Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 2/25/2025 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, it is stupid to require that true in the system means proven.On 2/25/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:That comes from stupidly failing to require {true in the system}On 2/25/2025 12:15 PM, joes wrote:>Am Mon, 24 Feb 2025 20:02:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:>On 2/24/2025 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 2/24/25 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:On 2/24/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 2/23/25 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:On 2/23/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 2/23/25 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:On 2/22/2025 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 2/22/25 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:On 2/22/2025 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2025-02-22 04:44:35 +0000, olcott said:On 2/21/2025 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 2/21/25 6:19 PM, olcott wrote:On 2/20/2025 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2025-02-18 03:59:08 +0000, olcott said:When any system assumes that every expression is true or false and isWhich has nothing to do with "soundness".Sure I do.That is very good.
A Systems is semantically sound if every statement that can be proven
is actually true by the systems semantics,
>in other words, the system doesn't allow the proving of a falseThat is not too bad yet ignores that some expressions might not have
statement.
any truth value.
capable of encoding expressions that are neither IT IS STUPIDLY WRONG.In honour of Gödel this is usually called "incomplete".Where "incomplete" has always been an idiom for stupid wrong.
>
>
No, only in your faulty logic.
>
Incomplete means that there are some truths that can't be proven in the system.
>
to require {proven in the system}. Fix this one stupid mistake
and all of incompleteness goes away.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.