Timeline for Why can't proofs have infinitely many steps?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24 at 16:16 | vote | accept | David Corwin | ||
| Jan 7, 2011 at 17:50 | comment | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | When there is a good short answer that could be written, then just giving a link to Wikipedia is indeed lazy, and not as good as an answer that gives the link and then extracts the relevant parts so that someone can get the gist of the answer quickly on the spot. But in an open-ended question like this, there’s not really any full answer shorter than the Wikipedia article — and this answer gets that point across very, very well :-) | |
| Aug 29, 2010 at 19:15 | comment | added | Andy Putman | +1 : This is a perfectly good answer. | |
| Aug 29, 2010 at 18:13 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | I think this was better have been written as a comment, as answers should be slightly more verbal than a mere link to wikipedia. | |
| Aug 29, 2010 at 18:00 | history | answered | Richard Borcherds | CC BY-SA 2.5 |