Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!swrinde!pipex!dircon!rheged!simon
From: simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk (Simon Brooke)
Subject: Understanding Godel (was Re: CL grammar ambiguities?)
Message-ID: <D4prB4.133@rheged.dircon.co.uk>
Organization: none. Disorganization: total.
References: <WGD.95Feb10182248@martigny.ai.mit.edu> <19950217T185851Z.enag@naggum.no> <3i5dpq$a90@tools.near.net> <3ihgaa$5jc@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 14:09:03 GMT
Lines: 31

In article <3ihgaa$5jc@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, Seth LaForge
<sethml@off.ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote about Godel's Theorem, and about
Barry Margolin's <barmar@nic.near.net> guess that it was applicable to
the notations used to describe the formal semantics of programming
languages <3i5dpq$a90@tools.near.net>. Seth went on to say:

>For a very good, easy to follow (or as easy as is possible) discussion
>of Godel's theorem, as well as quite a few other
>philosophical/mathematical/computer scientific things, see Douglas
>Hofstadter's excellent book _Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden
>Braid_.

Hofstadter's book is of course a tour de force, and a brilliant
attempt to make difficult ideas accessible to a more or less
non-technical audience. Individual chunks of it are very easy to
follow, and it gives you a good top-level view of the argument.
However, it's a very long complicated book. Hofstadter is consciously
attempting to make the structure of his text reflect the matter of his
argument, and I find this makes it difficult to follow.

Technical people are likely to find Boolos, G.S. & Jeffrey, R.C:
_Computability and Logic_: Cambridge University Press, 2nd Edition
1980: ISBN 0 521 23479 4 easier to work with, as it's much shorter
and isn't coy about using formal notation and a clear technical
exposition (but it's also much less fun).


-- 
------- simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk (Simon Brooke)

			;; I'd rather live in sybar-space
