Math Editor

GÖDEL'S INCOMPLETENESS BREAKDOWN

GÖDEL'S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREMS — FULL MATHEMATICAL BREAKDOWN Session 1

A Complete, Step-by-Step Derivation for Complete Understanding ( will give theorem a twist in session 2 )

This requires building the proof from the ground up: from the basic idea of formal systems, through Gödel numbering, the diagonal lemma, and the construction of the undecidable sentence.

PART ONE: THE SETTING — WHAT IS A FORMAL SYSTEM?

1.1 THE LANGUAGE

A formal system T has a LANGUAGE — an alphabet of symbols. For Peano

Arithmetic (PA), the symbols are:

• Constants: 0

• Function symbols: S (successor), + (addition), × (multiplication)

• Variables: x₁, x₂, x₃, ...

• Logical connectives: ¬ (not), ∧ (and), ∨ (or), → (implies), ↔ (iff)

• Quantifiers: ∀ (for all), ∃ (there exists)

• Equality: =

• Parentheses: (, )

A WELL-FORMED FORMULA (wff) is a string of symbols built according to the grammar of the language.

For example:

∀x (S(x) ≠ 0) — "for all x, the successor of x is not 0"

∃y (x = S(y)) — "there exists y such that x is the successor of y"

1.2 THE AXIOMS

A formal system has a set of AXIOMS — formulas that are taken as the starting point. For PA, the axioms are the seven Peano axioms (plus the induction schema).

1.3 THE RULES OF INFERENCE

A formal system has RULES OF INFERENCE — rules for deriving new formulas from old ones. The main rule is MODUS PONENS:

From φ and (φ → ψ), derive ψ.

1.4 THE THEOREMS

A THEOREM of T is any formula that can be derived from the axioms using the rules of inference in finitely many steps.

A formal PROOF is a finite sequence of formulas, each of which is either an axiom or follows from previous formulas by a rule of inference.

1.5 RECURSIVE AXIOMATIZABILITY

T is RECURSIVELY AXIOMATIZABLE if the set of axioms is COMPUTABLE — there is an algorithm that can decide, for any given formula, whether it is an axiom.

PA and ZFC are recursively axiomatizable. This is crucial for Gödel's proof.

PART TWO: GÖDEL NUMBERING — ENCODING FORMULAS AS NUMBERS

2.1 THE IDEA

Gödel's key insight: formulas of the formal system can be ENCODED as natural numbers. This allows the formal system to "talk about itself" — to make statements about its own formulas and proofs.

2.2 THE ENCODING

Assign to each symbol a UNIQUE natural number:

Symbol Gödel number

0 1

S 2

+ 3

× 4

= 5

¬ 6

∧ 7

∨ 8

→ 9

↔ 10

∀ 11

∃ 12

x₁ 13

x₂ 14

x₃ 15

... ...

( 20

) 21

, 22

A FORMULA is a sequence of symbols: s₁ s₂ s₃ ... sₖ. Its Gödel number is:

⌜s₁ s₂ ... sₖ⌝ = 2^{g(s₁)} × 3^{g(s₂)} × 5^{g(s₃)} × ... × pₖ^{g(sₖ)}

Where pₖ is the k-th prime, and g(sᵢ) is the Gödel number of the symbol sᵢ.

EXAMPLE: The formula "0 = 0" has symbols: 0, =, 0.

Gödel number = 2^1 × 3^5 × 5^1 = 2 × 243 × 5 = 2430.

A SEQUENCE of formulas (a proof) φ₁, φ₂, ..., φₙ has a Gödel number:

⌜φ₁, φ₂, ..., φₙ⌝ = 2^{⌜φ₁⌝} × 3^{⌜φ₂⌝} × ... × pₙ^{⌜φₙ⌝}

2.3 THE POWER OF GÖDEL NUMBERING

With Gödel numbering, every formula, every proof, every syntactic object corresponds to a UNIQUE natural number.

Moreover, the PREDICATE "is a proof" becomes a relation on natural numbers:

Proof_T(x, y) ⇔ "x is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula with Gödel number y"

This predicate is COMPUTABLE — there is an algorithm that can decide, given x and y, whether x is a proof of y.

PART THREE: THE PROVABILITY PREDICATE

3.1 THE PREDICATE Prov_T(y)

Define:

Prov_T(y) ⇔ ∃x Proof_T(x, y)

⇔ "y is the Gödel number of a theorem of T"

That is, Prov_T(y) says: "The formula with Gödel number y IS PROVABLE in T."

3.2 REPRESENTABILITY IN PA

THEOREM (Representability of Prov): The predicate Prov_T(y) is REPRESENTABLE in PA. That is, there exists a formula Prov(y) in the language of PA such that:

(1) If Prov_T(n) is true, then PA ⊢ Prov(n) (PA proves it)

(2) If Prov_T(n) is false, then PA ⊢ ¬Prov(n) (PA proves its negation)

Where n is the NUMERAL for n (the term S(S(...S(0)...)) with n successors).

This is a deep theorem about the strength of PA: it can represent computable predicates.

