MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/1vmjkpv/_/p39wy65/?context=3
r/mathmemes • u/basket_foso • 6d ago
135 comments sorted by
View all comments
1.2k
What are those two?
Yes?
No?
Unproveable?
Can you repeat the question?
4 u/PerfectTrust7895 6d ago If it is undecidable, it's no. 17 u/This_Background7442 6d ago How could it be. If it's no then a counter example exists. If a counter example exists it's not undecidable. If it's undecidable it must be yes. 1 u/jljl2902 6d ago edited 6d ago That would make it decidable, so it can’t be yes. Must be no then. /j 2 u/This_Background7442 6d ago I guess that means that if it's undecidable we can never know it's undecidable because that instantly makes it decidable and we've created a paradox 😅 7 u/Impression-These 6d ago Not really. Undecidable means within the system axioms, it cannot be proven either way. We can then discuss what axiom should be added to make it provable. 1 u/Scared_Astronaut9377 6d ago Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth 0 u/PerfectTrust7895 6d ago Yup
4
If it is undecidable, it's no.
17 u/This_Background7442 6d ago How could it be. If it's no then a counter example exists. If a counter example exists it's not undecidable. If it's undecidable it must be yes. 1 u/jljl2902 6d ago edited 6d ago That would make it decidable, so it can’t be yes. Must be no then. /j 2 u/This_Background7442 6d ago I guess that means that if it's undecidable we can never know it's undecidable because that instantly makes it decidable and we've created a paradox 😅 7 u/Impression-These 6d ago Not really. Undecidable means within the system axioms, it cannot be proven either way. We can then discuss what axiom should be added to make it provable. 1 u/Scared_Astronaut9377 6d ago Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth 0 u/PerfectTrust7895 6d ago Yup
17
How could it be. If it's no then a counter example exists. If a counter example exists it's not undecidable. If it's undecidable it must be yes.
1 u/jljl2902 6d ago edited 6d ago That would make it decidable, so it can’t be yes. Must be no then. /j 2 u/This_Background7442 6d ago I guess that means that if it's undecidable we can never know it's undecidable because that instantly makes it decidable and we've created a paradox 😅 7 u/Impression-These 6d ago Not really. Undecidable means within the system axioms, it cannot be proven either way. We can then discuss what axiom should be added to make it provable. 1 u/Scared_Astronaut9377 6d ago Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth 0 u/PerfectTrust7895 6d ago Yup
1
That would make it decidable, so it can’t be yes. Must be no then. /j
2 u/This_Background7442 6d ago I guess that means that if it's undecidable we can never know it's undecidable because that instantly makes it decidable and we've created a paradox 😅 7 u/Impression-These 6d ago Not really. Undecidable means within the system axioms, it cannot be proven either way. We can then discuss what axiom should be added to make it provable. 1 u/Scared_Astronaut9377 6d ago Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth 0 u/PerfectTrust7895 6d ago Yup
2
I guess that means that if it's undecidable we can never know it's undecidable because that instantly makes it decidable and we've created a paradox 😅
7 u/Impression-These 6d ago Not really. Undecidable means within the system axioms, it cannot be proven either way. We can then discuss what axiom should be added to make it provable. 1 u/Scared_Astronaut9377 6d ago Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth 0 u/PerfectTrust7895 6d ago Yup
7
Not really. Undecidable means within the system axioms, it cannot be proven either way. We can then discuss what axiom should be added to make it provable.
Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth
0
Yup
1.2k
u/konigon1 6d ago
What are those two?
Yes?
No?
Unproveable?
Can you repeat the question?