do a google scholar search for colin leslie dean -tell us what you find

yet no-one in the philosophy community has felt the need to cite Dean's works or "original contributions". You think there's a reason for that?

hey the guy has 9 degrees and you are attempting to descredit him-i think you have issues around dean other than his qualification

he has 4 masters degrees -they require to be examined by independent examiners outside the uni -he passed them and you are trying to descredit his qualification-gee i think you have real issues here

It's an interesting question, why dean is not acknowledged in psychological community. Wouldn't that same community be those who gave him his degree's?

I should point out, granted that degrees (and other badges and marks of distinction) may be taken with a grain of salt, nonetheless, getting an MA degree, even several of them, is not a major achievement. Most of the people I know, for example, have Ph.D.'s, MD's, or both. Professional philosopher's almost always (like 99.99% of the time) have at least a Ph.D., and will not take other people seriously unless they have a Ph.D. themselves. Whether this is right or wrong is beside the point; it's a simple fact of life.

Btw, the quantity of degrees is quite meaningless. I can order degrees online, for example, from very questionable universities, and yet these degrees don't make me an expert, or knowledgeable, or respectable, since they come from questionable universities. Where did Leslie get his degrees? Some Australian uni I've never heard of. But all of this is rather beside the point; The fact that Leslie obtained an M.A., or even several of them, is quite unremarkable. If you expand the sphere of people you know, and get out of your bubble, you will quickly realize this.

Most of the people I know, for example, have Ph.D.'s, MD's, or both. Professional philosopher's almost always (like 99.99% of the time) have at least a Ph.D., and will not take other people seriously unless they have a Ph.D. themselves. Whether this is right or wrong is beside the point; it's a simple fact of life.

but done of them proved the most important mathematical proof of the 20yth century to be rubbish

but dean may not be the highest qualified person on the net but i would think he is the MOST qualified
you PHds and MDs what else have they got after their name they are just specialized in one or 2 areas but dean is specialised in 9

dean would run rings around your PHds from physics to literary studies from pyschoanalysis to Buddhism- and he writes erotic poetry - do any of your nerds have a characater that can turn people on
Phds puuuew one dimensional boressssss

even if dean is a street sweeper he has proved godel to be rubbish
that must eat you and your Phd up to the point of insanity
that a nobody has done what none of you could do
it eats you up that dean has 9 degrees because it points out your own inadequsies academically even if you have a Phd i think you are envious of dean that is why you are trying to belittle his qualifications -wonder what a psychoanlysist would make of you

He has made a statement that is relative to his own perceptions. That he has made a statement does not prove anything to anyone else even if he believes it.
The fact that you believe it doesn't make it any more relevant.

I could say that because there is a history on the internet of spamming websites with dean diatribe proves that there is a desperate relationship that exists to move deans ideas into the consciousness of the world. This might prove that whoever is doing this believes that dean is so obscure and unknown anything he has done/proved needs to be proved.
The great amount of energy being put into proving dean has proved something, could be self sufficient as a reflection to the obscurity of dean and his badges, as well as the impact he hasn't made on relative truths and personal beliefs.

You might have issues around dean other than his qualifications and his theories.

nightrover, the facts speak for themselves, and I'm merely stating the facts. You presume, incorrectly, that the PhDs and MDs I know are all narrowly specialized. The fact that Dean has spent over a decade longer in school than he needed to, only to obtain an MA, or many of them, from a relatively obscure australian uni, speaks volumes and even reading his own MA thesis suggests to me that he's merely an amateur who parrots what Hume said over a century ago and does not have any original contributions, which is probably the main reason why no-one bothers to cite his work. The other reason, no doubt, is because he has failed to master simple rules of grammar that are taught in elementary and middle schools.

If you, nightrover, or Leslie Dean, or whatever name you go by, feel so insecure about your "work" that you need to spam forums and attack people without basis other than to attempt, unsuccessfully, to glorify your ego, then I suggest you take a step back and reconsider your tactics, and perhaps decide to more seriously pursue a subject of study. If you produce significant results, other people will cite your work, and there will be no need to spam forums and be as obnoxious as you have been.

his own MA thesis suggests to me that he's merely an amateur who parrots what Hume said over a century ago and does not have any original contributions,

see what i mean your attempt to belittle deans qualifications speaks volumes for your issues with him
9 degrees 4 masters -examined by independent examiners in regard to originality -i suggest you read the MAs in there entirity then you might be able to see what the examiners saw - in belitling his MAs you belittle the examiners and show your self to be petty and envious

if dean is such an amature then instead of attacking him personally
lets see you critigue his arguments about godel
put up or shut up
lets see how good you are

I'd say the tension proves that anything you say can't prove dean proved anything..

Jesus proved man could walk on water but did anyone pay attention? No

I guess dean and Jesus have a lot in common, they both have someone who worships them and they have both proved something that isn't universally accepted by the common man.

if you had read his thesis you will see dean goes beyond hume in that he negates hume ie hume ends in meaninglessness just like kant nietzsche wittegenstien etc dean destroys analytical philosophy and all essentialist thinking and demonstrates that all talk of the content of thought is rubbish - not by mere speculation but by demonstrated arguments pointing out the absurdity of such views
his thesis is a case study to substantiate that all views end in meaninglessness ie all of philosophy and human thinking scepticsim nihilsm even meaninglessness ends in meaninglessness hume and the rest regarded logic as an epistemic condition of truth and used logic to preach scepticism but dean even says this logic ends in meaninglessness

dean is the first as i know to claim in the west that all products of human thinking end in meaninglessness -even meaninglessness even nihilism scepticisn every thesis and its anti thesis existentialsim
everyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy product of human thinking ends in meaninglessness

all our concepts, all our categories, all our ideas, all theses, all antitheses, all philosophies, all epistemologies, all ethics, all ontologies, and all metaphysics, in other words all our views are meaningless absurdity dean claims all the categories through which we understand the worldend in meaninglessness. His thesis showed that the all beliefs, or views about essences, individual identities, or essential natures reduce to absurdity and even all views about the non existence of essences, individual identities, or essential natures reduce to absurdity.

and his book on godel is just another example of views ending in meaninglessness
what could be done for godel could be done for einstein derrida in fact anyone and everyone

If dean uses anyones theory to hold up his own, he is adding to what has already been laid in foundation to philosophy. If the bricks are proved to be non-existent then the new brick does not make a foundation as it lay in and of itself because it doesn't support anything if there is nothing built on it. If the brick in and of itself supports nothing then it isn't really a brick.
When building a structure of relative truth, adding another brick does not negate the previous structure; tho someone might in their own delusions set themselves apart from the other bricks and claim to be the only brick in the pile, but that is just egoic illusion.
As you said dean is the first you know of in the west to make a claim to the meaningless-ness of himself and everyone else. His ideas are not new, only interpreted by you as being unique according to your own beliefs and experiences.
Now if everyone starts believing in what you believe then maybe it will seem like he has some support in his beliefs and in yours but beliefs change and if his proof is as meaningless as he says everything else is, someone will, and probably has proved deans theory to be meaningless.

Because..Nothing is original.

and probably has proved deans theory to be meaningless.

dean in his thesis admitts his thesis are meaningless- just like every ones else

Like I said: Nothing is original

Like I said: Nothing is original
so enlighten us
who else has said what dean has
some name[s] please

I think that nightrover's intent, rather than adding to the philosophic edifice, is to demolish the philosophy palace with Dean's dynamite. Rather mind-blowing, I would say. However, I am not convinced that thought (or the philosophic endeavour) is futile.

while skepticism is often good to maintain, no-one listens to the extreme skeptic who is skeptical about everything and speaks out against all systems of thought. This position has always struck me as symptomatic of a weak mind that, because they are unable to construct useful or meaningful edifices of thought, they therefore lash out against all edifices of thought. This notion that all thought systems are meaningless forms dates back to at least ancient Hinduism, and is found in the Upanishads, so Leslie Dean can hardly claim credit for an ancient idea.

As to nightrover's, i.e., Leslie Dean's, intent, make no mistake that it is the product of a childish ego, envious of the creations, contributions, and fame of others, thrashing out to preserve its own overly-inflated sense of self-worth. It's a pathetic and humorous sight to behold, but sooner or later, these inflated egos pop, get back in touch with reality, or get committed to the loony bin. What nightrover, or Leslie Dean, does, remains to be seen.

The advice I would give to Leslie Dean/nightrover is to stop trying to claim undue credit and to stop being your biggest (and only) cheerleader. It's simply obnoxious and childish behavior. If other people find your "work" of any importance, it will be cited and become known. Otherwise, it will be consigned to inconsequence and oblivion, and since there's no amount of self-cheerleading you can do that will change this, you should be better spending your time on learning more and actually working on contributing something significant to society, instead of playing the role of gadfly and troll across numerous forums.

No one has said it the way Dean has. I wasn't speaking of the words themselves but the idea behind the words.
The idea that everything ends in meaninglessness is similar to the idea that everything is an illusion. When every concept is surrendered back to its source nothing exists but the source. As each concept erupts into being it cannot maintain itself without conscious intent. Once consciousness moves in a different direction the idea left behind doesn't exist anymore, it returns from where it came.
The idea is that nothing is permanent and anything new is only thought to be new because one has not realized it before. But for anything to be it must exist somewhere first to be brought forward into experience, hence nothing is new.

Dean is only putting eastern philosophy into his own words. Saying everything is meaningless is a concept and it is incomplete. If something was truly meaningless it could not be brought into experience that would have any relevance to experience. Something truly meaningless would slip through experience un-noticed, like dean slips through the cracks of importance, only something meaningless wouldn't even get that much attention.
Similarly to say life is an illusion is not entirely true. Concepts or perception is based on individual realities and the manifest is not necessary illusion if it is experienced. Its only when someone makes an experience an absolute that an illusion is created. Like saying a thought has a life of its own and one is subject to the power within the thought that is of itself self created.

Like I said before Jesus proved that one could walk on water but he didn't prove anything if no one notices it.
Similarly dean isn't relevant if no one takes notice of dean. dean in and of himself is not the power behind individuality he is a product of it.
He's like a light bulb at the end of a power cord that radiates an energetic reflection of the electricity. He can only reflect what runs through him and since what runs through him is the same as anyone else what comes out in the end is only filtered dean if one recognizes a dean and not the source.
If one recognizes the source then dean does not exist and everything is as it was in the beginning and nothing is new.

I just proved dean doesn't exist, on your own terms.

you all dont get it

dean is not a sceptic he is not a nihilst he is not a buddhist or hindu
he says these all end in meaninglessness
the concept of illusion/maya ends in meaninglessess
to say there cant not e knowledge is as meaningless as to sat there can be knowledege
to say alll is illusion is as meaningless as to say all is not illusion

to say all is impermanent is as meaningless as to say there is permamance

You just don't get the essence of spirituality in Eastern Philosophy.
What you are saying is all there in the Eastern Teachings.
Of course There are those who pretend to not know and then take the essence of those ideas and try to convince others that their idea of the universe is new and different.

You really should spend some time with the Eastern Teachings. You'll find that they contain exactly what you are saying.

You just don't get the essence of spirituality in Eastern Philosophy.
What you are saying is all there in the Eastern Teachings

but dean puts into the language and categories of westen thought so that the west can understand it ie by showing how it relates to mathematics science etc
the east has been to philosophical so that materialist western man cant grasp it
dean is using skillfull means -you must talk at the level and language of your listener

you see it because you study eastern thought
but
for those western materialists who only study western thought dean has to talk in their language

thus he shows how godel, maths, science end in meaninglessness -something they can understand better than talking about maya or sunyata

Who studies only western thought nowadays? As for introducing eastern ideas to western philosophy, this has been going on for centuries. For example, see Schopenhauer. If this is all Leslie dean is doing, then what's new about it, and why should anyone care?

Insofar as Leslie dean supposedly relating eastern ideas to mathematics, I haven't come across one equation in any of his e-publications, so I find it hard to believe that there's any relation to mathematics. If you read his e-publications, I think you would agree that they are characterized by excessive rambling, amateurism, misrepresentation of other people's ideas, and a lack of coherence. Is this supposed to be a notable achievement? Why aren't his ramblings published in any respectable philosophy journals or books? Why don't you just come clean, nightrover, and admit your Leslie dean? Then you can kindly explain to us what you hope to achieve with your forum shenanigans.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance did that just fine. What new does Dean contribute?

