Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (1108)	9/27/2000 11:43:39 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

Well, in a way yes! If I suspect that proposition A->B, might be false for some A, then I can't assume B to always follow from A. But some people think since A*A = A+A in the case of of 2 and 0, that it must be true for all A. Or, A->B->C: Aristotle was a man. My dog is named Aristotle. My dog is a man. QED I love another example: "This statement is true". It is linguistically correct. Even correctly postulated logically . But totally unverifiable due to its self-reference. I can't remember who it was (in the 50's I think, worked with Turing) but there was a mathematical proof (very arcane) that no closed, self-referencing system can be proved to be correct from within that frame. One needs to be outside of the reference frame of "This statement is true" to assess its truth.