's theorem that was published by Putnam, which
> does not *require* diagonalization.
> I believe this proof also shows--please correct me if I'm wrong--
> that a specifically *mathematical* proposition (though an unusual
> one) cannot be proved nor can its negation.
It would be helpful to the FOM readership for you to give us a reference to
this paper by Putnam. I have serious doubts about the claims you are
More information about the FOM