Mixing
Informal proof of diagonal lemma
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am reading this proof of the diagonal lemma
and I do not understand what is happening here. Could you informally explain what is the strategy here? I would appreciate it if you went step by step. I am aware of this informal exposition, but I don't think it explains the proof itself.
logic
asked 2 days ago
M. Moe
31
New contributor
M. Moe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am reading this proof of the diagonal lemma
and I do not understand what is happening here. Could you informally explain what is the strategy here? I would appreciate it if you went step by step. I am aware of this informal exposition, but I don't think it explains the proof itself.
logic
asked 2 days ago
M. Moe
31
New contributor
M. Moe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Could you expand on which part of the proof you don't understand? That would help others explain it. There's not really much of an informal strategy, except "construct the thing the theorem says must exist". The construction is hard to discover - it's the kind of proof that you simply check step by step.
– Carl Mummert
2 days ago
See also the post proving-and-understanding-the-fixed-point-lemma-diagonal-lemma-in-logic
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am reading this proof of the diagonal lemma
and I do not understand what is happening here. Could you informally explain what is the strategy here? I would appreciate it if you went step by step. I am aware of this informal exposition, but I don't think it explains the proof itself.
logic
asked 2 days ago
M. Moe
31
New contributor
M. Moe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I am reading this proof of the diagonal lemma
and I do not understand what is happening here. Could you informally explain what is the strategy here? I would appreciate it if you went step by step. I am aware of this informal exposition, but I don't think it explains the proof itself.
logic
logic
asked 2 days ago
M. Moe
31
New contributor
M. Moe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 days ago
M. Moe
31
New contributor
M. Moe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 days ago
M. Moe
31
New contributor
M. Moe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 days ago
M. Moe
31
asked 2 days ago
M. Moe
31
31
New contributor
M. Moe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
M. Moe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
M. Moe is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Could you expand on which part of the proof you don't understand? That would help others explain it. There's not really much of an informal strategy, except "construct the thing the theorem says must exist". The construction is hard to discover - it's the kind of proof that you simply check step by step.
– Carl Mummert
2 days ago
See also the post proving-and-understanding-the-fixed-point-lemma-diagonal-lemma-in-logic
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
yesterday
add a comment |
1
Could you expand on which part of the proof you don't understand? That would help others explain it. There's not really much of an informal strategy, except "construct the thing the theorem says must exist". The construction is hard to discover - it's the kind of proof that you simply check step by step.
– Carl Mummert
2 days ago
See also the post proving-and-understanding-the-fixed-point-lemma-diagonal-lemma-in-logic
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
yesterday
1
1
Could you expand on which part of the proof you don't understand? That would help others explain it. There's not really much of an informal strategy, except "construct the thing the theorem says must exist". The construction is hard to discover - it's the kind of proof that you simply check step by step.
– Carl Mummert
2 days ago
Could you expand on which part of the proof you don't understand? That would help others explain it. There's not really much of an informal strategy, except "construct the thing the theorem says must exist". The construction is hard to discover - it's the kind of proof that you simply check step by step.
– Carl Mummert
2 days ago
See also the post proving-and-understanding-the-fixed-point-lemma-diagonal-lemma-in-logic
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
yesterday
See also the post proving-and-understanding-the-fixed-point-lemma-diagonal-lemma-in-logic
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
You could try §47 of the notes Gödel Without Tears, which is still rather terse buy the notation might be a bit more helpful.
https://www.logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/gwt/GWT2f.pdf
answered 2 days ago
Peter Smith
40.1k339118
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
You could try §47 of the notes Gödel Without Tears, which is still rather terse buy the notation might be a bit more helpful.
https://www.logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/gwt/GWT2f.pdf
answered 2 days ago
Peter Smith
40.1k339118
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
You could try §47 of the notes Gödel Without Tears, which is still rather terse buy the notation might be a bit more helpful.
https://www.logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/gwt/GWT2f.pdf
answered 2 days ago
Peter Smith
40.1k339118
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
You could try §47 of the notes Gödel Without Tears, which is still rather terse buy the notation might be a bit more helpful.
https://www.logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/gwt/GWT2f.pdf
answered 2 days ago
Peter Smith
40.1k339118
You could try §47 of the notes Gödel Without Tears, which is still rather terse buy the notation might be a bit more helpful.
https://www.logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/gwt/GWT2f.pdf
answered 2 days ago
Peter Smith
40.1k339118
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Peter Smith
40.1k339118
answered 2 days ago
Peter Smith
40.1k339118
answered 2 days ago
Peter Smith
40.1k339118
40.1k339118
add a comment |
add a comment |
M. Moe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
M. Moe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
M. Moe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
M. Moe is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005403%2finformal-proof-of-diagonal-lemma%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Could you expand on which part of the proof you don't understand? That would help others explain it. There's not really much of an informal strategy, except "construct the thing the theorem says must exist". The construction is hard to discover - it's the kind of proof that you simply check step by step.
– Carl Mummert
2 days ago
See also the post proving-and-understanding-the-fixed-point-lemma-diagonal-lemma-in-logic
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
yesterday