Date: Jan 22, 2013 9:49 PM
Author: Jesse F. Hughes
Subject: Re: ZFC and God
Charlie-Boo <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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