2 ms·
> G(F) = “This sentence is not provable in F.” > S(E) = “This sentence has no convincing heuristic explanation accepted by E.” We can formalise in F what a pr
by auggierose 4y ago
> G(F) = “This sentence is not provable in F.”
> S(E) = “This sentence has no convincing heuristic explanation accepted by E.”
We can formalise in F what a proof is, but what is a "heuristic explanation"? So this doesn't really make much sense. This guy sounds like a physicist :-)
- IIAOPSW 4y agoAl he's really describing is a formal system (S) exactly like an ordinary proof system (G), but the underlying semantics represent "convincing"/"unconvincing" rather than "true" / "false". Basically, a normal proof system but with some fallacies allowed.