fbastiat

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by fbastiat 12y ago

   After looking more closely at your linked post by Terence Tao, are you by chance basing your statements such as "it does not halt" in what he calls the informal platonic reasoning system (which presumably assumes ZFC as well as it
2. 2.▲
   by fbastiat 12y ago

   Well you said "if ZFC, a rather strong axiom system, cannot prove a machine halts, it does not halt.". This particular statement is what I was replying to. I agree that a non-halting Turing machine is not a very well defined conce
3. 3.▲
   by fbastiat 12y ago

   I think this[0] is a good formalization of what I'm trying to say. [0] http://math.stackexchange.com/a/614017/215039
4. 4.▲
   by fbastiat 12y ago

   But if the machine that stops when it has proven ZFC is inconsistent does not halt, then surely it means there is no proof of the inconsistency of ZFC? Hence ZFC is consistent? Which is contradicted by Godel. I would think instead ZFC can&#