Fuel your curiosity. This platform uses AI to select compelling topics designed to spark intellectual curiosity. Once a topic is chosen, our models generate a detailed explanation, with new subjects explored frequently.

Randomly Generated Topic

The mathematical and philosophical implications of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems on the limits of formal systems.

2025-10-14 16:00 UTC

View Prompt 
Provide a detailed explanation of the following topic: The mathematical and philosophical implications of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems on the limits of formal systems.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems: Limits of Formal Systems - A Deep Dive

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems are among the most profound and influential results in 20th-century mathematics and philosophy. They demonstrate fundamental limitations on the power and consistency of formal axiomatic systems, particularly those rich enough to express basic arithmetic. This explanation will cover the core ideas, mathematical underpinnings, philosophical implications, and related controversies.

1. Understanding Formal Systems

Before diving into the theorems themselves, it's crucial to understand what we mean by a "formal system" or "formal axiomatic system."

  • Formal Language: A formal system starts with a rigorously defined language. This language consists of:
    • Alphabet: A finite set of symbols (e.g., numbers, variables, logical connectives like AND, OR, NOT, quantifiers like "for all," "there exists," parentheses, etc.).
    • Formation Rules: Precise rules that specify how to combine symbols from the alphabet to form well-formed formulas (WFFs) or sentences. These rules ensure that the expressions are grammatically correct within the system.
  • Axioms: A finite set of initial statements (WFFs) that are accepted as true without proof. They are the "starting points" of the system.
  • Inference Rules: A finite set of rules that specify how to derive new WFFs (theorems) from existing WFFs (axioms and previously proven theorems). These rules must be purely formal, meaning they operate based on the syntax (form) of the formulas, not their meaning.

Example:

A simple formal system for arithmetic could have:

  • Alphabet: 0 (zero), S (successor), = (equals), variables x, y, z, logical connectives (∧, ¬, →, ∀, ∃).
  • Axioms:
    • ∀x (¬(Sx = 0)) (Zero is not the successor of any number)
    • ∀x ∀y ((Sx = Sy) → (x = y)) (If the successors of two numbers are equal, the numbers are equal)
    • ... (Other axioms defining addition and multiplication)
  • Inference Rules:
    • Modus Ponens: From P and (P → Q), infer Q.
    • Generalization: From P(x), infer ∀x P(x).

Key Properties of Formal Systems:

  • Completeness: A formal system is complete if every true statement expressible in the system's language can be proven within the system (i.e., derived from the axioms using the inference rules).
  • Soundness: A formal system is sound if every statement that can be proven within the system is true.
  • Consistency: A formal system is consistent if it is impossible to prove both a statement P and its negation ¬P within the system. A sound system is necessarily consistent, but a consistent system may not be sound.
  • Effectiveness (Decidability): A formal system is effective (or decidable) if there exists an algorithm (a mechanical procedure) that can determine whether any given WFF is an axiom or a theorem of the system. This means a machine could check if a proof is valid.

2. Gödel Numbering: Bridging Language and Arithmetic

A crucial technique used by Gödel was Gödel numbering. This involves assigning a unique natural number to each symbol, WFF, and sequence of WFFs within the formal system. This number serves as a code for the corresponding linguistic entity.

How it works:

  1. Assign a unique number to each symbol in the alphabet (e.g., 0 -> 1, S -> 2, = -> 3, ...).
  2. For a WFF like "S0 = 1", assign the product of the prime numbers raised to the power of the Gödel numbers of the corresponding symbols: 22 * 31 * 53 * 7? ... (assuming '1' is also a symbol).
  3. For a sequence of WFFs (a proof), assign the product of the prime numbers raised to the power of the Gödel numbers of each WFF in the sequence.

Why is this important?

  • Arithmetic Representation of Syntax: Gödel numbering allows us to represent statements about the formal system (its syntax, axioms, inference rules, proofs) as statements within the formal system, expressed in terms of arithmetic operations on the Gödel numbers. This is the key to achieving self-reference.
  • Arithmetization of Meta-mathematics: The study of formal systems itself (meta-mathematics) becomes a branch of arithmetic within the formal system.

