On 21 Oct 2013, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2013 11:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:09:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Consistency is p & ~~p. I was saying p & ~p, ie mistaken
ISTM that Bruno equivocates and  sometimes means "believes" and
And I'm doing the same. It's not such an issue - a mathematician will
only believe something if e can prove it.
But provable(p)==>p and believes(p)=/=>p, so why equivocate on them?
Both provable('p') -> p, and believe('p') -> p, when we limit ourself
to correct machine.
(And incidentally mathematicians believe stuff they can't prove all
the time - that's how they choose things to try to prove).
Then it is a conjecture. They don't believe rationally in conjecture,
when they are correct.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.