On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:01:16AM -0800, Tom wrote: > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:27:37AM -0500, Carl Fink wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:00:05AM -0800, Tom wrote: > > > > > ... that in any sufficiently complex formal system there are no guarantees > > > it won't grind out falsehoods ... > > > > But Goedel's Theorem actually says that in any formal system, there will be > > true propositions that cannot be proved (without going outside the system). > > Nothing I've seen about grinding out falsehoods. > > I thought it was neither complete (the doesn't capture all truths thing) > nor consistent (may contain both a statement and its complement)[1]. > But I can look that up.
[The lack of consistency in arithmetic was shown by Skolem not Goedel] > > The Stanford prof told me the Lambda calculus (Lisp-ish stuff) almost > proved one of the two. It looks like current metamathematics can have a > set theory for intiutionists, one for computationalists, or other richer > things, kind of like all the Non-euclidean geometries. > > I have many other things to say but this requires precision and this is > OT. I'd love a crisp answer of "does this matter in everyday life." > > [1]-This was the assertion in "Illusion of Technique" > > > -- > > Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading > > http://www.jabootu.com > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