3. The Gödel Incompleteness Theorems

Gödel proved two related but distinct theorems:

a) Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem:

  • Statement: Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements expressible in the language of F which are neither provable nor disprovable within F.

  • Informal Explanation: For any sufficiently powerful and consistent formal system, there will always be true statements that the system cannot prove.

  • Key Idea: Self-Reference: Gödel constructed a statement, often referred to as the "Gödel sentence" (let's call it G), which, when interpreted, says: "This statement is not provable in F." This is a self-referential statement, akin to the Liar's Paradox ("This statement is false").

  • The Argument:

    1. Assume F is consistent.
    2. If G is provable in F, then what G claims (that it's not provable) is false. This means F is proving a falsehood, making F unsound and therefore inconsistent, contradicting our assumption.
    3. If ¬G (the negation of G) is provable in F, then what ¬G claims is true, meaning G is provable in F. But if G is provable, G is false, and thus ¬G is false. This also leads to inconsistency.
    4. Therefore, neither G nor ¬G can be proven within F. Hence, F is incomplete.
    5. If F is sound, then G must be true (since it claims to be unprovable, and it is unprovable). So, there's a true statement (G) that is unprovable in F.

b) Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem:

  • Statement: For any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out, the consistency of F cannot be proven within F itself.

  • Informal Explanation: A system cannot prove its own consistency.

  • Key Idea: Arithmetization of Consistency Proofs: Gödel showed that the statement " F is consistent" can be expressed as an arithmetic formula within F. Furthermore, the steps involved in a consistency proof (if one existed) can be arithmetized.

  • The Argument:

    1. If F could prove its own consistency, then it could prove that the Gödel sentence G is unprovable.
    2. But by the First Incompleteness Theorem, if F is consistent, G is true and unprovable.
    3. Therefore, if F could prove its own consistency, it could prove its own incompleteness.
    4. However, it can be shown that proving the Gödel sentence is equivalent to proving the consistency of the system. Thus, proving consistency would also allow the system to prove the Goedel sentence, violating the First Incompleteness Theorem.
    5. Therefore, F cannot prove its own consistency.

4. Mathematical Implications

  • Limitations of Formalization: Gödel's theorems demonstrate inherent limitations in the formalist program, which aimed to reduce mathematics to a formal system of axioms and rules. The theorems show that no single formal system can capture all mathematical truths.
  • End of Hilbert's Program: David Hilbert's program aimed to provide a complete and consistent axiomatization of all mathematics, including a proof of the consistency of arithmetic within arithmetic itself. Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem proved that this program was impossible.
  • Necessity of Intuition: The theorems suggest that mathematical intuition and insight play a crucial role in discovering and understanding mathematical truths, beyond what can be mechanically derived from formal systems.
  • Impact on Computer Science: The ideas are relevant to the limitations of automated theorem provers and the potential for artificial intelligence to fully replicate human mathematical reasoning.

5. Philosophical Implications

Gödel's theorems have profound philosophical implications, sparking debates about:

  • The Nature of Truth: The existence of true but unprovable statements raises questions about the relationship between truth and provability. Is truth independent of our ability to prove it? Does mathematical truth exist even if we cannot access it through formal systems?
  • The Mind-Machine Analogy: Some philosophers, notably John Lucas and Roger Penrose, have argued that Gödel's theorems demonstrate that human minds are fundamentally different from machines (specifically, Turing machines or other formal systems). They argue that humans can "see" the truth of the Gödel sentence, while a machine cannot.
  • Platonism vs. Constructivism: The theorems have been used to support both Platonist and Constructivist philosophies of mathematics. Platonists argue that mathematical truths exist independently of human minds, and Gödel's theorems demonstrate that our formal systems can only capture a limited portion of these truths. Constructivists, on the other hand, argue that mathematical objects and truths are constructed by the mind, and the incompleteness theorems highlight the limits of our constructive abilities.
  • Skepticism: Some argue that Gödel's theorems imply a kind of skepticism about the possibility of attaining complete and certain knowledge, at least within the realm of formal systems.
  • Openness of Mathematics: The theorems highlight the ongoing and evolving nature of mathematics. There will always be new and unproven truths to be discovered, preventing a complete and final axiomatization.

