[ajkjk]

Yeah, but the vexing part is "how can that be true for e.g. N=643 but not N=642"? What happens at whatever number it starts true at?

Incidentally, Gödel's theorem eventually comes down to a halting-like argument as well (well, a diagonal argument). There is a presentation of it that is in like less than one page in terms of the halting problem---all of the Gödel-numbering stuff is essentially an antiquated proof. I remember seeing this in a great paper which I can't find now, but it's also mentioned as an aside in this blog post: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=710

wait jk I found it: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.04569

[LegionMammal978]

> What happens at whatever number it starts true at?

Usually, "what happens" is that the machines become large enough to represent a form of induction too strong for the axioms to 'reason' about. It's a function of the axioms of your theory, and you can add more axioms to stave it off, but of course you can't prove that your new axioms are consistent without even more axioms.

> There is a presentation of it that is in like less than one page in terms of the halting problem---all of the Gödel-numbering stuff is essentially an antiquated proof.

Only insofar as you can put faith into the Church–Turing thesis to sort out all the technicalities of enumerating and verifying proofs. There still must be an encoding, just not the usual Gödel numbering.

[thaumasiotes]

> Incidentally, Gödel's theorem eventually comes down to a halting-like argument as well (well, a diagonal argument).

> There is a presentation of it that is in like less than one page in terms of the halting problem

Those are two very different ideas. Your second sentence says that Gödel's theorem is easy to prove if you have results about the halting problem. Your first one says that in order to prove Gödel's theorem, you need to establish results about the halting problem.

[ajkjk]

I'm saying that if you want to understand why Gödel's theorem is true, look at the one-paragraph proof based on the halting problem, not the like 20-page one with Gödel numbers.

[wasabi991011]

Wow that might be the best, most entertaining, and most elucidating academic article I've ever read. Thanks for sharing.