>>> 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...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message