Re: Formalizing the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic

On May 24, 9:32 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Charlie-Boo <shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Math is formal by definition. If you can't state it in FOL then FOL
is fucked up.

Say, how's that CBL proof of associativity of addition coming?

It's a DEF, actually. If you will refer back to the ARXIV paper, you
will see that theorems from Logic (e.g. double negative and
DeMorgan's) are DEF in the Theory of Computation formalized in CBL.

I have discussed this before, actually. Theorems from one Logic can
be Axioms of another, so that the old adage that you always have to
start with unjustified Axioms at some point is not so.

C-B

--
"If you have a really big idea, you can get a measure of how big it is
by how much people resist the obvious. From what I've seen, I have a
REALLY, REALLY, *REALLY*, BIG DISCOVERY!!!"
--James Harris: If I'm not important, how come people ignore me?


.