Re: godel-like incompleteness of relational model

"x" <x-false_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:40b5bd51$1_at_post.usenet.com...
> "Paul" <paul_at_test.com> wrote in message
> news:6Litc.7887$wI4.912910_at_wards.force9.net...
> > mountain man wrote:
> > >>I'm not entirely certain, but it seems to me that any logic model that
> > >>is consistent (i.e. theorems derived from the axioms do not contradict
> > >>the axioms or other theorems so derived) will be unable to find
> > >>certain truths within the system. And that seems to be Godel's sword
> > >>in the stone (you know, he's actually not the first to come up with
> > >>the idea, but the first to apply it to number theory). In other
> > >>words, pretty much everything is Godel-like, unless you adapt an
> > >>informal system, but then when you do that, you lose the power of
> > >>logic altogether.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. Deduction goes out the window, true,
> > > but inference is still as valid as ever. The measure of the
> > > power of inference over the power of deduction is a
> > > tricky subject area, for sure.
> >
> > What's the difference between inference and deduction?
> > Are they not the same thing?
>
> Deduction is a particular kind of inference.

To add another dimension of cultural philosophy here, there may (perhaps) be readers here who appreciate an introduction to other forms of logic other than the standard western technological form.

For example, here is an article written sometime in the early years of the 1900's by a Russian Oriental and Sanskrit scholar, Theodor Stcherbatsky (1866-1942), well known at the time, concerning Buddhist Logic (Indian logic in general): http://www.mountainman.com.au/buddha/Stcherbatsky_Buddhist_logic.htm

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz Received on Thu May 27 2004 - 13:05:37 CEST