|
|
Re: unable to prove?
Posted:
Aug 25, 2012 11:01 AM
|
|
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 20:14:13 +0100, Frederick Williams
<freddywilliams@btinternet.com> wrote:
>TS742 wrote:
>>
>> Are some hypotheses unprovable?
>
>Idiots like me may say, "no, the hypothesis 0 =/= 0 is unprovable".
>
>Do you mean "are some truths unprovable?"? I don't know. Some may
>claim that the truths of mathematics ae just those statements that are
>provable.
>
>> Or do they all have a proof that is
>> just not found yet? The Riemann hypothesis comes to mind.
>
>Let's suppose that RH is true. "RH is unprovable" may mean various
>things:
>(1) Humans could prove it were it not for the fact that they will become
>extinct before they do so. (And that "could" means what?)
>(2) Humans can't prove it because their brains are too feeble. (But the
>giraffe-like beings on planet Scorrrf (my keyboard doesn't have the
>diacritics that the first and third "r"s should have) prove it as
>homework in their first year a school.)
>(3) A computer (built and programmed by another computer) proved it
>after running for sixty years, but no one is foolhardy enough to claim
>that they understand what that computer is doing or that it is bug-free.
>(4) No machine or creature in this universe or any other will ever prove
>it.
>
>What about the continuum hypothesis in place of RH?
In my opinion (with which many diisagree) it's not clear that CH
_is_either true or false in any absolute sense. If so then it's
much more problematic here.
|
|
