Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> OK, the point *I* was making is that people still remember who Russell 
>> is and what he did 100 years ago, while "normal programmers" half the 
>> time don't even get their names displayed in the credits of their own 
>> creations.
> 
> Mmm, OK.
> 
>> Just FYI, Russell did for set theory (i.e., the basis of most or all 
>> modern math) what Godel and Turing did for their fields.
> 
> *resists urge to ask who Godel is*
> 
You remember the fixed point operator of lambda calculus? and how you 
can use that to prove that if you try to assign a meaning of true and 
false to every lambda expression the fixed point of the negation can 
neither be true or false? Hence it is impossible to decide the truth of 
every lambda expression. Goedel (that is an o-umlaut hence the spelling 
with and without e) did the same for ordinary logic. Proving that the 
attempts of Russel to combine all logic into one complete theory was in 
vain. There will always be statements that can not be proven within a 
set of axioms and theories.

But I suspect this time you were joking.

Post a reply to this message