> To prove something consistent, you have to define what it means for it > to be consistent. To prove a system of formal wffs consistent, we > have a (recursive) function f over wffs that maps a wff into its > negation, and it is not consistent iff there is a w such that w and > f(w) are provable. But how does this apply to ZFC? ZFC is a > collection of statements that are best expressed in English - attempts > to formalize them create debate as to what a particular expression > means. In other words, where is the formal syntax that precisely > specifies the axioms and rules of ZFC? There are none - it is not > that formal.
That's a deep insight, that is. A startling discovery.
You sure do know lots of stuff, Unca Charlie!
-- Jesse F. Hughes
"My name is Apusta Malusta Cadeau and I fight bad guys. And I'm a knight." -- A. M. Cadeau (nee Quincy P. Hughes), age 4