Asklemmy

52761 readers

504 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

What happens if our mathematical system is proven to be inconsistent? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 day ago by HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From my "watched a YouTube video" understanding of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, a consistent mathematical system cannot prove its own consistency, and any seemingly consistent system could always have a fatal contradiction that invalidates the whole system, and the only way to know would be to find the contradiction.

So if at some point our current system of math gets proven inconsistent, what happens next? Can we tweak just the inconsistent part and have everything else still be valid or would we be forced to rebuild all of math from basic logic?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Similar things have already happened.

Netwon's laws were rock solid, until we tried to explain really fast or really small things with them. Then we needed Einsteins corrections. Incidentally, we still use Newtons versions for almost everything, because Einstein's corrections are usually a rounding error.

So if we find a huge flaw, we will immediately start using the correction where it matters, and keep using the old flawed stuff where we're sure it doesn't matter.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 4 points 1 day ago

To be clear: we only continue using the old flawed stuff if it is simpler. If we found one of the formulae we use to describe some system is actually over complicating things whilst also being incorrect, we'd obviously switch in all cases