From: fudley (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 23:55:01 MDT
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 "Paul Fidika" <Fidika@new.rr.com> Wrote:
>after GŲdel had just proved that the Continuum Hypothesis
>could not be disproven within Zermelo-Fraenkel Set-Theory,
>he went on to give some arguments for why he believed that
>the Continuum Hypothesis was FALSE! Now, some people might
>say that GŲdel should not be allowed to get away with this;
>they believe that the truth or falsity of a statement
>should only be considered relative to some formal
>system of axioms,
The Continuum Hypothesis is either true or false. Of course it could
also be un-provable, if it is that means you will never find a
counterexample to show itís wrong and you will never be able to prove it
in a finite number of steps to show itís correct. However I donít know
anybody this side of a Looney bin who claims the truth of falsehood of
something depends of the formal system of axioms used.
Will this bridge collapse if I drive my heavy truck across it? Well,
under some formal systems it will and you will die and in others it will
not and you will live.
I donít think so.
John K Clark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:48 MDT