Eugine_Nier comments on Explained: Gödel's theorem and the Banach-Tarski Paradox - Less Wrong

10 Post author: XiXiDu 06 January 2012 05:23PM

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

Comments (40)

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

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 07 January 2012 06:18:20AM 2 points [-]

It doesn't talk about Gödel numbering, which is the real ingenuity behind the proof,

Depends if you only want to show that set theory is incomplete, you don't need Gödel numbering and you can more-or-less turn Smullyan's explanation into a complete proof in a straightforward manner.

and it doesn't talk about omega-inconsistency.

Ok, I agree that this is an important point.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 January 2012 01:52:16PM 0 points [-]

Depends if you only want to show that set theory is incomplete, you don't need Gödel numbering and you can more-or-less turn Smullyan's explanation into a complete proof in a straightforward manner.

You're right, I hadn't thought about that.