6. Criticisms and Counterarguments

The philosophical interpretations of Gödel's theorems have been subject to extensive debate and criticism. Some common counterarguments include:

  • Overstating the Mind-Machine Argument: Critics argue that the Lucas-Penrose argument relies on the assumption that human minds are perfectly consistent and rational, which is not necessarily true. Moreover, they point out that while humans can recognize the Gödel sentence as true, this does not necessarily imply a non-computational process. It might simply be a higher-level algorithm that is not captured by the specific formal system under consideration.
  • Specificity of the Formal Systems: The incompleteness theorems apply to formal systems capable of expressing basic arithmetic. They do not necessarily imply limitations on all forms of reasoning or all possible cognitive systems. There might be alternative systems or forms of knowledge that are not subject to these limitations.
  • Practical Irrelevance: Some mathematicians argue that the Gödel sentence, while mathematically significant, is of little practical relevance to the actual practice of mathematics. Mathematicians typically deal with concrete problems and specific domains, rather than worrying about abstract incompleteness.
  • Misinterpretation of Consistency: The Second Incompleteness Theorem does not imply that we can never have confidence in the consistency of a formal system. It simply means that we cannot prove its consistency within the system itself. We can still use meta-mathematical arguments and external reasoning to gain confidence in its consistency.
  • Limitations of Formalism (acknowledged, but not crippling): The formalist program was modified, not abandoned. The goal became to rigorously define the foundations and prove theorems within various formal systems, understanding that no single system could capture all of mathematics.

7. Conclusion

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems are profound and enduring results that challenge our understanding of the nature of truth, proof, and the limits of formal systems. While their philosophical implications remain a topic of ongoing debate, the theorems have undoubtedly had a lasting impact on mathematics, philosophy, computer science, and our understanding of the capabilities and limitations of human reasoning. They underscore the essential role of intuition and creative insight in the pursuit of knowledge. They show us that no matter how rigorous our formal systems become, there will always be frontiers to explore and mysteries to unravel.

Of course. Here is a detailed explanation of the mathematical and philosophical implications of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems on the limits of formal systems.

Introduction: The Dream of Absolute Certainty

At the dawn of the 20th century, mathematics was in a state of revolutionary fervor and foundational crisis. Mathematicians like David Hilbert sought to place all of mathematics on a perfectly logical, unshakeable foundation. This ambition was crystallized in Hilbert's Program, which aimed to create a formal system for all of mathematics that was:

  1. Complete: Every true mathematical statement could be proven within the system.
  2. Consistent: It would be impossible to prove a contradiction (e.g., proving both that 2+2=4 and 2+2≠4).
  3. Decidable: There would be a mechanical procedure (an algorithm) to determine whether any given mathematical statement was true or false.

In essence, Hilbert envisioned a "truth machine"—a finite set of axioms and rules from which all mathematical truths could be derived, with its own internal proof of its infallibility.

In 1931, a 25-year-old logician named Kurt Gödel published a paper that shattered this dream. His two Incompleteness Theorems are arguably the most significant results in the history of logic, demonstrating inherent limitations to what any formal system can achieve.

What is a Formal System?

Before diving into the theorems, we must understand their subject: a formal system. Think of it as a game with strict rules:

  • Alphabet: A set of symbols (e.g., numbers, variables, logical operators like +, =, ¬, ∀).
  • Grammar: Rules for combining symbols into well-formed formulas or statements (e.g., 1+1=2 is well-formed; +=1)2( is not).
  • Axioms: A set of statements that are accepted as true without proof. These are the starting points. (e.g., "For any number x, x+0=x").
  • Rules of Inference: Rules for deriving new true statements (theorems) from existing axioms and theorems (e.g., Modus Ponens: If you have P and P → Q, you can infer Q).

Mathematics, from basic arithmetic to complex set theory, can be expressed as a formal system. Gödel's theorems apply to any formal system that is powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3...).

Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem

The Theorem (informally): Any consistent formal system S within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete. That is, there are true statements about the natural numbers that cannot be proven within S.

The Core Idea: The Self-Referential Statement

Gödel's genius was to translate the ancient "Liar's Paradox" ("This statement is false") into the language of mathematics. A direct translation would lead to a contradiction. Instead, Gödel constructed a mathematical statement that asserts its own unprovability.

Here’s a simplified breakdown of his method:

  1. Gödel Numbering: Gödel devised a brilliant scheme to assign a unique natural number to every symbol, formula, and proof within the formal system. This technique, called Gödel numbering, effectively turns statements about the system into statements within the system (specifically, into statements of arithmetic). For example, the statement "The axiom x=x is part of the system" could be translated into a numerical equation like 12345 * 678 = 8368410.

  2. Constructing the "Gödel Sentence" (G): Using this numbering scheme, Gödel was able to construct a self-referential sentence, which we can call G. The sentence G essentially states:

    "The statement with Gödel number g is not provable within this system."

    And here's the crucial twist: the Gödel number of the sentence G itself is g. Thus, G asserts its own unprovability.

  3. The Inescapable Dilemma: Now, consider the sentence G within the formal system S.

    • Case 1: G is provable in S. If we can prove G, then what G says must be true. But G says it is not provable. This means the system has proven a falsehood, which makes the system inconsistent.
    • Case 2: G is not provable in S. If G cannot be proven, then what G says is actually true! It claims to be unprovable, and it is. This means we have found a statement (G) that is true but not provable within the system S.

The Conclusion: Assuming the system S is consistent (which is a baseline requirement for any useful system), there must exist a true statement (G) that is unprovable within it. Therefore, the system is incomplete.

Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem

The Theorem (informally): For any consistent formal system S containing basic arithmetic, the consistency of S cannot be proven within S itself.

This is a direct and even more devastating corollary of the first theorem.

The Core Idea: Consistency as an Unprovable Truth

  1. Formalizing Consistency: Gödel showed that the statement "The system S is consistent" can itself be expressed as a formula within the system S (using Gödel numbering). Let's call this statement Con(S). Con(S) essentially says, "There is no number that is the Gödel number of a proof of a contradiction (like 0=1)."

  2. Connecting Consistency to the Gödel Sentence: The heart of the second theorem's proof is demonstrating that the statement Con(S) is logically equivalent to the Gödel sentence G from the first theorem. The proof of the first theorem can be formalized within the system itself to show:

    Con(S) → G (If the system is consistent, then the Gödel sentence G is unprovable).

  3. The Final Blow: If we could prove Con(S) within the system S, then by the rule of Modus Ponens, we could also prove G. But the first theorem has already established that if S is consistent, G is unprovable. Therefore, Con(S) must also be unprovable within S.

In short, any formal system powerful enough to be interesting cannot prove its own logical soundness. To prove a system is consistent, you must step outside of it and use a more powerful "meta-system," which in turn cannot prove its own consistency.

Mathematical Implications

  1. The Death of Hilbert's Program: This is the most direct consequence. Gödel showed that the goal of a single formal system that is both complete and provably consistent is impossible. The dream of absolute, self-contained mathematical certainty was over.

  2. Truth vs. Provability: Gödel created a formal, undeniable separation between the concepts of "truth" and "provability." Before Gödel, they were often thought to be synonymous in mathematics. Gödel proved that there are more mathematical truths than can be formally proven by any single axiomatic system. The set of true statements is infinitely larger than the set of provable statements.

  3. The Limits of Computation: Gödel's work prefigured and is deeply connected to Alan Turing's work on the Halting Problem. The Halting Problem shows that there is no general algorithm that can determine, for all possible inputs, whether a computer program will finish running or continue to run forever. Both are "undecidability" results, showing that certain questions are fundamentally unanswerable through mechanical procedures or formal deduction.

  4. No "Theory of Everything" for Mathematics: It implies that mathematics can never be fully axiomatized. No matter how strong a set of axioms you create (e.g., Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, the standard foundation of modern math), there will always be true statements about numbers that lie beyond its reach, requiring new axioms or new insights to prove. Mathematics is an open, endlessly creative enterprise, not a closed, mechanical one.

Philosophical Implications

  1. The Mind vs. The Machine (The Lucas-Penrose Argument): Philosopher J.R. Lucas and physicist Roger Penrose have argued that Gödel's theorems prove that human minds are not simply complex computers (or formal systems). The argument goes:

    • A formal system cannot "see" the truth of its own Gödel sentence.
    • A human mathematician, however, can step outside the system, recognize that G is true, and understand the logic of the incompleteness proof.
    • Therefore, the human mind has a capacity for insight that transcends the fixed rules of any given formal system.

    The counterargument is that humans may simply be operating within a different, perhaps inconsistent or vastly more complex, system. We cannot prove our own consistency either, and our ability to "see" the truth of G is based on assuming the consistency of the system S in the first place.

  2. The Nature of Mathematical Truth (Platonism vs. Formalism):

    • Support for Platonism: Gödel's work is often seen as a strong argument for Platonism—the view that mathematical objects and truths exist independently in an abstract realm, which we discover rather than invent. The fact that the Gödel sentence G is true, even though it's unprovable, suggests that its truth exists independently of our axiomatic systems.
    • Challenge to Formalism: It undermines strict Formalism, the view that mathematics is just the manipulation of meaningless symbols according to specified rules. If that were the case, "truth" would be nothing more than "provability," a notion Gödel refuted.

  3. The Limits of Reason and Certainty: Perhaps the most profound implication is that absolute certainty is unattainable, even in the purest of disciplines, mathematics. Any system of thought, if complex enough, rests on assumptions that it cannot justify from within (its own consistency). This suggests a fundamental limit to what rationalism and logical deduction can achieve on their own. It points to the necessity of intuition, creativity, and unproven "axioms of faith" (like the belief in the consistency of our own reasoning) as essential components of knowledge.

  4. Misappropriations and Misconceptions: It's crucial to note what Gödel's theorems don't say.

    • They do not mean that "nothing can be proven" or "everything is relative." Countless theorems are proven every day within systems like ZFC set theory.
    • They do not apply to everything. They are specific to formal systems that are powerful enough to describe arithmetic. Simpler systems can be complete.
    • They are not a justification for mysticism or abandoning logic. Rather, they are a product of the most rigorous logic imaginable, revealing its own boundaries from within.

Conclusion

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems did not destroy mathematics. Instead, they revealed its true nature: an infinitely rich, open-ended, and creative field that can never be fully captured by any single, finite set of rules. He replaced the static dream of a finished, completely provable truth with the dynamic reality of a discipline whose horizons are forever expanding. The theorems are a monument to the power of human reason to recognize its own limitations, a discovery that is as humbling as it is profound.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems: Mathematical and Philosophical Implications

Overview

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, published in 1931, represent one of the most profound discoveries in mathematical logic and have far-reaching implications for our understanding of knowledge, truth, and computation.

The Theorems Explained

First Incompleteness Theorem

Statement: Any consistent formal system that is powerful enough to express basic arithmetic contains statements that are true but unprovable within that system.

Key Components: - Formal system: A set of axioms and rules of inference - Consistent: Cannot prove both a statement and its negation - Sufficiently powerful: Can represent basic arithmetic (Peano arithmetic) - Incompleteness: Contains true statements that cannot be proven from the axioms

Second Incompleteness Theorem

Statement: No consistent formal system capable of expressing arithmetic can prove its own consistency.

Implication: A system cannot prove it won't lead to contradictions using only its own rules.

The Mathematical Mechanism

Gödel Numbering

Gödel's ingenious proof technique involved:

  1. Encoding logic as arithmetic: Assigning unique numbers to symbols, formulas, and proofs
  2. Self-reference: Creating a statement that essentially says "This statement is not provable"
  3. The paradox:
    • If the statement is provable, it's false (contradiction with consistency)
    • If it's not provable, it's true but unprovable (incompleteness)

The Gödel Sentence

The construction creates a sentence G that says "G is not provable in system S": - If S proves G, then S proves something false (inconsistent) - If S is consistent, G cannot be proven, making G true but unprovable

Mathematical Implications

1. Limits of Axiomatic Systems

  • No complete axiomatization of mathematics: We cannot create a finite set of axioms from which all mathematical truths follow
  • Hierarchy of systems: Stronger systems can prove statements weaker systems cannot, but face their own limitations
  • Undecidable propositions: Some statements are inherently independent of our axioms

2. Continuum Hypothesis Example

The independence of the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) from standard set theory (ZFC) exemplifies Gödelian incompleteness: - Neither CH nor its negation can be proven from ZFC axioms - Both ZFC + CH and ZFC + ¬CH are consistent (if ZFC is)

3. Impact on Hilbert's Program

David Hilbert sought to: - Formalize all mathematics - Prove mathematics consistent using finitary methods - Prove mathematics complete

Gödel's theorems showed this program was impossible as originally conceived.

