• 1 Post
  • 56 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 7th, 2023

help-circle

  • weker01@feddit.detoScience Memes@mander.xyzGeometry
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think the statement “this system is consistent” is a practical statement that is unprovable in a sufficiently powerful consistent system.

    Can you help me understand the tone of your text? To me it sounds kinda hostile as if what you said is some kind of gotcha.


  • weker01@feddit.detoScience Memes@mander.xyzGeometry
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s very counter intuitive. As the other commenter suggested I was referring to Gödel and his incompleteness theorem.

    Actually if the system you made up doesn’t work it would be possible to prove that it does inside that system as you can prove anything inside a system that doesn’t work.

    That is why my comment is not entirely accurate it should actually be: Until you prove that if the system works you can’t prove that the system works.

    Can you spot the difference in the logic here?



  • weker01@feddit.detoScience Memes@mander.xyzRadioactivity
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    If you only think about half live then yes it would be radioactive forever but in reality after a long time every atom would’ve decayed into non radioactive elements.

    You can even calculate the expected time it would take for the random process of decay to terminate.