The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion If ZFC is a FORMAL THEORY ... then what is THEOREM 1 ?

From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Subject:
 Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.

More options Oct 7 2012, 4:30 pm
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
> VALIDATED.

DAMN, 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*
sentence."
The fact that YOU DIDN'T KNOW THIS *proves*you're*stupid*.

> Neither of you have an INKLING what the enumeration method is

Idiot,
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.