As I said nothing is Original.
Dean can join the list of authors who are reaching humanity on many levels.
If he becomes popular enough to be a mainstream influence you won't have to work so hard trying to convince anyone else.
If dean has accomplished anything by proving something is incomplete he couldn't have added his piece of the puzzle without including the other pieces he makes reference to.
Someone will come along again and put what reality is or isn't in more words and the trend will continue as long as evolution exists.
What dean has done is not new. History repeats itself more often than you are allowing for in your most recent revelation.

This structure has been built and torn down more often than can be counted.

2000 years ago Jesus brought the Eastern Teachings to the Western world and spoke not only in one language but many.
Some get it and some don't. What dean can't accomplish any more than Jesus could is to prove anything to anyone if they can't see or hear. Which brings up another point of interest. Jesus never wrote anything. What he taught was in the moment according to the receptivity of those who would listen.
His teaching wasn't so much to spread facts and data but to enliven what was growing inside of each person.
That is in itself infectious if it is resonant within another.
Like a popular song or piece of music. The music of harmony that lives in each of us can be easily spread but the understanding of it is not so easy.
In the mortal state, nothing can be absolutely proved; both science and religion are predicated on assumptions. On the spiritual level of maximum status, the need for finite proof gradually vanishes before the actual experience of and with reality; but even then there is much beyond the finite that remains unproved.

Insofar as Leslie dean supposedly relating eastern ideas to mathematics, I haven't come across one equation in any of his e-publications

as with godel you can show the meaninglessness of maths without any equations


Who studies only western thought nowadays?

just go lok at the syllybus for most science courses

For example, see Schopenhauer. If this is all Leslie dean is doing, then what's new about it, and why should anyone care?

he only talked in abstractions
dean brings it down to demonstration ie godel and the rest
you want convince just by philiosiohy you have to show bt concrete example ie godel and the rest
dean is the first -to my knowledge that has demonstrated meaninglessness ideas by concrete scientific and mathematic examples- showing how-not just saying so -they end in meaninglessness
the west wants proof not some gurus just saying so ie Schopenhauer Boddhidharma lao tzu etc

Show me.

While you're at it, why don't you actually try reading Godel?
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs200-sp...ures/goedel.pdf



This is nonsense. Try actually reading Schopenhauer.

show me



this
[undecidability] does not depend upon the special nature of the
constructed systems but rather holds for a very wide class of formal systems
contradicts this

hence in every formal system which satisfies assumptions 1 and 2 [which depend on special nature of formal system P] and is w - consistent there exist undecidable propositions �

thus he is in meaninglessness


you tell me to read godel
why dont you go read deans demolishing of godel before you mouth of


Godel makes the claim that there are undecidable propositions in a formal system that dont depend upon the special nature of the formal system
Quote

It is reasonable therefore to make the conjecture that these axioms and rules of inference are also sufficent to decide all mathematical questions which can be formally expressed in the given systems. In what follows it will be shown .. there exist relatively simple problems of ordinary whole numbers which cannot be decided on the basis of the axioms. [NOTE IT IS CLEAR] This situation does not depend upon the special nature of the
constructed systems but rather holds for a very wide class of formal systems (K Godel , On formally undecidable propositions of principia mathematica and related
systems in The undecidable , M, Davis, Raven Press, 1965, p.6).( K Godel , On formally undecidable propositions of principia mathematica and related systems in The undecidable , M, Davis, Raven Press, 1965, p.6)

Godel says he is going to show this by using the system of PM (ibid)
he then sets out to show that there are undecidable propositions in PM (ibid. p.8)

where Godel states
"the precise analysis of this remarkable circumstance leads to surprising results concerning consistence proofs of formal systems which will be treated in more detail in section 4 (theorem X1) ibid p. 9 note this theorem comes out of his system P
he then sets out to show that there are undecidable propositions in his system P -which uses the axioms of PM and Peano axioms.
at the end of this proof he states
"we have limited ourselves in this paper essentially to the system P and have only indicated the applications to other systems" (ibid p. 38)

now
it is based upon his proof of undecidable propositions in P that he draws out broader conclusions for a very wide class of formal systems
After outlining theorem V1 in his P proof - where he uses the axiom of choice- he states
"in the proof of theorem 1V no properties of the system P were used other than the following
1) the class of axioms and the riles of inference- note these axioms include reducibility
2) every recursive relation is definable with in the system of P
hence in every formal system which satisfies assumptions 1 and 2 and is w - consistent there exist undecidable propositions �. (ibid, p.28)

