[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

Subject: Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.
From: hlevinsn@rci.rutgers.edu (Hank Levinson)
Date: 11 Feb 2001 19:16:34 -0500
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Organization: Rutgers University
References: <3A862728.852F33FD@uswest.net> <981876111.3a863d8f0becc@webmail.cotse.com> <3A86B520.282C9758@qwest.net>
Sender: hlevinsn@niflheim.rutgers.edu
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.sys.apple2:6042

It is really a pity that no one so far has properly defined terms such as
'infinite', 'well-formed formula', 'consistent', 'complete', 'first order
predicate calculus' in terms of which Godel's "Incompleteness Theorem" may
be correctly stated.
However, I question what this discussion, as you call it, is doing on this
newsgroup. It is worthy of juvinile Sci-Fi.

Dr. H. Levinson, Prof. Emeritus of Mathematics, Rutgers U., Newark, NJ 07102

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.
  - From: Quantum_Cat <quantum-no-spam@cotse.com>
- Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.
  - From: Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>
- Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.
  - From: olcott <olcott@qwest.net>

References:
- Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.
  - From: Peter Olcott <olcott@uswest.net>
- Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.
  - From: Quantum_Cat <quantum-no-spam@cotse.com>
- Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.
  - From: olcott <olcott@qwest.net>

Prev by Date: Re: Thieves Philosophy 101
Next by Date: Apple IIe Joystick
Previous by thread: Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.
Next by thread: Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread