I do believe this opinion places you very high on the 'confidence' axis, but not especially far along the 'competence' axis.
It is fated to be proved as a trivial corollary to some more important mathematics; a corollary that no one would have bothered with if not for the historical importance.
The unsolved Twin Prime Conjecture, of roughly the same age, is expected to lead to much more interesting mathematics if it is proved.
> The proof of Gödel's result's involves very carefully formalizing what statements and proofs mean so that they can be encoded as statements about arithmetic. He then shows there is a statement with encoding G that says "The statement with encoding G cannot be proved" – if it is true, then it cannot be proved.
Sorry I meant to quote this bit at the beginning of my comment. Parent comment which I was replying to talks about both.
that is disrespectful and very very very short sighted.
also, go read up (...on Gödel, Cantor, Turing, Tarski, etc...)
My training is as an applied physicist. We physicists have an interesting relationship with math. Obviously math is essential to the work that we do, but the physical world decides whether the math is right, not the other way around. Our mathematical models technically permit things like negative mass, time flowing backwards, or magnetic monopoles. But that doesn't mean tachyons, time machines, or fundamental magnetic particles exist--they don't, so far as we know. So I'm trained to actively disregard non-physical, not relevant mathematical implications. I'm sorry if this offends a pure mathematicians sensibilities, but pragmatically it is very useful.
Or take a different field: in computational semantics, a branch of formal linguistics, there are many models for inferring a formal logical statement from an example written sentence or spoken utterance, and then determining the validity (truth) of the statement. These models get caught up on stuff like "This sentence is false." What's the truth value for that sentence? If it is true then it must be false, and if it is false then it must be true. Error, validity of this statement can't be determined! But hey, it turns out that in practice this basically never happens unless the speaker is really confused, misspeaks, or deliberately evasive. Real sentences don't have this self-referential, circular logic structure because that's not how people think or communicate.
Now "this sentence is false" goes back to the greeks, IIRC, and Gödel's theorem is slightly different. Gödel's main work is in the formalization of proofs and proof systems, and I don't want to take away from that in any way. But the incompleteness theorem always seems to be explained through these sorts of self-referential examples and I have yet to ever see it reduced to a practical problem with real-world implications. Hence my question. Does Gödel's incompleteness theorem actually constrain a real world application of proof systems, where we tend to be interested in non-cyclical logical arguments?
That was the belief before the 1800s. But with the discovery of non-euclidean geometry, math has been divorced from the physical world. Math is simply a system of axioms and proofs. Math is purely abstract and logical. Whatever math that physicists use just simply happens to align with the physical world.
Also, the physical world doesn't confirm whether the math is "right". Math is deductive, not inductive. As long as the math is derivable from the axioms, it is right. The physical world/experiments determine whether the mathematical model aligns with the physical world. The physical world has no say in math. Not anymore.
> So I'm trained to actively disregard non-physical, not relevant mathematical implications.
In the past, when a mathematical model predicted something ( relativity to quantum physics to elements ), experiments were conducted to determine whether the models aligned with the physical world. If the mathematical models make predictions that physicists currently can't verify with experiments, should we disregard it? Do we need technology to advance to where we can conduct experiments. Do we need physics to become more abstract? Perhaps model the physical world in the virtual world. Would experiments in the virtual world be applicable to physics? Seems like physics is both at a dead-end and on the cusp of a revolution.
One of the things it inspired was Turing's work on uncomputable numbers. It turns out that computability and incompleteness are intertwined, which at least I find interesting. And without the "uncomputable numbers" malarkey, I wonder if the Turing Machine formalism would exist (answer, "probably, but maybe looking different and with another name"). And, well, the Halting Problem is essentially Gödel Incompleteness (imagine handwaving here).
As for proof systems, again, the answer is "probably". Knowing that there are true, unprovable, statements in a formalism is something that informs how you approach it, you need to put a limit on how far to go before you say "I don't know" and taht is in and of itself important.
Never mind then, I’m sorry I bothered.
The proof of Gödel's result uses the paradoxical statement "This statement is false", but that's being used to prove this very general result about all systems. So the hunt is then on to find "natural" statements that are True but Unprovable.
But the "unprovable" bit should more completely be stated as "unprovable in a specific axiomatic proof system". If we want to prove that statement S is "True but Unprovable" then we must actually prove that it's true. So if we've proved it's true, what does it mean to say it's unprovable? We just proved it! What's going on?
So let's take a specific example.
Peano Arithmetic (PA)[0] is an axiomatic proof system intended to capture Natural Numbers and their behaviour.
The "Goodstein Sequence" G(m) of a number m is a sequence of natural numbers ... you can find the definition here[1]. It's not hard, but it's longer than I want to reproduce here.
Goodstein's Theorem (GT) says that for every integer m greater than 0, G(m) is eventually zero.
It has been proven that GT cannot be proved in PA, but it can be proved in stronger systems, such as second-order arithmetic.
