On 2/11/2013 12:12 PM, Charlie-Boo wrote: > On Feb 6, 10:59 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> On 2/5/2013 10:01 AM, Charlie-Boo wrote: >> <snip>
>> >>> Of course the most efficient representation is a . . . written in >>> a . . . language. >> >> I am working on an alphabet. Since my current understanding >> of the functional behavior of truth functions consists of >> 4096 equational axioms (16^3) the logical alphabet I am >> developing is not tiny. At present, I have completed descriptions >> for the 96 letters. The next level of complexity will involve >> working out the details for approximately 40,000 geometric relations >> between names.... > > WADR if you have to figure out umpteen things, then that is not a very > good axiomatization. OTOH if this is just legwork and you plan to see > the pattern in what you did to create a small set of rules, then all > the better - but do you still need so many?
> proves that some of the theorems of > the Theory of Computation are axioms of Incompleteness in Logic. (I > recently added that some of the theorems of Program Synthesis are > axioms to prove the theorems of Theory of Computation.) But we don't > have to list all of those theorems that may be axioms! As long as we > list the ones used in our finite discussion. (The FOM thread lists > about 10.)