From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wupost!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!news.univie.ac.at!hp4at!mcsun!sun4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!lbkruij Sat Oct 24 20:44:56 EDT 1992
Article 7380 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wupost!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!news.univie.ac.at!hp4at!mcsun!sun4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!lbkruij
>From: lbkruij@cs.vu.nl (Kruijswijk LB)
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Message-ID: <BwKLCz.Ht7@cs.vu.nl>
Sender: news@cs.vu.nl
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
References: <1992Oct16.180352.13326@oracorp.com> <1992Oct18.171354.6029@wixer.cactus.org> <g89p4455.16.719764005@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 10:34:10 GMT
Lines: 14

In article <g89p4455.16.719764005@giraffe.ru.ac.za> g89p4455@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR L PEDERSEN) writes:
>This is known as Godels incompleteness theorem and applies only to 
>consistent (contradiction free) formal systems.  In any formal system that 
>accepts a contradiction EVERY possible statement in that system CAN BE 
>PROVEN.
>I look forward to hearing anyones comments.
What can we say about a system that is consistent but the consistency can not
be proven by humans due to the incompleteness of the human intelligence?

For some reason this possibility is never mentioned.

Greetings,

Lucas B. Kruijswijk					lbkruij@cs.vu.nl


