[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.)