Timeline for Can ZFC prove "false theorems", and still be consistent? (was "Junk Theorems" follow up)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Mar 14, 2012 at 18:36 | answer | added | none | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 14, 2012 at 13:18 | comment | added | Charles | If you haven't seen it already, here's an example of such a 'junk' statement: us.metamath.org/mpeuni/avril1.html | |
| Mar 13, 2012 at 21:12 | answer | added | none | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 13, 2012 at 14:27 | vote | accept | Steven Gubkin | ||
| Mar 13, 2012 at 7:21 | answer | added | Victor Dods | timeline score: 7 | |
| Mar 13, 2012 at 6:54 | answer | added | abo | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 13, 2012 at 5:57 | answer | added | Andrej Bauer | timeline score: 13 | |
| Mar 13, 2012 at 4:04 | answer | added | Henry Cohn | timeline score: 11 | |
| Mar 13, 2012 at 2:27 | answer | added | Steven Gubkin | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 13, 2012 at 1:52 | answer | added | Tom Leinster | timeline score: 10 | |
| Mar 13, 2012 at 1:42 | comment | added | Not Mike | (retaged logic -> lo.logic) | |
| Mar 13, 2012 at 1:39 | history | edited | Not Mike |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 13, 2012 at 0:47 | history | edited | Steven Gubkin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Mar 13, 2012 at 0:13 | answer | added | user13113 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 12, 2012 at 23:51 | comment | added | Not Mike | The only way this could happen, is if the unpacking is not an interpretation. Since interpretations must respect the language they are defined over. | |
| Mar 12, 2012 at 23:39 | comment | added | Jacques Carette | oops - (you -> your) | |
| Mar 12, 2012 at 23:37 | comment | added | Jacques Carette | I don't think you last sentence "should we trust automated theorem provers" is necessarily relevant. They work in their own logic, with their own foundations -- which may or may not be interpretable in ZF(C). I think you trust automated theorem provers, however interpreting what their results means is a lot trickier than it seems. | |
| Mar 12, 2012 at 23:33 | comment | added | Alexander Woo | Philosophers of mathematics take note: The existence of this question is an important point! (Unless you deem this question nonsensical.) | |
| Mar 12, 2012 at 23:20 | comment | added | Steven Gubkin | I am a little bit embarrassed to ask such a question - I would think something so fundamental must be obvious. Somehow, thinking about it I am not so sure. | |
| Mar 12, 2012 at 23:19 | history | asked | Steven Gubkin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |