Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem
From: Daryl McCullough (daryl_at_atc-nycorp.com)
Date: 01/03/05
- Next message: Charlie-Boo: "Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem"
- Previous message: Tim Tyler: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- In reply to: Charlie-Boo: "Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem"
- Next in thread: Charlie-Boo: "Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem"
- Reply: Charlie-Boo: "Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 3 Jan 2005 11:28:42 -0800
Charlie-Boo says...
>How else can you arrange for provability to coincide with truth in
>System N, if not by letting the axioms be the true sentences and the
>rules, in effect, be inconsequential?
The rules aren't inconsequential. The rules for Smullyan's system are the usual
rules for first-order logic.
-- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
- Next message: Charlie-Boo: "Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem"
- Previous message: Tim Tyler: "Re: Smaller UTM than Rule110"
- In reply to: Charlie-Boo: "Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem"
- Next in thread: Charlie-Boo: "Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem"
- Reply: Charlie-Boo: "Re: Deep Thoughts # 17: Liar Paradox is a Formal Metamathematical Theorem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
Loading