Live data from Hacker News

Gödel, Escher, Bach: an in-depth explainer

alignmentforum.org

71–80 of 252 posts

Re: Gödel, Escher, Bach: an in-depth explainer

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

commitment to the material in that depth is not the product of drugs

https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2245 There are several famous mathematicians known for their avid use of amphetamines.

Amphetamines aren't psychedelics. Like nicotine or caffeine they increase performance.

Re: Gödel, Escher, Bach: an in-depth explainer

#72

> Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem: any sufficiently rich formal system, together with an interpretation, has strings which are true but unprovable. This is only half of it! Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem states that any sufficiently rich formal system, together with an interpretation, either has strings which are true but unprovable or has strings which are provable but untrue. Either is possible! In practice people p…

How can a statement that is unprovable be true? I always had the impression that unprovable means you could add either the statement or its negation as an axiom, and both resulting systems are as consistent as the system you started with

The caveat is that it's a rule of _formal systems_. Any formal system that can represent multiplication can be shown to have unreachable truths or provable falsities.

Re: Gödel, Escher, Bach: an in-depth explainer

#73

> Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem: any sufficiently rich formal system, together with an interpretation, has strings which are true but unprovable. This is only half of it! Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem states that any sufficiently rich formal system, together with an interpretation, either has strings which are true but unprovable or has strings which are provable but untrue. Either is possible! In practice people p…

Is there a distinction between saying a system has something that is provable and untrue and saying the system is self contradictory (and the more generalized layman interpretation that the system is wrong).

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency. Under the syntactic definition of consistency, a self-contradiction simply means that a particular statement and its logical negation can both be proved in the system. That doesn’t say anything about the truth of the statement.

Re: Gödel, Escher, Bach: an in-depth explainer

#74

Is there a good book that is similar in spirit, but doesn't require the maturity of GEB? I know an 8th grader that would be a great target, but I don't know if they have the mathematical/logical maturity to get through it.

Sophie's World, which is about the history of Western philosophy (well, at least on one level. On another level, it's a story about a girl who starts to receive mysterious letters).

Re: Gödel, Escher, Bach: an in-depth explainer

#75
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can a statement that is unprovable be true? I always had the impression that unprovable means you could add either the statement or its negation as an axiom, and both resulting systems are as consistent as the system you started with

"This statement is false". GEB is a marvellous work that is accessible to anyone with reasonably good school grade maths. I chanced upon it by accident in the school library one day and was hooked after a few pages. Anyway the crux of the matter is that you can very carefully construct a statement about a system that can't be either proven or disproven by that system! I don't have anything like the formal knowledge t…

Read it over the course of a couple months during my commute, my back hurt but as you said it was marvelous.

Re: Gödel, Escher, Bach: an in-depth explainer

#76
post #36

I've read GEB over many years rather in the way someone would read the Bible. I pick it up from time to time and enjoy chewing on one or two chapters of material. But I've yet to figure out if the book actually has a specific thesis. I know it's all about the power of interpretation and the way in which interpreting a formal system as self-referencing has the effect of completely blowing up the intended design of tha…

The central thesis of GEB is this: what is a self? From the preface of the 20th anniversary edition: "GEB is a very personal attempt to say how it is that animate beings can come out of inanimate matter. What is a self, and how can a self come out of stuff that is as selfless as a stone or a puddle?"

It is interesting to me that the author would start at the materialist assumption. Most people take it as a “given”, but I have softened to the idea that maybe it is not a correct or complete way of viewing things.

Re: Gödel, Escher, Bach: an in-depth explainer

#77
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can a statement that is unprovable be true? I always had the impression that unprovable means you could add either the statement or its negation as an axiom, and both resulting systems are as consistent as the system you started with

"This statement is false". GEB is a marvellous work that is accessible to anyone with reasonably good school grade maths. I chanced upon it by accident in the school library one day and was hooked after a few pages. Anyway the crux of the matter is that you can very carefully construct a statement about a system that can't be either proven or disproven by that system! I don't have anything like the formal knowledge t…

>"This statement is false".

Close but not quite as that's an inconsistent statement.

"This statement is unprovable." is the approach Godel takes and eliminates the inconsistency. Either that statement is true, in which case it's unprovable, or it's false in which case there exists a proof of a false statement.

Re: Gödel, Escher, Bach: an in-depth explainer

#78

> Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem: any sufficiently rich formal system, together with an interpretation, has strings which are true but unprovable. This is only half of it! Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem states that any sufficiently rich formal system, together with an interpretation, either has strings which are true but unprovable or has strings which are provable but untrue. Either is possible! In practice people p…

How can a statement that is unprovable be true? I always had the impression that unprovable means you could add either the statement or its negation as an axiom, and both resulting systems are as consistent as the system you started with

So "famous" undecidable statements, which is what you mention, are an example of statements that strongly opinionated people believe enough that are probably true but unprovable. You are probably familiar with the Continuum Hypothesis or the Axiom of Choice, the latter being so "probably true" in the model that the axioms for set theory try to capture that it's usually added as another axiom.

Kruskal's tree theorem is a more interesting example, you should look into that. You can prove it undecidable, so you can add either it or it's negation like you say, in Peano's arithmetic, but you can prove it ZFC or I think even less expressive axiomatic systems for set theory.

Re: Gödel, Escher, Bach: an in-depth explainer

#79

Am I the only one who did not find this book that interesting? I studied CS so it just felt like reading my class textbooks again, except with random trippy stories in between that try to shoehorn theory into a poor metaphor. The fundamentals of CS (strings, automata, graphs) are elementary building blocks. This is by design. You can apply them to almost anything. Almost everything "is a graph", or "recursion" if you…

It was a breakthrough tome when it came out, and covers a lot more than truth tables.

Its as much a weird work of nerd art than a manual, like _whys guide to ruby_.

Re: Gödel, Escher, Bach: an in-depth explainer

#80

I've read GEB over many years rather in the way someone would read the Bible. I pick it up from time to time and enjoy chewing on one or two chapters of material. But I've yet to figure out if the book actually has a specific thesis. I know it's all about the power of interpretation and the way in which interpreting a formal system as self-referencing has the effect of completely blowing up the intended design of tha…

Haven't read it in a decade (and only once!), but I'd say its about how self-reference, and roles + perspectives are consciousness. The exception proves the rule, getting into the mind-bending edge cases exposes the typical mental framing. A bit like Leonardo exploring his eye muscles with a blunt pin.

Godel, quines, the phonograph ship of theseus stuff, Bach harmonies, all the self-aware dialogues. He's looking for the vital spark, the thing that makes us greater than the sum of parts. But he can't capture the essence (who can?), and settles for running around the outskirts.

Post reply on HN