So the statement of GT is not self-referential, along the lines of "This Statement Is False" sort of thing. It's an actual statement about the behaviour of integers, so it's not a self-referential trick.
Your question now is: What's the point? How is this useful or relevant?
Much of modern (pure) mathematics is chasing things because the mathematicians find them interesting. The vast, vast majority will never, of themselves, be useful by (what I expect are) your standards.
But it was once thought that factoring integers was of no practical use, and only pursued or investigated by cranks. Imaginary Numbers were thought to be bizarre, useless, and dangerous. Non-Euclidean Geometry was thought to be utter nonsense, and held up as part of the "proof" that the fifth postulate was unnecessary and was deducible from the other four. All three of these now form critical components in modern technology.
Even more, to the average person on the street, anything to do with algebra is completely pointless.
For you, Gödel's theorem is completely pointless and useless and probably of no interest at all, but it helps us understand the limitations of formal systems. The techniques that have been developed in the time since it was proved have helped us understand more about what computer verification systems might or might not be able to accomplish.
Of itself, Gödel's theorem might not be of direct, immediate, and practical use, but the work it has inspired has tangentially been useful, and may yet be moreso.
But not for everyone. After all, some people don't care about the Mona Lisa, or Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, or Michaelangelo's David, or the fact that people have walked on the Moon, so why should people care about results in Pure Mathematics?
That's the thing about Pure Mathematics. Sometimes it ends up being useful in ways we never expected.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodstein's_theorem#Goodstein_...
But one of those two must be true, you just can't prove it. Of course you can add a new axiom that allows you to prove one or the other (or accept one of those statements as an axiom), but you will still have other statements that you can't prove.
Three alternative accounts:
* Both the CH and ¬CH mathematical universes really exist, so we just have to choose which one we're more interested in at a given time. Like one might say there are the "reall numbers" and the "realle numbers", both valid and interesting constructions which humanity was just slow to recognize the distinctions between (because they were initially less relevant to our interests and our day-to-day lives).
* We are actually ultimately thinking about one or the other of them, or are in some sense in one or the other mathematical universe, but we don't know enough about our intuition about the reals to be able to specify or explain which one. (Maybe we need other properties whose obviousness or relevance humanity is not smart enough to notice?)
* Some finitist or ultrafinitist approach is actually right: the real numbers are a formalism that, while reasonably motivated by historical attempts to "complete" mathematics in various ways, doesn't correspond to anything Platonically real or to anything intellectually relevant to humanity. (In this account, there is potentially no answer to the question because the real numbers don't exist at all. Neither CH nor ¬CH refers to a mathematical reality, just to games about formalisms.)
It's also a provable statement (via excluded middle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis#Independe...
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice#Independence
And thanks to Wikipedia for this elaborate list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_independent...
My understanding comes from Keith Devlin’s wonderful book “Mathematics: A new golden age”.
IMO the most weird thing is the following, intertwining consistency of ZFC with Diophantine equations[2]:
> One can write down a concrete polynomial p ∈ Z[x1, ..., x9] such that the statement "there are integers m1, ..., m9 with p(m1, ..., m9) = 0" can neither be proven nor disproven in ZFC (assuming ZFC is consistent). [...] the polynomial is constructed so that it has an integer root if and only if ZFC is inconsistent.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_independent...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_independent...
But in general, Gödel applies to all formal systems that satisfy certain properties, it's just that the exact unprovable sentences will be different (since you may just add that sentence as an axiom) that's why the general example is very abstract. It shows that sufficiently rich theories are not only incomplete, but also incompletable.
Goodstein's theorem and the Paris-Harrington theorem are some examples of this for ZFC. There are several more, maybe a logician could chime in
The CH is undoubtedly meaningful, natural, and of huge interest to (a subset of) mathematicians.
There are huge branches of mathematics that don't find immediate practicality in physics. Often these end up being practical in cryptography or quantum mechanics, but sometimes they don't. But to dismiss the entire field that relates to the cardinality of real numbers as uninteresting if someone can't give you a practical application of it shows a simple disregard for other fields of study.
Because if you show that the converse of Goldbach's conjecture is not provable, you have actually proven Goldbach's conjecture (since you have shown that there is no counterexample!).
>Think of each statement about the natural numbers as a subset where each number in the subset makes the statement true. There are uncountably many subsets of the natural numbers (by Cantor's diagonalization argument).
Don't we only care about the countable set of statements that can written down in a given logical system? Say second order logic + ZFC.
By “converse” I think you mean “negation”.
A statement being unprovable means we will never know whether it is this or false. > Because if you show that the converse of Goldbach's conjecture is not provable, you have actually proven Goldbach's conjecture (since you have shown that there is no counterexample!).
Nope: demonstrating that (the opposite of Goldbach’s conjecture) is unprovable is logically equivalent to demonstrating that (Goldbach’s conjecture) is unprovable. It means we’ll never know either way.
I think this is false. If you find a number N that is not the sum of two primes, you did disprove Goldbach's conjecture. Any such number would be smaller than infinity, and so there would only be a finite set of primes smaller it to check for.
