Відео

What's the name of the teacher, pls?

pretending to be intelligent youtube commenters.

lol the number of likes. aha. funny. rightttt.

Godel's "Theorem" Godel's "Theorem" is a complete farce and absolutely trivial. Godel assigns a unique number to all the symbols in real numbers via the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra: e.g., the syntactical symbols "+", "-", "x" (multiplication) as well as the actual numbers and powers (e.g. 3^2). By his criteria, a "proof" consists of a tautology on each side of the equal sign. At first, one might think the statement "3 + 4 = 7" is a "proof", since it can be reduced to a sum of units on either side. But that would be a contradiction, according to Godel, because "3 + 4" has a different Godel Number than "7". So the only "proofs" for Godel are G(wff) = G(wff); any other statement is a contradiction by Godel Number. NOte that this characterization is not restricted to Wwff's: the equality is also true for gibberish n the metalanguage. By that criterion, all systems comprised of symbols (wffs or not) can be proved as true or false, but not both. Even gibberish is true, provided their Godel numbers match. And who decides that the Godel Numbers are equal? I do, since you are probably a figment of my imagination... :) TRUST me :) I call it a giant twittering machine built on nothing, see my pdfs on physicsdiscussionforum dot org Remember, you read it here first... :)

Crocus sent me here😂

"I have no point of view. For example, now, I couldn't possibly have a point of view. I'm just moving around and picking up information from many directions. No, a point of view means a static, fixed position. And you can't have a static, fixed position in the electric age. It's impossible to have a point of view in the electric age and have any meaning at all. You've got to be everywhere at once, whether you like it or not. You have to be participating in everything going on at the same time. And that is not a point of view."

It was one of the best movies of Charles bronson

2:40 village idiots

I have been fascinated by Gödel’s incompleteness theorems for years, ever since I was a graduate student in mathematics many years ago. This is one of my favorite lectures on the subject. Well done!

um no - this is exactly wrong. Godel's incompleteness theorem is completely orthogonal to logic. Appealing to Godel only shows you have not yet understood Aristotle.

The brain could be computational AND be something which transcends computation, they're not mutually exclusive as this fellow seems to imply. See R. Penrose.

Des Waldes dunkel zieht mich an ,... doch muss zu meinem Wort ich stehn, ..... und Meilen gehn, ...bevor ich schlafen kann . Meilen gehn, bevor ich schlafen kann.....

Miles to go...

Careful what you wish for. The 21st century looks mostly like a mistake.

Harry, keep the change!

@12:00 I've been thinking about this for about 5 years now. The impossibly possible.

The moment he placed Darwin in the ranks of the greatest thinkers, I knew this guy doesn't have any idea about what Darwin REALLY BELIEVED AND WHAT HE PROVED.

Gödel - not Godel.

nice story too bad it’s all false he was a politician you dont get to that level of you are not a stooge for the system or a family member who all hide behind different names and different public official stories busted m f

What is the name of the lecturer?

Fabulous! Thanks for sharing!

👈 Hail, hail. The Heavyweight Champion.

Well he certainly had miles to go 😀

Donald Pleasandce as...... KLAUS SCHWAB 3:51

”Godel”…??

I am a liar therefore everything I say is a lie..true ?!!

The Public Desire Is Beholdingly Alimentary

What Is The Point Of His Marcus Elieser Bloch ?

Donald is not so Pleasence!!!

Rest in peace, this guy starved to death because of his wife died from illness..

You don't understand Gödel's incomplete theorem judged from your explanation.

