Darmani comments on Completeness, incompleteness, and what it all means: first versus second order logic - Less Wrong

45 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 16 January 2012 05:38PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (38)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Darmani 27 January 2012 04:57:08PM 2 points [-]

Yes, but the point is that we are learning features from empirical observations, not using some magic deduction system that our computers don't have access to. That may only be one bit of information, but it's a very important bit. This skips over the mysterious part in the exact same way that "electrical engineering" doesn't answer "How does a CPU work?" -- it tells you where to look to learn more.

I know far less about empirical mathematics than about logic. The only thing along these lines I'm familiar with is Douglas Lenat's Automated Mathematician (which is only semi-automated). A quick search for "automated mathematician" on Google Scholar gives a lot of more recent work, including a 2002 book called "Automated theory formation in pure mathematics."