On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Tyler Durden wrote:
> Well, this is quite a post, and I agree with most of it.
>
> As for the Godel stuff, there's a part of it with which I disagree (or at
> least as far as I take what you said).
-I- didn't say this stuff, the people who did the original work did. Go
read t
Jim Choate wrote:
> Complete means that we can take any and all -legal- strings within that
> formalism and assign them -one of only two- truth values; True v False.
Getting much closer.
"Complete" means we can, within the formalism, _prove_ that all universally
valid statements within the forma
Well, this is quite a post, and I agree with most of it.
As for the Godel stuff, there's a part of it with which I disagree (or at
least as far as I take what you said).
If you want
to compare something mathematically you -must- use the same axioms and
rules of derivation. The -only- discussion
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Tyler Durden wrote:
> >That any particular string can be -precisely- defined as truth or false
> >as required by the definition of completeness, is what is not possible.
>
> Here we come down to what appears to be at the heart of the confusion as far
> as I see it. "True", dep
That any particular string can be -precisely- defined as truth or false
as required by the definition of completeness, is what is not possible.
Here we come down to what appears to be at the heart of the confusion as far
as I see it. "True", depending on who's saying it (even in a discussion of
hi,
> How ever how do you 'precisely' define
> completeness?
>
> There were a couple of examples in the message
> you replied to. There
> are different sorts of completeness as well. You
> might also look into some
> of the references I provided.
Okay,I ask a legitimate question,how do yo
hi,
--- Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Sarad AV wrote:
>
> > We can't define completeness.
>
> We can define it, as has been done.
okay,I get what you mean,thank you.
How ever how do you 'precisely' define completeness?
Regards Sarath.
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Sarad AV wrote:
> We can't define completeness.
We can define it, as has been done.
What we can't do is -prove- any set of rules of arrangement that describe
symbol manipulation as -complete- -within the rules of arrangement-.
Complete means that we can take any and all -leg
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Sarad AV wrote:
> --- Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Sarad AV wrote:
> >
> > > We can't define completeness.
> >
> > We can define it, as has been done.
>
> okay,I get what you mean,thank you.
> How ever how do you 'precisely' define complete
hi,
--- Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hi,
>
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>
>
> > Godel didn't invent the term though, and may not
> have said "this is the/my
> > definition of completeness". I haven't read them
> for some time, and can't
> > remember. He may well hav
Jim Choate wrote:
>
> With regard to completeness, I have Godel's paper ("On Formally
> Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems", K.
> Godel, ISBN 0-486-66980-7 (Dover), $7 US) and if somebody happens to know
> the section where he defines completeness I'll be happy t
Howdy,
I just picked up "The Future of the Electronic Marketplace" by D. Leebaert
(ISBN 0-262-62132-0). Anybody who has read it care to comment? It's a MIT
Press book and the little bit of skimming I've done it seems pretty
interesting. Published in '99.
With regard to completeness, I have Godel
12 matches
Mail list logo