CLEARLY GODEL IS MAKING SWEEPING CLAIMS JUST BASED UPON HIS P PROOF

but
he has told us undecidable propositions in a formal system are not due to the nature of the formal system but he is making claims about a very wide range of formal systems based upon the nature of formal system P

1) there is circularity/paradox of argument he says his consistency proof is independent of the nature of a formal system yet he bases this claim upon the very nature of a particular formal system P
2) he is clearly basing his claims for his consistency theorems upon the systems PM and P

P and PM are the meta-theories/systems he uses to prove his claim that there are undecidable propositions in a very wide range of formal systems


We have a dilemma
1)either Gödel is right that his claims for undecidability of formal systems
are independent of the nature of a formal system

and thus he is in paradox when he makes claims about formal systems based
upon the special nature of P - AND THUS PM

OR
2) he makes claims about formal systems based upon the special nature of P
and PM
that would mean that PM and P are the meta-systems/meta-theory through
which he is make undecidable claims about formal systems

thus indicating the axioms of PM and P are central to these meta claims
there by when I argue s these axioms are invalid then Godels
incompleteness theorem is invalid and a complete failure.

Thus either way Godels incompleteness theorem are invalid and a complete failure :either due to the paradox in his theorem or the invalidity of his axioms.

Try actually reading Schopenhauer.

where does he give concret examples of the meaninglessness of godel quantum mechanics science and maths and all human thinking

Gödel's "holds for a very wide class of formal systems" is entirely different from your "independent of the nature of the formal system". The theorem holds for those formal systems whose nature is such that they can encode enough arithmetic. In other words, the applicability of the theorem depends crucially on the nature of the formal system under consideration.

As to Schopenhauer, he existed before quantum mechanics, so obviously he's not going to be writing about it. But you could learn a lot from reading his "World as Will and Idea"; at the very least, you would learn that western philosophers have been using eastern ideas for centuries now, and possibly millenia, so the fact the Leslie applies eastern notions to western philosophy is nothing new. There are philosophers, real ones not pretenders, who have written works exemplifying both style and content; Leslie dean collin's amateur essays lack both, and his incomplete sentences and broken grammar only further confirm what soon becomes evident if we bother to navigate through the incoherent mass of nonsense that constitutes Leslie dean's writings; that his confusion of ideas marks him as a mere dilettante.

Gödel's "holds for a very wide class of formal systems" is entirely different from your "independent of the nature of the formal system". The theorem holds for those formal systems whose nature is such that they can encode enough arithmetic. In other words, the applicability of the theorem depends crucially on the nature of the formal system under consideration.


read godels lips

[undecidability]does not depend upon the special nature of the
constructed systems but rather holds for a very wide class of formal systems (K Godel , On formally undecidable propositions of principia mathematica and related
systems in The undecidable , M, Davis, Raven Press, 1965, p.6).( K Godel , On formally undecidable propositions of principia mathematica and related systems in The undecidable , M, Davis, Raven Press, 1965, p.6)

similey in contradiction he says undecidablity is dependent on the special nature of formal system P- not on whether they can be encoded

hence in every formal system which satisfies assumptions 1 and 2 [depending on the special nature of formal system P] and is w - consistent there exist undecidable propositions ”.(ibid, p.28)

to be more precise

seeing you have not read godel

[undecidability]does not depend upon the special nature of the
constructed systems [PM and ZF] but rather holds for a very wide class of formal systems


contradict this

hence in every formal system which satisfies assumptions 1 and 2 [depending on the special nature of formal system P WHICH USES PM ] and is w - consistent there exist undecidable propositions

