i will make it simple

ramsey understood the maths

so

is he right or wrong when he says

Nooo…I will make it simple.

You are pushing something you don’t understand. That’s not intelligent.

Where is the paradox in calculus? Show me one.

another simple question

russell and wittgenstien understood the maths

where they right or wrong in saying AR is invalid

I don’t care, is the simple answer. The axiom of reducibility is invalid, so what? I haven’t read Goedel’s works, so I don’t know how dependent his conclusions are on this axiom.

You are unwise to push something you don’t understand. Do a simple calculus problem for me.

godels axiom 1v is AR and his formular 40 uses AR formular 40 is used to arrive at his theorem v1 which is his incompleteness theorem

when you admitt AR is invalid

you thus admitt godels incompleteness theorem is invalid

Holy hell, this is hilarious. I took a closer look at Dean’s paper. First of all, none of his degrees are in mathematics. Secondly, the people he sites are saying different things than his paper. And thirdly, his degrees are in literature? My God, read this ‘sentence’:

Are you sure you’re not Dean?

Nope. I’m admitting I don’t know enough about Goedel to know if he’s valid or not. That’s a good stance to take when you don’t know something…you should try it.

Anyway, Fin666 and Muscular Philosopher both seem to think Dean is full of it. I’d be willing to put my money on them, especially since they generally don’t agree with each other on anything and are very knowledgeable in mathematics.

fact is you even admitt AR is invalid

godel uses it in his axiom 1v and formular 40

thus his theorem is invalid

it must really shit you that iliterate dean with no degree in maths has destroyed a god of mathematics

facts are facts

godel uses AR and it is invalid-even you say so

The axiom of reducibility is invalid. I don’t know if Goedel uses the axiom of reducability, or if it’s central to his theories. So, I can say nothing about its validity or non-validity. You should learn something from this.

Can you explain the axiom of reducibility? Now who’s blindly accepting what people tell you to accept? You’ve just proven yourself wrong in this stunt, happy birthday.

Here’s a video explaining what I mean: youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

Time for bed.

i have shown you he uses AR in his axiom 1v and formular 40

you even say it is invalid

but if you want to say

then dont come on this forum and have the gall to say dean is wrong when HEEEEEEEEEEEE says godel is invalid for useing and axiom even you say is invalid

Alright, one more, and then bed.

I didn’t say Dean is wrong, although he probably is. I said he’s an idiot without credibility. There’s a difference.

And you’re not listening. Why am I arguing with you, you can’t even spell ‘fraud’.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong…wrong wrong wrong wrong…you’re wrong…you’re wrong…you’re wrong…

Good night.

sorry even you say AR is invalid and godel uses it

the point is what really drives you insane is that you say

but he nevertheless has shown godel is invalid since he uses AR which even you say is invalid

it must shitttttttttt you so much

I really have no attachment to Goedel, I couldn’t care less if he’s wrong. It wouldn’t have been Dean doing the disproving anyway, in case you haven’t noticed; it’s a cited research paper. And I think he’s citing things out of context, but I don’t have the patience to go and confirm that.

Guess who else worked using an invalid assumption? Newton. Does that bother me? Not one bit. And I have a huge man-crush on Newton, or at least his physics. It’s just how science works…you work on something and if it turns out to be wrong, you improve it or move onto something completely different. However, that thing that is wrong could still be very useful in many situations. By the way, I’m talking about Newton’s physics, not calculus…you still haven’t shown me that you understand Calc, let alone could explain any paradoxes in it.

So, little girl, before you go on, I recommend you have something new to say (because you’ve repeated yourself like 14 times, and that’s lame), and that you make it through Algebra I. It’s not very hard, I’ll start you off:

Solve for x.

5 + x = 7

Hint: 5 + 2 = 7

Isn’t that basic math - give LadyJane some high-school shit to solve: see if she can handle that.

…a compelling thread, btw - I’ve been following the convo, and will continue to do so

Here, lady: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=162207

Ladyjane,

Step up to the plate and show me a formal system of arithmetic that is consistent and complete, proven from within the system.

even peano axioms are invalid poincare pointed this out -even peanos system cant be proven to be consistent and godel uses them to prove his theorem

go ask B. Bunch, Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes, Dover, 1982,

and

I. Gratten-Guinness, From the Calculus to set theory 1630-1910, Duckworth, 1980,

No, I want to ask you. You don’t understand math. Go home.

so i take it dean has proved his point

so why did no one point out godel used invalid assumptions at the time and and for 76 yr no one said any thing untill dean

SOOOOOOOOOOOO WHYYYYYYYYYY WAS THATTT

Ladyjane…Godel…doesn’t…formally…prove…anything. Not show me the opposite of Godel. I want you to show me a formal system of arithmetic that is consistent and complete within itself. You CANNOT. So…that means…Godel was correct. Seeing as you can prove ANYTHING in an inconsistent system, he can do whatever he wants, kind of his point.

Prove him wrong by providing a system that is complete and consistent within itself.

Do you know what Godel originally intended to do with his theorems? Not what you think…