Hat tip to Yemon Choi (via email) for this very interesting discussion of Gödel’s theorems on Radio 4. It features the aforementioned Marcus du Sautoy, John Barrow of Cambridge and Philip Welch of Bristol. It is pitched nicely with interest whether you are a professional mathematician or if you have no training in maths at all.

I was particularly glad to hear someone at least draw some attention to the philosophical trickiness of the usual popularization of the theorems which talks about “true statements that cannot be proved in the system”. This always erks me a bit, because it isn’t entirely clear that a statement in a formal system has a meaning that survives being taken out of the system (and if it does that is a pretty subtle thing for this level of discussion). Thus just hearing the warning (from Welch?) about the theorems and their proofs being basically syntactic rather than semantic was nice. (It was du Sautoy giving the usual “true statement” version with but I will forgive him since he does so much good work and most mathematicians seem to be happy with the truthiness).

Incidentally, I suspect my feelings of awkwardness towards the claim we can talk about “truth” outside of “proof in a given system” may be related to the sort of maths I work in. My “grand-supervisor” Garth Dales discusses here how those who work in abstract analysis (and in algebra) tend to view their work as essentially formal (although using “realistic pictures” to help us).

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

Tags: Gödel's theorems, In Our Time, Marcus du Sautoy, philosophy of maths, Radio 4

This entry was posted on November 5, 2008 at 4:00 pm and is filed under doing maths, general audience, maths, media, semi-technical. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

January 5, 2009 at 10:59 pm

[…] out of the system and look at them on there own. The theorem is (as was cautiously pointed on the In Our Time episode on the subject but is usually ignored in popular treatments) purely syntactic and not […]