[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Quibbling about definitions of "proof"

On Mon, 7 Aug 1995 [email protected] wrote:

> The requirement for "prooving" a program is thus significantly less onerous than 
> asserted. It is not necessary to provide a trancendental proof, merely to 
> establish consistency with respect to a commonly accepted set of axioms.
> 	Phill Hallam-Baker

Is THAT all?  But I didn't know we could establish consistency of these 
commonly accepted axioms with THEMSELVES!  (By commonly accepted, I mean 
ZF.  I'll even the choice & continuum hypotheses out.)