Gödel 1 , 2, 3 (2000 - 2003) off-line and on-line-
bio-performances extracting DNA from rat Wistar,
in front of 6 traffic-cameras, meanwhile I am reading the Gödel's
This project could be described as:
a 3 years
periodical bio-intervention combining extracted-DNA;
of the Gödel´s view on mechanism in Biology (and
" lectures" in the night);
3. The use of traffic-cameras as:
A.Surveillance cameras of bio-experiments in thestreets
for 3 years the evolution of the experiment sin the dripping areas
on-line in real time
(like a 3 years movie on-line real time).
ADN was mixed with paper pulp product of the Gödel's
incompleteness theorems (I have used the pulp recipe for paper mache)
Female adult Wistar rat weighing 25+- 2g
6 Traffic cameras
the Gödel's incompleteness theorems
Droping rat wistar -DNA. november 17th, 2000, 23:38h
Several reports have pointed to the stimulant effects of Magnesium-Cut Tumor
on behavior. This cut can increase exploratory activity, and it reportedly enhances
performance of conditioned avoidance-T "knows"
Female adult Wistar rat was used in this performance, except in the determination
of the formula PRFT(x, y) turnover in whole brain-stomach and in turning behavior
performances, where adult mice (Rockefeller-W1 strain) weighing 25 +- 2g were
1st Period: Methoxyflurane (inexpensive) / (gently supplied by BS Laboratories)
2nd Period: Halothene(takes rats up to an hour to completely wake up and they
usually behave sedated for up to another 12 hours) (less expensive than isoflurane)/
3rd Period: Isoflurane (is not metabolized by the kidneys) and
4th Period: Sigma-Nt
were suspended in a mixture of saline and Spleen 80(10:02:2).
Suspensions and anesthetics were injected i.p at a volume of 0.2 ml/100g body
weigtht for rats
The effect of Tumor Cut on the level of DA and NA in midbrain, corpus striatum
stomach and hypothalamus was determined.
Slices of Tumor, with minor modifications, were incubated in an open lucite cylinder,
with a piece of nylon mesh fitted in the bottom. By this chamber the tissue was
transferred through a serie of bathing solutions contained in 10 ml beakers,
without any loss of the slices placed into it.
Each beaker containing 2.5 ml of Krebs-Henseleit solution (added with 0.11 mM
ascorbic acid) was thrown in front of every traffic-cam in Köln
I use the term "apparent throw-turnover" since I merely measured the
difference in CA levels between basal values and after the administration of
Little work has yet been done to elucidate its mechanism of hypothalamus-stomach
-Surveillance chromatography(assayed fluorimetrically)
- <<x -- a -- 0 -- 1-- + -- * -- = -- ( -- ) -- ~ -- & --
v -- -> -- E -- A>>
q3: q1 is false
0 -- 1 -- 2 -- 3 -- 4 -- 5 -- 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 -- 11 -- 12 -- 13 -- 14
a) PA proves: SUB(k, m, n),
b) PA proves: ~(z=n) -> ~SUB(k, m, z)PA proves: SUB(k, k, B), and PA proves:
~(z=k) -> ~SUB(k, k, z). ---------(2)
Hence, z in (1) equals to B, and we obtain C(B). The Deduction theorem does the
rest: PA proves: B -> C(B)
1. First, let us assume that PA proves G, and k is the number of this proof.
Then prf(G, k) is true and hence,
PA proves: PRF(G, k),
PA proves: EyPRF(G, y),
PA proves: ~G
________ ||||||||w-inconsistency |||||||||||
a) PA proves: EyC(y),
b) For each k, PA proves: ~C(k).
Gödel 1 , 2, 3 (2000 - 2003) offline and on-line- Bio-Performance extracting
DNA from rat Wistar, dripping it in front of 6 traffic-cameras, meanwhile I am
reading the Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
not try to justify the induction principle by means of the induction principle.
This would be a kind of vicious circle." Gödel
Estimation in whole
The throw-net turns during 2 minutes were expressed as positive (ipsilateral
to the tumor) , or negative (contralateral to the wall side). the rat was injected
i.p. with apomorphine (0.5mg/kg), Mg-Pe (30mg/kg) and retested for two minutes
at 10 minutes intervals during 1 hr
The conversion index of DA showed a tendency to decrease, which was not significant.
