A machine may be consistent despite lack of proof

To defeat Newman and Nagel's thesis, Putnam must show that the consistency of the machine is absolutely undecidable. But there are no absolutely undecidable propositions in arithmetic.

The best Putnam can offer is the unlikelihood of being able to show that the machine in question is inconsistent.

But the fact that it is unlikely that we can show that a machine is consistent doesn't mean that the machine is in fact inconsistent.

Thomas Tymoczko (1990).
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Artificial Intelligence
Are thinking computers mathematically possible? [7]
No: computers are limited by Gödel's theorems
Theorems show limitations of machine thought
Mathematical thought can't be fully formalised
Proof of human superiority relies on proof of consistency
A machine may be consistent despite lack of proof
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip