Timeline for Is no proof based on "tertium non datur" sufficient any more after Gödel?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 2010 at 13:14 | comment | added | Thierry Zell | This is somewhat addressed in some answers below, but this point is important enough that it warrants stressing here: questioning the validity of using the law of excluded middle is a legitimate (albeit minority) position, and it has a distinguished history. It just does not have much to do with Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem, and indeed, pre-dates it by at least a couple of decades. | |
| Apr 15, 2010 at 21:17 | answer | added | Noam Zeilberger | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 15, 2010 at 1:38 | answer | added | Dan Piponi | timeline score: 5 | |
| Apr 14, 2010 at 22:07 | answer | added | Sidney Raffer | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 14, 2010 at 21:42 | answer | added | Minhyong Kim | timeline score: 39 | |
| Oct 29, 2009 at 16:06 | comment | added | David E Speyer | I agree. This is a common error, and it is one that I think is not so naive that it is not of interest to mathematicians to know how to correct it. | |
| Oct 29, 2009 at 15:42 | comment | added | aorq | I think it's a bit unfair to downvote this question. Logic can have many confusing aspects, and most people I know take some time to appreciate its subtleties. | |
| Oct 29, 2009 at 15:39 | vote | accept | vonjd | ||
| Oct 29, 2009 at 13:05 | answer | added | Richard Dore | timeline score: 22 | |
| Oct 29, 2009 at 10:54 | answer | added | David E Speyer | timeline score: 43 | |
| Oct 29, 2009 at 10:53 | answer | added | Steven Gubkin | timeline score: 9 | |
| Oct 29, 2009 at 10:36 | history | asked | vonjd | CC BY-SA 2.5 |