[FOM] Is Godel's Theorem surprising?
Aatu Koskensilta
aatu.koskensilta at xortec.fi
Sun Dec 10 16:58:57 EST 2006
Harvey Friedman wrote:
> 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
> suggesting.
>
Charles is probably referring to Putnam's Nonstandard Models and
Kripke's Proof of the Gödel Theorem, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 41
(2000), no. 1, 53-58. I doubt the independent sentence constructed by
Putnam's method would be considered "mathematical" by many. Putnam's
claim is rather that the proof would be intelligible to "a 19th century
mathematician" and doesn't require quite so much logical machinery as
Gödel's proof. (The result is also weaker, since the independent
sentence is Pi-2).
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta at xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
More information about the FOM
mailing list