Re: Article in Scientific American
- From: Chris Smith <cdsmith@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 08:47:06 -0700
T.H. Ray <thray123@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hmmm. I don't know. To the extent that not disprovable
means not not provable, is it not equivalent to
provable?
Only if disprovable meant "not provable". It doesn't: disprovable means
that there exists a proof for the negation. If you want a single word
for "not provable", then unprovable will work.
--
Chris Smith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Article in Scientific American
- From: T.H. Ray
- Re: Article in Scientific American
- References:
- Re: Article in Scientific American
- From: Chris Smith
- Re: Article in Scientific American
- From: T.H. Ray
- Re: Article in Scientific American
- Prev by Date: Re: ZFC's replacement axiom:not 2nd order?
- Next by Date: Re: Specialised Highschools for Mathematics and Physics?
- Previous by thread: Re: Article in Scientific American
- Next by thread: Re: Article in Scientific American
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|