>Later in his life, Gödel suffered periods ofmental instabilityand illness. Following the assassination of his close friendMoritz Schlick,[34]Gödel developed anobsessive fear of being poisoned, and would eat only food prepared by his wife Adele. Adele was hospitalized beginning in late 1977, and in her absence Gödel refused to eat;[35]he weighed 29 kilograms (65lb) when he died of "malnutrition andinanitioncaused by personality disturbance" inPrinceton Hospitalon January 14, 1978.[36]He was buried inPrinceton Cemetery. Adele died in 1981.[37]

>Considered along withAristotleandGottlob Fregeto be one of the most significant logicians in history, Gödel had an immense effect upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the 20th century

Wtf was wrong with this "great logician"? Did he discover some hidden logic behind food poisoning that we failed to understand, or does this mean that even the smartest and most logical people on earth can still be /x/-tier schizo?

Sort of. The normal schizo is deeply distrustful of basically all forms of authority but I don't think godel was, he just suffered from garden variety paranoia. He was apparently a very anxious and timid person, always doubting himself, which is not what the usual crank schizo you see does. Usual cranks and schizos are always super sure of themselves and their beliefs. Godel didn't trust anyone or anything it seems, including himself. So his ridiculous paranoia should probably be seen as a result of mental decline from aging meshing with his already anxious nature into an irrational paranoia

>Usual cranks and schizos are always super sure of themselves and their beliefs.

Cranks yes but no most schizos that are vocal are a minority. Most schizos are paranoid exactly like godel and not someone like terry.

>Usual cranks and schizos are always super sure of themselves and their beliefs.

sad and very true

you can see it all the time on LULZ

>He was apparently a very anxious and timid person, always doubting himself

I've always suspected such a trait is a potential catalyst for great logicians and mathematicians. Self doubt leads to ruminating over every step and scrutinizing every assumption obsessively, never fully convinced without a complete and thorough proof.

Can someone please explain the incompleteness theorem in the way that is just the most obvious and clearly logical? I find the explanation of "uuuh we have mathematics axioms that are cards and then we can make statements that are also themselves cards and on the card g there is a sentence haha that you cannot prove it, but if you prove it it's inconsistent! so it must be incomplete checkmate"

I kinda get the point but it's always explained in just words is there something like a formal but also simple proof?

>I kinda get the point but it's always explained in just words is there something like a formal but also simple proof?

the wikipedia page for it

Homeboy had the 'tism and couldn't cope with the disruption to his routine.

"Subtraction is fake and multiplication is gay."

You show that syntax of PA can be systematically connected with natural numbers. The idea is that after we connect the symbols of the formal language with natural numbers, we can talk about different properties as numerical relations that hold on natural numbers, so after we prove that PA can also prove claims about such numerical relations, it will turn out that PA can formulate claims that concern its own syntax, and to prove them. In order to do this, you show that every primitive recursive function can be captured in peano arithmetic. Once we code the notion of proof so that it can be interpreted as a numerical relation that we can define with primitive recursion, we will be able to represent this relation in PA. We then prove the diagonalization lemma, from which it will follow that since we have an open formula ~Prov(x), there is a sentence G for which PA |- G <-> ~Prov([G]).

it ultimately boils down to a proof - using sound binary logic - that binary logic is insufficient to completely describe itself (ergo, it is incomplete). since this by extension means it is insufficient to describe anything completely, simpletons who can only comprehend binary logic have been seething about it ever since.

bullshit, binary logic can 100% describe itself no problem

You can't learn anything for real without sensory inputs.

Unironically read Gödel Escher Bach. It's a great, easy to understand introduction.

Hofstadter = pimp

"“So what does Levi Shand say happened when he went to Hofstadter’s house to deliver the books?” I asked.

“He says he knocked on Hofstadter’s door and it swung open to reveal to his astonishment a harem of beautiful French women. And standing in the midst of the harem was Hofstadter himself. He invited the openmouthed young student inside, took the books, thanked him, and showed him to the door again.”

Excerpt From

The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry

Jon Ronson

There is an entire sub-industry of publishing dedicated to fooling mathematically illiterate English-speaking Westerners regarding the nature of Gödel's work. Gödel reliably contorts and confuses what English-speaking Westerners know of mathematical logic (very little) and this makes them upset and worried, so they ease their pain by buying books. It's some weird mental trick played by israelites and krauts on the West. Moreover, the form of proof taught in Western math classes is informal rather than formal, so Western schools won't even cover the relevant material. It takes a fair amount of confidence to realize that the parts of the Gödel theory don't work together; it's like buying a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces don't fit together because...they just don't. English-speaking Westerners keep falling for the fraud because...they have money, and they don't have the time or courage to admit that they really don't understand the material, they really don't know what's going on. This is the only subject area of mathematics that has produced a large amount of literature for a lay audience, people who think they can recognize a mathematical proof in spite of the fact that they didn't spend a single minute learning about mathematical proof in school. In general, the style is to incorporate cartoons, illustrations and fanciful characters interacting in odd, idiosyncratic ways along the lines of Lewis Carrol's Alice in Wonderland. Mathematics tends to put all of this material in a 'logic ghetto' and disparage it. Foundations of math has a terrible reputation in the math community for this reason.

Dry books like "Naïve Set Theory" by Halmos are the opposite: genuine mathematical literature devoid of the tricks and contortions of popular psudo-logic

Smullyan stuff is good although repetitive.

Also the problem is not Godel work but logic itself/ Basic proof theory should be mandatory, at least at college entry-level so that people are aware of some mechanisms.

