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
 |
Newsgroups: sci.logic
From: George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 13:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, Oct 7 2012 4:30 pm
Subject: Re: If ZFC is a FORMAL THEORY ... then what is THEOREM 1 ?
On Oct 5, 7:23 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George seems to think VALIDATED THEOREMS are numbered as they are
DAMN, you're stupid. "Validated theorems" IS REDUNDANT.
> VALIDATED. It *IS*NOT* a THEOREM, UNLESS AND UNTIL it is "validated", i.e., unless and until it is PROVED! "Theorem" *MEANS* " *proved* sentence." 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 differ). 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.
| |||||||||||||