Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>>> 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.
> 
> The fixed-point operator confounds me. I really don't get it...
> 
What exactly don't you get, the operator, the theorem or why it is 
important?

Post a reply to this message