Eugine_Nier comments on Explained: Gödel's theorem and the Banach-Tarski Paradox - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (40)
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.
Ok, I agree that this is an important point.
You're right, I hadn't thought about that.