So basically, if Goldbach's conjecture turns out to be false it IS going to be PROVABLY false.
Only if Goldbach's conjecture is actually true will it be the case that it is impossible to prove its negation. But if it is ALSO unprovable (but STILL true) you will NOT be able to prove that the negation is unprovable, because that would mean that there doesn't exist ANY number N that disproves the conjecture, so would prove the unprovable original conjecture....
Consider the statement "All swans are white", but you live in a universe with an infinite number of swans.
Lets assume that there exists at least one black swan. Proving the statement false is trivial once you find the first black swan.
However, if all swans in the given universe ARE white, and you have no way of inspecting every one, you can never PROVE that they are all white. Also you can NOT prove that it is impossible to prove the negation.
Yes, you can. Math is not physics. Pythagoras was able to prove his theorem about every triangle in the universe without inspecting every triangle in the universe. The trick is that "the universe" is not the physical universe, it's just a choice of axioms.
My understanding is that statements about members of infinite sets can be decidable if there exists a method to set up use recoursion/induction to cover all of them. For the set of right triangles, this is relatively straight forward (if we ignore the complexity introduced by real numbers).
For statements on infinite sets where it is not possible to reduce a proof to such recoursion/induction, you quickly end up needing an infinite number of steps to cover all cases, meaning the problem is undeciable/uncomputable.
See the Church-Turing thesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis
Lets hypothetize that Goldbach's conjecture is true and unprovable (let's call it S1). In that case, the following statments are both true: C1) It is impossible to prove S1. C2) It is impossible to prove the converse of S1. (since in this case S1 is true, the converse is actually false, so cannot be proven).
Now, if we go into meta-proofs, we may be able to prove C1 (whether or not S1 is true). But we will never be able to prove C2 (if S1 is true and unprovable, C2 will also be true and unprovable).
Now, if S1 is actually false, We may actually at some point find a proof of that. But that's not really so interesting.
The interesting part is that there DOES exist statements like this that ARE true AND unprovable (even if we don't know which statments), we just don't know WHAT statments those are.
A proof (there) is just a finite number of symbols which happens to have a specifix form (A=>B AND A), where A and B are sentences, which are finite sequences of symbols having a slecific form… Wait, I am telling you a half of what Gödel did to prove his result.
Whether or not a visual demonstration like that is actually a “proof” is a separate question. It definitely wouldn’t satisfy Hilbert, and doesn’t meet this definition:
> A proof of a statement S is a finite sequence of assertions S(1), S(2), … S(n) such that S(n) = S and each S(i) is either an axiom or else follows from one or more of the preceding statements S(1), …, S(i-1) by a direct application of a valid rule of inference.
I also don’t know of any visual “proof” like that which can’t be explained much more rigorously and powerfully with a formal set of assertions. But pulling threads like this and really asking what makes a proof a “proof” are some of the deepest questions I think a person can ask. It’s worth doing if only to appreciate what an incredible accomplishment all of the formal set theory work is in unifying and attempting to define meta concepts like “proof” itself.
For such proofs to be contained in a finite space, the verifying person or machine needs to be able to distinguish between arbitrarily minute differences between proofs.
Again, that doesn’t really count as a “proof” by modern standards, but it’s how the ancient greeks thought (they used more than just visual intuition/they also used more rigorous and formal propositions than that water thing, but they were visual and didn’t involve finite sets)
Of course, this is not an argument that our brains are absolutely finite and classical. Perhaps analog computations is required for an appreciation of beauty, or quantum physics is necessary for us to fall in love. But we seem to be able to check math proofs without them.
Goldbach's conjecture is that "every even number bigger than 2 is the sum of exactly two prime numbers", so 4 = 2 + 2, 6 = 3 + 3, 8 = 5 + 3, etc.
For this statement to be *true* it just means that every even number there must exist two primes that add to that number. This is a statement about infinitely many integers.
A *proof* of Goldbach's conjecture consists of a finite number of formal reasoning steps that start with some axioms and end up at the statement of the result.
To this day, it seems as though Goldbach's conjecture is true. It holds for every number we've been able to test. However, no one has proved it is true or false yet (or proved that it is unprovable).
The proof of Gödel's result's involves very carefully formalizing what statements and proofs mean so that they can be encoded as statements about arithmetic. He then shows there is a statement with encoding G that says "The statement with encoding G cannot be proved" – if it is true, then it cannot be proved.
It's kind of confusing at first, but there is an easier way to get an intuition why there might be true statements that cannot be proved. Think of each statement about the natural numbers as a subset where each number in the subset makes the statement true. There are uncountably many subsets of the natural numbers (by Cantor's diagonalization argument). Proofs are finite chains of finite statements so there are only countably infinitely many of these. Therefore there must be subsets/statements that are true that do not have a matching proof.
The approach that Gödel's proof takes is not too different to the above argument – it is essentially a diagonalization argument – the complexity is in making the encoding of statements are numbers very precise.