Philosophical Implications

1. Truth vs. Provability

Major insight: Truth and provability are fundamentally different concepts.

  • Semantic truth: A statement corresponding to reality
  • Syntactic provability: Derivability from axioms
  • The gap: Some truths transcend formal proof

Philosophical consequence: Mathematical truth is not reducible to mechanical symbol manipulation.

2. Human Mind vs. Machines

Controversial claim (Penrose, Lucas): Humans can recognize Gödelian truths that no machine bound by formal rules can prove, suggesting: - Human mathematical insight transcends computation - Consciousness involves non-computational elements

Counterarguments: - Humans also work within cognitive limitations - We cannot access all Gödelian truths, only specific ones - Recognition might be computational but complex

3. Platonism vs. Formalism

Support for Platonism: - Mathematical truth exists independently of formal systems - We discover rather than invent mathematics - Gödel himself was a mathematical Platonist

Challenge to Formalism: - Mathematics cannot be fully captured by formal manipulation - Meaning exceeds syntax - Mathematical intuition plays an irreducible role

4. Epistemological Limits

Fundamental boundaries: - Some questions may be inherently unanswerable - Complete knowledge within a system is impossible - Self-knowledge has intrinsic limitations

Analogy to other fields: - Physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - Computation: Halting Problem - Logic: Incompleteness

Implications for Computer Science

1. Computational Limits

  • Halting Problem: No algorithm can determine if arbitrary programs halt (undecidable)
  • Algorithmic information theory: Some patterns have irreducible complexity
  • Program verification: Cannot create a complete automated proof system for program correctness

2. Artificial Intelligence

  • Strong AI limitations: If minds are purely computational, they face Gödelian constraints
  • Self-modifying systems: Cannot fully verify their own improved versions
  • AGI safety: Fundamental limits to provable AI alignment

Contemporary Significance

1. Metamathematics

  • Spawned the field studying mathematics from outside
  • Reverse mathematics: Determining which axioms are needed for which theorems
  • Proof theory: Studying the structure of proofs themselves

2. Mathematical Practice

Despite incompleteness: - Mathematics continues productively: Most working mathematics is unaffected - New axioms: We can extend systems (large cardinal axioms in set theory) - Pragmatic approach: Accept some unprovable but "obvious" truths

3. Science and Knowledge

Broader lessons: - All sufficiently complex systems of knowledge have limitations - Self-reference creates fundamental constraints - Complete formalization of knowledge is impossible

Common Misconceptions

What Gödel Did NOT Prove:

  1. "Everything is uncertain": Most mathematics proceeds normally
  2. "Mathematical truth is relative": Truth exists; provability is limited
  3. "Contradictions exist in mathematics": Assumes consistency, doesn't disprove it
  4. "Applies to all reasoning": Specifically about formal systems with certain properties

Conclusion

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems reveal fundamental limits to formal reasoning:

  • Mathematical: No single formal system can capture all mathematical truth
  • Philosophical: Truth transcends proof; meaning exceeds syntax
  • Epistemological: Complete self-knowledge is impossible
  • Practical: We must accept inherent limitations in any knowledge system

Rather than being merely negative results, these theorems: - Deepen our understanding of mathematical truth - Reveal the richness of mathematics beyond formalization - Establish genuine boundaries to mechanical reasoning - Inspire continued exploration of the foundations of knowledge

The theorems represent a profound achievement: using mathematics to prove fundamental limits of mathematical reasoning itself—a stunning example of self-reflective knowledge that continues to influence logic, mathematics, computer science, and philosophy nearly a century after their discovery.

Page of

Recent Topics

Links