From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!fuug!news.funet.fi!sunic2!sics.se!sics.se!torkel Sun May 31 19:04:45 EDT 1992
Article 5973 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!fuug!news.funet.fi!sunic2!sics.se!sics.se!torkel
>From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: penrose
In-Reply-To: costello@CS.Stanford.EDU's message of Fri, 29 May 1992 01:27:00 GMT
Message-ID: <1992May29.053625.6202@sics.se>
Sender: news@sics.se
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
References: <atten.706786286@groucho.phil.ruu.nl>
	<1992May27.115843.13837@sics.se>
	<1992May29.012700.7102@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 05:36:25 GMT
Lines: 16

In article <1992May29.012700.7102@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> costello@CS.
Stanford.EDU (T Costello) writes:

   >Your informal reflection principle causes the system to
   >be inconsistent.

  Look at this a bit more carefully. The axioms you formulate start from
apparently plausible principles for a supposed notion of "provable" and
lead to a contradiction. What I formulated was just a well understood
set of reflection axioms by which any sound theory may be soundly extended.
I suggest that you think about your axioms for a while and find out for
yourself why they don't apply to the concept "provable in T" for sound T.

  As for your further comments, I don't understand them at all. What do you
mean by saying that "we cannot have a autonomous progression"?