HE HAS SAID UNDECIDABILITY DOES NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE NATURE OF PM YETS SAYS UNDECIABILITY IN FORMAL SYSTEMS- OF WHICH PM- IS ONE IS DEPENDENT ON PM


PM and ZF are formal systems
so when he says undecidability is not dependent on PM and ZF he is refering to formal systems
thus undecidability is not dependent on the nature of formal systems

nightrover, Godel was a mathematician, and the apparent paradoxes you/Dean raise above deal with generalizations Godel made from his mathematical proof (of the Incompleteness Th's). Have either of you taken an advanced mathematics course to understand what mathematical inference and generalization, within the context of mathematical proof, is about? Evidently not, because the apparent "paradox" that you/Dean mention stems from a misunderstanding of what mathematical proof is about and about what can and cannot be generalized from that proof. In other words, these "paradoxes" that Dean describes evince a blatant ignorance of what mathematical proof is about. Like I noted above, there are no equations, whereas Godel is full of them. If you/Dean wish to demonstrate paradox in Godel's work, you have to do so in his language, mathematics. Until then, any objections you/Dean raise will rightfully fall on deaf ears, which is probably one of the major reasons why the mathematical communities, in addition to the philosophy communities, completely ignore your/Dean's essays. If Dean is looking to complete his school education and try his hand at obtaining a Ph.D., it might do him good to try getting one in mathematics, so that then he will be in a better position to understand Godel.

Synopsis of Nightrover/Dean's Godel Paradox:
Undecidability is not dependent on nature of PM, yet is dependent on the nature of PM.

This is your grand paradox, and I ask, so what? It changes nothing about the validity of Godel's proof. All it would possibly affect is the domain of validity of Godel's proof, which in any event, is confined to arithmetic-like systems (with finite number of axioms). Thus, you have failed to demonstrate that Godel's proof is meaningless.

Nightrover/Dean, note that I'm not trying to discourage you from being critical of other people's works, but you have to be much more intelligent in your criticisms. In attempting to demonstrate that everyone elses argument is meaningless, you have only succeeded in projecting your own existential state of meaninglessness. You're clinging onto this delusion that your argument above proves Godel wrong, and it's not the case at all. Instead of clinging onto this delusion, it would be better for you to develop a deeper understanding of Godel's work, so that you will be in a better position for critique and analysis. Maybe then you will also find meaning in your apparently meaningless life.

Undecidability is not dependent on nature of PM, yet is dependent on the nature of PM.

This is your grand paradox, and I ask, so what? It changes nothing about the validity of Godel's proof. All it would possibly affect is the domain of validity of Godel's proof,

it means godel is in paradox and his theorem meaningless and invalid

there is no paradox. If you understood his proof, you would understand that. What you're doing is trying to show inconsistency in the verbal 'interpretations' of his proof, but the validity of Godel's proof remains intact. This is why you cannot demonstrate your "paradox" mathematically, in the same manner of Godel's proof; because you are only dealing with verbal interpretations of Godel's proof and not with the proof itself. Thus, you have failed to demonstrate that Godel's proof is meaningless.

there is no paradox. If you understood his proof, you would understand that. What you're doing is trying to show inconsistency in the verbal 'interpretations' of his proof, but the validity of Godel's proof remains intact. This is why you cannot demonstrate your "paradox" mathematically, in the same manner of Godel's proof; because you are only dealing with verbal interpretations of Godel's proof and not with the proof itself. Thus, you have failed to demonstrate that Godel's proof is meaningless.

sorry here is a mathematical demonstration of godels paradox
from his own mouth from his theorem V1
he has just mathematically arrived at this conclusion
hence in every formal system which satisfies assumptions 1 and 2 [ which uses system PM] and is w - consistent there exist undecidable propositions �. (ibid, p.28)

you want mathematical proof of his paradox go look at the maths leading up to that paradoxical conclusion

which contradicts
This situation does not depend upon the special nature of the
constructed systems [PM and ZF] but rather holds for a very wide class of formal systems

for he says
Undecidability is not mathematically dependent on nature of PM, yet is dependent on the mathematically nature of PM.

so where's the mathematical demonstration? Again, I see no paradox in Godel's proof, only uncertaintly as to its domain of applicability, which in any event is limited to arithmetic-like systems with finite number of axioms. Thus, you have failed to demonstrate that Godel's proof is meaningless.

