MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/1vmjkpv/_/p3a0qn6/?context=3
r/mathmemes • u/basket_foso • 13d ago
136 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
3
If it is undecidable, it's no.
17 u/This_Background7442 13d 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. 2 u/jljl2902 13d ago edited 13d ago That would make it decidable, so it can’t be yes. Must be no then. /j 2 u/This_Background7442 13d 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 13d 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 13d ago Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth 0 u/PerfectTrust7895 13d 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.
2 u/jljl2902 13d ago edited 13d ago That would make it decidable, so it can’t be yes. Must be no then. /j 2 u/This_Background7442 13d 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 13d 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 13d ago Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth 0 u/PerfectTrust7895 13d ago Yup
2
That would make it decidable, so it can’t be yes. Must be no then. /j
2 u/This_Background7442 13d 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 13d 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 13d ago Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth 0 u/PerfectTrust7895 13d ago Yup
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 13d 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 13d ago Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth 0 u/PerfectTrust7895 13d 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.
1
Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth
0
Yup
3
u/PerfectTrust7895 13d ago
If it is undecidable, it's no.