On 4/2/2025 5:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:It depends on what each of those letters mean.On 4/2/25 12:03 PM, olcott wrote:Is "LKNSDFKLWRLKLKNKUKQWEEYIYWQFGFGH" consistent or inconsistent?On 4/2/2025 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2025-04-01 17:56:25 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 4/1/2025 1:33 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2025-03-31 18:33:26 +0000, olcott said:>
>>>
Anything the contradicts basic facts or expressions
semantically entailed from these basic facts is proven
false.
Anything that follows from true sentences by a truth preserving
transformations is true. If you can prove that a true sentence
is false your system is unsound.
Ah so we finally agree on something.
What about the "proof" that detecting inconsistent
axioms is impossible? (I thought that I remebered this).
A method that can always determine whether a set of axioms is inconsistent
does not exist. However, there are methods that can correctly determine
about some axiom systems that they are inconsistent and fail on others.
>
The proof is just another proof that some function is not Turing computable.
>
A finite set of axioms would seem to always be verifiable
as consistent or inconsistent. This may be the same for
a finite list of axiom schemas.
>
Think of how many statements can be constructed from a finite alphabet of letters.
>
Can you "test" every statement to see if it is consistant?
>
Try to come up with a better counter-example.
You should know better than that, but you don't, because you really are too stupid.
Sorry, you are just showing how limited your thinking ability actually is.
>
That fact that YOU can't imagine the problem, doesn't mean it can be there.
| Date | Sujet | # | Auteur | |
| 17 Jun 26 |  … |
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.