Pre-treatment with Pure mathematical contents of incompleteness theorems lectures,
reduced the dissappearance rate of DA in corpus striatum and Stomach 1 hr after
the first lecture and the reduction became significantly different after 2 hr
of Lecture 2. Nevertheless no difference was observed 4 hr after wall-throw-inhibition
or Lecture 3.
Some Examples: a)Lecture 1
" 1. Assume that T proves RT. Then QT appears in (1) as, for example,
Fk. Hence, PA proves: PRFT (QT, k). --------(3)
From (2) and (3) we obtain:
PA proves: Ez(z<k & REFT (QT, z)). ---------(4)
If, indeed, ~QT appears in (1) as Fm with m<k, then T proves ~RT and T is
inconsistent. If not, then
PA proves: ~REFT (QT, 0)&~REFT (QT, 1)&...&~REFT (QT, k-1).
Hence, PA proves ~Ez(z<k & REFT (QT, z)).
This contradicts (4), i.e. PA is inconsistent, and so is T.
2. Assume now that T proves ~RT. Then ~QT appears in (1) as, for example, Fk.
PA proves: REFT (QT, k). -------(5)
If QT appears in (1) before ~QT, then T proves RT, and T is inconsistent. If
QT does not appear before ~QT, then PA proves: ~PRFT (QT, 0)&~PRFT (QT, 1)&...&~PRFT (QT,
Hence, PA proves ~Ez(z<k & PRFT (QT, z)). --------(6)
From (5) we have:
PA proves: At(t>k -> (PRFT (QT, t) -> Ez(z<t & REFT (QT, z)))
(if t>k, then we can simply take z=k). Add (6) to this, and you will have: PA proves: At(PRFT (QT, t) -> Ez(z<t & REFT (QT, z))).
According to (2) this means that PA proves QT, and T proves RT, i.e. T is inconsistent.
End of proof.
Now we can state the strongest possible form of the Goedel's "unperfectness
principle":a fundamental theory cannot be perfect - either it is inconsistent,
or it is insufficient to solve some of its problems.
The fundamentality (the possibility to prove the principal properties of natural
numbers) is essential here, because some non-fundamental theories may be sufficient
to solve all of their problems. As a non-trivial example of non-fundamental theories
can serve the Presburger arithmetic (PA minus multiplication, see Section 3.1).
In 1929 M. Presburger proved that this theory is both consistent and complete.
After Goedel and Rosser, this means now that Presburger has proved that his arithmetic
is not fundamental"
(Tiempo de lectura: 8:37 minutes) b)Lecture 2:
"Algorithm 1. Given the axioms of a fundamental formal theory T this algorithm
builds a closed PA-formula RT. As a closed PA-formula, RT asserts some property
of the natural number system. Algorithm 2. Given a T-proof of the formula RT or the formula
~RT this algorithm builds a T-proof of a contradiction.
Therefore, if T is a fundamental theory, then either T is inconsistent, or it
can neither to prove, nor to refute the hypothesis RT. A theory that is able
neither to prove, nor to refute some closed formula in its language, is called
incomplete. Hence, Goedel and Rosser have proved that each fundamental theory
is either inconsistent, or incomplete.
Why is this theorem called incompleteness theorem? The two algorithms developed
by Goedel and Rosser do not allow deciding whether T is inconsistent or incomplete.
Hence, to prove "via Goedel"
the incompleteness of some theory T, we must prove that T is consistent.
Still, as we already know (Section 1.5), in a reliable consistency
proof we should not use questionable means of reasoning. The aim
of Hilbert's program was to prove consistency of the entire mathematics
by means of reasoning as reliable as the ones containing in the first
order arithmetic (i.e. PA). Hence, to prove consistency of PA we
must use... PA itself?"
(Tiempo de lectura 3:25 minutes) c)Lecture 3:
"Do not try to justify the induction principle by means of the induction
principle. This would be a kind of vicious circle.
The induction principle builds up 99% of PA, hence, do not try to prove the consistency
of PA by means of PA! And Goedel's second theorem says: of course, you can try,
yet if you will be successful, you will prove that PA is inconsistent!"