Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. >
From: |-|erc (H_at_r.c)
Date: 01/26/05
- Next message: George Cox: "Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. >"
- Previous message: Piotr Sawuk: "Re: Idiocy of Muckenheim was Re: countability of reals"
- In reply to: George Cox: "Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. >"
- Next in thread: valdez: "Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. >"
- Reply: valdez: "Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. >"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:46 +1000
"George Cox" <george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote in
> |-|erc wrote:
> >
> > "you can't prove me" does not make mathematics incomplete, its not a true statment with no proof.
> > HOW DO YOU KNOW ITS TRUE? with a system that doesn't know what its proving? wrong.
>
> One knows that it is true by proving it in the meta theory.
define meta theory
>
> >
> > "this has no proof in any system" is a meta godel statment that by defn has no godel proof.
>
> "this has no proof in any system" is false. To see that just consider
> the system that has it as an axiom.
axioms are always true.
Herc
- Next message: George Cox: "Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. >"
- Previous message: Piotr Sawuk: "Re: Idiocy of Muckenheim was Re: countability of reals"
- In reply to: George Cox: "Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. >"
- Next in thread: valdez: "Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. >"
- Reply: valdez: "Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. >"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|