3 ms·
> Proof of a negative, or (the same thing) an evidentiary burden requiring evidence of absence, is a logical error. So this is a non-starter. So you also belie
by otakucode 12y ago
> Proof of a negative, or (the same thing) an evidentiary burden requiring evidence of absence, is a logical error. So this is a non-starter.
So you also believe that we have not proven incompleteness of mathematics? Have we also not proven that it is impossible to solve the Halting Problem?
- lutusp 12y agoYou and I are speaking about two very different things. The incompleteness theorems and the halting problem (which are deeply connected, by the way) are positive proofs. I am speaking of a negative proof. Imagine that I believe in Bigfoot. How shall I be dissuaded from my belief by evidence -- it would have to be negative proof. If I started out assuming Bigfoot wasn't real, that would be much, much easier. In the same way, people assume that logical incompleteness isn't real until there's positive evidence. They assume there's no halting problem until there's positive evidence. See the difference?