> It's embarassing that this anecdote is given almost any weight. It's absolutely the most navel-gazing useless analysis. It does help to serve as an excellent counter-argument to "philosopher kings", though....
Damn dude, it's just a funny anecdote, no one is claiming it's a national security threat or anything like that.
There was no analysis involved, Gödel found it while studying for something else.
It's a super small wikipedia article for an amusing story, who said anything about solving law? If there is a contradiction on the Constitution I don't know why would it be a wrong thing to, at the very least, address it.
> Damn dude, it's just a funny anecdote, no one is claiming it's a national security threat or anything like that.
Sibling to parent comment:
> Wow, you're seriously underestimating this issue. [followed by long analysis on how other constitutions feel they need to solve this very serious issue]
Agreed. I also find it amusing that there were two other brilliant minds who heard the explanation and thought nothing of it. No one seems to mention that very much. Perhaps politics and logic don't really go hand in hand.
Of course they do. Logic as in reasoning isn't the same as a formal logical system. Law isn't a formal logical system. That's why computation law has been so difficult. Human beings aren't automatons.
Damn dude, it's just a funny anecdote, no one is claiming it's a national security threat or anything like that.
There was no analysis involved, Gödel found it while studying for something else.
It's a super small wikipedia article for an amusing story, who said anything about solving law? If there is a contradiction on the Constitution I don't know why would it be a wrong thing to, at the very least, address it.