[HN Gopher] How Godel's proof works (2020) ___________________________________________________________________ How Godel's proof works (2020) Author : ljosifov Score : 96 points Date : 2023-11-23 11:52 UTC (11 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org) | pfarrell wrote: | Veritasium has an excellent video explaining the proof and the | historical context. | | https://youtu.be/HeQX2HjkcNo | grondilu wrote: | You beat me to it. It is indeed a fantastic Veritasium video. | One of his best, in my opinion. | cubefox wrote: | I remember this video containing some major inaccuracies in his | presentation of Hilbert's program (which is understandable, he | is not an expert), so you might want to take the rest of the | video with a grain of salt as well. | pfarrell wrote: | I look at videos like these as gateways to get someone | excited about a subject, not as scholarly works. What you say | is good to keep in mind on any video. You can't get the full | depth of anything complicated in 30 minutes, but it can make | you want to learn more. | Kranar wrote: | What is the major inaccuracy? Usually when I hear claims like | these and ask for an elaboration it turns out it's not a | major inaccuracy at all, just a pedantic disagreement over | what mostly amounts to style. | | At any rate I'd definitely be interested in to know what is | such a major inaccuracy presented that the entire video can | be dismissed on that basis. | bmitc wrote: | Not speaking to any inaccuracies as I haven't watched the | video, but my main hesitancy is that he's not a | mathematican, his videos aren't reviewed prior to | publication, and Godel's work is very subtle and often | misunderstood. | ThrowawayTestr wrote: | You should watch the video before commenting on it | bmitc wrote: | I didn't comment on the video. My point is that there | isn't much draw to it over more accepted and reviewed | sources. | passion__desire wrote: | I liked this explanation of Godel's theorem from programming's | perspective. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpSxqde0af4 | hprotagonist wrote: | John Conway's lectures are quite good. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSx63Uy-gn0 | scrim wrote: | For a true dive into this subject I highly recommend the book | Godel, Escher, Bach. | demondemidi wrote: | I have never finished that book. I've started it a dozen times | since 1990. I die about 60% of the way through it. Does it ever | get to the theorem? | | Edit: thanks for the recommendations, but I have several books | that discuss the proof. I was just asking if GEB gets to it. | drivebyadvice wrote: | There's better resources if you just want to know about | Godel's Incompleteness Theorem tbh. GEB is neat because of | all the other ideas he ties into it. | markisus wrote: | I think so. But there are much shorter and more rigorous | proofs in textbooks. | tshaddox wrote: | If you're not entertained throughout I don't think there's | any reason to stick with it. It's not like there's some huge | payoff at the end where "it all clicks." It's a fairly | meandering journey across several disciplines with a lot of | experimental literary techniques, and while it's certainly | intellectually challenging and rewarding, if you're not | enjoying the process there's no reason to stick with it! | scubbo wrote: | I don't have an answer for you (I last read it so long ago | that I can't actually recall the specific content - though | I'd be surprised if it didn't, given the title!), but just | echoing that, although I _adore_ GEB (actually, I'm over-due | for a re-read!), I've tried-and-failed multiple times to get | through "Le Ton Beau De Marot", by the same author. Certain | books just don't click with some people, and that's OK! | demondemidi wrote: | I lost track of the equations and theorems, but if when I | put it down and come back to it, I've lost momentum! lol. | Like "Gravity's Rainbow"... someday I'll make it through | that without getting utterly lost. | krukah wrote: | It "gets to the theorem" without offering a formal proof, but | having read both, I find that Hofstadter's short stories and | intuitions have done more for my understanding of Godelian | logic than any formal proofs have. | bananaflag wrote: | Yup the theorem gets proven in the book. It's very very | verbose but the content is clearly there. | | "I am a Strange Loop" elaborates a bit on the parts which may | have been confusingly explained, notably both in the proof of | the theorem and in the author's AI philosophy. | passion__desire wrote: | Not related but I have been recommending Douglas's new popular | book "Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of | Thinking". He has few lectures on youtube on this topic in case | you want to explore the content of the book before jumping in. | | > Analogy is the core of all thinking. This is the simple but | unorthodox premise that Pulitzer Prize-winning author Douglas | Hofstadter and French psychologist Emmanuel Sander defend in | their new work. Hofstadter has been grappling with the | mysteries of human thought for over thirty years. Now, with his | trademark wit and special talent for making complex ideas | vivid, he has partnered with Sander to put forth a highly novel | perspective on cognition. We are constantly faced with a | swirling and intermingling multitude of ill-defined situations. | Our brain's job is to try to make sense of this unpredictable, | swarming chaos of stimuli. How does it do so? The ceaseless | hail of input triggers analogies galore, helping us to pinpoint | the essence of what is going on. Often this means the | spontaneous evocation of words, sometimes idioms, sometimes the | triggering of nameless, long-buried memories. Why did two-year- | old Camille proudly exclaim, "I undressed the banana!"