Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 11/12/24 11:37 PM, olcott wrote:If it is impossible to show that x is true in L and impossibleOn 11/11/2024 9:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Right, but there can be expressions of language that are true in L by an INFINITE sequence of truth-preserving operations that are not provable which needs a FINITE sequence of truth-preserving operations.On 11/10/24 5:01 PM, olcott wrote:>On 11/10/2024 2:39 PM, joes wrote:>Am Sun, 10 Nov 2024 14:07:44 -0600 schrieb olcott:>On 11/10/2024 1:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 11/10/24 10:11 AM, olcott wrote:On 11/10/2024 4:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:On 11/9/2024 4:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:On 11/9/2024 3:45 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:I still can’t see how this makes ~C provable.Sorry, but until you actually and formally fully define your logicWhen C is a necessary consequence of the Haskell Curry elementary
system, you can't start using it.
theorems of L (Thus stipulated to be true in L) then and only then is C
is True in L.
This simple change does get rid of incompleteness because Incomplete(L)
is superseded and replaced by Incorrect(L,x).
>
If C is not provable it is merely rejected as incorrect
not used as any basis to determine that L is incomplete.
>
For many reasons: "A sequence of truth preserving operations"
is a much better term than the term "provable".
>
But since there exist statements that are True but not Provable. except by your incorrect definition of Provable, your logic is just broken.
>
There cannot possibly be any expressions of language that
are true in L that are not determined to be true on the
basis of applying a sequence of truth preserving operations
in L to Haskell_Curry_Elementary_Theorems in L.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.