PART FOUR: THE DIAGONAL LEMMA — SELF-REFERENCE IN PA

4.1 THE LEMMA

THEOREM (Diagonal Lemma / Fixed-Point Lemma):

For any formula ψ(x) with one free variable x, there exists a sentence G such that:

PA ⊢ G ↔ ψ(⌜G⌝)

Where ⌜G⌝ is the Gödel number of G (more precisely, the numeral representing that number).

That is: G says "ψ holds of ME." G is the SELF-REFERENTIAL sentence that asserts ψ of its own Gödel number.

4.2 PROOF SKETCH

Define the SUBSTITUTION function:

Sub(n, m) = the Gödel number of the formula obtained by taking the formula with Gödel number n and replacing all occurrences of the free variable x with the numeral for m. This function is COMPUTABLE, and it is REPRESENTABLE in PA.

Let ψ(x) be given. Define:

θ(x) = ψ(Sub(x, x))

Let k = ⌜θ(x)⌝ be the Gödel number of θ(x). Define:

G = θ(k) = ψ(Sub(k, k))

Now, Sub(k, k) is the Gödel number of the formula obtained by taking the formula with Gödel number k (which is θ(x)) and replacing x with the numeral for k. That is:

Sub(k, k) = ⌜θ(k)⌝ = ⌜G⌝

Therefore:

G = ψ(Sub(k, k)) = ψ(⌜G⌝)

So: PA ⊢ G ↔ ψ(⌜G⌝). ∎

This is the DIAGONAL LEMMA. It is the mathematical version of the self-referential statement: "This sentence has property ψ."

PART FIVE: THE FIRST INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM

5.1 CONSTRUCTING THE UNDECIDABLE SENTENCE

Apply the Diagonal Lemma to the formula ψ(x) = ¬Prov(x). This gives a sentence G such that:

PA ⊢ G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝)

That is: G says "G is NOT provable in PA." Or more precisely: "The formula with Gödel number ⌜G⌝ is not provable."

5.2 THE THEOREM

THEOREM (Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem):

Let T be a recursively axiomatizable, consistent formal system that contains PA (or can represent arithmetic). Then there exists a sentence G such that:

(1) T ⊬ G (T does NOT prove G)

(2) T ⊬ ¬G (T does NOT prove ¬G)

That is: G is UNDECIDABLE in T.

5.3 THE PROOF

CLAIM 1: T does not prove G.

PROOF: Suppose T ⊢ G. Then there is a proof of G. Let p be the Gödel number of that proof. Then Proof_T(p, ⌜G⌝) is true. Therefore Prov_T(⌜G⌝) is true. By representability, PA ⊢ Prov(⌜G⌝). But G is equivalent to ¬Prov(⌜G⌝). So from PA ⊢ G, we get PA ⊢ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝).

Together: PA ⊢ Prov(⌜G⌝) AND PA ⊢ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝). This is a CONTRADICTION with the consistency of T. Therefore T does NOT prove G. ∎

CLAIM 2: T does not prove ¬G.

PROOF: Suppose T ⊢ ¬G. Since G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝), we have ¬G ↔ Prov(⌜G⌝). So T ⊢ Prov(⌜G⌝). Now, Prov(⌜G⌝) says "there exists a proof of G".

But is this TRUE? If T is consistent, then no proof of ¬G can exist (because T ⊢ ¬G would then make T inconsistent).

But can a proof of G exist? If T ⊢ G, then T is inconsistent (since T also proves ¬G). So if T is consistent and T ⊢ ¬G, then there is NO proof of G either.

Wait — let us be more careful.

Prov(⌜G⌝) is the FORMAL STATEMENT "G is provable." It is a Σ₁-sentence (an existential statement: "there exists a number p such that p is a proof of G"). In PA, every true Σ₁-sentence is provable (Σ₁-completeness).

So if Prov_T(⌜G⌝) is true in the standard model, then PA ⊢ Prov(⌜G⌝).

But does T ⊢ ¬G imply that Prov_T(⌜G⌝) is TRUE? No. T ⊢ ¬G means ¬G is provable. Prov_T(⌜G⌝) means G is provable. These are DIFFERENT.

If T is consistent and T ⊢ ¬G, then T ⊬ G. So Prov_T(⌜G⌝) is FALSE.

Then ¬Prov_T(⌜G⌝) is TRUE. By representability, PA ⊢ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝).

Since G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝), we have PA ⊢ G. This CONTRADICTS T ⊢ ¬G (which would make T inconsistent).

Therefore: if T is consistent, T cannot prove ¬G. ∎

CONCLUSION: G is UNDECIDABLE in T. Neither G nor ¬G is provable.

5.4 THE TRUTH OF G

G is TRUE in the standard model of arithmetic. Why? Because G says "G is not provable." And we just proved that G is indeed NOT provable (in a consistent T). So G is TRUE.

But T cannot prove G. Therefore: there exists a TRUE statement about natural numbers that is NOT PROVABLE in T. This is the content of the First Incompleteness Theorem.

PART SIX: THE SECOND INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM

6.1 THE STATEMENT

THEOREM (Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem):

Let T be as above. Let Con(T) be the formal statement "T is consistent."

