Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable

Craig Feinstein <cafeinst@xxxxxxx> wrote:
#
# An axiom that I am using in my Collatz paper could be stated:
#
# "Given a function f, number n, and constant c, in order to
# prove that f(n)=c, it is necessary to specify the formula
# for the function f (when it is applied to n) in the proof."
#
# Anyone who disputes this axiom is fooling himself or herself.


Hilarious!!

--Gerhard


___________________________________________________________
Gerhard J. Woeginger http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Raatikainens critique of Chaitin
    ... > cafeinst@msn.com (Craig Feinstein) writes: ... It has never been the suggestion that the number of axioms, ... Kolmogorov complexity of the axiom schema is finite, all along, ... regardless of the length of the axiom string. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Raatikainens critique of Chaitin
    ... > cafeinst@msn.com (Craig Feinstein) writes: ... It has never been the suggestion that the number of axioms, ... Kolmogorov complexity of the axiom schema is finite, all along, ... regardless of the length of the axiom string. ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Another Reason Why Collatz is Unprovable
    ... There are no reasonable axiom systems in that sense. ... formal theory ever put forth in logic has been doubted by someone. ... theory" a mathematical characterization of reasonableness is required. ... An axiom that I am using in my Collatz paper ...
    (sci.math)