FOM: Goedel: truth and misinterpretations
kanovei at wmwap1.math.uni-wuppertal.de
Thu Nov 2 14:58:08 EST 2000
> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 08:15:24 +0100
> From: Torkel Franzen <torkel at sm.luth.se>
> (3) Even if this number is in fact composite, there is no guarantee
> that we can ever factor it.
> (4) Theoretically, it's perfectly possible that P=NP is true although
> unprovable in ZFC, which would make it unlikely that it can ever
> be settled to everybody's general satisfaction.
> (5) Even if ZFC is in fact consistent, it may well be the case that no
> generally convincing consistency proof for ZFC can be given.
> Now, it would appear that you regard statements like (2)-(5) as
> senseless ... Do you have any actual arguments to present?
It is you who have to present the intended meaning of your claims,
be it (2) earlier or (3,4,5) now, both are from one and the same
wastebasket perhaps even citations from one and the same "essay".
To help you I add another one
Theoretically it is perfectly possible that unicorns exist
although will never be found, which would make it unlikely that no
generally convincing existence proof for unicorns can be given,
to everybody's general satisfaction.
and leave you with a difficult problem to explain us which
of the four (plus 2 more of your previous posts) is more
meaningful (or meaningless).
More information about the FOM