Roughly, Godel demonstrated that in a logical system, that is similar or as rigorous as mathematics, there are statements which maybe true, but are unprovable, within the system. If a statement is not provable an inconsistency or self-contradiction may or will develop that invalidates the system. Arrival at this point then demonstrates that a system has been considered or examined sufficently to move on. Should arrival at this point be the focus for examination of any system?
Do Godel's incompleteness theorems support the idea that the examination of a 'system' should only be undertaken to arrive at the inconsistency?
E Toohery
- 131
- 1
- 4