[FOM] Re: Shapiro on natural and formal languages
Roger B Jones
rbj01 at rbjones.com
Wed Dec 1 04:13:26 EST 2004
On Tuesday 30 November 2004 7:54 am, Harvey Friedman wrote:
> However, I claim that it is sometimes possible, with much more
> work, to show that the definitions are not only appropriate,
> but correct.
> If this is done properly, it should make the informal,
> intuitive proof much much closer to a formally correct proof
> than is usual.
But what does it mean to say that the definitions are correct?
To verify correctness formally you would need a some other
formal definition against which to prove their correctness,
and we have a problem of regress.
More information about the FOM