User talk:Ademh

Adding material to Gödel's incompleteness theorems

Please stop adding that material to the article. The material you are adding displays a profound misunderstanding of what is going on in the theorem, but does not actually demonstrate any paradox. If you continue to add the material, you will eventually be in violation of the three revert rule and will be blocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page associated with an article is intended for discussion about how to improve the article, per the relevant guideline. If you wish to post essays about perceived problems with the proofs, there are numerous free web hosts that allow you to do so. Please don't post them to our talk pages. The arguments page is a compromise to allow you to post your comments about the theorem itself on Wikipedia, and is the only place here that those comments should be placed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godels incompleteness theorem invalid

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Godels incompleteness theorem invalid, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth, censorship, article forking, etc etc etc blah blah blah.

You will no doubt notice that I have deleted the article you submitted about "Godels incompleteness theory invalid". Please, please do not interpret this as some sort of censorship or official policy of knowledge-suppression. Rather, it is for two reasons: firstly, it is what we call a "PoV Fork" of an article, or a secondary version of a pre-existing article. This is deprecated - among other things, we try to centralize the information, to have it all in one place.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I would like you to read, and more importantly to understand, our policies on original research. If your Australian philosopher's invalidation of Godel is valid, why has he not published it in a peer-reviewed journal? Mathematicians are like any other type of scientists - always willing to accept a new and bizarre idea if it can be proven, even if it invalidates a previously-accepted idea.

I realize that this may be upsetting for you to realize, but have you considered the possibility that your Australian philosopher may be wrong? DS 15:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]