I tried to identify the meaning of "axiom" and found a funny solution:
as it looks, "AXIOM" is an unprovable idea underlining a theory otherwise
In most cases: an unjustified statement, that, however, DOES work in the
contest of the particular theory it is serving.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:50 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 11:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or
>> false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me
>> to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a
>> model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with
>> a theory (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition.
> If you include the proposition as an axiom, then it is trivially true, but
> you don't work anymore in the same theory as the one without that
> proposition as axiom.
> It seems like just defining a new predicate "accessible" which means
> "provable or disprovable" which you attach to propositions. Then it
> doesn't need be an axiom and it still allows an excluded middle.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at