[FOM] Freeman Dyson on Inexhaustibility
A.P. Hazen
a.hazen at philosophy.unimelb.edu.au
Thu Apr 29 01:15:46 EDT 2004
Charles Silver's report of Freeman Dyson's comments remined me of
the only "New Yorker" magazine "Talk of the town" column ever
reviewed by Alonzo Church in the J.S.L. (XVII 289(6) -- the column
appeared in the August 23, 1952 issue of the magazine).
Gödel had been awarded an honorary degree, and the citation
included the intriguing comment that his work was incomprehensible
to most people. When the "New Yorker" staff writer interviewed him
about this, Gödel admitted that his Continuum Hypothesis work was a
bit technical, but asserted that the Incompleteness Theorem was
quite accessible. His one-line summary of the significance of the
incompleteness results was that they showed that mathematics was
"inexhaustible."
--
As for the snide comments of computer scientists, who Karlis
Podnieks reports as claiming that the Incompleteness result is a
simple corollary of the more fundamental theorem that there are
non-recursive r.e. sets... There is **some** truth to this (despite
its inversion of the historical sequence of discovery). Since Turing
Machines and their behavior are (via Gödel-numbering) DESCRIBABLE in
the language of Arithmetic, the First Incompleteness Theorem -- the
existence of unprovable truths -- follows easily from the
Unsolvability of the Halting Problem. Because of the intuitive
nature of Turing Machines (and because this argument avoids the
puzzling "self-referential" sentence), I have found this the easiest
proof of First Incompleteness to present to students (toward the end
of the semester, when time is short).
The Second Incompleteness Theorem, on the other hand....
--
Allen Hazen
Philosophy Department
University of Melbourne
More information about the FOM
mailing list