? Why do | people who hear a story often blurt out, "Exactly the same | thing happened to me!" when it was a completely different | event? How do we recognize an aggressive driver from a split- | second glance in our rearview mirror? What in a friend's remark | triggers the offhand reply, "That's just sour grapes"? What did | Albert Einstein see that made him suspect that light consists | of particles when a century of research had driven the final | nail in the coffin of that long-dead idea? The answer to all | these questions, of course, is analogy-making--the meat and | potatoes, the heart and soul, the fuel and fire, the gist and | the crux, the lifeblood and the wellsprings of thought. | Analogy-making, far from happening at rare intervals, occurs at | all moments, defining thinking from top to toe, from the | tiniest and most fleeting thoughts to the most creative | scientific insights. Like Godel, Escher, Bach before it, | Surfaces and Essences will profoundly enrich our understanding | of our own minds. By plunging the reader into an extraordinary | variety of colorful situations involving language, thought, and | memory, by revealing bit by bit the constantly churning | cognitive mechanisms normally completely hidden from view, and | by discovering in them one central, invariant core--the | incessant, unconscious quest for strong analogical links to | past experiences--this book puts forth a radical and deeply | surprising new vision of the act of thinking. | demondemidi wrote: | Hash mapping without a computer since 1921. | acchow wrote: | Except the Godel encoding is 1:1 | demondemidi wrote: | A perfect hash table. | cubefox wrote: | I find the section about substitution too quick and consequently | confusing. For example, the author didn't clearly explain the | meaning of sub(x,y,z). | rssoconnor wrote: | Maybe my link at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38395058 | will help? Though even I kinda gloss over how to define sub. It | is, in my experience, the most technically challenging part of | the proof to actually formally define. I'm happy to try to go | over details with you. There is also Section 5.3.1 of my thesis | at https://r6.ca/thesis.pdf which probably goes into more | detail than you would like. | rssoconnor wrote: | I have a blog post that does a somewhat deeper dive into how to | build a self-referential sentence @ | https://r6.ca/blog/20190223T161625Z.html where I attempt to | answer the question: | | > I never understood the step about how a system that can do | basic arithmetic can express the "I am not provable in F" | sentence. Does anyone have an ELI30 version of that? | thereticent wrote: | Nagel & Newman's _Godel 's Proof_ is an excellent book on how the | proof works. It doesn't have all the tie-ins and fun asides that | GEB has, but it's stronger for it. | st-34-lth wrote: | https://youtu.be/5LWQPGjAs3M?si=WBu6C6mWCZ88pH-K | | Any takes on this ? Spreads doubts over godels proofs | jamiek88 wrote: | What a lazy comment. | | What doubt does it spread? | | What's the key take away? | | Is it just a crank video? | | A famous proof published in 1931 that has had much discussion | and testing is debunked and disproved on YouTube! | | No way of telling except to click through and watch a 15 minute | video that isn't even vouched for or elaborated on by the | commenter posting it. | Kranar wrote: | I watched the video and the video does not in any way attempt | to debunk Godel's proof. | | I think moreso it just shows that Godel's proof is not as | significant or as relevant as many people make it out to be, | and on the whole I'd say I agree with that. | rssoconnor wrote: | I didn't watch the video, but FWIW I have personally formally | verified the First Incompleteness Theorem (Goedel-Rosser | variant) within the Coq proof assistant. | abrenuntio wrote: | Hey I know your proof, the 2005 paper is on my desk :-) If | you were to code this in Coq again today, would you do things | different in some way? | smokel wrote: | This does not cast doubt on Godel's proofs. | | The strengthened liar paradox discussed in the video is "This | statement is not true", whereas Godel constructed a | mathematical statement that says something along the lines of | "This statement is not provable". Proving something is a | different process than stating something. | kkylin wrote: | I thought this writeup was quite good. Anyway, anyone interested | in this is also likely interested in Rosser's theorem: | https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=710 | bmitc wrote: | Does anyone know of any material linking Godel, Turing, and John | McCarthy's work, beyond their individual publications? | | It's also my understanding that Godel did not like publishing. | Has his unpublished work ever been combed through and published | in some form? Did he primarily write in English or German? Who | has his personal papers? | cwzwarich wrote: | Godel's collected works (including much unpublished work and | correspondence) have been published by Clarendon Press, with | more work (including translations from German) put into them | than pretty much any other mathematician's collected works. | bmitc wrote: | I didn't realize that. Thank you! Volume III seems exactly | what I'm looking for. | gregfjohnson wrote: | Everyone has their own way of stumbling through to a | breakthrough, where suddenly things that had been confusing and | complex suddenly seem clear, beautiful, and intuitive. | | Here are a couple of thoughts on Godel's incompleteness theorem | that helped me get there. | | First, a description of the idea; consider the following two | statements: | | "There exists a formula with Godel number M that has the property | that neither the formula nor its negation has a proof." | | "Oh, by the way. The Godel number of the above formula is M." | | "M" in the above is an actual number. In the first statement, one | has an arithmetic expression (i.e., "3 + 4*5 + 12^100000 + ...") | that is short but that evaluates to a really large number. | | After developing the idea of mapping formulas and proofs of | first-order logic to integers, Godel needed to use his new tool | to come up with some way to express self reference. (The formula | above has to have an embedded arithmetic expression "M" that | unwraps and and evaluates to the Godel number of the entire | formula.) | | Godel devised what we would today recognize as exactly the Y | combinator, expressed in first order arithmetic. | | This was a shocking realization when it dawned on me, and it | enabled me to gain an insight to the magnificent subtlety of | Godel's mind. | | I am personally comfortable with lisp, functions as first-class | objects, lambda calculus, etc., as is certainly the case for many | Hacker News readers. | | So, at least for me, the above connection helped an awful lot to | really understand the heart of Godel's insight. | pyinstallwoes wrote: | Take this with the most non-serious mode: In the methods used | by Gematria and various arts, there is a similar mechanism at | play is there not? Transforming words into quasi-hash | coordinate space that is computable and thus able to see what | is related or equal? | calimoro78 wrote: | From a newbie here, Aside from the one (and sufficient) self | referential formula, have we come up with other examples of non | decidable propositions that are meaningful? | Sharlin wrote: | Well, famously the halting problem is undecidable. | | As a consequence (via Rice's theorem [1]), _all_ nontrivial | semantic properties of computer programs are undecidable. That | is, there 's no algorithm that can answer "does program x have | property y?" for all programs, although obviously it's possible | to prove propositions about many _individual_ programs. | | Because Turing completeness is a fairly low bar to clear, there | are infamously a lot of systems that were not designed (or | indeed designed not) to be Turing-complete but nevertheless | turned out to be so [2]. As such, things like the Java type | system is undecidable - in principle there exist Java programs | that the compiler can neither reject nor accept. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem | | [2] | https://beza1e1.tuxen.de/articles/accidentally_turing_comple... | kkylin wrote: | A well known example (mentioned in the article) is the | Continuum Hypothesis (CH; | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis). Godel | proved CH is consistent with Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) set theory; | Paul Cohen proved that CH is independent of ZF, and hence CH | cannot be decided on the basis of the ZF axioms. | | By now there are numerous others; this is one of the earliest & | best known examples in mathematics. | krukah wrote: | I'm always fascinated by how Godel's incompleteness theorems, | Cantor's diagonalization proof, Turing's halting problem, and | Russel's paradox all seem to graze the boundaries of logic. | There's something almost terrifying about how everything we know | seems to "bottom out" and what we're left with is an | embarrassingly small infinite set of truths to grapple with. | | It really feels to me as if the distinctions between countable vs | uncountable; rational vs irrational; discrete vs continuous; all | represent the boundary between physics and mathematics - an idea | I wish I could elaborate more precisely, but for me stands only | on a shred of intuition. | | I've been interested lately in Stephen Wolfram's and Scott | Aaronson's writings on related ideas. | | Aaronson on Godel, Turing, and Friends: | https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec3.html | | Wolfram on computational irreducibility and equivalence: | https://www.wolframscience.com/nks/chap-12--the-principle-of... | acchow wrote: | Physics only seems to be continuous when you "zoom out". | | I do agree that Godel's incompleteness is effectively a | statement about integers. As is our model of computation | (lambda calculus and church-Turing thesis) | pyinstallwoes wrote: | All boundaries are anthropomorphic in bias and nature. Humans | excel at edge detection, all labels are artificial. | andrewgleave wrote: | You may find Constructor Theory interesting. An attempt to | express physical laws solely in terms of possible and | impossible transformations. | | "These include providing a theory of information underlying | classical and quantum information; generalising the theory of | computation to include all physical transformations; unifying | formal statements of conservation laws with the stronger | operational ones (such as the ruling-out of perpetual motion | machines); expressing the principles of testability and of the | computability of nature (currently deemed methodological and | metaphysical respectively) as laws of physics; allowing exact | statements of emergent laws (such as the second law of | thermodynamics); and expressing certain apparently | anthropocentric attributes such as knowledge in physical | terms." | | https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439 | racl101 wrote: | I've only had one math prof be able to articulate Godel's | Incompleteness Theorem for me in a way that I could really | understand (on a superficial level of course). | | She was such a great math prof. Weird how one person can make you | love a subject even after years of not so great teachers. | gcanyon wrote: | Has anyone done work on finding undecidable math beyond self- | referential statements? Meaning: beyond variations of "who shaves | the barber," do we have a sense that the undecidable statements | are all pathologically long, or are there (we think) undecidable | statements a human can comprehend that are undecidable that don't | rely on self-reference? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-11-23 23:01 UTC)