Re: What is a proof, exactly?
From: Josh Purinton (joshpurinton_at_gmail.com)
Date: 12/03/04
- Next message: Brian Quincy Hutchings: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Previous message: Acid Pooh: "Re: logic is innate?"
- In reply to: Jasper Stein: "Re: What is a proof, exactly?"
- Next in thread: Han de Bruijn: "Re: What is a proof, exactly?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 2 Dec 2004 20:01:42 -0800
Jasper Stein <J.J.Stein.Stein@cs.cs.ru.ru.nl.nl> wrote in message news:<cone3k$pko$1@odysseus.uci.kun.nl>...
> This is somewhat strange - does this mean that one (formal) proof can prove
> several things?
Correct. Consider a Hilbert-style proof system, in which a proof
is a sequence of statements, each of which is either an (instance of)
an axiom, a premise, or follows from one or more previous statements
in the sequence by a truth-preserving rule of inference. Thus, the
proof can be considered to prove every sentence in the sequence.
> (It seems that I'm missing some of the posts to the newsgroup - I haven't
> seen George Greene's original post)
Try Google Groups.
- Next message: Brian Quincy Hutchings: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- Previous message: Acid Pooh: "Re: logic is innate?"
- In reply to: Jasper Stein: "Re: What is a proof, exactly?"
- Next in thread: Han de Bruijn: "Re: What is a proof, exactly?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|