But don't just take my word for it. If you had a legitimate point here about there being a legitimate paradox in Godel's proof, then why haven't any journals, like Science or Nature, published anything over this? Why hasn't this "paradox" appeared in any peer-reviewed journals or been cited by anyone in the mathematics or philosophy communities? I know why. Because it's not a legitimate paradox.

so where's the mathematical demonstration

as i say go look at the maths for theorem V1
it leads directly to his paradoxical conclusion- that conclusion was based on mathematical formula

Nightrover, this is what I mean by a mathematical demonstration:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0510469

Godels theorem is in paradox and thus meaningless
it does need the formal proof of this you are asking for
it is obvious from his assumptions and conclusion that this is so

just like the calculus of newton when invented was meaningless and did not need a formal demonstration of this because his assumptions where incorrect


“Newton and Leibniz developed the calculus…. Their ideas were attacked for being full of paradoxes.� Newton’s formulation of calculus was self-contradictory yet it worked. Newton worked with small increments going of to a zero limit. Berkeley showed that this leads to logical inconsistency. The main problem Bunch notes was “that a quantity was very close to zero, but not zero, during the first part of the operation then it became zero at the end.� These paradoxes where resolved by the time old expediency of mathematics by defining them away in the nineteenth century by Cauchy and Weierstrass. Up until then calculus was used pragmatically such that “instead of having demonstrations justify results, results were used to justify demonstrations.� Now it must be pointed out that a paradoxical theory of calculus gave the same results as the reformulated non-paradoxical model of Cauchy and Weierstrass; Thus Newtonian or classical mechanics up until the redefinition of calculus in the nineteenth century, was built upon a paradoxical model which generated contradictions in the mathematical model nevertheless it worked i.e. it predicted the correct results..

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books...rationality.pdf

Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples

you keep reiterating this but the fact remains that you have failed to demonstrate that Godel's proof is meaningless.



I'll take this as an admission of your inability to back up your claim.

I'll take this as an admission of your inability to back up your claim.



i have backed it up from the very words of Godel

i have backed it up and you even say

that is a paradox which you admit

undecidability is not dependent on PM, but undecidability is dependent on PM


This situation does not depend upon the special nature of the
constructed systems [PM and ZF] but rather holds for a very wide class of formal systems (K Godel , On formally undecidable propositions of principia mathematica and related systems in The undecidable , M, Davis, Raven Press, 1965, p.6).( K Godel , On formally undecidable propositions of principia mathematica and related systems in The undecidable , M, Davis, Raven Press, 1965, p.6)

contradicts this

hence in every formal system which satisfies assumptions 1 and 2 [ which uses system PM] and is w - consistent there exist undecidable propositions �. (ibid, p.28
thus
undecidability is independent of PM, but undecidability is dependent on PM

as i say just like calculus no formal proof is needed
because the assumptions and conclusion mean paradox and hence meaninglessness

It is well known that the translation you're using is seriously flawed (i.e., the translation by Elliott Mendelson in M. Davis, 1965). For example, the translation you're using received a harsh review by Bauer-Medelburg (1965), who in addition to giving a detailed list of the typographical errors also described what he believed to be serious errors in the translation. See the following:
Stefan Bauer-Mengelberg (1966). Review of The Undecidable: Basic Papers on Undecidable Propositions, Unsolvable problems and Computable Functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 31, No. 3. (Sep., 1966), pp. 484-494.

This is something that you should have thought about, and you should have consulted the original article (in German, not faulty translations) before trumpeting your supposed contradiction in Godel's paper. The fact that you (or colin leslie dean) committed this error, of relying on only a single translation, and an error-prone one at that, is an amateur's mistake.

Also, there is no contradiction in what you posted because what appears in brackets was added by you/Dean in order to make it appear like a contradiction. Again, if you understood the proof you would understand there is no contradiction. You are artificially creating one by tagging on "[ which uses system PM]" in your second quote from Godel above. Why don't you try pointing out these contradictory statements in online versions of the Godel article so that we can all check to make sure you aren't inserting your own nonsense and attributing it to Godel. I have checked the original Godel article and do not find the second quote you have above, in which you inserted your own words in brackets in order to artificially create a contradiction.

