Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem - Professor Tony Mann

[אליאלבן-דן-הנ]

Is it a lecture when the lecturer just reads?

[talayahem]

If you wear a shirt inside-out won't everyone in the universe be wearing he shirt except you? Can someone please explain?

[HappyLobsterShow]

Best explanation on Youtube so far. Still looking. But I like this. Wish he had the personality of Bill Nye, or at least, like, a houseplant. Still, Thanks for this!

[lmr]

Gof he knows how to catch an audience.

[jamestagge]

i have been working through this for a while now and hope someone will comment on the following. i do think that this theorem makes no sense and rather than discovering a hole in logic/math, introduces one which is pure sophistry.
1. If we consider the statement of Goedel’s that “this statement is true but cannot be proved” it can only mean;
 That the statement “this statement is true but cannot be proved” is itself the statement of issue (self-referencing). So, “if” “this statement is true but cannot be proved” is true as per its own definition/claim then the why and how would have to be known and discernable or all this makes no sense. I might be in error but I think that Goedel presented this “this statement is true but cannot be proved” via his translation of some mathematical statements by his number system as the calculated consequence of some “hole” in mathematics and logic, not a word puzzle/paradox. It is supposed to be a structural phenomenon of mathematics/logic. This would mean that the mathematical statement from which it was translated claimed to be true, (before translation) but could not be determined as such by means of any reasons as to how or why. This is illogical.
• The problem is that the conclusion of his translation claims to be merely just that, a translation such that the mathematical statement from which the translation was the extension, had to be known to be true but also to have no proof before the translation was executed or it could not have been reflected in that translation and that makes no sense. Here we have the tail wagging the dog.
• The problem is that this mathematical statement which when translated claimed that it was true, would have to have had some reason to be considered true, some structural reason which again, would mean that in reflection of that structure, we would have the how and why it was true which would be the proof.

I am sorry but I do think that given the above, it is clear that this entire scheme is sophistry, i.e., that the logic is backward in the acceptance of this scheme. The logic by which his very propositions were defined is being denied in the manipulation of the components of the scheme that it might be asserted and accepted.

Can anyone review this one last post and let me know what you think? I just think that if there is math to prove this, it must be in error or the semantic analogy would make sense and it decidedly does not. Thanks.

[kamrahmane]

"An examination of some RECENT work on paradoxes by the Austrian-American Mathematician Kurt Gödel"... FYI Kurt Godel published this stuff in 1931. He died in 1978. Perhaps not as recent as you might think

[rodsitvideos]

Its a language problem because the *word* true really means 'demonstrably always the case' and when we think of infinite numbers then language (true) is inappropriate, but a computer has no issue with it, only humans due to assigning a meaning to a word (true)

Same with 'it is not' meaning 'it doesn't exist' -- we cannot appropriately even utter those words without mass confusion which again, a computer would have no issue - it would reject 'it does not exist'

[Retorix]

Wow... Thanks for uploading this. I found it to be quite titillating.

[jimbo]

all godel proved is mathematicians like to argue and are pompous at best.. but his accent. the most posh scottish i have ever heard lol

[mycount]

the suspense riveting, the humour tittlating.

[swagatrout]

There should be a warning for geek only.. People like myself dont get a damn idea what he's talking about

[wernertrptube]

Dieser Mathematiker kann weder seine Kravatte binden noch kann er seine Schnürsenkel richtig bedienen.

[KamalKatariaAtJiet]

It is impossible for the Godel's theorem to be both true and complete. We must know, we shall know👍

[SeanMauer]

I have to wonder if the incompleteness therom stems from the fact that the universe, as we experience it, is not self contained.

[CosmicFaust]

Does anybody believe mathematical infinities can exist in the real (physical) world or not? Let's see which side gets the most votes.

[MrAndrew]

Does checkmate within a game of chess not demonstrate beyond doubt who won and who lost any given game? Is that not self-consistent and provable within and according to the respective rules and the system of logic which define the rules of chess? And is chess not based on mathematical rules.

Also, is it not reasonable to say that one can construct a logical description of the universe without the aid of mathematics? I am supremely confident that it is. I have yet, for example, to see cogent definitions of the phenomena from which mathematics originated, ie. mind, mathamatical or otherwise.

[fredocorleone]

The conclusion didn't make any sense, since we are "living" inside of, possibly multiple computer simulations. You can't definitively make a distinction between humans, programs, or computers in seeking "logical specification".

[naimulhaq]

Besides playing with words, consider the real world of the Russel's paradox; The set of all sets, is quite meaningless since 'infinite sets' are undefined.
Again, God is benevolent also means he is malevolent. The truth value of the 'lying paradox', is meaningless as long as truth or false are undefined.

[zaidsserubogo]

The limits of topological sequences of change and the limits of permutations of change were forgotten. Put them under consideration and the polynomial picture of the universe will come under the figure tips of your observational reasoning

[GordonjSmith]

I am sure that the presenter has had 'better days' than this.