> 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, though. Anna --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
