The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
On Oct 5, 7:23 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George seems to think VALIDATED THEOREMS are numbered as they areDAMN, you're stupid. "Validated theorems" IS REDUNDANT.
It *IS*NOT* a THEOREM, UNLESS AND UNTIL it is "validated",
i.e., unless and until it is PROVED! "Theorem" *MEANS* " *proved*
The fact that YOU DIDN'T KNOW THIS *proves*you're*stupid*.
> Neither of you have an INKLING what the enumeration method is
the proof IS A FINITE STRING OF SYMBOLS.
YOU CAN ALWAYS attach numbers to those.
Haven't you heard of Ascii ?? You do SEEM to be that OLD.
More to the point, SINCE EVERY PROOF IS DIFFERENT,
it is a trivial matter TO ESTABLISH AN ORDERING on them.
FOR EXAMPLE, you could use the length-lexicographic ordering
(where shorter proofs always have lower numbers and proofs
of equal length get ordered on the basis of an ordering on the
individual characters, at the earliest character at which they
SO WE DO SO TOO have not only "an inkling", but AN ACTUAL
DEFINITION of an enumeration method.
NOT that we need have BOTHERED.
ANYBODY CAN SEE that the proof is an enumerator.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.