Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site sjuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!sjuvax!tmoody
From: tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Godel and Turing
Message-ID: <2422@sjuvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-Oct-85 09:30:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: sjuvax.2422
Posted: Sun Oct 20 09:30:42 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 04:09:49 EDT
References: <10642@ucbvax.ARPA> <220@rtp47.UUCP>
Reply-To: tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody)
Organization: St. Joseph's University, Phila. PA.
Lines: 17
Summary: 

In article <220@rtp47.UUCP> throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
>I also note in passing (as I understand things) that nobody has ever
>actually found a Godel sentence for the formal system of "mathematics"
>or "logic".  It has simply been proven that such sentences exist.
>-- 
>Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC

This is not quite correct.  Goedel's proof is a *constructive* proof; it
produces a Goedel sentence whose interpretation is "this sentence is not
provable in this formal system."


Todd Moody                 |  {allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!tmoody
Philosophy Department      |
St. Joseph's U.            |         "I couldn't fail to
Philadelphia, PA   19131   |          disagree with you less."