>>11769819>>11773018this is all very suspicious to me. i'm not letting you get away with claiming that you understand this while also claiming you can't paraphrase this thing that you understand in natural language.
what i'm gathering from your posts is that godel's incompleteness is looking to end a fruitless quest for a formalized mathematics that can't be obtained. godel proves it by showing that
1: under some conditions (which i don't understand), languages can be used to make self referential statements
2: because mathematicians want to formalize mathematics in such a way that it has some properties that mathematicians care about, they have to formalize mathematics in a way that meets those conditions, so it has to contain self referential statements
3: and this is a problem because of the way that mathematicians view self referential statements as problems, so mathematicians can't get what they want without also getting the problems
is this fair?
also, liar sentences are still hotly debated among logicians. at least to the extent that i am able to read the papers, it's not clear to me that anyone is winning. does this mean that godel's incompleteness theorems are controversial?
>>11772985>>11772722these posts only compound my confusion. all this stuff about the foundations of knowledge is old and tiresome. it can't be godel's original contribution because those aren't his original ideas.
