
In 1931 Kurt Godel published his fundamental paper, "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of "Principia Mathematica" and Related Systems." This revolutionary paper challenged certain basic assumptions underlying much research in mathematics and logic. Godel received public recognition of his work in 1951 when he was awarded the first Albert Einstein Award for achievement in the natural sciences--perhaps the highest award of its kind in the United States. The award committee described his work in mathematical logic as "one of the greatest contributions to the sciences in recent times." However, few mathematicians of the time were equipped to understand the young scholar's complex proof. Ernest Nagel and James Newman provide a readable and accessible explanation to both scholars and non-specialists of the main ideas and broad implications of Godel's discovery. It offers every educated person with a taste for logic and philosophy the chance to understand a previously difficult and inaccessible subject. With a new introduction by Douglas R. Hofstadter, this book will appeal students, scholars, and professionals in the fields of mathematics, computer science, logic and philosophy, and science.
Instead I'd recommend Gödel's Proof by Nagel and Newman for a conceptual intro.
[1] I'm not a mathematician, so my understanding is necessarily informal.
On Amazon: <https://www.amazon.com/Godels-Proof-Ernest-Nagel-ebook/dp/B0...>
I might even pick up an ebook version if I can find it somewhere else. Been a while.
Natalie mentions the Newman & Nagel's text "Gödel's Proof," a
(//the//?) 1958 classic on the subject. [[ 1 ]] Having left IBM
in December 1990, I spent a month with the text, dipping into
mild insanity, taking to strange wines to relieve myself of the
fear that my previous years long study of Whitehead & Russell's
"Principia Mathematica" [[ 2 ]] was useless.
I really appreciate the inclusion of Alvir's statement on
whether or not Gödel thought he proved all logical systems
undecidable and incomplete. About 80% into the article is her
quote:
>> Often people will speak as if the CH is the smoking gun that
>> shows sometimes mathematical questions have no answer. But
>> in my opinion, this situation provides very little evidence
>> that there are “absolutely undecidable” mathematical
>> problems, relative to any given permissible framework.
Though I would have added a reference to Infinitary Logic
[[ 3 ]] after dropping the reference to L-omega-1-omega. I
suspect most readers would find discussion of higher-order and
modern logic a bit confusing without a pause for further study.
But a guide post pointing in the appropriate direction would be
good.
That this is the only critique I have of the article speaks to
Wolchover's skill in communicating complex ideas for a lay
audience. I really liked this article, so thank you @baruchel
for posting the reference to it.
:: References
1. https://search.worldcat.org/title/1543160023
2. https://search.worldcat.org/title/933122838
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitary_logic