Biggest maths fruad in history

[ladyjane]

The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean points out Godels theorem is invalid because it uses invalid axioms ie axiom of reducibility it is the biggest fraud in mathematical history
everything dean has shown was known at the time godel did his proof but no one meantioned any of it

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf

look
godel used the 2nd ed of PM he says

“A. Whitehead and B. Russell, Principia Mathematica, 2nd edition, Cambridge 1925. In particular, we also reckon among the axioms of PM the axiom of infinity (in the form: there exist denumerably many individuals), and the axioms of reducibility and of choice (for all types)”

note he says he is going to use AR
but
Russell following wittgenstien took it out of the 2nd ed due to it being invalid
godel would have know that
russell and wittgenstien new godel used it but said nothing
ramsey points out AR is invalid before godel did his proof
godel would have known ramseys arguments
ramsey would have known godel used AR but said nothing

Ramsey says

Such an axiom has no place in mathematics, and anything which cannot be
proved without using it cannot be regarded as proved at all.

This axiom there is no reason to suppose true; and if it were true, this
would be a happy accident and not a logical necessity, for it is not a
tautology. (THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS* (1925) by F. P. RAMSEY

every one knew AR was invalid
they all knew godel used it
but nooooooooooooo one said -or has said anything for 76 years untill dean
the theorem is a fraud the way godel presents it in his proof it is crap

[MagsJ (..a chic geek -all thoughts are my own-)]

…then it’s invalid, LadyJane - it happens in Science all the time: especially with older theorems, where out-dated equations were used in that theory…

Happy New Year, and cheers (if you are having a drink)

[Fin666]

Lady jane,

Godel says:

For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed.1 That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

you say this is false.

So you must conclude that any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elemenary can be both consistent and complete.

???

Godel says in his secound incompleteness theorem:

if the system can prove that it is consistent, then it is inconsistent.

If this is false then a system must beable to prove its own consistency while being consistent.

???

If you believe this then you must conclude that there are complete and consistent formal systems. So then maths is meaningful?

This seems to be the exact opposite of the view you present?

[ladyjane]

Godel says:

it is poor logic to quote a source for authority when that source is being said to be invalid
it matters not what godel says as he proved nothingi
as russell wittgenstein ramsey said his axiom is invalid

dean is concerned only with what godel did - and not what has been done since as they will end in meaninglessness togodel

[Muscular_philosopher]

I really don’t think Ladyjane and Dean understand Godel. And to be so passionate against something you don’t understand…weird…

[Fin666]

@ladyjane

Godel says:

it is poor logic to quote a source for authority when that source is being said to be invalid
it matters not what godel says as he proved nothingi
as russell wittgenstein ramsey said his axiom is invalid

dean
is concerned only with what godel did - and not what has been done
since as they will end in meaninglessness togodel

huh?

The quotes I gave were Godel’s incompleteness theorems you say they are invalid. They are what godel did. they are his theorems. I wasn’t quoting for authority I was quoating the theorems you say are invalid. If they are invaild you must surely think:

1)that any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elemenary can be both consistent and complete.

2. a system must beable to prove its own consistency while being consistent.

If not then you must conclude his theorems are correct.

Surely you can’t be saying his proofs are invaild but lead too correct conclusions???

[ladyjane]

Surely you can’t be saying his proofs are invaild but lead too correct conclusions?
[/quote]

if you want to start from the premiss that his conclusions are correct
then
that does not mean his proof is valid
you can have an invalid proof but get the right conclusions
i will give 2 examples

when newtown gave his proof of calculus it was invalid but gave the right conclusions

“Newton and Leibniz developed the calculus…. Their ideas were attacked for being full of paradoxes.” Newton’s formulation of calculus was self-contradictory yet it worked. Newton worked with small increments going of to a zero limit. Berkeley showed that this leads to logical inconsistency. The main problem Bunch notes was “that a quantity was very close to zero, but not zero, during the first part of the operation then it became zero at the end.” Up until then calculus was used pragmatically such that “instead of having demonstrations justify results, results were used to justify demonstrations.”

the Bohr model of the atom was invalid but it gave the right conclusions

godels proof is invalid whether he has the right conclusions or not

they all knew he used invalid axioms and said nothing

[Anthem]

Calculus was invented before the results were there to justify it. Try again.

[ladyjane]

Calculus was invented before the results were there to justify it

and when it was first invented it was invalid but it worked-gave correct conclusions

“Newton and Leibniz developed the calculus…. Their ideas were attacked for being full of paradoxes.” Newton’s formulation of calculus was self-contradictory yet it worked. Newton worked with small increments going of to a zero limit. Berkeley showed that this leads to logical inconsistency

calculus was used pragmatically such that “instead of having demonstrations justify results, results were used to justify demonstrations.”

