1995-08-07 - Re: Quibbling about definitions of “proof”

Header Data

From: Ray Cromwell <rjc@clark.net>
To: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Message Hash: 1e794cc8e48805b57e3b32e3f50761df318c35822c74d2d2231c662da6bdd8dd
Message ID: <199508071653.MAA03355@clark.net>
Reply To: <ac4b096d0102100487ad@[205.199.118.202]>
UTC Datetime: 1995-08-07 16:53:38 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 09:53:38 PDT

Raw message

From: Ray Cromwell <rjc@clark.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 09:53:38 PDT
To: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Quibbling about definitions of "proof"
In-Reply-To: <ac4b096d0102100487ad@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <199508071653.MAA03355@clark.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



  Phill Hallam-Baker summarized it best. I advise anyone interested in this
issue to read up on pancritical rationalism (a favorite extropian topic of
debate). "The Retreat to Commitement" by Bartley (?, sorry, can't recall
at the moment, the book is not with me) is a good writeup of the subject.
At the lowest level, even the basic axioms can be cricitized.

-Ray

Thread

• Return to August 1995

• Return to “fc@all.net (Dr. Frederick B. Cohen)”
• Return to “hallam@w3.org”
• Return to “Nathan Zook <nzook@bga.com>”
• Return to “Ray Cromwell <rjc@clark.net>”

• Return to “tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)”

• 1995-08-07 (Mon, 7 Aug 95 00:14:58 PDT) - Quibbling about definitions of “proof” - tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
  • 1995-08-07 (Mon, 7 Aug 95 08:23:12 PDT) - Re: Quibbling about definitions of “proof” - hallam@w3.org
    • 1995-08-07 (Mon, 7 Aug 95 09:04:17 PDT) - Re: Quibbling about definitions of “proof” - fc@all.net (Dr. Frederick B. Cohen)
      • 1995-08-07 (Mon, 7 Aug 95 14:24:45 PDT) - Re: Quibbling about definitions of “proof” - hallam@w3.org
    • 1995-08-08 (Mon, 7 Aug 95 22:49:11 PDT) - Re: Quibbling about definitions of “proof” - Nathan Zook <nzook@bga.com>
  • 1995-08-07 (Mon, 7 Aug 95 09:53:38 PDT) - Re: Quibbling about definitions of “proof” - Ray Cromwell <rjc@clark.net>