= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Warrigal comments on We won't be able to recognise the human Gödel sentence - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (33)
That's not true. Gödel sentences are true for (most?) consistent systems, and false for all inconsistent systems.
Truth and falsity in an inconsistent system is a bit of a weird concept.
To be more specific: Gödel sentences are true within inconsistent systems (because of explosion) but if we give them a meta-interpretation then they are false about inconsistent systems.
Truth within a consistent system is a bit of a weird concept as well. Is the continuum hypothesis true within ZFC? The question isn't actually meaningful; the continuum hypothesis is true within some models of ZFC, and false within others.