Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem

David C. Ullrich wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2005 05:35:47 -0800, "Charlie-Boo" wrote:

> > A better
> >counterexample for you (than meaningless propositional variables) would
> >be P is any Godel sentence and Q is FALSE.
>
> A counterexample that depends on an _actual_ deep theorem is
> "better" than a simple and totally elementary counterexample?
> Fascinating.

It's just a cop-out to talk about variables with no meaning rather than
actual assertions about something. By that logic, you can say that a
system is incomplete because it has a propositional variable with no
meaning and thus no proof of it or its negation.

That's not what we're talking about.

C-B

> ************************
>
> David C. Ullrich

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
    ... >>>counterexample for you (than meaningless propositional variables) would ... >>>be P is any Godel sentence and Q is FALSE. ... find a counterexample, counterexamples are simply obvious. ... >meaning and thus no proof of it or its negation. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Provability
    ... It's clearly a counterexample to your claim. ... then the implication is constructively true ... the meaning of implication ... constructivism and formalism. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Case sensitivity in programming languages.
    ... Different case can cange the emphasis, but not the meaning. ... You trimmed off the sentence which provided a counterexample, ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning
    ... Jan Burse wrote: ... The meaning of the operation @ is "be the same of" or "equal ... The counterexample being a model with p=0, ... is tautology. ...
    (sci.logic)