Asklemmy

52969 readers

166 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 week ago by HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

32 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

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Ah, thank you for that clarification!

So, for example, having an axiom that says you can't have a set that includes sets that don't include themselves makes it incomplete, but we don't consider that a big deal because it is more useful for it to be consistent ~~coherent~~ than complete.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

By coherent I assume you mean consistent. Yes an inconsistent theory isn't considered useful in mathematics. In philosophical logic there's an idea of "paraconsistency" that means something like "inconsistent but only slightly" but I think it's not used much in math.

Russell's fix to Frege's inconsistent system was quite complicated, much more than just adding an axiom disallowing certain types of sets. ZFC handles it differently too, by saying you can only create new sets by following certain rules designed to keep things consistent. Frege's system let you do whatever you wanted and it went sideways quickly, as Russel found.