Circularity

[Trillipse]

I've been trying to think of a word to describe a proposition which by its essential nature, proves itself, indeed necessitates itself.

I'm not looking for Tautology, Self-Evident, prima facie, or many of those other similar ideas.

Tell me.

[Quizmonster]

Axiomatic, perhaps?

[woofgang]

intrinsic

[Quizmonkey]

A truism.

[Peter Pedant]

Coooee Trillipse - you're a busy girl !

this word - do you know it exists and you cant think of it,

or do you think it should, and you wonder what the name is ?

Godel is the lucky one who got sentences (has a special meaning in math logic) and then factored in the proof

so for example - gasp,

for all x , x=x    (which is true 1=1 and 2=2, and so on

but he converted the proof into a number so, if the (godel) number of that proof is 122222122224212

then the expression,

for all x x=x and its also true for 122222222122224212 = 1222222 etc etc

kinda does what you say - proves itself.

 

AB is not really the place for a discussion like this - grab some anorak hooded nerd who is reading mathematical logic to explain this to you. Watch out for the squint and halitosis. Or read Boolos and Jeffrey. and watch out, Godel sort of comes in at page 100 and it is not an easy read......

[dothawkes]

Fabulous

[Trillipse]

monsieur pedant:

"busy girl". hmmm. should i be flattered? or disempowered.

nonetheless, thanks for the math slant on a logic problem i've had on a cerebral back-burner for years with only thoughts of a linguistic solution. (that'll be the modern western phil degree for ya... tends to warp the mind somewhat.)

must say i never was much of a numbers head, even in my logic modules.

must say, i do like your style.

[Trillipse]

ps i'm assuming that's the godel of "godel escher and bach" fame, prequel to the mind's "i". never read em thoroughly, but always knew i oughta. regretting it now in the face of your eruditicismysticallynessitude.

[Peter Pedant]

yes ma'am it is indeed the Godel of

Godel Escher and Bach.

Oh, linguistics.....Chap 1 of these books is always on.....

short is a short word,

and polysyllabic is a polysyllabic word

Both are self - descriptive, and you can think of more.....[written is a written word....etc]

Other words do not describe themselves - so they can be non-self-descriptive...and so.....

Is 'non-self-descriptive' a non-self-decriptive word ?

Well, if non-self-descriptive is non-self-ddescritpive then it describes itself and so NOT non-self-descriptive.....

and yet if ....

Most people have to go and lie down at this time, but others go 'golly wow! I must read Chap 2 ! "

[Marsh]

Self-evident?

[Marsh]

Sorry - forgot the details of your question while reading the rest

[Peter Pedant]

the small theorem my previous posting depends on is called "Godel's self reference lemma"

but the formulas it generates dont seem to have a name...