On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Sarad AV wrote:
> hi,
>
> > How ever how do you 'precisely' define
> > completeness?
> >
> > ???? There were a couple of examples in the message
> > you replied to. There
> > are different sorts of completeness as well. You
> > might also look into some
> > of the references I provided.
>
> Okay,I ask a legitimate question,how do you argue it
> is correct and precise,we can't,thats why it is
> undefinable.
No. Completeness is -not- what is being 'argued'. The definitions are
quite clear and straight forward; precise. I provided both Godel and
Cauchy completeness definitions with references for deeper study.
A Godel completeness -requires- all strings to be either true or false.
There is -zero- room for confusion there. There is no confusion as to what
complete means.
That any particular string can be -precisely- defined as truth or false
, as required by the definition of completeness, is what is not possible.
--
____________________________________________________________________
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
