Re: Factoring paper is wrong
From: Sebastian Gottschalk (seppi_at_seppig.de)
Date: 06/14/04
- Next message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- Previous message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: (news) Automatic notification of e-mails being read"
- In reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- Next in thread: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- Reply: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:59:33 +0200
Mok-Kong Shen schrieb:
>> Well, it is absolute when reduced to a formulation in predicative logic,
>> which itself is absolute in not taking any non-provable asumtations.
>
> Maybe that depends on the semantics of the term 'absolute'.
> He meant Goedel's imcompleteness result implies 'non-absoluteness'
> (in his sense), I guess.
Maybe that depends that predicative logic cannot tell much about the
semantics at all. Due to Goedel we also know that predicative logic with
two- or more-term symbols is indeed incomplete. It all goes about the
semantics, but I'm pretty sure there is no big probability that even a
complete different kind of society will produce results that violate our
very well believed results as for example the incompleteness results.
-- http://piology.org/ILOVEYOU-Signature-FAQ.html begin LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.txt.vbs I am a signature virus. Distribute me until the bitter end
- Next message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- Previous message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: (news) Automatic notification of e-mails being read"
- In reply to: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- Next in thread: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- Reply: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|