Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.physics,alt.atheism,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!msunews!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!lugb!ee.latrobe.edu.au!not-for-mail
From: khorsell@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell)
Subject: Re: Goedel, and the Proof of
Sender: news@lugb.latrobe.edu.au (News System)
Message-ID: <3oc63a$2ut@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 03:29:46 GMT
Lines: 17
References: <3nq94k$kf4@infoserv.rug.ac.be> <3o5vvo$nqm@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu> <1995May3.020925.15657@news.media.mit.edu> <ANSM.95May4002256@term2.tfd.chalmers.se>
Organization: Department of Electronic Engineering, La Trobe University
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.logic:10600 sci.physics:120274 comp.ai.philosophy:27602

In article <ANSM.95May4002256@term2.tfd.chalmers.se>,
Andrew Smirnoff <ansm@tfd.chalmers.se> wrote:
>Still not quite convinced about the "however" part. I think the
>problem with your proof is that "You're a mathematician - you
>understand about the concept of infinity, don't you?"

I'm not sure that part is true either. There are an infinte number
of forumals and an infinte number of truths (for Boolean algebra
say) yet all the truths can be fitted into all the formulas.
I.e. given an infinite sequence of formulas the probability
any is the truth I'm thinking of is 0. ;-)

So much for the original "one of the objects must be a watch" argument...

-- 
R. Kym Horsell
khorsell@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU              kym@CS.Binghamton.EDU 
