Remix.run Logo
deepsun an hour ago

There is, or rather are, fully recognized axiomatic foundations. You are free to choose one you like. Of the most popular ones is ZFC or ZF, but there are others (some lead to the same results some not). The main criteria for popularity is how useful it is. You can even make your own axiomatic where 2+2=5, but it would be useless.

You probably heard about Goedel Incompleteness -- the proof that the the axiomatic itself cannot be proven, like using ZFC to prove ZFC, but that's another topic.

It would be fun to play with this Anthropic/Lean formalization under different axiomatics.

andriy_koval 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Goedel Incompleteness -- the proof that the the axiomatic itself cannot be proven, like using ZFC to prove ZFC, but that's another topic.

Godel theorems are for systems with basic arithmetic, zfc doesn't include arithmetic, thus are not object of Godel theorems.

IsTom 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Moreover, Robinson arithmetic can be interpreted in general set theory, a small fragment of ZFC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_t...

andriy_koval 9 minutes ago | parent [-]

> interpreted

its hard to me to tell what this means formally(as I said I am not expert). There is no "interpret" operator in zfc. I believe what it says if you add some robinson axioms on top of zfc, you can carry your results.

Almondsetat 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

If you start with "I'm not a strong expert" maybe you should stop continuing saying wrong stuff. What you just wrote is completely wrong.

andriy_koval 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

support your point with explanation or be ignored :-)

Almondsetat 27 minutes ago | parent [-]

Godel proved that any system expressive enough to produce an arithmetic is incomplete. He initially proved it for the peano axioms but then it got generalized. ZFC can produce an arithmetic. Also, before being arrogant and demanding explanations, you should give them first for your claims

andriy_koval 21 minutes ago | parent [-]

> expressive enough to produce

you understand that "expressive enough to produce" are not obvious elements of zfc, that's some average consumer napkin math and not strict formalization.

Almondsetat 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

why should they be obvious? they are derived and have been thoroughly proven.

andriy_koval 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

looks like we are in disagreement