Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem

On Mar 24, 5:07 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 24, 1:49 pm, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Oh heavens.  You know what formal means, right?

Yes, and I know what it means FORMALLY. And it's been explained to you
about a thousand times that in ordinary mathematical writing we don't
present pure formalisms, since such would be tedious to do

The claim is that various theorems are formally proven, using only ZF,
in the paper sited. When I ask for the formal representations used in
these proofs, you tell me that people don't prove things formally!
What the ***???

C-B

and to
read, but rather that we present natural language mixed with
formalisms such that one may read that mixture and discern how it can
be put in pure formulas.

MoeBlee

.

Quantcast