On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> A "non-mathematical" "easy to read" primer (quotes from Springer-Verlag). I
> don't have a copy. If Alan Parkes says Godelian completeness is other than
> the definition above then he is wrong - possible, he is a multimedia studies
> teacher, and afaik is not a mathematician - but I suspect you misread him.
It's not I who is doing the misreading. I sent this along because I don't
know -your- level, which considering your understanding of
'completeness'...
> FYI, I just googled "completeness godel". First five results plus some
> quotes are at the bottom. Five minutes, which I could have spent better.
I've already send several mathematical references that refer to
completeness and what it means. You apparently didn't read them.
That speaks for itself. You'd rather bitch than learn.
Hint: you can't prove truth (which is what Godel is about) without first
listing the statements in the 'complete' language.
Think about what you said and eventually it will dawn on you -what- you
said.
Ta ta.
--
____________________________________________________________________
We don't see things as they are, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
we see them as we are. www.ssz.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anais Nin www.open-forge.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