The so-called dry "Naïve Set Theory by Halmos " is still to handwavy in my taste (it doesn't define properly the notation "{x | P(x)}", and unfortunately 99.99% foundational books don't, with the exception of Azriel Levy's set theory book or Takeuti and Zaring one).

The best imho is Bourbaki Set Theory where every single thing is defined (btw Adrian Matthias lied about the book and the theory presented in the latest 1970 edition is conservative over ZFC, a fact that is proven by forcing in Jean Louis Krivine set theory book)

>i don't know how to cook

>guess i'll just sit here and starve to death

smart fella

He was one of the greatest logicians. Of course he's smart!

sounds logical to me

It's almost as if "rationality" is a myth for midwits and there is little connection between sheer intelligence and pretenses of rationality.

autistic fucks do be like that

She looks so happy though

First time the autistic girl finds something to connect with the normies over.

>that pic

Lmao that isn't even the craziest thing on her social media.

Pic related

She is literally eating avocado toast with a macbook and some gay notepad filled with angst-ridden narcissistic ramblings and "affirmations", as these people like to say.

This is the philosophical and psychological depth of the elite yuppie chink.

yummy, microplastic meal

Don't know why you're all hating on her. She doesn't seem like a belligerent pseud. She's just cringe in a sad way that reminds me of the fact that some people are genuinely victimized by clownworld.

I dont think shes a pseud, nor did I say she was. I suspect she's very smart and motivated, but I also think she a very neurotic, anxious, uptight young woman with conformist tendencies. These people are very common in grad school and in highly competitive industries like law and biomedicine and tech.

Honestly this. If anything this humanizes her as a sad person navigating the empty waters of this depraved world as much as any of us.

>noooooooo you can't ever be anything but a demoralised eternally bitter doormat like me nooooooo

never though I'd start disliking some normalfaggish chink less than I dislike average cuckchanners

what problem is she having in her life lmao apart from her obvious mental retardation?

>I'm growing and evolving everyday

??? wtf I can't even breathe reading all that

I see you are unaware of the power of gaslighting and neuroprogramming yourself into success

>nooo you have to wear plastic rags or breathe in others' homosexual germs without placebo, proper respirators are le haram

kys bugchasers

ADELE PLS

MAKE ME A SAMMICH

If godel knew how you're slandering his name he would be rolling in the deep

Why didnt he just resort to delivery?

because he developed an obsessive fear of being poisoned. And he'd always be like

Nigga read the op

this has to be in the top 10 malicious posts from this week

Fella decided to die instead of prepare food for himself thoughbeit

x

We actually don't know what it means when logicians say, "if ZF is consistent, then ZFC is consistent"

Moreover, we haven't known since Gödel published his 1938 paper, and we still down know, as of 2023, even though wiki [1] claims

"In 1938,[15] Kurt Gödel showed that the negation of the axiom of choice is not a theorem of ZF by constructing an inner model (the constructible universe) which satisfies ZFC and thus showing that ZFC is consistent if ZF itself is consistent."

without providing any explanation for the meaning of "not a theorem" as this implies some unexplained meta-mathematical axiomatic system...this elision was present in the original paper [2] and the gap has never been filled.

Moreover, German mathematicians exploited the Western press with claims of a proof of the four color theorem, which led to coining a new phrase, the "non-surveyable proof" a.k.a. you are only claiming to have a proof, you don't actually have a proof. [3]

Gödel actually started with something even more baffling: an ambiguous theorem statement requiring massive amounts of work and many decisions to make precise.

Gödel was a charlatan, and instead of admitting his faults, the Germans kept going, so we have Kenneth Appel and Wolfgang Haken continuing to humiliate the Western press [4] and the English speaking world with idiotic claims that turn both journalist and mathematician into schizo babbling buffoons.

All of this suggests that racism against the krauts is appropriate when they speak even one mathematical word. You should expect as much from a child that gets away with stealing: no change in behavior will present itself unless the child is punished.

[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.24.12.556

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-surveyable_proof

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem

the crux of the matter is neglecting to state the meta-mathematical axioms on which the possibility of "? is consistent" is based

logicians simply refuse (decade after decade after decade) to state the axioms that are assumed when referring to the property of consistency

It's like a kid saying "I have a theorem" and then you say "state your assumptions" and the kid just smiles and laughs at you.

the result is anti-mathematical schizoid regurgitation of the same babbling

that's why Gödel is so popular on LULZ; any schizoid can learn the tricks of the trade, related to operating on the English language using techniques such as the pumping lemma. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumping_lemma_for_regular_languages

what does the pumping lemma have to do with anything

>We actually don't know what it means when logicians say, "if ZF is consistent, then ZFC is consistent"

speak for yourself. If you read the proof you understand it intuitively.

Gödel has indirectly highlighted the groundlessness of reality. It is difficult to remain psychologically stable under such conditions, especially alone, at this civilizational stage of growth.

metaphysics boards are LULZ and LULZ

I think you're suggesting that Gödel's unwillingness to define terms turns his work into metaphysical material rather than logical, but the readers here don't (and aren't expected to) have the background or training in discussing the terms you use, as their definition is a matter of historical use rather than an explicit, sanitized, clinical, dry substitution or expansion of a sub-formula within a formula

you know you're reading math when the definitions in the text match the pattern described by model theory

if there is any ambiguity in defined terms, as there is for philosophy and metaphysics, then you aren't doing math, your calculations aren't completely automatic & machinelike

>does this mean that even the smartest and most logical people on earth can still be /x/-tier schizo?

is this news to you??

did you just figure this out today?

are you fucking stupid?

How do you not know the story about Gödel studying Leibniz? I figured it would be popsci history by now.