Like I said earlier, too, even if you had demonstrated that Godel verbally contradicted himself (which you have not, which I make clear above), this does not in any way invalidate his mathematical proof since only the domain of applicability is in question, which in any event is confined to arithmetic-like systems. To reiterate, since I don't think you grasp this point, verbal distortions do not affect the mathematics of Godel's proof, which remains valid in spite of them.

In any event, here is a link to a good online translation of Godel's "On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems". Here you will clearly see that there are no contradictions, and that any apparent contradiction you think you've found is likely due to either using a poor translation of the original German article or to inserting your own words into Godel's in order to artificially create a contradiction.

you got to be joking
that translation leaves heaps out
it has not even got the footnotes- you guy cant even be consistent (see below)
-bad try

and what is has got does not negate what dean has said

one point about your translation- you guy is inconsistent here
he say axiom 1V replaces the axiom of reducibility
but then say in formula 40 which uses axiom 1V that

quote
"from axiom 1V ie from the axiom of reducibility" -exactly what davis has said

your guy cant even be consistent in his translation-least davis is

and when he discusses theorem V1 IT IS WHAT DAVIS AND DEAN HAVE SAID
AND
supports the paradox dean points out


nothing i read undermines deans points at all

you say
Also, there is no contradiction in what you posted because what appears in brackets was added by you/Dean in order to make it appear like a contradiction

but the paradox is there for all to see in davis and your translation

ie

This situation does not depend upon the special nature of the
constructed systems [PM and ZF] but rather holds for a very wide class of formal systems
CONTRADICTS THIS
hence in every formal system which satisfies assumptions 1 and 2 [ which uses system PM] and is w - consistent there exist undecidable propositions �

ALL MUCH THE SAME AS IN YOUR TRANSLATION

Dean's single point, his so-called "paradox" which he created by inserting his own words into Godel's and using a faulty translation of Godel's original work, has been countered on many fronts. Only someone impervious to reason would bother defending Dean's nonsense.


then point out the page and line numbers where the apparent contradiction occurs in the translation I provided. You can't, because the contradiction doesn't exist.

I should note, too, that there are alternative proofs to Godels Incompleteness theorems, some that are much simpler to demonstrate, easier to follow, and more intuitive. Consider Ch 12 of Wolfram's New Kind of Science, for instance. The sooner you admit you're wrong about Godel's Incompleteness theorems (and you are wrong), the sooner you can begin to remedy your ignorance on the matter and start learning about what Godel actually demonstrated.

Listen nightrover/Dean, I know you desperately want a contradiction to exist because it makes you feel special, but you have to face reality. If you want to feel special, try making a valid contribution to society instead of merely pretending. You could, for instance, try extending Godel's Incompleteness theorems, and try devising efficient routines for enumerating over all simple axiom-based systems and determining how complete and consistent they are. You don't have to feel like a total loser because you can't prove Godel's Incompleteness theorems to be meaningless. There are other things you could do to make productive use of your time instead of desperately trying to convince other people of your delusions. You've been proved wrong, it's that simple. Now, you can be a man and own up to it, or continue acting like an ignoramus. Your choice.

I personally believe that anyone seeking to gain recognition simply by invalidating anothers ideas, really needs to take a look at what exactly they are doing. If you were to disprove logic as a means of showing that there may be better ways of thinking, I would congradulate you; unfortunately, you do not seek to improve the system, or create a more functional system, you simply seek to destroy. You are the cognitive virus. Luck for us, you are not very efficient at spreading your thoughts~

you ask
then point out the page and line numbers where the apparent contradiction occurs in the translation I provided
go to page 18

starting with -almost exactly as davis has it

"during the proof of theorem V1 we did not use any other properties of the system P [which uses PM] than the following

1_axioms and deduction rules [these come from P which uses PM]
2)every recursive relation definable in system P [these come from P which uses PM]
"hence there are undecidable propositions of the form... in every formula system that fulfill the pre condiontions1 and 2 [note these come from P which uses PM "]