On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems

@inproceedings{Gdel1962OnFU,
  title={On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems},
  author={Kurt G{\"o}del and Bernard Meltzer and Richard Schlegel},
  year={1962}
}
Gödel’s famous proof [2, 1] is highly interesting, but may be hard to understand. Some of this difficulty is due to the fact that the notation used by Gödel has been largely replaced by other notation. Some of this difficulty is due to the fact that while Gödel’s formulations are concise, they sometimes require the readers to make up their own interpretations for formulae, or to keep definitions in mind that may not seem mnemonic to them. This document is a translation of a large part of Gödel… Expand
The Fundamental Flaw in Gödel’s Proof of the Incompleteness Theorem "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems"
This paper identifies the fundamental error inherent in Gödel’s proof of his Incompleteness Theorem. The error is generated by the ambiguity of the language of Gödel’s outline proof of hisExpand
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems
TLDR
This is the first ever machine-assisted proof of the second incompleteness theorem, and coding is simpler, with no need to formalise the notion of multiplication (let alone that of a prime number) in the formalised calculus upon which the theorem is based. Expand
Gödel’s incompleteness theorems
Incompleteness or inconsistency? Kurt Godel shocked the mathematical community in 1931 when he proved any effectively generated, sufficiently complex, and sound axiomatic system could not be bothExpand
Russell’s Camelot and Gödel’s Incompleteness
Kurt Gödel published his article ‘On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems’ in the 1931 volume of Monatshefte für Mathematik.[1][2] The paper contained theExpand
Beautifying Gödel
The incompleteness theorems of Kurt Gödel [1931] are considered to be among the most important results of mathematics. They are regarded as “deep”, and they strongly influenced the course of modernExpand
Is Gödel ’ s undecidable proposition an ‘ ad hoc ’ anomaly ? A computational perspective of a general class of Gödelian ‘ undecidable ’ arithmetical propositions
We show that if the standard interpretation of PA is sound, then Gödel’s arithmetical representation of any recursive relation yields an undecidable PA formula. This Gödelian characteristic is merelyExpand
Executing Gödel’s programme in set theory
The study of set theory (a mathematical theory of infinite collections) has garnered a great deal of philosophical interest since its development. There are several reasons for this, not leastExpand
An Introduction to Gödel's Theorems
TLDR
An unusual variety of proofs for the First Theorem are presented, how to prove the Second Theorem is shown, and a family of related results are explored, including some not easily available elsewhere. Expand
The Fundamental Flaw in Gödels Proof of the Incompleteness Theorem
This paper identifies the fundamental error inherent in Gödel’s proof of his Incompleteness Theorem. The error is generated by the ambiguity of the language of Gödel’s outline proof of hisExpand
A foundational argument for defining effective computability formally and weakening the Church and Turing Theses
We conclude from Gödel’s Theorem VII of his seminal 1931 paper that every recursive function f(x1, x2) is representable in the first-order Peano Arithmetic PA by a formula [F (x1, x2, x3)] which isExpand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 11 REFERENCES
57 And of course the domain of the definition must always be the whole domain of individuals
  • 57 And of course the domain of the definition must always be the whole domain of individuals
58 Variables of the third kind may therefore occur at all empty places instead of individual variables, e.g. y = φ (x), F(x, φ (y)), G [ ψ (x, φ (y)), x] etc
  • 58 Variables of the third kind may therefore occur at all empty places instead of individual variables, e.g. y = φ (x), F(x, φ (y)), G [ ψ (x, φ (y)), x] etc
But for every formula in which the sign = occurs, there exists a formula without this sign
    Variables of the third kind may therefore occur at all empty places instead of individual variables, e.g. y = φ (x), F(x, φ (y)), G [ ψ (x, φ (y)), x] etc
      XXXVII, 2, I have shown of every formula of the restricted predicate calculus that it is either demonstrable as universally valid or else that a counter-example exists
        s) represents any complex of the variables x 1 , x 2
          x m ) {Φ k
            Φ n , such that In = 4', All (X) = X+ I and for every 4:,k (I < k _ n) either 1. (x 2
            • Since F is recursive, there is a recursive function Φ (x) such that F(x) ~ [Φ (x) = 0], and for Φ there is a series of functions Φ 1
            Ψ n be the functions presumed to exist, which yield a correct proposition when substituted for φ 1 , φ 2 , . . . φ n in (E x 0 ) C. Let its domain of individuals be I
            • Proof: Let Ψ
            ...
            1
            2
            ...