Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm going to need someone to come along and write up a layman's summary of this article. :) Does it change the end result of Gödel? Or is it basically the equivalent of saying what some restricted programming languages are doing, that we can get "good enough" results and not have these problems by restricting what we can do in the language?



Hi GreatQuux!

The article linked below explains why [Gödel 1931] did not prove inferential undecidability of Russell's Principia Mathematica and likewise why the formalization of [Gödel 1931] in Lisp proof being discussed is also invalid:

https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3603021

However, the article linked above does have a correct proof of inferential undecidability (also known as "inferential incompleteness").

Would be happy to respond to any questions that you might have.


What do you mean by "inferential" and why are there restrictions on what statements are valid?


Hi Mike!

The word "inferential" has to do with being able to be logically inferred, that is, deduced.

Russell's Principia Mathematica specified that each proposition must have an order to block paradoxes such as Russell's paradox.

See the article linked above for further explanation.


That doesn't explain why there must be such a restriction.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: