You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Bikura comments on Open Thread, Jun. 8 - Jun. 14, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Gondolinian 08 June 2015 12:04AM

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

Comments (153)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 09 June 2015 12:33:19AM *  1 point [-]

Thank you for this insightful and comprehensive reply!

I have a follow-up question: Would ultrafinitist arithmetic still be incomplete due to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem?

Comment author: TezlaKoil 09 June 2015 10:59:52PM 2 points [-]

I believe that an ultrafinitist arithmetic would still be incomplete. By that I mean that classical mathematics could prove that a sufficiently powerful ultrafinitist arithmetic is necessarily incomplete. The exact definition of "sufficiently powerful", and more importantly, the exact definition of "ultrafinitistic" would require attention. I'm not aware of any such result or on-going investigation.

The possibility of an ultrafinitist proof of Gödel's theorem is a different question. For some definition of "ultrafinitistic", even the well-known proofs of Gödel's theorem qualify. Mayhap^1 someone will succed where Nelson failed, and prove that "powerful systems of arithmetic are inconsistent". However, compared to that, Gödel's 1st incompleteness theorem, which merely states that "powerful systems of arithmetic are either incomplete or inconsistent", would seem rather... benign.

^1 very unlikely, but not cosmically unlikely