On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> if you can not then the word "model" has no meaning. Unlike the >> Continuum Hypothesis the Goldbach Conjecture is subject to the potential of >> experimental falsification, if logicians eventually proved that it is true, > > > *> We don’t prove that something is true. We just prove it. That plays > some role. No sound machine can ever prove that whatever she proves is > true.* If you started with the basic axioms of number theory and proved the Goldbach Conjecture is true, and you were convinced you had not made an error in the proof, and then the next day a computer found a huge even number that was NOT the sum of 2 primes, would you: A) Conclude that there must be something wrong with the basic axioms of set theory. Or B) Conclude that computers can’t be trusted because for some unknown reason all computers always make an error when making that particular calculation. If its A then you are tacitly giving the laws of physics the right to determine truth from falsehood because those laws determine how the machine operates. If you choose B then madness awaits because your brain also operates according to those very same laws. John K Clark -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