[Anthem]

Oh yes, they conveniently stumbled on something not with mathematical proofs, but on accident, which then just worked out later

By the way, what paradoxes? What logical inconsitency?

[ladyjane]

Oh yes, they conveniently stumbled on something not with mathematical proofs, but on accident, which then just worked out later

which answers the question that a proof can be invalid and still give correct conclusions

go read colin leslie deans book

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/irrationality.pdf

Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being ‘true’ rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for ‘truth’: mathematics and science examples

the dean theorem

"Examples from mathematics and science show the theorem: contradiction, or inconsistency within and explanation as well as mutual contradiction, or incommensurability [sic] between explanations does not preclude the explanation or both explanations from being 'true'" p 3

[Anthem]

@ladyjane

which answers the question that a proof can be invalid and still give correct conclusions

That was sarcasm, genius.

@ladyjane

go read colin leslie deans book

No. Dean is about as literate as you. In fact, reading the title I thought it was you at first. Anyway, it’s painful to read.

[ladyjane]

No. Dean is about as literate as you. In fact, reading the title I thought it was you at first. Anyway, it’s painful to read.

nevertheless iliterate dean has shown godel is invalid and every one knew he used invalid axioms and said nothing
i think it really shits you than an iliterate can do that-it undermines your whole ontology about credibilty and the importance of grammar
if dean can be iliterate and destroy the greatest mathematician of the 20th century then any iliterate could do the same and that really threatens you i think

[Anthem]

Here’s the problem with illiterate Deano. I can’t suffer through his work, so I can’t tell if he’s correct or not.

But, it discredits him in this way: if he’s smart enough to do anything, it should be to get someone intelligent to proofread his work and/or translate it. Since he obviously isn’t, how can I trust his work? I can’t.

[ladyjane]

But, it discredits him in this way: if he’s smart enough to do anything, it should be to get someone intelligent to proofread his work and/or translate it. Since he obviously isn’t, how can I trust his work? I can’t.

the truth of his work is not dependent on his grammar but the facts
and the facts are which no one has disputed in al these posts is

Russell following wittgenstien took it out of the 2nd ed due to it being invalid
godel would have know that
russell and wittgenstien new godel used it but said nothing
ramsey points out AR is invalid before godel did his proof
godel would have known ramseys arguments
ramsey would have known godel used AR but said nothing

if he spells ramsey wrong does not make his point wrong
only the facts do

cant you make an assessement of the facts

[Anthem]

@ladyjane

the truth of his work is not dependent on his grammar but the facts

That’s true. However, disseminating his work is dependent on grammar. And it takes away from his credibility.

@ladyjane

cant you make an assessement of the facts

Can you? Please explain to me any fallacy in calculus. I’m not saying there isn’t one, I’m just saying you’re probably incapable of conveying one to me.

[ladyjane]

That’s true. However, disseminating his work is dependent on grammar. And it takes away from his credibility

dean shows credibility has nothing to do with grammar only the facts -and that shits you
as it shows literacy is irrelevant to truth
look why dont you just say if the facts are right or wrong- it cant be that hard to read the words and understand them

Russell following wittgenstien took it out of the 2nd ed due to it being invalid
godel would have know that
russell and wittgenstien new godel used it but said nothing
ramsey points out AR is invalid before godel did his proof
godel would have known ramseys arguments
ramsey would have known godel used AR but said nothing

[Anthem]

@ladyjane

dean shows credibility has nothing to do with grammar only the facts

Oh, is that what his paper is about? Thanks, that clears a lot up.

And I’m not going to read anything you tell me about math being fraudulent until you demonstrate to me that you understand math.

[ladyjane]

And I’m not going to read anything you tell me about math being fraudulent until you demonstrate to me that you understand math.

russel wittgenstien and ramsey understood the maths and they all said AR is invalid and said nothing when godel used it
so if you want comment on dean you must have to comment on russell witt and ramsey as they understood the maths

so come on comment on the facts

Russell following wittgenstien took it out of the 2nd ed due to it being invalid
godel would have know that
russell and wittgenstien new godel used it but said nothing
ramsey points out AR is invalid before godel did his proof
godel would have known ramseys arguments
ramsey would have known godel used AR but said nothing

[Anthem]

I’m not even touching Goedel, Russel, Ramsey, or Wittgenstein because I don’t know enough about them. I’m sure they were all very good at math. I’m talking about you.

You attacked calculus and said it had paradoxes. I ask you, are you an expert in calculus? Where is this paradox?

And why, if you can’t do the math, are you agreeing with Dean? It’s because you have some bogus beef with everything.