>>> As a follow up to my recent posts on (Goedel’s incompleteness theorem) the architecture of materiality and that of the realm of abstraction, the two structurally linked, which prohibit the formulation of conceptual contradictions, I present the following for critique. After watching several video presentations of Geodel’s incompleteness theorems 1 and 2, as presented in each I have been able to find, it was made clear that he admired Quine’s liar’s paradox to a measure which inspired him to formulate a means of translating mathematical statements into a system reflective of the structure of formal semantics, essentially a language by which he could intentionally introduce self-referencing (for some unfathomable reason). Given that it is claimed that this introduces paradoxical conditions into the foundations of mathematics, his theorems can only be considered as suspect, a corruption of mathematic’s logical structure. The self-reference is born of a conceptual contradiction, that which I have previously shown to be impossible within the bounds of material reality and the system of logic reflective of it. To demonstrate again, below is a previous critique of Quine’s liars paradox. Quine’s liar’s paradox is in the form of the statement, “this statement is false”. Apparently, he was so impacted by this that he claimed it to be a crisis of thought. It is a crisis of nothing, but perhaps only of the diminishment of his reputation. “This statement is false” is a fraud for several reasons. The first is that the term “statement” as employed, which is the subject, a noun, is merely a placeholder, an empty vessel, a term without meaning, perhaps a definition of a set of which there are no members. It refers to no previous utterance for were that the case, there would be no paradox. No information was conveyed which could be judged as true or false. It can be neither. The statement commands that its consideration be as such, if true, it is false, but if false, it is true, but again, if true, it is false, etc. The object of the statement, its falsity, cannot at once be both true and false which the consideration of the paradox demands, nor can it at once be the cause and the effect of the paradoxical function. This then breaks the law of logic, that of non-contradiction. Neither the structure of materiality, the means of the “process of existence”, nor that of the realm of abstraction which is its direct reflection, permits such corruption of language or thought. An entity cannot be at once here and there. Likewise, one cannot claim that he can formulate a position by the appeal to truths, that denies truth, i.e., the employment of terms and concepts in a statement which in its very expression, they are denied. It is like saying “I think I am not thinking” and expecting that it could ever be true. How is it that such piffle could be offered as a proof of that possible by such a man as Quine, purportedly of such genius? How could it then be embraced by another such as Goedel to be employed in the foundational structure of his discipline, corrupting the assumptions and discoveries of the previous centuries? Something is very wrong. If I am, I would appreciate being shown how and where. All such paradoxes are easily shown to be sophistry, their resolutions obvious in most cases. What then are we left to conclude? To deliberately introduce the self-reference into mathematics to demonstrate by its inclusion that somehow reality will permit such conceptual contradictions is a grave indictment of Goedel. Consider; As mentioned above, that he might introduce the self-reference into mathematics, he generated a kind of formal semantics, as shown in most lectures and videos, which ultimately translated numbers and mathematical symbols into language, producing the statement, “this statement cannot be proved”, it being paradoxical in that in mathematics, all statements which are true have a proof and a false statement has none. Thus if true, that it cannot be proved, then it has a proof, but if false, there can be no proof, but if true it cannot be proved, etc., thus the paradox. If then this language could be created by the method of Goedel numbers (no need to go into this here), it logically and by definition could be “reverse engineered” back to the mathematical formulae from which it was derived. Thus, if logic can be shown to have been defied in this means of the introduction of the self-reference into mathematics via this “language” then should not these original mathematical formulae retain the effect of the contradiction of this self-reference? It is claimed that this is not the case, for the structure of mathematics does not permit such, which was the impetus for the development and employment of this language in the first place. I would venture then that the entire exercise has absolutely no purpose, no meaning and no effect. It is stated in all the lectures I have seen that these (original) mathematical formulae had to be translated into a semantic structure that the self-reference could be introduced at all. If then it could not be expressed in mathematical terms alone and if it is found when translated into semantic structures to be false, does that not make clear the deception? If Quine’s liar’s paradox can so easily be shown to be sophistry, how is Goedel’s scheme any less so? If the conceptual contradiction created by Goedel’s statement “this statement has no proof” is so exposed, no less a defiance of logic than Quine’s liar’s paradox then how can all that rests upon it not be considered suspect, i.e., completeness, consistency, decidability, etc.? I realize that I am no equal to Goedel, who himself was admired by Einstein, an intellect greater than that of anyone in the last couple of centuries. However, unless someone can refute my critique and show how Quine’s liar’s paradox and by extension, Goedel’s are actually valid, it’s only logical that the work which rests upon their acceptance be considered as invalid.

The microfilm is the future, baby. Honestly, they don’t get him. 21st century does better.

These Mormons in the audience can’t handle it. They’re naive as fuck.

1 = one = 3 = three = 5 = five = 4 = four = 4 ... 2 = two = 3 = three = 5 = five = 4 = four = 4 ... 3 = three = 5 = five = 4 = four = 4 = four = 4 ... 4 = four = 4 = four = 4 = four = 4 = four = 4 ... 5 = five = 4 = four = 4 = four = 4 = four = 4 ... 6 = six = 3 = three = 5 = five = 4 = four = 4 ... 7 = seven = 5 = five = 4 = four = 4 = four = 4 ... 8 = eight = 5 = five = 4 = four = 4 = four = 4 ... 9 = nine = 4 = four = 4 = four = 4 = four = 4 ... 0 = zero = 4 = four = 4 = four = 4 = four = 4 ...

I was not able to understand the thinking that produced the paradox (that may not be the best word to use) in "This sentence is true." or "...false", because those 4 words are not a sentence, they don't convey any information. Just 4 words strung together. Also had difficulty with Cantors' uncountable numbers, the tortoise and the hare race where some kind of concept of infinity emerges. What is the sum of 1 infinity and 2 infinities? Or 1/2 infinity + 3/4 infinity? 😉

Many have been "shaped" without even knowing it. It's applications can be witnessed daily throughout all areas of activity within people/ societal engagements. It's the only rational explanation for the irrational & willing acceptance of poverty & sickness over an extended length & period of time.

This is what's happening now with all these mass shootings .

Russia invades Ukraine, we send weapons to Ukraine, then our food processing plants get attacked. Coincidence? Well I think not!

Darwin 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Get Real Buddy

Jan . little witchy

has the best and the worst on his podcast.. real bad lately

Jan Irvin// really good or really bad..

shame on you.! dying of self harm, if that was what it was...where are you "coming from" giving voice to your thoughts on vomit and rock stars and ...lamentable.

S

The movement, pacing back and forth, induces nausea.

Honestly what practical application of godel proof. None.

Why did he stop to shoot the guard? Why didnt he drive straight through the boom - which he did anyway?

Bruce spence.... never seen a man beat a snake!

Excellent. It is not just that Godl found a quirky solution to GR, but because there are so few analytic GR solutions it also shows the enormous skill of Godl.