On 12/10/06 9:19 AM, "Charles Silver"
<silver_1-mn4gwa5WIIQysxA8WJXlww@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> First, thanks very much for all the interesting and enlightening
> responses to my question. A couple of comments:
> Diagonalization is not central to Godel's (first) theorem, as shown
> by Kripke's proof of G's theorem that was published by Putnam, which
> does not *require* diagonalization.
> I believe this proof also shows--please correct me if I'm wrong--
> that a specifically *mathematical* proposition (though an unusual
> one) cannot be proved nor can its negation.
>
>
It would be helpful to the FOM readership for you to give us a reference to
this paper by Putnam. I have serious doubts about the claims you are
suggesting.
Harvey Friedman
|
