```Date: Apr 6, 2013 3:59 AM
Author: namducnguyen
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 06/04/2013 1:33 AM, Virgil wrote:> In article <19P7t.14441\$yV1.11862@newsfe29.iad>,>   Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote:>>> On 06/04/2013 12:13 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote:>>> On 06/04/2013 12:08 AM, Virgil wrote:>>>> In article <bWN7t.281592\$O52.191417@newsfe10.iad>,>>>>    Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote:>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/2013 10:31 PM, Virgil wrote:>>>>>> In article <VFM7t.356449\$PC7.98356@newsfe03.iad>,>>>>>>     Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you don't seem to understand the nature of cGC, depending on the>>>>>>> formulation of the Conjecture but being a _different_ formula.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For GC (the Goldbach conjecture), there naturally are 2 cases:>>>>>>>>>>>> What if the GC is eventually proved true in all systems?>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "all" systems?>>>>>>>> At least all systems in which a set of positive naturals with the usual>>>> forms of addition and multiplication are possible.>>>>>> What do you mean by "positive naturals", "usual forms", "possible"?>>> That's way too "intuitive" to conclude anything definitely, right?>>>> In any rate, "proved true in all [formal] systems" is a mixed-up>> of technical terminologies: formal systems prove syntactical theorems,>> truths are verified in language structures. The two paradigms are>> different and _independent_ : proving in one doesn't logical equate>> to the other.>> But being able to prove something in one system does not, as far as I> know, prohibit being able to prove it other systems.I'm not talking about "prohibition"; I'm talking about the lack oflogically inferring one from the other, in general.-- ----------------------------------------------------There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.                                       NYOGEN SENZAKI----------------------------------------------------
```