Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2017 January 22
| Mathematics desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 21 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 23 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
January 22 edit
Gödel's ontological proof edit
I ran across a weird news story claiming Gödel's ontological proof had been proved. [1] Looking at our article, I can't even begin to make any sense out of the idea, except for the interpretation that the mathematicians have played a joke on us, their own special version of Santa Claus. I mean, it has five different axioms and fewer theorems, what is there even to prove? And the axioms, in words, seem incomprehensible: how can a property be universally "positive" or "negative"? I mean, there are people who like hot coffee and cold soda and beer. Then again, there are others like me who think the latter are better warm. So this idea of good and bad properties applied combinatorially -- that just doesn't make sense even in the mundane realm. Theologically, we tend to expect God to deliver tribulations and balms according to some master plan which can be described only in terms of our inability to comprehend it. So ... I don't even see how to get to something tangible in this proof. Is there an explanation? Wnt (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- First consider the source; popular media rarely get the details right on math stories, and British tabloids aren't exactly famous for journalistic integrity. The proof relies on modal logic which falls more in the realm of philosophy than math, but any theorem in mathematics takes the form of an if-then: If you accept this list of axioms and assumptions then you must accept this conclusion. If you don't accept the axioms then you don't have to accept the conclusion. In this case the axioms/assumptions about modal logic are not only not proven, but somewhat dubious (according to our article at least). I think the main lesson to be drawn is that great men (and women) are not always right; e.g. Isaac Newton believed in alchemy and Linus Pauling thought Vitamin C could cure cancer. Even I have been known to be mistaken from time to time. --RDBury (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)