Re: Factoring paper is wrong
From: Chairman of the Ozzy Osbourne Appreciation Society (mathgeek42_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/14/04
- Next message: ošin: "Re: New Way to Factor"
- Previous message: James Harris: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Sebastian Gottschalk: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- Next in thread: Sebastian Gottschalk: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- Reply:(deleted message) Sebastian Gottschalk: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:40:48 GMT
[added sci.logic]
Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Mok-Kong Shen schrieb:
>
>
>>Well, the incompleteness theorem itself seems to be indeed
>>universally true and would in this sense be 'absolute', in fact.
>
>
> What about formal independency? Everything which has been shown to be
> formally independent is obviously true to me, as the selection problem, the
> continuum hypothesis and the P-NP-problem is, where there's no evidence on
> counterexamples.
AFAIK the P=NP problem hasn't been determined to be independent of
ZFC?
> This is also very interesting because the continuum hyptothesis partially
> depends on predicative logic, at least the decision problem.
> (Proof is simple. If f is a function where s^f=w if s \iselem R, f
> otherwise, then f is an interpretation. Now reduce it to the Herbrand
> interpretation f', which has the same characteristics. As a herbrand
> interpretation f' is countable, but R is not, so such an f cannot exist.)
- Next message: ošin: "Re: New Way to Factor"
- Previous message: James Harris: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Sebastian Gottschalk: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- Next in thread: Sebastian Gottschalk: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- Reply:(deleted message) Sebastian Gottschalk: "Re: Factoring paper is wrong"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
