Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: "Charlie-Boo" <chvol@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Dec 2005 12:16:35 -0800
David C. Ullrich wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2005 18:10:58 -0800, "Charlie-Boo" <chvol@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Prove ( P = |- Q ) => |- ( P = Q )
>
> Various people have asked what the heck this means.
> You should _say_ what it means, instead of replying
> with questions.
You are way too loose with your tongue.
1. "Various people have asked what the heck this means.": Only one
person asked a question, viz, "What does this mean?".
2. "instead of replying with questions.": I had yet to respond to
that one question.
3. I posed one question, in response to the statement that my theorem
is ill-formed. As the statement did not say what constructs in the
theorem are ill-formed, I asked if he was referring to the use of |- as
an operator in a wff.
At no point did I reply to a question with a question.
> Hint: My best attempt at deciphering it leads to
> something obviously false:
>
> "If P equals 'Q has a proof' then there is a
> proof of 'P equals Q'."
That's it. What was so hard about that?
> Obviously false, since if P equals 'Q has a proof'
> then P does not equal Q.
Why is that false? (Once again, what you are so adamantly convinced of
is just not so.)
> So that must not be what you mean.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
> >(P and Q have the same sets of free variables.) This simple theorem (I
> >created 12/1/05) provides the link between Theory of Computation and
> >Proof Theory (Incompleteness in Logic) that theoreticians such as
> >myself have been looking for since the 1930's. (Each Theory of
> >Computation theorem becomes an Incompleteness theorem in Logic,
> >providing almost trivial formal derivation of the exact results of
> >Godel, Rosser and Smullyan.)
>
> Awesome.
Would it be awesome (interesting, new, useful) if it were true?
C-B
> >Hint: Consider the equivalent ( P = |-Q ) => ( P = |- P )
>
>
> ************************
>
> David C. Ullrich
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- References:
- Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- Prev by Date: Re: Evaluation of article
- Next by Date: Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- Previous by thread: Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- Next by thread: Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|