Re: (Not quite) Cantor's diagonal proof
From: Charlie-Boo (chvol_at_aol.com)
Date: 10/26/04
- Next message: ZZBunker: "Re: Resolving the paradoxes of set theory"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: Preaching To The Converted"
- In reply to: Virgil: "Re: (Not quite) Cantor's diagonal proof"
- Next in thread: Virgil: "Re: (Not quite) Cantor's diagonal proof"
- Reply: Virgil: "Re: (Not quite) Cantor's diagonal proof"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 25 Oct 2004 19:13:58 -0700
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
> In article <3df1e59f.0410241953.700657a2@posting.google.com>,
> chvol@aol.com (Charlie-Boo) wrote:
>
> > Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
> > > In article <3df1e59f.0410240116.2b3a451a@posting.google.com>,
> > > chvol@aol.com (Charlie-Boo) wrote:
> > >
> > > > joshp@bayes.joshpurinton.com (Josh Purinton) wrote in message
> > > > > In article <3df1e59f.0410230128.276a42b2@posting.google.com>,
> > > > > Charlie-Boo <chvol@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > >If we use normal mathematics (not a computer) to show that the informal
> > > > > >proof is not valid, then still, what is the sense of using software
> > > > > >that tells us that "the proof" is valid?
> > > > >
> > > > > If we have verified that a formal proof is correct, then we know that
> > > > > its conclusion is provable in our formal system.
> > > >
> > > > The actual theorem not having been proven,
> > >
> > > Who says it hasn't been?
> >
> > The scenario in which it has not been proven is not eliminated by your
> > premise.
>
> Non-responsive. I repeat, who says it hasn't been?
Godel
- Next message: ZZBunker: "Re: Resolving the paradoxes of set theory"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: Preaching To The Converted"
- In reply to: Virgil: "Re: (Not quite) Cantor's diagonal proof"
- Next in thread: Virgil: "Re: (Not quite) Cantor's diagonal proof"
- Reply: Virgil: "Re: (Not quite) Cantor's diagonal proof"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|