Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception --- Ultimate Foundation of Truth

On 3/2/2025 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/2/2025 2:21 PM, olcott wrote:

>
When formal systems can be defined in such a way that they are not
incomplete and undecidability cannot occur it is stupid to define
them differently.
>

 That doesn't change the fact that Robinson arithmetic contains the true statement "no number is equal to its successor" that has *only* an infinite connection to the axioms

If RA is f-cked up then toss it out on its ass.
We damn well know that no natural number is equal to its
successor as a matter of stipulation.
I have eliminated the necessity of incompleteness. All
formal systems that can represent arithmetic are not
incomplete unless you stupidly define them in a way that
makes them incomplete.
Math and logic people love thinking inside the box. They think that the
box that imprisons their thinking is infallible. Philosophy of logic
people mostly think outside the box.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer