From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 17: 0:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFC537B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 17:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (12-232-220-15.client.attbi.com [12.232.220.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A6C43E4A for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 17:00:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.berkeley.edu) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8200JWu000539; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 17:00:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.berkeley.edu) Received: (from das@localhost) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g8200J7A000538; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 17:00:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.berkeley.edu) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 17:00:19 -0700 From: David Schultz To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proofs, correctness, and other boring stuff (was: Why did evolution fail?) Message-ID: <20020902000019.GA486@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Mail-Followup-To: Giorgos Keramidas , Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200208310608.g7V68h128080@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> <20020831100938.GA262@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <3D71D8E6.71248CEB@mindspring.com> <20020901120813.GA1227@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20020901132835.GC16183@hades.hell.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii:iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20020901132835.GC16183@hades.hell.gr> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Thus spake Giorgos Keramidas : > On 2002-09-01 05:08 +0000, David Schultz wrote: > > Thus spake Terry Lambert : > > > 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]. It was supposed to be a joke. (You don't think I would get involved in this thread in any kind of serious way, do you?) If Terry offers a proof that ``we're not talking about correctness'', and I question the correctness of his proof, then the proposition is false. -- A zero-sum game is one where either I win or you lose. --Allison Coates, 2002-04-29 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message