Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 16:28:35 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.berkeley.edu> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Proofs, correctness, and other boring stuff (was: Why did evolution fail?) Message-ID: <20020901132835.GC16183@hades.hell.gr> In-Reply-To: <20020901120813.GA1227@HAL9000.homeunix.com> References: <200208310608.g7V68h128080@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> <20020831100938.GA262@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <3D71D8E6.71248CEB@mindspring.com> <20020901120813.GA1227@HAL9000.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2002-09-01 05:08 +0000, David Schultz wrote: > Thus spake Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>: > > We're not talking about correctness, here, we're talking about > > truth. 8-). > > So was Gödel. I'm not sure what you're trying to say---but can > you prove it? If I discussed the correctness of such a proof, > wouldn't that automatically make it wrong? No, it wouldn't. A correct proof, whose correctness is under discussion and doubted, can still be proven correct. Not by its very self, mind you, but by a meta-proof [repeat forever]. - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020901132835.GC16183>