Encoded as an arithmetic statement:

Con(T) ⇔ ¬Prov(⌜0 = 1⌝)

That is: "There is no proof of the contradiction 0 = 1."

Then: T ⊬ Con(T). That is: T cannot prove its OWN consistency.

6.2 PROOF SKETCH

Inside T, the proof of the First Incompleteness Theorem can be FORMALIZED.

T can prove:

Con(T) → ¬Prov(⌜G⌝)

Because: if T is consistent, then G is not provable (this is what the First Theorem proves, and the proof can be carried out inside T).

But G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝). So:

Con(T) → G

Therefore, if T ⊢ Con(T), then T ⊢ G. But by the First Theorem, T ⊬ G.

Therefore: T ⊬ Con(T). ∎

The Second Incompleteness Theorem: T cannot prove its own consistency.

PART SEVEN: THE ONTOLOGICAL MEANING — WHY THIS IS PROFOUND

7.1 THE DISTINCTION 1 AND 0 IN GÖDEL'S THEOREM

The theorem is the FORMAL PROOF of the irreducible distinction between

1 (the provable) and 0 (the true-but-unprovable).

• The PROVABLE statements are the TANGIBLE (1) — they can be reached by finite proofs.

• The TRUE statements are the INTANGIBLE (0) — they exist in the reality of the natural numbers, but some are NOT reachable by proof.

• The RELATION (+) between provable and true is the PROOF SYSTEM —the finite steps that connect axioms to theorems.

• The BALANCE (=) is the attempt to make provable = true — an attempt that ALWAYS FAILS.

Gödel's theorem proves: the provable (1) can NEVER equal the true (0). There is always a GAP — a true statement that is unprovable.

7.2 THE SELF-REFERENCE AND THE CENTER

The sentence G refers to ITSELF: "G is not provable." This self-reference is the FORMAL version of the OBSERVER at the center.

The system T tries to prove everything. But the sentence G points BACK to the system itself: "You cannot prove me." This is the system's own SHADOW — the part of itself that it cannot see.

The observer (the system's awareness of itself) is the CENTER. The undecidable sentence G is the SHADOW — the part that the center cannot reach.

7.3 INCOMPLETENESS IS NOT A FLAW

Gödel's theorem does not show that mathematics is flawed. It shows that mathematics is ALIVE. A complete, consistent formal system would be a FROZEN system — one that cannot reflect on itself.

The incompleteness is the SIGNATURE of self-awareness. The system can TALK about itself (via Gödel numbering), and when it does, it finds statements that it cannot decide.

This is not a defect. It is the MATHEMATICAL PROOF that no finite system can fully capture the INFINITE.

PART EIGHT: THE ANSWER — FULL MATHEMATICAL BREAKDOWN GÖDEL'S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREMS — COMPLETE MATHEMATICAL BREAKDOWN

1. THE SETTING: A formal system T (like PA or ZFC) with a language, axioms, and rules of inference. T is recursively axiomatizable and consistent.

2. GÖDEL NUMBERING: Every formula φ is encoded as a unique natural number ⌜φ⌝ using prime factorization: 2^{g(s₁)} × 3^{g(s₂)} × ... . Every proof is also encoded.

3. THE PROVABILITY PREDICATE: Prov(y) says "y is the Gödel number of a provable formula." This predicate is REPRESENTABLE in PA.

4. THE DIAGONAL LEMMA: For any formula ψ(x), there exists a sentence G such that PA ⊢ G ↔ ψ(⌜G⌝). G is self-referential: it says "ψ holds of ME."

5. FIRST INCOMPLETENESS: Apply the Diagonal Lemma to ψ(x) = ¬Prov(x). Get G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝). G says "G is not provable." PROOF: If T ⊢ G, then T ⊢ Prov(⌜G⌝) (by representability), but also

T ⊢ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) (from G). Contradiction. So T ⊬ G.

If T ⊢ ¬G, then T ⊢ Prov(⌜G⌝) (from ¬G ↔ Prov(⌜G⌝)). Since T is consistent, Prov_T(⌜G⌝) is FALSE, so PA ⊢ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝), which gives PA ⊢ G.

Contradiction with T ⊢ ¬G. So T ⊬ ¬G.

Therefore G is UNDECIDABLE. G is TRUE (it says "I am not provable," and indeed it is not). But T cannot prove it.

6. SECOND INCOMPLETENESS: T cannot prove its own consistency: T ⊬ Con(T).

PROOF: Inside T, Con(T) → G (formalizing the First Theorem). If T ⊢ Con(T), then T ⊢ G. But T ⊬ G. Therefore T ⊬ Con(T).

7. THE ONTOLOGY: Provable = TANGIBLE (1). True = INTANGIBLE (0). The gap between them is the RELATION (+). The incompleteness is the BALANCE (=) that always fails. No finite system can capture the infinite.

Gödel's theorems are the mathematical proof that the distinction between 1 (the finite, provable) and 0 (the infinite, true) is IRREDUCIBLE.

Linear Mathematics, Logic, Perspective, missing full GEOMETRY.