Re: Comparing Proofs of Rosser's 1936 Theorem

David C. Ullrich wrote:
On 11 Mar 2006 10:11:28 -0800, "Charlie-Boo" <shymathguy@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

How do you formally define equivalence between two proofs?

I don't. I didn't claim that I did. The statement that two
proofs are essentially the same is not a statement of a
mathematical truth,

Oh what bull***. Equivalence of two mathematical objects is not a
mathematical statement? You have taken the practice of making
unsubstantiated statements to a new low. Now you simply say it's not a
mathematical statement in the first place.

So what's "the basic idea" that you see in both? Or did you just make
that up for some weird reason?

Here's a couple of quick ideas: Two proofs are equivalent-1 if they use
the same sequence of intermediate conclusions, although the
justifications may differ. Equivalent-2: They use the same set of
intermediate conclusions, though not necessarily in the same order.
(The lesson is to normalize!)

it's an informal statement.

You are an idiot or a liar (inclusive or.)

How are you coming on the publication, by the way? You're
clearly wasting your time here, you should really publish
your amazing simplified proof.

You are such an arse. I'm told that's called "fame worshiping" in
England. I already told you: "A Simple Generator of Incompleteness
Theorems" - M Computing.

http://jacquardsystems.com/MComputing/1998/2/toc.htm

C-B

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the
humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo Galilei

************************

David C. Ullrich

.

Quantcast