> Logicians from different fields use terms in different ways. In 
> provability logic and in recursion theory, soundness means often 
> "arithmetical soundness".

I understand.

Part of the reason for my particular viewpoint: there's a group of 
professors at the college I work at who are working on bottom-up provability 
of computer programs under specific constraints.  "Soundness" for them means 
the proof systems they use never prove a program is correct (meaning, it 
meets formal, mathematically-written specifications) when it's actually 
incorrect, provided the constraints are applied correctly.  When the 
constraints are not applied correctly, it's acceptable for the system to 
prove things that aren't correct, and they still consider this sound for 
their purposes.

> We agree then.

Yes, it's my fault for creating a semantics argument.  I'm usually too busy 
to even read the list...every once in a while something pops up and I feel 
obliged to comment even when it's the middle of a conversation.

I actually have some questions for the list members that are relevant to the 
list content, and this coming week is break.  I may have a chance to post 
them.  They're much more on the philosophical side than the mathematical, 


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to