Hi Everybody, At several points the discussions of the list led us to hypothesis of arithmetic truth. Bruno mentioned once that the basis for this hypothesis was quite strong, requiring studies in logic to grasp.
But as a non-logician, I have some trouble wrapping my brain around Gödel and Tarsky's Papers concerning this. What I do see is that Tarsky generalizes the notion and its difficulties to all formal languages: truth isn't arithmetically definable without higher order language. Post attacking the problem with Turing degrees also resonates with this in that no formula can define truth for arbitrarily large n. My question as non-logician therefore is: don't these results weaken the basis for such a hypothesis or at least make it completely inaccessible for us? Cowboy :) -- 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.
