News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Hawking Hawking by syops on Friday April 09, 2021 @07:23AM (#26749096)
Assume consistency. Take the collections of all true statements about the standard model of the natural numbers and make these statements your axioms. Now every true statement about the standard model of the natural numbers is provable. It’s a useless axiomatic system since there is no procedure for knowing if a statement is an axiom of not (that works for every statement). The second order Peano axioms are categorical and assuming consistency every true statement is ‘provable’.
Re:Hawking Hawking by ProfHewitt on Saturday April 10, 2021 @03:07PM (#26764113)
Higher-order Dedekind/Peano axioms are categorical in the

sense that they characterize Natural Numbers up to a unique

isomorphism. However, there is still a proposition about

Natural Numbers that true but unprovable using the

Dedekind/Peano axioms. Further information can be found here:

"Physical Indeterminacy in Digital Computation"

https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3459566

Re:Hawking Hawking by syops on Monday April 12, 2021 @10:08AM (#26779616)
So the last sentence I made is false. The rest is correct, right?
Re:Hawking Hawking by ProfHewitt on Friday April 16, 2021 @11:34AM (#26835155)
Yes, the last statement that you made is indeed false, that is,

it is not the case that every true proposition is provable in

Dededkind's theory.