this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
398 points (98.3% liked)

Science Memes

16948 readers
1884 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Ehh...

So, it's more a case that the system cannot prove it's own consistency (a system cannot prove it won't lead to a contradiction). So the proof is valid within the system, but the validity of the system is what was considered suspect (i.e. we cannot prove it won't produce a contradiction from that system alone).

These days we use relative consistency proofs - that is we assume system A is consistent and model system B in it thus giving "If A is consistent, then so too must B".

As much as I hate to admit it, classical set theory has been fairly robust - though intuitionistic logic makes better philosophical sense. Fortunately both are equiconsistent (each can be used to imply the consistency of the other).