• 인지과학
• /
• 제6권3호
• /
• pp.5-23
• /
• 1995

루카스의 이른바 괴델 논변에 의하면,괴델의 정리는 기계론 논제 즉 인간 인지 체계가 튜링 기계라는 논제를 반박한다.이 논문에서는 필자는 이 논변이 성공적이지 못하다는 것을 보이려고 한다.그러나 필자는 또한 괴델 논변에 대한 기존의 많은 반론들 역시 받아들일 만하지 않다는 것을 주장한다.그리고 나서 필자는 괴델 논변에 대한 "일관성" 반론을 강화한다. 그렇게 해서 얻어진 필자의 딜레마 반론에 의하면, 괴델 논변은 (1) 우리가 "전반적" 진리 개념을 가질 경우 거짓 전제를 가지고 (2) 우리가 그러한 진리 개념을 갖지 않을 경우 진술될 수 없으므로, 어떤 경우이든 성공적이지 못하다.

• 한국수학사학회지
• /
• 제1권1호
• /
• pp.71-75
• /
• 1984

Whether the complete Hilbert program could be carried out was rendered very doubtful by results due to Godel. These results may be roughly characterized as a demonstration that, in any system broad enough to contain all the formulas of a formalized elementary number theory, there exist formulas that neither can be proved nor disproved within the system. In this paper, Godel's incompleteness theorem is explained roughly moreover formul system and machines being refered, related to his theory.

• East Asian mathematical journal
• /
• 제24권5호
• /
• pp.465-476
• /
• 2008

Even though Godel's theorem is remarkable to mathematics teachers, it is not simple to understand the proof in detail. It would be useful for us to understand the basic ideas and the proving process of the proof. In this note, we suggest a proposal for the purpose.

• 한국수학사학회지
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.47-60
• /
• 2001

The present study develops the given theme “Mathematics and Reality” along two lines. First, we explore the answers, in its various facets, to the following question: How is it possible that mathematics shows such wondrous efficiency when explaining nature\ulcorner In addition to a comparative analysis between empiricism and rationalism, constructivism as a function of idealism is compared with realism within the frame provided by rationalism. The second step involves limiting our discussion to realism. We attempt to explain the various stages of mathematical realism and their points of difficulty. Postulate of parallels, Godel's theorem, continuum hypothesis and choice axiom are typical examples used in demonstrating undecidable propositions. They clearly show that it is necessary to mitigate the mathematical realism which depends on bivalent logic based on an objective exterior world. Lowenheim-Skolem theorem, which states that reality is composed not of one block but rather of diverse domains, also reinforces this line of thought. As we can see the existence of undecidable propositions requires limiting the use of reductio ad absurdum proof which depends on the concept of excluded middle. Consequently, it becomes obvious that bivalent logic must inevitably cede to a trivalent logic since there are three values involved: true, false, and undecidable.

• 한국수학사학회지
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.31-44
• /
• 2016

This essay aims to suggest roughly the "philosophy of limits." The limits mainly refer to those of human experiences and rational thoughts. The philosophy of limits consist of three theses and two consequences(L, M). (1) The limits are necessarily supervenient in the course of searching knowledge. (2) The limits cannot be dissipated ultimately. (3) To recognize the limits is not only an intellectual recognition but also a beginning of whole personality's reaction. (L) It is a rational decision to accept the limits and leave the margins (yeoback/yeoheuck) rather than to try to remove them. (M) To leave the margins (yeoback/yeoheuck) is characteristic of being human, and enables one to harmoniously communicate with others. To justify the philosophy of limits, this essay examine the limits discussed in mathematics and philosophy: set theory, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Galois Theorem in mathematics; and Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, and Wittgenstein in philosophy. I try to interpret consciousness of limits in various cultures. I claim that consciousness of the limits contribute to lucidity of human identity, communication between persons, stimulation of creative thinking.

• 한국수학사학회지
• /
• 제17권4호
• /
• pp.27-36
• /
• 2004

이 논문에서는 튜링의 기계주의에 대한 괴델의 비평을 다룬다. 여기에서 튜링의 기계주의란 튜링기계의 기호배열이 인간의 마음의 각 상태에 대응된다는 것을 의미한다. 첫째 부분에서는 계산으로서의 인지과정에 대한 튜링의 분석을 검토한다. 두 번째 부분에서는 튜링기계의 개념을 살펴보고, 세 번째 부분에서는 인지적 체계로서의 튜링기계가 갖는 계산적 한계를 설명한다. 네 번째 부분에서는 괴델이 튜링의 기계주의에 동의하지 않았음을 보이고, 마지막으로 오라클 튜링기계과 그 함의에 대하여 논의한다.