1995-08-08 - Re: Quibbling about definitions of “proof”

Header Data

From: Nathan Zook <nzook@bga.com>
To: hallam@w3.org
Message Hash: 097667129b8531ad53292edec04cae39d0739f6cb50fbc67c7d62d6d5dd16d7a
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9508080041.F11342-0100000@jake.bga.com>
Reply To: <9508071521.AA10100@zorch.w3.org>
UTC Datetime: 1995-08-08 05:49:11 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 22:49:11 PDT

Raw message

From: Nathan Zook <nzook@bga.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 22:49:11 PDT
To: hallam@w3.org
Subject: Re: Quibbling about definitions of "proof"
In-Reply-To: <9508071521.AA10100@zorch.w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9508080041.F11342-0100000@jake.bga.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, 7 Aug 1995 hallam@w3.org 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.)