Talk:On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems

References

I think that all the references in this article should specifically pertain to the paper, its translations, or reviews or commentary on them. So I think that some of the general references to Godel's theorems that were added here belong in the article on the theorems, not here. I'm copying some of the references here to sort them out. CMummert · talk 19:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Torkel Franzen, (2005). Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse, A. K. Peter's, Ltd. Wellesley, MA. ISBN 1-56881-238-8. Few equations but more advanced than Goldstein.

• Ernest Nagel and James Newman, 1958, Gödel's Proof, New York University Press, New York; no ISBN] Card Catalog 58-5610. Small, brief, detailed and dense, but useful for a first, extended introduction to the proof. Mentioned by Dawson (1997, p. 215) as "a popular exposition of the incompleteness theorems".

• Rebecca Goldstein, (2005). Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel, W. W. Norton & Company, New York. ISBN 0-393-32760-4 pbk. No formulas -- entirely a verbal account, cf in particular chapter III: "The Proof of Incompleteness".

I integrated quite a bit of the annotations from the references into the main article. They made a big defference in the section on the translations, which is less cold now. CMummert · talk 03:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Should these go to the "main" article? As "further reading?" wvbaileyWvbailey 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, without a doubt. CMummert · talk 15:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Article's intent

I am confused about the intent/reason for this article -- is it to expand on the "main article?" Or will this one eventually be fleshed out? If not then dispense with it and move the translation section back to the lead article, perhaps as a footnote. If it were left to me I would move the more detailed stuff here -- e.g. flesh this one out with the detailed Godelization examples (kind of like what Davis did) and with a more detailed description -- how he went about it -- and use the "main" article to discuss at "top-level" the issues of consistency etc. -- hard issues for us non-specialists to get a handle on. As it is you have to go back to read the details, then go to Godel numbers to get a handle on that, etc etc. To read about "Godel's theorems" becomes a link-fest.wvbaileyWvbailey 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I see now how the purpose wasn't obvious unless you had been following some talk pages. The purpose of this article is to discuss the publication qua publication, so that it can be included in the category Category:Important publication in mathematics. That's why it has an outline of the paper and a list of English translations. I added a disambiguation header to the top of this article, which I hope makes this more apparent. This is not the first article about a mathematical publication. SGA4, for example, does not discuss algebraic geometry, it discuss the publication Séminaire de géométrie algébrique 4.

The main article on the theorems is Godel's incompleteness theorem. Perhaps you are thinking of the nonexistent article Proof of Gödel's first incompleteness theorem; you could certainly start such an article to include a correct but well-explained proof. The article on Godel numbering is in very bad state; there have been sporadic calls for change but nobody has bitten into it yet. CMummert · talk 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Much, much clearer with your header. This now guides me toward spotting new stuff re the publishing/translations. Does this also include historical events leading up to his writing the paper, or just the publishing details? [What I really need to see is the set of "source books" that Dawson says his bio is a companion to -- van Heijenoort had a major hand in assembling those. Plus the notebooks & other unpublished stuff are there too, apparently.] wvbaileyWvbailey 17:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status

Does anyone have information on the current copyright status of Gödel's paper? I notice that it is linked to at the bottom, which suggests that publication is legal; in this case, it might be worthwhile to wikisource it. --Ian Maxwell (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that all the English translations cited are young enough to definitely be under copyright. The original German version is in that grey area where it's hard to know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Collected Works

Does anyone know which translation appears in Gödel's Collected works vol 1, edited by Feferman? The article should mention this. 75.62.109.146 (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I think you mean -- "Feferman e. al. [the editors included van Heijenoort], 1986- , Collected Works, 5 Volumes, New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press" (this reference taken from Dawson's 1997 biography of Goedel). I remember reading recently (but where?) that it (English translation by van Heijenoort) appears with the original German on the opposing pages, but as I have not witnessed this myself I cannot be positive of it.

"Note to the reader: Gödel’s incompleteness paper (1931) is a classic of its kind; elegantly organized and clearly presented, it progresses steadily and efficiently from start to finish, with no wasted energy. The reader can find it in the German original along with a convenient facing English translation in Vol. I of his Collected Works (1986). I recommend it highly to all who are interested in this landmark in the history of our subject." from http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/impact.pdf

This is another good reason to buy volume I. If I figure this out I'll make the changes to the article. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

---

I now have a cc of Feferman et. al. (editors), 1986, Kurt Gõdel: Collected Works, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, ISBN 13: 978-0-195-14720-9. The published version of Goedel's 1931 appears on alternate pages 140ff -- German on the left (the even) pages and the English translation by van Heijenoort on the right (the odd) pages; this translation also appears in van Heijenoort 1967. See the note center-page 141 just after the introduction by Stephen C. Kleene to this effect. Note that, along with Feferman, Dawson, Kleene, Moore, and Solovay, van Heijenoort was an editor of this collection. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Additonal words to External Links

It now reads with my words in (so that nobody gets disappointed anymore): On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems I. Translated by Martin Hirzel, November 27, 2000, breviated, section 3 and 4 omitted so as to make this copy free! with a dot removed and ", breviated, section 3 and 4 omitted so as to make this copy free!" added. I hope you find it useful. For people who know some German and how to handle Google Translate, here is the same paper in German: https://metalab.at/wiki/images/0/0b/Goedel.pdf "Uber formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia mathematica und verwandter. Systeme I" - Complete this time. Feel free to change the words. I've been a bit "coarse" on it. 62.16.241.158 (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)