Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gumby!kzoo!calhoun
From: calhoun@hobbes.kzoo.edu (William Calhoun)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
Message-ID: <1995Jul14.195655.28105@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
Organization: Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo MI 49006
References: <3u5pgj$oba@netnews.upenn.edu> <3u5t6n$gka@zen.hursley.ibm.com> <3u5vhj$2ji@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 19:56:55 GMT
Lines: 23
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:30200 sci.logic:12414

This is a question for Mathew Wiener. Forgive me if I'm misquoting
you, but I think you have said:

1. A good definition of a result having been "seen" by mathematicians
is "published in a reputable journal."

2. Most mathematicians can "see"  Con(ZFC).

To my knowledge, no proof of Con(ZFC) has been published in a reputable
journal.  

Question:  Do you plan to publish your "proof"?  Where?

I don't intend to restart the flame war, but I think Penrose's agrument
fails to hold water precisely because of sloppy treatment of defintions
like "the set of Pi_1 sentences the mathematical community can see in
principle."  (That's not a direct quote, but it's what he ends up talking
about.)

-Bill Calhoun
-Kalamazoo College
-calhoun@kzoo.edu
 
